Jie Lin's article provided insight into the current state of media in China. The concept that most surprised me was the degree of freedom that China's media exercises. I was taken aback that China's government does not play a significant role in directly guiding the content and editorial tone of major Chinese newspapers. The financial aspect makes sense and was something I had never considered. Interestingly, that's a topic I don't think it is a topic that the American mainstream media has explored, either.
The amount of self-censorship by Chinese journalists makes sense, given the amount of freedom granted to journalists by the Chinese government. The vastness of that self-censorship was still surprising to me, in that the censorship covered a wide range of issues. Again, this is a topic that the mainstream American media do not really touch upon. I think we are fed this image of a communist media monster indoctrinating its people, which doesn't really seem to be the case...somewhat.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
China media less aggressive in foreign coverage
Howard French's article in the New York Times provides a concise view of the current state of Chinese media. I think an excellent example of French's article playing out recently occurred when Steven Spielburg pulled his support for the Beijing Olympics due to China's overt support of the Sudanese government. Chinese media, in particular Xinhua, cast the move as largely irrelevant and continued driving one point home: China is not responsible for what the Sudanese government does.
China's take is an interesting one, considering their criticisms of the United States at times for being too meddlesome. It is interesting that the US often takes preemptive approaches to solving problems while China's modus operandi seems to be to sit back and watch...unless they can benefit from getting involved.
China's take is an interesting one, considering their criticisms of the United States at times for being too meddlesome. It is interesting that the US often takes preemptive approaches to solving problems while China's modus operandi seems to be to sit back and watch...unless they can benefit from getting involved.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Musharraf's Monster
Shahan Mufti's article gives excellent insight into the state of media in Pakistan. Reading this article offered perspective on the way the American media has covered Pakistan for the last six months.
Since September 11, American media have often offered positive reports of Gen. Musharraf. Little reporting was done on the limitations he placed on the people of Pakistan. Words like dictator or totalitarian were never thrown around with regards to Gen. Musharraf, even though in many ways that is what he represents.
The glowing praise offered to Benizir Bhutto in the American media is contrasted by the images of Bhutto offered in the article.
The development of the media in Pakistan is a fascinating story, and it is hard to fault journalists there for failing in some regard...virtually going through experiences for the first time, with no supposed manual of how to operate in these situations, I believe these journalists excelled in incredibly difficult situations.
Since September 11, American media have often offered positive reports of Gen. Musharraf. Little reporting was done on the limitations he placed on the people of Pakistan. Words like dictator or totalitarian were never thrown around with regards to Gen. Musharraf, even though in many ways that is what he represents.
The glowing praise offered to Benizir Bhutto in the American media is contrasted by the images of Bhutto offered in the article.
The development of the media in Pakistan is a fascinating story, and it is hard to fault journalists there for failing in some regard...virtually going through experiences for the first time, with no supposed manual of how to operate in these situations, I believe these journalists excelled in incredibly difficult situations.
The New Arab Conversation
Gal Beckerman's article in the Columbia Journalism Review struck me because blogging in the Arab world has become something so much different than the Western world (or America at least).
The major blogs in America, or at least the ones that come to mind immediately, are often littered with partisan leanings. Granted, these have a place in our society and add context to help citizens oriente their frames of reference. Beckerman's article indicates that it is the people themselves blogging in the Arab world; the characters seem more real and the emotions seem more real. A general desire to understand others, and others' differences, echoed through the article.
I just don't see that in blogs in America. Granted, I don't read that many blogs. But from what I have read and heard, blogs in this country seem much more polarized. Much like our media, the focus of blogs seems to be disparaging political enemies rather than debating what is best for our country moving forward.
The major blogs in America, or at least the ones that come to mind immediately, are often littered with partisan leanings. Granted, these have a place in our society and add context to help citizens oriente their frames of reference. Beckerman's article indicates that it is the people themselves blogging in the Arab world; the characters seem more real and the emotions seem more real. A general desire to understand others, and others' differences, echoed through the article.
I just don't see that in blogs in America. Granted, I don't read that many blogs. But from what I have read and heard, blogs in this country seem much more polarized. Much like our media, the focus of blogs seems to be disparaging political enemies rather than debating what is best for our country moving forward.
