The Internet and Revolution

It would be very difficult to try to contest the belief that the United States generally controls the global media economy. Even many industries which own, distribute, or otherwise have a stake in “global” or “non-western” cultural products are often times controlled or funded by an American corporate interest. Herbert Schiller, one of the world’s “most influential political economists of communication” asserts that “corporate interests pervades every aspect of society” (Baran 223). In his article “American Pop Culture Sweeps the World” Schiller asserts that these corporate interests are the cause of the “Americanization” or “westernization” of global culture. Furthermore, he says that this “weakens the influence of local leaderships and thereby creates additional national and global instability.” (Schiller 3)
When I read this article that last sentence sort of blew me away. For four years I’ve studied the effects of media on individual, societal and global levels, but never did I think that the (western) media is creating “additional national and global instability”. I was astounded that it could have such extreme negative effects. Looking for modern examples to support this theory touted by Schiller I first considered looking at how the West influenced the recent political upheaval in the Middle East. However, I quickly expelled the idea that the Arab Spring was a result of western media influence, a true “Twitter Revolution”, due to a number of factors (outlined to some degree here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/09/iran-twitter-revolution-protests ) but most importantly, I rejected this idea because social media did not spawn the ideas which birthed a revolution, it just helped spread them.
Schiller might disagree with me. His belief that media (in this case social media) has a “direct, though immeasurable impact on human consciousness” (Schiller 5) might cause him to contend that these revolutions were indeed a result of western media influence, even if he does not solely blame social media but rather implicates the whole western media economy.

Do the global and local civil society have their activities enhanced by the internet? (Schiller 5) OR has the internet let to more “national and global instability”?

Schillers feelings about the homogenization of culture through media are mirrored by McLuhan’s ideas about the “global village”. McLuhan believes that “a new form of social organization would emerge as instantaneous electronic media tied the entire world into one great social, political, and cultural system.” (Baran 231)

Do you share Schiller’s skepticism about the west’s place in global media?

Or do you understand and agree with McLuhan’s “optimism” regarding the emerging media landscape?

Perhaps some of Schiller’s fears about the future of globalization are rooted in his belief that “the internet itself is all too likely to be transformed into a commercial and pay for use system in the near future.” (Schiller 6) More than ten years later, we have seen this happen to some degree as many websites are run solely by advertisements and have their messages dictated by the corporate interests that fund them. Also, we have seen many ISP’s begin charging users based on how much data (measured in Megabytes) they consume.

Does this mean that a “commercial” internet is a bad thing when considering that it is more or less controlled by western industry?
Before you answer, consider the other alternative. A internet controlled and regulated by a Western Government. Recently, this hypothetical almost recently became a reality. The SOPA and PIPA bills which sent the internet community into an uproar (and cause many of the highest trafficking sites to “blackout” for 24 hours in protest) would have made it “harder for sites — especially those located outside the United States — to sell or distribute pirated copyrighted material such as movies and music as well as physical goods such as counterfeit purses and watches.” (Magid) Although these bills had seemingly “good”, or at the very least safe, intentions, the actual implications of this legislation would have drastically changed the way we use the web.
The fears of many internet users were echoed in a statement made by the Obama administration:

“Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small.

The administration also echoed concerns raised by a number of security experts, including some anti-malware companies that the bill could disrupt the underlying architecture of the Internet.” (Magid)”

Given this information, what are some more problems that arise from governmental and corporate internet control?

Would this issue be better suited to be studied by a Cultural Studies Theorist or a Political Economist?

Works Cited

Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.

Magid, Larry. "What Are SOPA and PIPA And Why All The Fuss?" Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 18 Jan. 2012. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. .

Schiller, Herbert. "American Pop Culture Sweeps the World." Societies, Masses, and Publics (1996): 2-13. Print.

Weaver, Matthew. "Iran's 'Twitter Revolution' Was Exaggerated, Says Editor." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 09 June 2010. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. .

