Globalisation and the Media

Globalisation involves two processes that have implications for the media; it is the way technologies are able to conquer global distances – creating a world that seems limitless, and the way that a single economic system, ‘the free market’, now permeates the globe.

“Television… now escorts children across the globe even before they have permission to cross the street” (Meyrowitz, 1985 p238)

The rise of mass television has allowed millions to regularly observe other people and places, anonymously and from afar – blurring the line between public and private behaviours, and weakening the link between physical location and access to social experience. In this sense, television has contributed to the reshaping of social roles regarding age, gender and authority. Television experience also prompts the prevalent use of participatory media, such as the interaction on social networking sites (Meyrowitz, 2009). A journal article by Jinna Tay and Graeme Turner (2008) investigate how the convergence of media platforms is challenging conventional perceptions of how the mass media function. Television is no longer considered a single entity working in the social, political and cultural aspects of media. New media is recontextualising the way we experience television – since the likes of major rating successes such as Big Brother, which incorporated multi-platformed and multimedia events, it is evident that television is no longer a stand-alone medium.

EG. BigBrother Germany Facebook Voting App – adapting to communication technologies and evolving the TV industry to multiple platforms – leading to new show formats (just as Televoting did in the 90s).   

In Australia, television advertising is plummeting as online advertising booms. As a result, market-specific variations are increasing. Television in the 21^st century has had to adapt to a demanding, competitive and technologically convergent environment by targeting consumer groups. Broadcasters utilise reality television programs, as they are suitable for cross-media interactivity – taking advantage of modern communication technologies, in turn allowing industries to experiment with younger demographics. This reformation of television challenges authoritarian-style governments across the globe, as they struggle to maintain control, as there is no longer a single foundation to provide a basis for national conversation (Tay & Turner, 2008).

References:

1. Metzger, MCM 2011, Endemol’s BigBrother launches voting via Facebook Credits, Monty’s Blog, weblog post, 6 july, viewed 16 May 2014,<http://blog.monty.de/2011/07/endemols-bigbrother-launches-voting-via-facebook-credits/&gt;

2. Meyrowitz, J 2009, We Liked to Watch: Television as Progenitor of the Surveillance Society, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 625, pp. 32-48.

3. Meyrowitz, J 1985, No sense of place: the impact of electronic media on social behaviour, Oxford University Press, New York

4. Tay, J & Turner, G 2008, What is Television: Comparing Media Systems in the Post-broadcast Era, Media International Australia, no. 126, pp71-81

A Response to the Changing Structure of Journalism

This week I watched two intriguing videos online. One was a discussion between New York Times columnist David Carr and Bloomberg Media Chairman Andrew Lack, the other was a TED Talk presented by author, journalist and media critic Tom Rosentiel. Both videos explored issues surrounding digital technologies, journalism and media.

I consider myself lucky, belonging to a demographic that has had the privilege of witnessing (and being a part of) this massive, global transition to online media – at such a fragile time of mental and physical growth. These overwhelming, crazy changes to information and communication technologies came about at a curious time of my adolescence. Between the ages of 11-13 I was only just beginning to find my place, attempting to identify myself in this world. I enjoyed reading and writing, and the idea of being a journalist interested me (although I did not quite understand the role of journalism back then). I remember picking up a popular teenage girls’ magazine, Girlfriend. I knew that journalists produced the content, so I would flick through not only recreationally, but also for a sense of guidance I suppose. What struck me, and made me never pick up one of these magazines again, was a giant, bold phrase on the front cover, accompanied with an unblemished, beautiful woman, “SKIPPING BREAKFAST MAKES YOU SKINNY”. This was a confusing message for me, because I had never thought about the number on the scales at this age. In addition, it contradicted my previous knowledge (from school and family) of breakfast being the most important meal of the day. So I was at a crossroad – believe these words and images; from a source I have no personal connection with, or ditch it and vow never to purchase the magazine again. I chose the latter. Looking back, that title still rubs me the wrong way. It also tainted my perception of commercial journalists, and my desire to be one. To think that there was a whole article inside a magazine targeted at teenage girls, blatantly attempting to convince them to compensate a healthy diet for an idealistic reality (a body which most young girls are not aware they wanted). This is one of the only magazines I ever picked up when I was younger, so I dread to think how many inappropriate articles were falsely educating the minds of girls.

