Negotiating Opposite Messages December 7, 2010

In, A Theoretical Agenda for Entertainment-Education, Singhal and Rogers address resistance in the message environment.   They term American tv shows  “which valorize lewdness, sexual irresponsibility, greed, and other antisocial messages” as “entertainment degradation” or “entertainment perversion.”  I would actually group The Biggest Looser with these programs, as it reinforces negative assumptions about health and wellness (in addition to the intrinsic value system messaged through the show), though under the more dangerous semblance as a positive health promoting multiplatform mechanism.

Describing entertainment-education’s challenge in confronting opposing positive health and social messaging, they write, “A subtler, yet more potent form of resistance to E-E discourses comes from a sea of media message in which, for instance, aggression is exemplified and portrayed as a preferred solution, socially sanctioned by super heros who triumph over evil by violent means.  Such portrayals legitimize, glamorize, and trivialize himan violence (Bandura, 2001, p. 277), complicating the task of E-E interventions.” ( 125) The Biggest Looser serves as an example of such pseudo “preferred solutions” in the domestic social context as well as “entertainment perversion” in its role conveying American culture in the international sphere.

 

Who Really is the Biggest Loser? December 3, 2010

In class this week we talked a lot about reality television and how it has become a cross-cultural phenomenon. While we touched on it in class I do think that reality television has the potential to be a type of public diplomacy, but it also has the potential to be a detriment to new societies. From our own reality television we know that people who go on reality television shows are not the type of people we want to be. We watch these shows and these people for entertainment, but the majority of the shows are set to humiliate contestants and make us feel better about ourselves. The fact is that reality television can have such a negative connotation that we feel embarrassed to admit to others that we watch it and if we do admit it we call it a “guilty pleasure.” The fact that these people are representing a small subset of Americans who have some psychological need for attention and are usually at least a little bit unstable makes reality television exports a dangerous exchange if left in its original format. In class one of the groups showed a clip of Bulgarian men getting into a fight. While the clip amused us, we were clearly laughing at the two men, and this clip did nothing to enhance the view of Bulgaria to us (this does not mean that it was a complete detriment as I am sure that we all new that this was not a true projection of Bulgarian society). But this is why so many reality TV shows take a premise from a country but nothing else. The entire original culture must be wiped from the show in order to transpose a new and relatable one to audiences in new countries. However, if we would be embarrassed for someone from another country watching our version of a reality show and felt as though we had to defend it and ourselves, then the show is not only a detriment to our outside appearance but to our internal view of self as well. I am not saying that we should not watch reality TV, I know that I will still watch Bad Girls Club and enjoy it for its tacky superficiality, but its wise to realize that reality TV is not as harmless ad we might think.

Product placement: the root of all evil or the most neutral ad you’ll ever see

Throughout the presentations on Thursday, we discussed (thoroughly) adapting media products to a new host culture. We also talked (less thoroughly) about product placement, advertisements, etc. So the focus of this final bit is going to be about product placement.

Though in the US, we often think of product placement as the long-form, 20 second or more, “shameless plug” for a product, place, or company. And many of us, as media scholars, find that particular type of product placement to be insulting and obnoxious. But we also assume that not everyone is aware enough to realize the product placement is occurring. Well, let’s be realistic. The US is not full of idiots (though there are some), and I actually think most people realize when they’re being sold Yoplait on the Biggest Loser or Cover Girl on America’s Next Top Model. Is it really any different from the “regular” commercials? They are just as obnoxious, they’re probably shorter, and they’re just as obvious. More importantly, that type of product placement harkens back to the old days of early television, where programs were almost entirely sponsored by one company or product, thus the item made frequent appearances (see Lucky Strikes for Fibber McGee and Molly). Again, I’m sure these “subliminal” product placements are not as well hidden as we might assume.

It is, instead, the ‘less obnoxious’ type of placement that we should be more interested in. We tend to gloss over the fact that ET was being handed Reeses’ Pieces, that Simon has a Coke cup, and that the cast of Real World just happens to be dropping by Subway for some dinner. These placements are less disconcerting on a surface level, easier to tune out while simultaneously easier to absorb in a non-critical way. We’re overwhelmed with brands, and it becomes difficult for any company to hide them from you – think of MythBusters, and how they tape over brand names. You can still see the rest of the container, and you still know they’re freezing cans of Gilette Shaving Cream.