Drawing A New Map of Journalism in the Mideast
Robert Worth's article was very interesting with regards to the development theory of media. The fact that Al-Jazeera took a substantial period of time to become a "fair and balanced" network (with no regards to FOX News) begs the question: should the government of Qatar stepped in and molded Al-Jazeera in a way to create more balanced programming?
It is worth nothing that Al-Jazeera has historically been silent on issues pertaining to the Qatar government, in a form of silent self-censorship. But would it have been best for the people of the Mideast world to have a reformed Al-Jazeera immediately?
I think the answer is no; the losses from having a biased network are far outweighed by the benefits of Al-Jazeera modifying itself on its own. Any form of government intervention will immediately be looked at in a negative way by viewers (Iranians basically ignore state TV, for example). Even regulation with the best intentions would be looked at as propaganda, so I believe the path Al-Jazeera has taken, free of regulation, was the best for the network and its viewers.
It is worth nothing that Al-Jazeera has historically been silent on issues pertaining to the Qatar government, in a form of silent self-censorship. But would it have been best for the people of the Mideast world to have a reformed Al-Jazeera immediately?
I think the answer is no; the losses from having a biased network are far outweighed by the benefits of Al-Jazeera modifying itself on its own. Any form of government intervention will immediately be looked at in a negative way by viewers (Iranians basically ignore state TV, for example). Even regulation with the best intentions would be looked at as propaganda, so I believe the path Al-Jazeera has taken, free of regulation, was the best for the network and its viewers.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Broadcast Views
Arkady Ostrovsky's "Broadcast Views" piece in the Financial Times provided an excellent look at the way Russian media has developed (or regressed) under the Putin presidency. What I found most troubling about this piece was the willingness of journalists to openly promote a presidential candidate for the good of the country. To me, there is a logical disconnect in this idea.
If the media were to present both candidates in a fair and unbiased manner, one can assume that the people are intelligent enough to make the decision that is best for the country. In this case, it seems relatively simple--the liberalization of Yeltsin or a return to communism. Yet, the media felt the need to promote Yeltsin over the communist candidate. This seems to assume that the people are not smart enough to make this decision on their own; they need some help from the media to make the proper choice.
But if the people need the media to help them make proper choices, why should the government not regulate the media to help them make these proper choices? It seems to be a slippery slope.
Furthermore, these journalists are making a drastic assumption that the people are not educated enough to make choices on their own without any basis...the idea that people need to be taught democracy, to me, is one of the worst ideas circulating today.
If the media were to present both candidates in a fair and unbiased manner, one can assume that the people are intelligent enough to make the decision that is best for the country. In this case, it seems relatively simple--the liberalization of Yeltsin or a return to communism. Yet, the media felt the need to promote Yeltsin over the communist candidate. This seems to assume that the people are not smart enough to make this decision on their own; they need some help from the media to make the proper choice.
But if the people need the media to help them make proper choices, why should the government not regulate the media to help them make these proper choices? It seems to be a slippery slope.
Furthermore, these journalists are making a drastic assumption that the people are not educated enough to make choices on their own without any basis...the idea that people need to be taught democracy, to me, is one of the worst ideas circulating today.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Peace Corps vs. Teach for America?
Upon graduation, if I had to make a choice, I would opt for the Peace Corps as opposed to Teach for America. While both are notable causes, I would welcome the opportunity to make a difference outside of the United States. The comparison has been made that even the worst-off individuals in America are better off than the majority of the world's people. Perhaps this is the motivation that would steer me towards international service. The opportunity to help the poor and the impoverished outside of the US would be another draw for me. Having participated in a home-building mission in Peru and having reaped the personal benefits of that experience, I would welcome the opportunity to do something like that again.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Terrorism, Global Journalism and the Myth of National State
Deni Elliot's article in the Journal of Mass Media Ethics gives an accurate portrayal of the faults of the American media following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. I agree with Elliot's thesis that journalists should not be cheerleaders for government policy and that journalists must report on the views and opinions of the proverbial enemy.
Extrapolating on Elliot's argument, it becomes much easier to see how the Bush administration was able to launch its case for war in Iraq with the such media complicity. Back in 2002 and 2003, it became incredibly difficult to find a questioning voice in the mainstream media. The sheer volume of articles supporting the war vastly outweighed the number of articles against war, which were normally found buried in the back pages of newspapers.
