MC1103 Approaches To The Study Of Mass Communications Part One Coursework: Question 7

TAKING A RELEVANT CASE STUDY, EVALUATE THE ARGUMENT THAT MEDIAGLOBALISATION HAS POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS: THEINTERNET'S GLOBAL VILLAGE

Brian Eno said of media!philosopher Marshall McLuhan, "he changed the world in onesentence."1 In fact, the one term, 'global village.'2 with a single swipe, makes obvious theconcept of an accessible, globalised media which operates in a unified, localised context.

Perhaps more than anyone, McLuhan understood the impact which globalisation of media hason mankind. "The electronic age," he said, has sealed "the entire human family into a singleglobal tribe,"3 and "makes mandatory that everybody adjust to the vast global environment asif it were his little home town."4

The remarkable thing about Marshall's musings is that they were written years before much oftheir subject matter could become a reality ! in fact, long before the seeds of the computerrevolution itself liad been planted.

! !Y?But now, global telecommunications media are putting the theory into practice. If television,radio and film had not quite formed a global village, then the Internet is proving to be the veryrealisation of it.

The only inherently global medium, the Internet reaches out to media users everywhere, and isnow widely accepted as part of 'the media,' with most of the content producers working inestablished media now having an additional an on!line presence, or having moved entirely toNet!based distribution.

More than any other medium, the Internet is the enabling force for the actual creation of aglobal village, pulling societies and individuals together, and opening up vast quantities ofmedia content for exploration ! content new to those wliose only media experiences wererestricted by tlie national boundaries which the Net flows over and around, content wliichallows for interaction between users, and content which can have a profound cultural impact.

As the epitome of media globalisation, this global village connects people, wherever they may^ be. The interesting point about media globalisation is that it brings to its audiences a shared

experience. Because the distribution model for content delivery can give audiences, forexample, the same episode of 'Neighbours,' or tlie same web page, the viewers and usersimmediately have something in common. It is said tills bodes for greater understanding ofother cultures, regardless ofpliysical distance. Yet it is also said that it leads to tlie erosion ofcultures, the global village replacing a 'globe of villages.'

It is often claimed that tlie globalisation of media has a homogenising effect, and thathomogenisation is basically the equal of 'Americanisation.' This is because an overwhelmingamount of media content is produced in the USA, with 45% of tlie traditional programmingincome derived from overseas buyers and consumers. It is, therefore, natural that concerns areraised over the effect of letting America, or any other media!centred country, into our homes !and our PCs. i

As a technical structure ! that is, at the same level as the series of broadcasting transmittersthat pepper nation states ! the Internet was an American development. Any medium whosemethod of distribution was developed by a particular nation will undoubtedly develop aninitial rash of content that is based in the same nation.

MC1103 Approaches To The Study Of Mass Communications Part One Coursework: Question 7

But this medium became intrinsically multi!national. The 'worldwide web' ! the facet of theInternet which has spearheaded its arrival in media!land ! was developed by an Englishmanworking in a Swiss scientific institute. It took hold in the USA because it used protocols of anetwork which was already blossoming, and because means of accessing the network ! that is,teleplione line rental and Internet subscription ! are significantly cheaper than in other nations.

So, the Internet is a medium in which the bias of the media content used by people all over theworld can be determined by particular national economic factors outside of 'foreign' control.

\

^ t^ As the only globalised mass medium, how does the Internet affect our cultures, society and^oftA politics? !!.— !>.

,tMfl«.i/M\yThe issue of'media globalisation' with reference to television, radio and film actually relates n a(/ i'to 'content globalisation,' since it is concerned with distribution of programming which is sold i i^ <si_i.^to other networks, to be broadcast at non!simultaneous times. Television, as experienced by ""A !the viewer, is not a universal medium, but one which broadcasts programming purchased in

<^ an external, economic global media framework, and the viewers' debating forum is confinedto their nation!state culture. Tlie Internet is inherently a global media access; point, a front!endwith identical content accessible to each user at any time. There is no fragmentation of, orrestriction to, worldwide media content! because any user with the correct tools can accessevery web site in an identical way.

In many ways, the Internet 'subverts' the mass media, giving users a two!way medium withwhich they can talk back to the media producers, or talk amongst themselves.

The Internet connects people of different nationality ! even at the point where cliat in a 'room'on a web site is a legitimate media commodity, with the discussion's own content being tliereaction to the given news or entertainment on the site ! "content gives chat context."5

So if mere discussion, a natural multi!directional communication process, becomes globalisedmedia content, in what way can the Internet be guilty of liomogenisation? The telephone andthe letter, too, are media for global communication, but they cannot be said to be the tools ofcultural erosion, because we each bring to the discussion the product of our now!establishedcultures ! the multi!culturalism then mingles in tlie chat content itself, rather than permeatingthe nationalism of the participants.