But more importantly, the idea was mentioned that other countries shouldn’t be concerned about product placement because the practice will just never take. Well, back in the early days of radio (prior to the FRC – later FCC – assigning stations), people were broadcasting without any commercials or sponsors at all. People paid a small amount to have access to equipment and would have their own variety shows, regardless of commercial help. I’m sure they’d never thought that programs would be sponsored solely by one company, that television programs would ever have intensive product placement and shameless plugs (let alone have televisions at all), etc. So to assume that this “American only” idea won’t spread elsewhere – simply because it hasn’t yet – is foolish. First and foremost, assuming it won’t spread to China (as was the specific example in class) because China is less consumeristic is foolish – the real reason is that they don’t need intensive sponsors because the government runs their media outlets. Similarly, you aren’t likely to see product placement on Al Manar because it is largely controlled by Hezbollah.

However, as we see developing countries with liberalizing, privatizing media outlets, you may start to see product placement arise. As outlets are privatized, they need better, faster ways to make their dollars from advertisers, and they might immediately skip to product placement (just as we immediately skipped to one-company sponsorship).

All cross culturalism and cultural sensitivities aside, product placement is likely not going away. And it is likely not just going to be an American phenomenon.

Comm Products and Change in the DPRK

As everyone that knows me is aware, I’m deeply interested in North Korea. I find it all fascinating: foreign policy, America’s involvement, the Regime, and in particular the markets and the rise of cultural products, and the telecommunication industry.

I’m actually working on a paper in relation to the later two of that list. Many North Korean scholars have high hopes that through the use of the markets with access to cultural and communication products like South Korean dramas, Chinese TVs that can pick up Chinese broadcasts, radios, etc, that there will be a change from the ground up. Meaning that there will be examples of civic unrest leading to the ultimate goal: democracy.

This will be a long and hard fight, but there are examples of change from within the Regime that are tolerating the capitalist market ventures, and allowing forms of advertising, mostly small billboards, to be present. Advertising is an increasingly capitalist concept, so one can only believe that the country truly is changing via the capitalistic enterprise of the markets.

The telecommunication industry also has a large amount of foreign investment to rebuild the failing infrastructure. Orascom, an Egyptian company is investing up to $400 million in a 3G-cell phone system that would be quite comparable to the international standard with SMS, voice mail, and call waiting, etc capabilities. This is exciting as well for multiple reasons. Orascom has developed the largest advertising campaign, well really the only advertising campaign in North Korea, with an information basis to teach the citizens about the products, and how to use them. Also, in Castell’s article “The Mobile Civil Society,” it is discussed how the citizens in the Philippines used their cell phones to ultimately oust the President. It can only be hoped that events like this could begin in the DPRK. And lastly, for when the Regime finally does fall, it doesn’t hurt the rest of the world that part of the society is up to date for economic reasons.

Sure this hope for democracy seems like a long shot, especially through the “use” of items such as South Korean dramas, and radio broadcasts that are illegal for the North Koreans to hear. This is the best hope for a change within the civil society that could prompt large-scale reform. If anything, it gives the world diplomacy options for how to start the progress, at a time that it appears North Korea needs it.

Pragmatic Complexity and Ritual November 22, 2010

The strategy of “pragmatic complexity,” as discussed in A 21^st Century Model for Communication in the Global War of Ideas, underscores experimentation and complexity as essential factors for strategic communication.  This contrast between the message influence model and a pragmatic complexity model parallels James Carey’s concept of a transmission versus a ritual view of communication.

In, Communication as Culture, Carey describes a ritual view of communication as, “directed not toward the extension of messages in space but toward the maintenance of society in time; not the act of imparting information but the representation of shared beliefs.” (18) In the ritual view, communication is a structure, a networked set of beliefs that creates and maintains a reality for a group of individuals.  This view reflects the complexity of the “system as a whole” and the context of persons A and B while also acknowledging the meaning making and preservation function of communication.