Cultivation Theory and the Presidency

Posted on behalf on Katelyn Bermudez:

American culture is completely saturated by drama. The political process and office of the presidency is an area which has not escaped this reality. Since Washington’s first inauguration the media has been overcome with a strong interest for the president’s personal life and what the position entailed. Naturally with that interest and the advancement of technology, movies and television shows about the president were to be expected.

There are of advantages about the presence of these shows. An increased interest in the presidency and American politics in general can help people become interested in the governmental system. Donnalyn Pompper pointed out in The West Wing: White House Narratives that Journalism Cannot Tell, that these fictional dramas allow certain aspects of presidential life to be demonstrated that journalists are not able to share in a news story. “Scripts aim to tell “not what happens, but to reveal how it happens.”(Pompper 4). The issue however with shows such as the West Wing are that they create false expectations and beliefs about the American political process and set standards for current presidents that may be impossible to attain.

For example Pompper states that “the fictional oval office inhabitants consider public service a worthy, noble pursuit, and they work there because they hope to do good, not because of personal ambition.” (Pompper 4) If these expectations are seen by viewers and the cultivation theory is applied, Hollywood then sets unachievable standards which can lead to unhappy Americans and low approval ratings.

As Rick Shenkman editor of HNN points out, “badly as Hollywood often presents the presidents, it has had an enduring impact on how we see them, how they behave, and even, in a few cases, on who won…Hollywood's depiction of American presidents is by and large a record of failure.” (Shenkman)

It will be interesting now to see how the current presidency will be portrayed in the future. As such as historical president, Obama will always be respected and seen as an important figure as the first African American President. This fact about him should be respected and demonstrated. That being said though, it will be interesting to see how much that role becomes demonstrated in Hollywood. Also I wonder if it will overshadow elements such as his low approval ratings and policies which have passed. Like any predecessor only time will tell. (http://hnn.us/articles/1749.html)

Casting Call for…Mrs. President?

Posted on behalf of Kailyn Corrigan:

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=9&sid=20a7ecd6-44e5-4282-8604-ccebbed64177%40sessionmgr11

With mid-term elections behind us, there exists… the future. The future of our government’s leadership is unknown—a little too unknown if you ask me. Previous possibilities varied from right to left, old to young, east to west. Demographically there were far less chances for change. The 2012 Presidential election now welcomes demographic changes such as, race (Obama), religion (Romney) and most notably gender. Sarah Palin, to all of Hillary’s probable dismay, has thrown the presidential gender card up for grabs. A leader whose typical traits are listed as “dominance, aggression, self-reliance and personal control” in terms of masculinity in Harp, Loke and Bachmann’s article “First Impressions of Sarah Palin: Pit Bulls, Politics, Gender Performance, and a Discursive Media (Re)contextualization” is what we and the media have come to expect and characterize our presidents as in media and movies. What then happens if we have a female president whose femininity culturally represents sensitivity and warmth?


As Quinnipiac University Polling Institute asks in their first question “Thinking ahead to the 2012 Presidential Election, if the candidates were Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, who would you vote for?” we are forced to consider the feminine impressions Palin has made on America. As I read Harp, Loke and Bachmann’s journal article in Communication, Culture and Critique, I was forced to consider the movie Independence Day however random that may be. If using a female president, would she become friends with the aliens? Would she run away with a full face of make-up?


The study conducted used gender portrayals of Palin through network appearances, gatekeeping, a random sample of videos and the narrative. She was coded as feminine, masculine and neutral. She was predominantly noted as a “mother,” according to the study, but “beauty queen” was also mentioned. These conclusions forced me to consider Giglio’s article “Hollywood and Washington: The Marriage of Film and Politics.”

The introduction of this reading explores a hypothetical movie writing scene about an American President. The themes they search for are “political intrigue;” “sex;” “war” and a “happy ending.” Do you think that a movie centered around a female president would carry the same motives? Would a movie about the “American President” still be a concept, or hugely different depending on the sex they decide to use. Would they use a female president at all? I ask these questions based on the fact that Harp, Loke and Bachmann featured a study in which our most seemingly popular female Republican is most commonly portrayed as “motherly.”