I digress; this long-winded story did have a point. I simply wanted to express my gratitude and appreciation for the modern structure that journalism is steering towards today, thanks to the participation of consumers. No more authoritarian, one-way process between journalist and audience. I wanted to use my experience with the magazine to demonstrate some of the limitations in traditional media forms. As I stated, my only two options were to continue reading and purchasing those magazines, just ‘cause that’s all that was available to me at the time… or ditch it and find something else. Now, in 2014, if an organisation were to publish that exact headline, I can only imagine the stir it would cause online; aggressive posts on their Facebook profile, abusive mentions on their Twitter page, and comments from people around the world who work in nutrition and health, all putting their two cents in.

When I come across material that explores journalistic practice in a digital age, there is one recurring thought that stays with me, to try make sense of it all. I think of journalism as a system – it involves ethics, hierarchy and provides a service. Much like a democratic government. We elect our government. In a sense, this same logic is being applied to the structure journalism. For so long journalists have provided citizens with a service, without actually engaging them. Audiences and journalists can now work together to create a system that utilises tools from both parties, ultimately (hopefully) aiming to achieve a consistent, convenient, trustworthy and reliable industry.

Reference List:
Rosenstiel, T 2013, The Future of Journalism, TED X online video, YouTube, accessed 17 April 2014 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuBE_dP900Y&gt;

bu, 2014, NYT’s David Carr on the Future of Journalism, online video, YouTube, accessed 17 April 2014, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WPlazqH0TdA&gt;

Comments:

Journalism Graduate? Seeking employment? Good luck!

Is Journalism Dying?

Media Screens in Public Spaces

The Harp Hotel Sports Bar

McDonald’s Restaurant Fairy Meadow

The Harp Hotel Sports Bar

Below Property Line

Copyright is a big issue, especially since the rapid evolution of social media. Put simply, the most efficient way to avoid your intellectual property being appropriated online is to not upload it at all. While there are “safe” ways to share content, a lot of people just don’t do it. Typically, people don’t tend to feel they are doing something illegal if it is through their computer screen. There is no personal connection or affiliation with who you are “stealing” from. A couple of clicks and you are instantly breaching copyright laws. Piracy is a big one – while artists and large corporations missing out on millions from content they have created, there is little they can do to stop it. There is this general consensus of “if it’s on the internet it’s fair game” but really, it isn’t fair at all. You are legally responsible for all content you post or share online. Without crediting the original source or obtaining permission, you face the consequences.

Sharing someone else’s work online safely is when you only share from the original source. For instance, using the retweet button on Twitter. Sites such Facebook and Tumblr have “share” and “reblog” buttons for this purpose, but often users copy the content and post it without sharing directly from the source. This is a common example of somebody breaching copyright laws.

“A large, diverse society cannot survive without property; a large, diverse, and modern society cannot flourish without intellectual property.” – Lawrence Lessig

This quote from Lessig’s book Free Culture points out the importance of intellectual property. While copyright laws restrict the ways in which we can use previous creators’ work, it can stimulate individuals to generate new ideas. However, it is difficult to come up with something new. Most things we think of will have been done already in various ways. Subsequently, Lessig states that free cultures allow space for others to build upon, however with regard to increasing authorisations we are steering away from this. For example YouTube cases of people lip syncing/dancing to music, creating fandom etc are being sued for copyright infringement. It seems silly; as a lot of these cases include songs by popular artists that most people could identify without a reference. On the other hand, if the boundaries weren’t there I think prosumers would definitely take advantage of it even more than they do already.

The moon landed… on TV

Growing up, there was always a television in our home, but I never thought about it as some extraordinary piece of technology. To me it seemed a necessity, like other appliances in the house. Alas, talking to my father about his early memories of TV, made me realise that it was a big deal for families to own one in the 60s.

When television was first introduced, dad stated that when they visited their friends’ houses who had one it was really impressive “Wow they have a television we don’t have anything like that in our home”. Dad was 7 years old when his parents could finally afford to purchase one of their own. The TV was placed in their “entertaining” or “visitors” room, which was a space with some chairs. I thought it was quite bazaar when I asked, “did you and your sister fight over who sat on a particular part of the lounge?” Dad responded saying that they didn’t have a lounge, and the term “lounge room” did not even exist in their house. Everybody just sat on chairs when they wanted to watch TV, however they did fight over who got to sit the closest, as they would be in charge of the channel. Moreover, because there were only four channels they were constantly switching between, the knobs on the TV would often be damaged or broken.