Corman writes that, “In the language of communication science, communication is the medium through which individuals and groups construct their social realities.  Once a system – a social reality – is created, it has a tendency to sustain itself even in the face of contradictory information and persuasive campaigns.  Members of the system routinely and often unconsciously, work to preserve the existing framework of meaning.  To accomplish this they interpret messages in ways that “fit” the existing scheme, rather than in ways that senders may intend.” (8)

In this way, Corman emphasizes the critical need to work with existing narratives to transformatively create new frames and beliefs, understanding ritual and redefining your narrative and message within it.

 

Public Diplomacy – Turning Al Hurra into Al Jazeera November 19, 2010

I personally am having a difficult time discussing the subject of public diplomacy in a way that hasn’t been touched upon either during class yesterday or by my fellow bloggers. But I’ve decided I’ll talk about a practical comparison and how our public diplomacy media outlets could emulate popular media to become more successful.

Television Al Hurra is the US’ public diplomacy channel in the Middle East and, for several reasons, is rather unliked in the region. The primary reason for this is that the intended viewers see the channel as serving US interests alone (as discussed in Philip Seib’s New Media and the New Middle East).  Conversely, there are several reasons why Al Jazeera is so overwhelmingly popular – while the majority of this preference relates to it being a “home-grown” product with counterflow views to major Western outlets, another aspect is how Al Jazeera features participation in many of its programs.

By holding large segments of call-in or live audience A&A, Al Jazeera has created a public sphere for the region’s otherwise voiceless people. It is my firm belief that this one aspect of Al Jazeera is one of it’s most positive, and also something that the people in the area appreciate and love. As such, it becomes clear that any outlet trying to compete with Al Jazeera should also feature this type of participation. If Al Hurra were to have discussions, debates, Q&A, and call-in segments, it might increase their popularity because audiences in the region have a proven interest in that.

Furthermore, this would alleviate the problems discussed by Tretheway, Corman, et al – of focusing too much on the message rather than the act of communicating and sharing dialogue. If public diplomacy outlets launched by the United States focused on promoting dialogue between themselves and the residents, some positive outcome would be more likely.

As I examine this concept more, the main block to this process is that, in order to engage in a mutual dialogue, both sides have to be open to discuss and possibly change their viewpoint. I sincerely doubt that foreign policy practitioners, as well as the United States as a country, are seriously interested in changing any aspect or even in learning from the exchange. This brings to light another facet implied by the theorists we discussed – public diplomacy as a shared learning experience. That is what we’re really lacking, and also what we really desperately need to strive for to have a successful, positive relationship.

Hilldog and the Giant November 18, 2010

For this blog obviously I was going to write about public diplomacy, but I didn’t want to make the typical run of the mill “America does it bad” or “soft power is blah blah” statement. Yet I was struggling trying to come up with an idea. I google imaged for some inspiration and found a lovely cartoon that I think illustrates the truth in American PD. To me it illustrates that obviously American public diplomacy exists…but it is greatly overshadowed by the military and government actions.

 

Then I returned to the weekly reading and found a great quote: “The soft power of a country rests primarily on three sources: its culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad), and its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority)” – Joseph Nye. This is a very interesting statement that makes logical sense in terms of the components of soft power. Obviously these three components are all drastically related, but personally I think that the political values are the most dominant component, specifically in relation to the government living up to what they say they do abroad. That provides evidence of the moral authority and in turn makes the culture more attractive abroad.

 

Then after still not feeling finished with the blog, and while chatting with a friend in med school (who is very politically savvy), I asked for inspiration for my public diplomacy blog. The response was somewhat amusing:

Ashley: Write my public diplomacy blog.

TJ: What’s that?

Ashley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power

TJ: OH Hilldog does that all the time!

Ashley: haha yeah she does.

 

I want to say that this lack of awareness is reflective of soft power. In ways I think it’s true…the American public isn’t directly involved with most forms of American PD, unless they are in the elite few that study abroad, join the peace corps, or are a scholar (and this way Hilldog wouldn’t be doing it all!)