In a sense, does this then confuse the connotative definition of the “American President?” Taking into consideration Giglio’s article, the “First-Impression of Sarah Palin…” study and the recent mix of celebrity/ politics, I feel a president’s gender will have a much larger impact than many would expect before considering the media. Do you feel it will be difficult for a female president to escape the “sexy librarian” mold, even inside the Oval Office walls? I think it would also be interesting to see the study conducted, using Hillary Clinton as a subject. Would she be considered “motherly?” I plan on watching the show Commander in Chief, featuring Geena Davis as President of the United states to explore this topic.

Presidential Character

While reading the articles for this week, I really got stuck on the particular article by Peter C. Rollins entitled “Hollywood’s Presidents.” While I was reading this, I naturally kept thinking about our current President, Barak Obama, and the obvious struggle he is having both with the bi-partisan congress and within himself. In the United States, our President must be able to strike a balance between being a figure head for the country, and being an effective and progressive leader, successfully getting the two parties to compromise and enact legislature beneficial to all. We can see how when he was campaigning, he was running on phrases and rhetoric that the American people would respond positively to, as they truly did want a change after being in a war and watching the economy slip away. However, you cannot simply have the rhetoric and not back it up with a solid stance on the policies that will make that change happen.

Rollins mentions this in his article when he explains what happened in the movie, “The American President.” President Shepherd is accused of having an affair by his opponent, and at a press conference Shepherd said, “’Being president of this country is completely about character (260).’” “He comes back against his Kansas opponent with dynamic policy positions on free speech… with an economic focus rather than silly rhetoric… with an initiative on global warming… and with stiffer gun controls (260).” Although fictional, as Americans this is exactly what we want in a President. Someone who is obviously human and make mistakes just like the rest of us, but is able to triumph over any negative backlash with his ability to enact policy, supersede the divide between the parties, and lead the American people. I think President Obama set out to do so, but failed to prepare enough to endure the almost even split in congress and the backlash from Americans who are in rough economic times.

An article from the New York Times also mentions this. Although from the Opinion section, I believe this particular article explains some of what most of America is feeling right now. The article makes an interesting point about the promises of transcendence made by Obama in the campaign, but he was not expecting the fight he would be confronted with in our bi-partisanship. The question now becomes, can he back up his rhetoric with dynamic policy? Can he fight and prevail? Other questions I propose to you are after reading the Times article, do you think he can put up a successful fight? What about the way he handles foreign policy?

Also, we often see present presidents’ characters attacked, but once out of office they almost take on an ideal character. We’ve seen this countless times, starting with George Washington himself. In the clip of President Bush’s interview with Oprah he believes the same will happen to him. Do you agree? How do you think President Obama’s character will be viewed when his presidency comes to an end? How much of a role does integrity and strength of character play for you when deciding who to vote for, and why?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/opinion/15krugman.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

Politicians and Celebrities and Spin Doctors, Oh my!

We would all love to live in a world where we can believe everything we hear. We'd love to think that all politicians are looking out for the best interests of American citizens rather than themselves. As students of media and politics, those of us in this class know to take everything with a grain of salt. But what about the rest of America? Where do we all fit in the grand scheme of political agenda?

Ernest Giglio's Here's Looking At You: Hollywood, Film, and Politics draws a distinction between films and politics. But what interested me the most about this reading was the issue of the blurred line between celebrity status and political stature, which is a discussion that has come up time and time again in class. Ronald Regan was a Hollywood actor before being elected president. Arnold Schwarzenegger is now the "Governator" of California. Even Steven Colbert tried to run for president in the 2008 election. So of course, this leads perfectly into the case of Sarah Palin, whose reality series "Sarah Palin's Alaska" premieres next week.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101115/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticspalin;_ylt=AvikoVYtZJDVyVHMWthPPZayFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJta205bDR0BGFzc2V0A2FmcC8yMDEwMTExNS91c3BvbGl0aWNzcGFsaW4EcG9zAzE0BHNlYwN5bl9hcnRpY2xlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDcmlzaW5ndXNtZWRp

The above article discusses the insane amount of power that Palin has acquired since 2008. Feelings about this are completely divided -- some people feel that her popularity would be an asset to the Republican party, while others are frankly afraid of the rate at which Hurricane Palin is gaining strength. Regardless of whether or not you agree with her policies, she is the perfect example of how a politician can use their celebrity to obtain a position in politics.