Just as the Bush administration primed the nation for war by staging patriotic events, such as a gathering at the National Cathedral in Washington, which was supposed to represent the day of mourning but culminated with the "Battle Hymn of the Republic," the media followed suit by breaking into live coverage to broadcast the "Battle Hymn." Like our representatives, not one mainstream media member took the time to peruse the USA PATRIOT Act, which later the media criticized at every turn.
As signs point increasingly towards the possibility of armed conflict in Iran, the media has a responsibility to engage the American public in a more efficient way than took place in the run-up to the war in Iraq.
Extrapolating on Elliot's argument, it becomes much easier to see how the Bush administration was able to launch its case for war in Iraq with the such media complicity. Back in 2002 and 2003, it became incredibly difficult to find a questioning voice in the mainstream media. The sheer volume of articles supporting the war vastly outweighed the number of articles against war, which were normally found buried in the back pages of newspapers.
Just as the Bush administration primed the nation for war by staging patriotic events, such as a gathering at the National Cathedral in Washington, which was supposed to represent the day of mourning but culminated with the "Battle Hymn of the Republic," the media followed suit by breaking into live coverage to broadcast the "Battle Hymn." Like our representatives, not one mainstream media member took the time to peruse the USA PATRIOT Act, which later the media criticized at every turn.
As signs point increasingly towards the possibility of armed conflict in Iran, the media has a responsibility to engage the American public in a more efficient way than took place in the run-up to the war in Iraq.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
The World is Spiky
Richard Florida's analysis of Friedman's theories present an innovative way to view arguments against the flat-world theory. Florida's theory makes more sense than Friedman's: we are on the path towards a flat world, but it is an incredibly slow journey, and the disparities that characterized the round world are still very much with us.
The map showing light usage from around the world was particularly striking. Two years ago I took a trip to Piura, Peru, helping build homes with members of my church. I was struck by the absolute blackness at night. After about 10 p.m., most street lights were switched off, and the vast majority of residents had no electricity in their homes. The area resembled a black-out area during World War II.
Florida's depiction makes me wonder if we need to speed along the process of flattening the world. Friedman's book at times sounds the alarm about a flat world, but the disparity of wealth and resources that characterizes the US is all to evident in Florida's analysis. Whether anyone can speed up the flattening process is anyone's guess, but perhaps flattening the world would not have the dire consequences that some pundits have suggested; perhaps the benefits would far outweigh any harm to America.
The map showing light usage from around the world was particularly striking. Two years ago I took a trip to Piura, Peru, helping build homes with members of my church. I was struck by the absolute blackness at night. After about 10 p.m., most street lights were switched off, and the vast majority of residents had no electricity in their homes. The area resembled a black-out area during World War II.
Florida's depiction makes me wonder if we need to speed along the process of flattening the world. Friedman's book at times sounds the alarm about a flat world, but the disparity of wealth and resources that characterizes the US is all to evident in Florida's analysis. Whether anyone can speed up the flattening process is anyone's guess, but perhaps flattening the world would not have the dire consequences that some pundits have suggested; perhaps the benefits would far outweigh any harm to America.
Why the world isn't flat
Pankaj Ghemawat's analysis of Friedman's flat-world theory is sound. Ghemawat's theory about voters favoring protectionism particularly resonated with me. Looking at the United States as an example and the immigration crisis, the mood of the American people, according to public opinion polls, seems to indicate a need to secure our borders immediately and stop the flow of illegal immigrants. While illegal immigrant workers in this country do not represent direct outsourcing, jobs are being outsourced from American workers in this manner. Yet, we see Americans stridently rejecting this.
Furthermore, the media portrays a backlash to so many American corporations moving their operations out of the country. Political candidates talk about rebuilding industry in America; maybe the rhetoric is nothing more than that, but perhaps these politicians are hitting a key note with the American people: the protection of our economy and the need for job creation at home.
I thought Ghemawat's argument was particularly strong when he used statistics to back up his point. Often, Friedman employed statistics that were difficult to understand or so large and other-worldly that it was difficult to understand his point. Ghemawat paints a clear picture to indicate that the flat world is not developing as fast as some experts may think.
This article also points to a fundamental flaw in Western media, particularly American media, and that is a rush to judgment. Ghemawat's television interview is particularly telling, in that the anchor has seemed to accept Friedman's views as fact because they are mainstream, without bothering to do any independent research to check the validity of his claims. It is this willingness to accept the "mainstream" that is a major flaw in our media today.