From these three sources I conclude that in order for American public diplomacy to make a larger impact it needs American military and government practices to live up to what they say they will abroad. That provides evidence of the moral authority and in turn makes the culture more attractive abroad, reassuring the three main components of PD. In doing this, PD will also gain a larger share of the foreign world’s viewpoint and the military will not be such a giant on the forefront of international perceptions. Lastly, there needs to be more examples of direct engagement from the American public. This is one of the best ways to enact PD and without it occurring it continues the government/military giant perception.

Ahead of My Time

I am ahead of my time…by exactly one week. Last week I posted a comment on Public Diplomacy before reading any of the articles for this week ahead of time and this is what I said [cut down a little bit]:

I have done some traveling and you know what’s the best way to change someone’s image of the U.S.? For them to actually meet someone from the U.S., someone who isn’t in a television screen drinking coffee at their local cafe on a couch with five of their closest friends or a man behind a podium with a big white house on it making a public speech. 9 times out of 10 these are the images people had in their heads of Americans being just like stock sitcom people or completely agreeing with a man at a press conference espousing views of his America that don’t necessarily convey the views of the nation as a whole. …Once people got to know us as individual people, as sisters, nieces, cousins etc they knew that we were absolutely no different from them in the fundamentally human ways that matter…

This was the gist of what I said as well as the U.S. should have more individual level interaction with foreign publics and I personally volunteered to go around the world on the U.S.’s dime to do them this favor- you’re welcome. Then lo and behold this week the readings were about Public Diplomacy and the different ways most countries these days are performing Public Diplomacy especially using the internet and Web 2.0 diplomacy and interaction from the actual public in Public Diplomacy and not just top down diplomacy. I do believe that the Internet is the way that Public Diplomacy is headed: its widely accessible and its cheap, however, I don’t think we should ever forget the value of the micro level interactions in Public Diplomacy. In the article by Joseph Nye “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power,” Nye talks about the power in individual interaction through exchange programs, scholarships and conferences. While this takes more time, and is more expensive and may have what seems like a limited effect because of the seemingly minimal impact it has- I believe it has the most lasting and powerful impact. I will use my own life as an example. Before I lived in Switzerland I had a lot of presuppositions about certain European people- all from movies and television so completely wrong. For one thing I thought that all German people were scary evil people (thanks Schindler’s List), but now one of my best friends is a girl I met in Switzerland from Munich. I even came back to the states and studied German for a little while. From her perspective she had never had a black friend from any country. It was a new experience and an eye opener for both of us.

In class we also talked about Tony Blair’s support for the Bush administration and how people attributed this to his time spent abroad, I think this is an excellent example of how individual experiences last a lifetime and may even have a broader impact on the world someday. This is why I think an emphasis on human connections in Public Diplomacy cannot be swept aside even as we implement new web based programs and should always be a major part of the United States or any other country’s PD effort.

Global News Networks and Structural Violence November 12, 2010

In, On Suffering and Structural Violence: A View from Below, Paul Farmer describes structural violence as an intrinsic denial of people’s fundamental humanity through the structures of everyday life and social constructs that are continually reproduced.

 

Media play a central role in creating and affirming belief systems, central narratives, and worldviews by setting the agenda, and this includes what is and what is not discussed globally.   Farmer mentions that silence is a central culprit in enforcing existing structures (or, literally, lack thereof in terms of underdevelopment).

 

Powers and El-Nawawy discuss the impact of media globalization in terms of their impact on fostering or hindering cross-cultural understanding and reconciliation, especially in the context of war journalism.  They mention that, “Hafez attributes this failure of media globalization to the fact that ‘the media follow rather than lead’ (p.54).  That is, rather than challenging people’s perspective or providing competing worldviews, the news media typically work toward the ‘affirmation and legitimization of national politics’ (p.54).” (265)

 

They elaborate on the way in which people turn to particular news media that cater to their worldview.  Essentially, people turn to voices that continue to affirm their core narratives rather than challenging or contextualizing them within a broad scope of perspectives.

 

In this way, the media facilitate Farmer’s structural violence by acting as mediators between structures and reflecting the status quo, or as Powers and El-Nawawy describe, “stories…that are ideologically in line with their [publics] worldviews” (266) when engaging in “war journalism.”  It falls to individual agency from both Farmer’s perspective and Powers and El-Nawawy  to engage as a global citizen.