There are two ways we can look at this phenomenon. On the one hand, many of Sarah Palin's recent actions are backed by applaud-worthy public relations. She's written books, has chosen to star in a reality show, and additionally, it's probably no coincidence that the nation's most popular teen mom, Bristol Palin, is now on the most popular reality show on television, Dancing With the Stars. From a public relations standpoint, Sarah Palin is doing everything right. She fully embraces the idea of the "image is everything" presidency, and has made countless efforts to maintain her image as an extraordinary "common man" figure. I may even dare to say that much of Palin's support comes from her relate-ability rather than her actual policies or her abilities as a political figure.

On the other hand, building one's own celebrity status to gain political popularity seems somewhat manipulative. While most politicians ride on past political contributions during a presidential campaign, Palin will be relying mostly on her popularity as a reality star and a media sensation. Though she has made an effort to be more politically active in the past two years, I think it is fair to say that, if a non-celebrity figure with Sarah Palin's political history tried to run for president, they probably wouldn't be taken very seriously.

Using celebrity status to gain political stature certainly has its fair share of both positive and negative attributes, but what do you think this means for politics? Is it a good thing that politicians have the option of garnering support through celebrity status? Does political fandom actually help boost nationalism? Or do you feel that this kind of fandom will actually hurt the political process?

----

Ernest Giglio, Here’s Looking at You: Hollywood, Film & Politics (New York: Peter Lang, 2002), Ch. 1& 6

A New Form of News?

We are at a day in age where a large portion of the population chooses to get their political news and information from comical figures like Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, and Bill Maher. These hosts gather high ranking political figures and interview and chat in a light-hearted way. However, there is still a lot of raw information being discussed and it is important not to write these TV shows off as they hold a lot of weight and validity in the political spectrum. Jeffrey Jones of Entertaining Politics writes, "citizens have forgotten the importance of social connection's and the benefits those connection's have in producing a rich democratic polity because we have divorced ourselves from each other through isolated acts of watching entertainment television.(p8) It is this strong connection with the viewer and the host that adds to having a more open and pure democratic relationship which is one of many important aspects in a healthy democratic system.

Regardless of ones feelings about receiving political news from these quirky comical hosts, the fact is that many citizens are watching these programs, so therefore the need to be taken seriously. It is fair to say that more people are watching Comedy Central, HBO, and MTV than C-SPAN. However, audiences of the political programs on these television channels must be fully aware that this information may and probably is biased and skewed. "For Neil Postman, the problem is epistemological-television is an inferior(even dangerous) means of knowing the arena of politics. Due to the technological biases of electronic communication(as opposed to his privileging the written word), television offers little more than amusement, entertaining and distracting because the medium is incapable of helping us think in another way."(p8) This critical outlook on televisions news process is certainly understandable and probably correct, however, the fact remains that people are STILL watching which can only leave room for improvement on the stations part. It is the responsibility of the hosts of these shows and the stations to provide reasonable information that will keep the viewer involved. In a New York Times Article, "Is Jon Stewart The Most Trusted Man in America?", the idea that these shows serve as a way of dealing and filtering with upsetting issues is key to not only their success but also what they're intentions are. If Jon Stewart is the most trusted man in America, what does that say about our actual politicians?