Furthermore, the media portrays a backlash to so many American corporations moving their operations out of the country. Political candidates talk about rebuilding industry in America; maybe the rhetoric is nothing more than that, but perhaps these politicians are hitting a key note with the American people: the protection of our economy and the need for job creation at home.
I thought Ghemawat's argument was particularly strong when he used statistics to back up his point. Often, Friedman employed statistics that were difficult to understand or so large and other-worldly that it was difficult to understand his point. Ghemawat paints a clear picture to indicate that the flat world is not developing as fast as some experts may think.
This article also points to a fundamental flaw in Western media, particularly American media, and that is a rush to judgment. Ghemawat's television interview is particularly telling, in that the anchor has seemed to accept Friedman's views as fact because they are mainstream, without bothering to do any independent research to check the validity of his claims. It is this willingness to accept the "mainstream" that is a major flaw in our media today.
Reviews of "The World is Flat"
Warren Bass' review of "The World is Flat" presents a balanced review of Thomas Friedman's work. I particularly agree with Bass' assertion that Friedman is never able to show that the flat-lining of the world economy is taking place right now on a large scale. While it seems that Friedman's book builds towards that central thesis, there remains no evidence to point to that.
Similarly, I thought Fareed Zakaria's review was also well-contrived. However, one of the points that Zakaria illustrates is one that I disagree with. Zakaria notes how Friedman believes that science education is deteriorating in this country, and that a solution is to encourage more students to study science and engineering.
Friedman never answers why it is a bad thing that immigrants are disproportionally represented in these fields. I think he also fails to look into why Americans are not studying science and engineering as much in the past. Only by understanding the root of the problem can a solution be generated; proposing a quick fix isn't going to get the job done.
Similarly, I thought Fareed Zakaria's review was also well-contrived. However, one of the points that Zakaria illustrates is one that I disagree with. Zakaria notes how Friedman believes that science education is deteriorating in this country, and that a solution is to encourage more students to study science and engineering.
Friedman never answers why it is a bad thing that immigrants are disproportionally represented in these fields. I think he also fails to look into why Americans are not studying science and engineering as much in the past. Only by understanding the root of the problem can a solution be generated; proposing a quick fix isn't going to get the job done.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
NWICO and Development Journalism
After reading McPhail's analysis of the New World Information and Communication Order and development journalism, I believe that the best way for the Western press (and the Western world) to facilitate the growth of a free press in developing nations is by increasing and expanding foreign coverage in those areas. While not all news about the developing world is "coup and earthquake" news detailing every new disaster, certainly a wider variety and context of news would be useful to aid Western media consumers to better understand the developing world. As a media consumer who examines three newspapers and a variety of online sources on a daily basis, I still do not feel like I can grasp the complexities of developing areas in Africa or the Middle East.
I think that journalists themselves need to gain a better grasp of what is going on in these areas. While some journalists like Robert Fisk become part of the fiber of a foreign community, so often we now see correspondents fly in, report, and fly out. Even Christian Amanpour, perhaps the most revered American war correspondent in recent memory, is guilty of this. When American reporters experience what they are reporting and live it, like Fisk in Beirut, then their readers will gain a better grasp of the situation at hand.
Personally, having read nearly all of Fisk's writing for the last three years, I can honestly say that I understand and comprehend the situation in Beirut and Lebanon, and I am able to formulate my own thoughts and opinions on what is best for the area. Do the Lebanese appreciate Fisk's presence? Do the Israelis likewise? Those are questions I would like to have answered.
I think that journalists themselves need to gain a better grasp of what is going on in these areas. While some journalists like Robert Fisk become part of the fiber of a foreign community, so often we now see correspondents fly in, report, and fly out. Even Christian Amanpour, perhaps the most revered American war correspondent in recent memory, is guilty of this. When American reporters experience what they are reporting and live it, like Fisk in Beirut, then their readers will gain a better grasp of the situation at hand.
Personally, having read nearly all of Fisk's writing for the last three years, I can honestly say that I understand and comprehend the situation in Beirut and Lebanon, and I am able to formulate my own thoughts and opinions on what is best for the area. Do the Lebanese appreciate Fisk's presence? Do the Israelis likewise? Those are questions I would like to have answered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)