Dad and his sister would be glued to the TV as soon as they got home from school, which was about 4pm, and stay there for as long as possible. I found this quite odd as me and my brother had boundaries when watching TV, however dad stated, “as long as we were quiet mum didn’t care how long we watched it for”. Dad and his sister spent the most time with the TV, stating that they watched every single show they could. The only time the family would sit down and watch something together was for the “Sunday night movie”, when classics such as The Sound of Music would air.

Apart from not being allowed to eat in the TV room, there were no other codes of behaviour that existed. I found this interesting, as today when observing younger children in their family home the general consensus is “Stop watching that idiot box and go outside and play”. However in the 60s dad explained that in his family, “The TV was brand new and was to be enjoyed. Nobody bullied us from the television. It was like a big social network – because all the kids at school would talk about all the shows that were on the night before”. It was remarkable that dad had compared watching TV when he was younger to social networking as we know it now. I also found it ironic hearing him say that “nobody bullied us from the television” in contrast to the abundance of cyber bullying today.

With regard to a particular event on TV, the first man on the moon seemed to be dad’s fondest memory. Everybody in his primary school was pulled out of class to see Neil Armstrong take his first steps on the moon. Dad described it as a momentous occasion particularly because the whole school had stopped everything just to watch it on TV. I couldn’t imagine being in school when I was young and going to the hall just to watch something on television. The only time class was disrupted for us was emergencies. But I guess back then the first man on the moon would have been somewhat considered an emergency, being an iconic moment for mankind.

My dad stated one of the things that changed markedly is that back in his era; the TV was the only contact they had with the outside world, and without it they did not know what was happening globally. “It was our way to connect to the rest of humanity, my parents loved the documentaries because they could see parts of the world they have never seen. It was a very fascinating experience”. Furthermore, dad stated that in his generation you tended to believe what you saw on the television as the truth, as it felt like it had more influence and credibility. Now people are growing wise to the fact that it’s just entertainment, whereas before people gave it more value. “Today, we are more educated and figured out that a lot of things on TV are sensationalised to sell airtime and commercials. We are more ‘consumer aware’ than we used to be.”

You’re being watched

In the short time that social media has been around, the one consistent thing I have observed is that a great deal of people forget they are being watched. In a High Talk blog post, George F Snell III states that the line between public and private is now less defined than ever. Snell raises some points, which to me seems as standard Internet etiquette (studying media and communication helps I guess), however I’ve noticed it isn’t so obvious to some. Snell’s 5 guidelines in his post were ‘be polite, transparent, discrete, trustworthy and admit your mistakes’. Once I read that I realised that the majority of my Facebook friends definitely forget that what they post is not private. For example somebody “privately” chatting on Facebook IM and the other person decides to screenshot and share their conversation. Don’t get me wrong, a lot of the time this is entertaining, but what everyone forgets is that we are constantly under surveillance. In some cases, people actually lose their jobs because of something they have posted/been tagged in on Facebook. I often see and hear this happen, and am not surprised by it. I’ve always felt that social media platforms should not be treated as a private space.

Before Facebook and Twitter even existed, there were chat rooms. And the thing my parents said over and over and over (as they could not keep me from using them) was ‘Don’t talk to strangers. Don’t tell anyone your real name, where you’re from, don’t put your birth date in your email address…’ the list goes on. Made complete sense then, nobody wants a stalker. However, today we openly let people stalk us online. Facebook has asked me all this information about my life from my name, to my favourite food and TV show, to what song I’m currently listening to. Not to worry, even if you don’t fill in these details, everyone on Facebook can see where you are if your location service is enabled on your phone. Now this, I feel, is utterly absurd. With relation to media and youth, an article by Sonia Livingstone explores the way media fosters youth culture through both form and content. Livingstone states that young people use the media precisely to discover and transgress established norms of public and private space. However, they are often naive to the power of the media subtly positioning them according to consumerist pleasures and powerful interests. Through content, they directly address the concerns, interests and experiences of youth. Through their forms, they can provide personalised media goods that determine the space of young online identities. Subsequently, the media repositions young people in relation to public and private spheres, casting them as both citizens and consumers for the future.