 

I’ve Betrayed You Anderson…

Does the media frame the way we think about stories or do we have certain presuppositions that inform the media of how to frame stories in ways that are already aligned with our preconceived notions? I kept thinking about this question this week as I was reading about global news and the way it is conveyed to the public. The whole idea of media framing seems like a cyclical process. The news outlets frame stories in a particular way that, according to Powers and el-Nawawy in their article “AL-Jazeera English and global news networks,” affirms rather than informs. This means that the stories that are conveyed to viewers is framed from a point of view that the viewers have already established as their outlook and stance on the world. But where do these preconceived notions come from anyway? As we have discussed in class media has a substantial part in shaping cultures and identities within certain groups of people. This seems like the chicken and egg conundrum. However, most of the theorist today seem to think that the media is the follower and not the leader, and that in order to change the way that people view the world and the news, especially regarding global issues, that the news media need to become leaders and start changing the way that the news is presented and then later people may start to see the world in a new way. Powers and el-Nawawy used Al-Jazeera English as an example of a media outlet that is changing the way that the news is presented. Al-Jazeera’s slogan is giving a voice to the voice-less, which in itself changes the way that most media outlets present their news which Hafez says almost always favors a Western point of view.

 

Well, I had never been to Al-Jazeera English and I wanted to see if it really had a different point of view than a Western news outlet so I went to their website and also to CNN.com international to see if I could see a difference straight away between the two. The first thing I saw on Al-Jazeera was a quote in the upper right hand corner from a philosopher named Slavoj Zizek about how capitalism is leading the world into an apocalyptic doomsday… not what I was expecting from the apparent objective voice of the world today, but ok. On their homepage was a story about Haiti and how they were seeking UN relief for a cholera epidemic that has broken out in the country. I then went to CNN.com and they also had a story about the cholera outbreak in Haiti so I clicked on that was well. I decided that this story might be a little freer of Eastern/Western slant or criticism seeing as Haiti is not usually a country that is an antagonist on either side of that debate. I started with the Al-Jazeera story so that I wouldn’t taint it anymore than necessary with my western point of view.

 

This was the first I had heard of the story and Al-Jazeera gave a very in depth look at the problem of cholera in Haiti. They had a correspondent on the scene that had talked to officials from Doctors without Borders and staff from a UN office who was in charge of trying to find some funds needed to help with the epidemic. Since the earthquake in Haiti there had also been a hurricane that killed tens of people as of Al-Jazeera’s latest report. The story also talked about the anger of the people because of outbreak and also because of sanitation issues especially in the slum of cite soleil. Then I went to CNN.com to look at the story that they had published. The information that both cites had published was consistent with one another, but the Al-Jazeera story had more information and more about the people of the country and their outrage at the epidemic. I could not locate if the CNN.com story was just an update on an earlier reported story but the tone was definitely more of a recap of events than a story like the one on the Al-Jazeera site. I was honestly moved by the Al-Jazeera story and the detail of all that was happening in Haiti on top of the previous devastation. Another interesting fact is that the Al-Jazeera story started with the fact that the UN called for $164 million in aid, whereas it was mentioned halfway through the story in the CNN.com article. The point of the Al-Jazeera article was that aid was needed and the rest of the story tried to compel action with stories of events in the city. The CNN.com story started with the events of the epidemic and the mention of the aid money just seemed like another event to take in and not act upon.

 

I am not saying that Al-Jazeera English will be my new home page (I just changed it to CNN from google to make myself look more “cosmopolitan”…and I finally took the two minutes to figure out how to do it on my computer), but I think that this is an eye opener that I need to take charge of my media intake. Its fine to urge the news outlets to change their output, but the fact of the matter is that they have other interests to consider in the way they disseminate news. I think we should all challenge ourselves to be more discerning when it comes to what we ingest and what we believe. Its up to each person to decide what news they what to receive, and in today’s world it is as simple as the click of a button. Then we will see if the media is a reflection of our norms or vice versa, because we should see a change in the way that our news outlets inform us. So let the change begin—internally.