This ability to hone in on all of the audiences needs and wants are the real reason for the success of these programs. The perfect balance between humor, drama, raw information and criticism allows the reader to watch with an open mind and with an intent. An intent of not only getting informed about issues effecting the country but also enjoying yourself while you do it. This is why viewers keep coming back and why they will continue doing so in the future.

Sources:

Jones, Jeffrey. "Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture."

Lanham: Rowman and Littlefiel, 2005. 1-14

Kakutani, Michiko. "Is Jon Steware the Most Trusted Man in America?" New York Times. 15 August, 2008.

Comedy in Politics

It is now far from true that the main political television networks are the only place one can find politics on TV. Entertainment and comedic channels such as Comedy Central, Bravo, HBO and MTV are hosting some of the country’s most prominent political figures, and if they’re not hosting them, they are talking about them…a lot. In this week’s reading from Entertaining Politics, author Jeffrey Jones wrote, “Politics is now appearing on numerous and disparate channels and is packaged in a variety of formats and genres, including sitcoms, satires, parodies, town halls, roundtable discussion, talking head debates and viewer-participation programs” (5). Comedians like Jon Stewart are getting much of their material from politicians. Placing a comedic touch on current political topics often encourages people to become informed on what is going on in the country. Former ABC World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings described this political comedic appeal. “Jon Stewart can enunciate important things about politics and politicians that the norms of objectivity won’t allow Jennings to say” (6).

A comedic approach to politics interests the public and presents political material in an engaging way. “Entertaining politics highlights the fact that politics can be pleasurable” (9). Audiences at home are interested in the entertainment aspect behind much of the drama of politics. I think an advantage to comedy in politics is that it can humanize the candidate and make them more relatable. But often the comedic side presented does not represent the candidate in the best light or as looking the most intelligent but it leads to recognition for the politicians or the issues being discussed.

Bill Maher, host of television show Politically Correct that aired on Comedy Central and current host of HBO’s show Real Time is a major contributor to entertainment politics. ABC News writer, Ryan Creed, covered a story on Maher’s most recent political dig. Maher’s name is currently associated with Delaware’s GOP U.S. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell. It was on Maher’s show Politically Correct in 1999 where O’Donnell made a controversial statement that she “dabbled into witchcraft.” In September, Maher re-released this clip that media pundits are currently having a field day with. This comment that O’Donnell made has resurfaced and is now an ongoing issue she has to further explain to voters. She went about addressing her statements regarding witchcraft by airing a promotional advertisement where she states she is not a witch. (Video can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGGAgljengs.) Political entertainment host Maher is trying to get O’Donnell back on his show to further explain her previous witchcraft statements, and he said he will continue to air this footage until she agrees to come on the show. "It's like a hostage crisis," Maher said. "Every week you don't show up, I'm going to throw another body out."

By reinstituting this embarrassing footage of O’Donnell, Maher’s role as a political comedic may very well affect the outcome of the U.S. Senate race in Delaware. Jones wrote, “Politics is increasingly crafted through and for media spectatorship, and hence the desired separation between media and politics no longer exists” (8). Clearly, an entertainment aspect to politics provides viewers with amusement, but do entertainment shows do anything for the policy aspect of politics? They are useful because they allow for the public to gain interest in politics and help viewers to have a general working knowledge of political topics, but to what extent do entertainment political shows inform the public on the important issues at hand? We have learned from Maher that years ago O’Donnell was involved in witchcraft, but what has Maher taught us about her policy issues? I think entertainment political shows are effective in the sense that they are amusing. They bring attention to main political topics but they require the viewer to either be somewhat informed already or to do further research. I find it a little scary that many people of our generation rely solely on this type of entertainment television as their main source of news rather than as a supplement to mainstream network news.

Sources:
Jones, Jeffrey. “Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture.” Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005. 1-14.

Creed, Ryan. “Maher Airs Christine O’Donnell ‘Witchcraft’ Video.” ABC News. 23 Oct 2010.
.

“Christine O’Donnell: I’m You.” You Tube. You Tube. 4 Oct 2010. Web. 23 Oct 2010.
.