A friend once told me “never put anything in writing” and I have applied this both online and offline. People creating controversy, losing friends and even becoming unemployed because of the untasteful way they act online. My message to these people would be if you don’t want anyone knowing, don’t talk about it, anywhere. There is no such thing as privacy in cyberspace. This also goes for businesses who create social media pages – it is crucial to treat every interaction as a public one. We need to remember that everybody is a reporter now. Snell explained this brilliantly (with regard to “private” interactions), ‘the disgruntled customer might have 5,000 followers on Twitter. The waitress serving you while you discuss your company’s top-secret new product could be an avid blogger’ etc. Social media platforms are tools, use them wisely and they can work to your advantage, but one wrong move and you’ll unwillingly create an everlasting poor reputation. But hey, no pressure.

References:

Livingstone, S 2005, ‘Mediating the public/private boundary at home: children’s use of the internet for privacy and participation’, London: LSE Research Online, viewed 11/08/2013, <http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/506/1/JMP_6(1).pdf

Snell, GF 2009, 5 Guidelines for Public vs. Private in Social Media, High Talk, weblog post, 23 March, viewed 11/08/2013, <http://hightalk.net/2009/03/23/5-guidelines-for-public-vs-private-in-social-media/

Media and Space

This image represents something I’m sure most of us have done. Been on your phone while at work (when you’re not supposed to). The funny thing is, back in the day – prior to social media – when someone was on their phone you could assume they were reading or responding to an SMS. Now that is hardly the case. It sounds silly when you say it out loud, but a lot of people can’t resist checking Facebook, Twitter, posting work selfies on Instagram, or asking people to send you more lives for Candy Crush. In fact, I would even go on to say that because you know you’re not supposed to be looking at it, makes you want it more. Why do we feel like this? Because we are human. We strive for connectedness, we want to always be a part of something, and we feel the natural desire to belong to this magnificent online structure. By creating online identities we become an active audience of the online sphere. We can fulfill this urge to stay connected with peers, colleagues, friends and old friends. I feel lucky to have seen this transition to the digital age in my lifetime. While older generations are (stereotypically) technologically impaired, younger generations are able to use an iPod before learning to ride a bike.

Street Violence – Reflection

An issue which I found to be significant in the media is violence, and in particular, street violence. All kinds of mediascapes contribute to street violence in one way or another. This includes the influence from certain television programs, films, music etc. Not only is violence represented throughout the media, but violent related behaviour as a result of drug and alcohol abuse is common, sending an important yet persuasive message to audiences. Images and music film clips especially tend to present violence semiotically, particularly through the use of gender ideologies; such as men being portrayed as mysterious and dangerous.

In relation to street violence some popular topics I found the media liked to exaggerate were schoolies, riots, protests and nightlife. When the media focuses on these issues they tend to  single out certain vicinities as well, often producing a poor reputation for that area. An example would be the Cronulla riots in 2005 where the media played a significant role by influencing locals on which side to take in an discriminating manner. The series of incidents known as the Cronulla riots have echoed throughout the town and surrounding areas to this day. Right-wing media groups had been accused of broadcasting political agendas via radio and print media, flaring tension between locals. The media used this sense of community to connect with locals on a personal level,  and even encouraged violent behaviour.

Ageism is also a factor, especially when the media talks about schoolies violence. The ideology of teenagers is highly pressured within the media. For example it is easy to represent a group of teens as ‘out of control’ rather than, say, a group of elderly people. Violence is an easy topic for the media to nudge on the emotions of readers. Language if often in a negative tone which can make the reader feel uncomfortable, concerned, and scared. The way information is presented is just as important as the content itself, as emphasis is placed on particular words and phrases, audiences are more likely to be convinced.

 Violence portrayed in the media through television, films, video games and music has been known to increase the likelihood of aggressive and violent behaviour. This material is harmful especially to the young, prompting immediate and long-term effects. Representations of violence in the media directly provides a child with  particular ideas and experiences which shape their attitudes and influence their behaviours. It is important to consider these mediums as elements in a controlled societal media among children especially. This is because certain characteristics, environments and media content can affect the degree of media violence.

Many people don’t actually realise how powerful the media is. It’s power derives from accessibility and the fact that it is all around us, everywhere we go. Following initial presentations of media violence, other forms of media are then used to perpetuate and emphasise outcomes. This is common within traditional news media such as TV broadcasting, radio, magazines, newspapers and other forms of print media. The media achieves this by blasting biased perspectives on violence related issues, in hopes to mould the minds of viewers to their own attitudes. Language, tone, lighting and sound all add to this effect of influential media.

BUT something I find to be more significant is that…

As violence is continuously targeted and now this new era of social media is evolving, now criticism of violence is also in the hands of the audience – of what is known as the outbreak of citizen journalism. There are new, different, instant types of distribution which are hard to keep up with, proving difficulty when trying to regulate user content. Within the public sphere, sites such as Facebook and YouTube are used to discuss and propel violent behaviour. Violence can often be fuelled or expanded by nasty comments, videos or images online through these platforms. Online video streaming has become an explosive medium, and YouTube has presented a dominance in this area. Whilst this user generated content may be used for research and entertainment, it has also been treated as as a medium for expression or documentation regarding violent behaviour. These videos uploaded by users which incorporate violence are often in public places such as schools, parks and just on the streets.

It’s issues like these which fuel moral panic about the media, as we are told to trust and believe what they say; however the outcome is not always favourable. As citizen journalists, the role of the media is ever-changing in a free and open public sphere. The representation of violence within the media is already being altered as a result of online prosumers.

Street Violence – Media Influence

Violence portrayed in the media through television, films, video games and music has been known to increase the likelihood of aggressive and violent behaviour. This material is harmful especially to the young, prompting immediate and long-term effects. Representations of violence in the media directly provides a child with  particular ideas and experiences which shape their attitudes and influence their behaviours. It is important to consider these mediums as elements in a controlled societal media among children especially. This is because certain characteristics, environments and media content can sway affect the degree of media violence. This content is threatening to young children as they cannot comprehend the connection between violence and its consequences. For example in many children’s programs there is a “good guy” and a “bad guy”. In the majority of cases both are included in violent acts yet the “good guy” isn’t punished. Children are then able to observe that cartoon characters typically recover from severe violent acts almost immediately. This type of exposure is then placing a false interpretation on reality to the child. It leads them to believe that in real life, victims of violent acts are rarely hurt.

A classic representation of violence in children’s cartoon shows is Tom & Jerry (1975). This show has been hotly debated because of the quirky violent behaviour between a cat and a mouse. Another important feature is that the show does not incorporate dialogue., which then demands more focus on the physical actions. Within the context or cartoon/animals it seems harmless, but the actual behaviour still seems unreasonable to some. An article in The Guardian described the show as “ultra violent” “morally unquestionable”.  However, other types of media have poked fun at the cartoon. One example would be in “The Simpsons” where a parody of Tom & Jerry is made, known by the characters as “Itchy and scratchy”. Scenes where Itchy and Scratchy feature in The Simpsons, Bart and Lisa are always laughing in hysterics after each episode, which consistently entail gruesome (for cartoons) and violent behaviour.

Street Violence – Online Media

Violence can often be fuelled or expanded by nasty comments, videos or images online. This ‘cyber hate’ is typically used to discriminate, threat, and warn victims. Sites such as Facebook and YouTube have been known to propel violent behaviour.

Facebook, for example, has been proven as a powerful tool with relation to violent intimidation. In some cases it is used to organise a meeting time and place for violent behaviour. When this information is posted on networking sites such as Facebook, it is then able to be dispersed online within the public sphere. Subsequently, this causes more people to be involved in acts of violence.

In August 2010, an article posted by The Economist outlined an issue where  two teenagers were gunned down while riding a motorcycle in Columbia. Their names had appeared on a “hit list” which was posted on Facebook that included death threats and menacing messages. The victims were warned and told they  had three days to depart or else they would be in danger of these violent acts once again.

Online video streaming has become an explosive medium, and YouTube has presented a dominance in this area. Whilst it may be used for research and entertainment it has also been treated as as a medium for expression or documentation regarding violent behaviour. In 2006, the issue became so extensive that politicians in the U.K. sought to legislate against violence on YouTube, with U.K. ministers claiming that the videos “fuel random acts of violence.”

An example would be an incident which occurred  in April 2008 where six teenage girls in Florida beat up their peer whilst recording the attack with the intention of posting it on YouTube. Some news media responses blamed the incident on YouTube itself, however arguments were made that YouTube merely reflected violence. In this instance YouTube was used as a catalyst to the violence as the camera’s presence during the assault was purely for the footage to be uploaded for ‘popularity’. Online reactions included  YouTube videos uploaded by users commenting on the story, an example of citizen journalism. Other users posted amateur re-inactments of the video in an attempt for humorous exposure. Traditional news media such as newspapers and TV shows covered the story, most with a biased perspective using language such as “animalistic behaviour”.