Language is a highly important part of culture and of keeping it alive, and it could easily beargued that English is the dominant language of Internet media. With such a huge amount ofmono!lingual content on the Internet, it is particularly feared tliat native languages willbecome used less in the countries which open their doors to global connectivity. Hence, forexample, France's reluctance to ween itself off the French!only 'Minitel' computer network,occupied by 14.5 million, and embrace the Internet, with just 1 million French users. PrimeMinister Lionel Jospin declared "France and French culture must occupy their rightful place inthe global information society."6 This would mean an in!take of non!francoplione material,but "it's not going to be a problem, as long as we have enough French sites on the Internet,"6

said a spokesman for tlie French Embassy in Washington DC. There is clearly a feeling thatany society with a globally!peripheral language can only maintain it in a globalised contextlike the Internet if it produces an equal amount of native!language media content.

Multi!lingualism in 'global culture' could be the stumbling block to McLuhan's "single globaltribe." It could be the case that only a universal language in Internet media could facilitate an

MC1103 Approaches To The Study Of Mass Communications Part One Coursework: Question 7

age "when our central nervous system is technologically extended to involve in the whole ofmankind."7 As such, it would appear that cultures wliose native language is not the onedominant in Internet media would inevitably become less pronounced. ^/

However, the Internet is tlie first participatory mass medium. It offers the ability to talk backto the producers of content, as well as get talked to, and become a media producer of one'sown ! it is a naturally empowering medium. ^ ^

So, the concerns raised over cultural erosion by television and film do not necessarily or fullyextend to the Internet, because the Internet allows the audience to contribute something of itsown culture to the media melting pot. thus helping to resist global culture's alleged onslaught,apparently giving fringe cultures greater representation and a fairer crack of the whip. ^/

Concerns that Internet media, because of this worldwide reach, could create a 'global culture'may be unfounded. On current evidence, because of the diversity of interests and groupingswithin societies, individual communities exist around on!line media which serve somemembers of society, but not all members, ^(^ly^—co ^

The trend is, therefore, that because individuals liave varying interests and mediarequirements, they fragment and use the media content of most interest to them. The Internetdraws different people from within the same national cultures. This then creates communitiesof media consumers, perhaps on the very web site which delivers the initial content. A groupof people watching The X!Files,' discussing Anglo!American politics, or playing networkedTetris, has an immense amount in common during tins experience, whether they are in the"lion!space" of global on!line media! or in tlie local lounge of their own society.

But. even when put into practice with this global medium, this does not constitute a globalculture. It does not harbour traditions, customs or even languages which are common to all\J^\!worldwide particinants. Rather, these are highly focused, active media!communities, areaction to content received within a nation!state society, but further deliberated over withinvisible audiences around the world. This is not cultural homogenisation. Tlie subject retainsnational status because in the physical, off!line society, he must still operate within hiscountry.

This fragmentary process ! that of a media consumer looking for content of relevance to aparticular interest ! adds value to the relationships Internet users find in cybei'SDace. Theseaudiences may be scattered around the world, and when they gather around media content onthe Net their cultural background is not so much thrown away, as put aside until they return to i'>the 'meatspace' of the 'real world' society. .W) o^ c*o '<JO<^ )s/vio to \ v '•!'•• • ' . fct? >' a . ! <<. •!

{ O!^lt has also been shown that, even with this most global of media, the power to re!connect non!

v! global societies is vast. When media companies from these cultures turn to the Internet as a

publishing or broadcast medium, audiences from within their national or local target group \ \"^often go on!line, using the same product produced by tlie border!controlled company, but in a ) ji vglobal mediaspace. There, nestling amongst the geographically!focused news or entertainment \,•^1^)^)'^' c!

content, they will even find cultural ex!patriots, who are eager to re!gain something of the '^society they left, and perhaps this strengthens the identity of the native cultures previouslythought to be under threat.,, ^o.xV'—G'!^^'a^ A t>(^^2> ^ ^'!^v'P^ ^ ' "!^

^ ^MJA!i'&i! 'h^ ekC<c<o;\!ic5 S^^!io!s ^Si. ^ "N^.

This culture of interaction on the Internet is not limited to representation of one's own culturein the media, or to tlie possible resurgence of local societies in a medium with global context.In politics, too. active citizens can hi!jack a worldwide stage to put over their views ! whether

MC1103 Approaches To The Study Of Mass Communications Part One Course

lobbying for UN policy amendment, or highlighting to an international audience wrongdoings

at^i^!^! .^•^:!, r.^,~^."Digital citizens are not ignorant of our system's inner workings, or indifferent to the socialand political issues our society must confront,"8 read the editorial of a recent survey of theInternet population, claiming more of the 'connected' believe in democracy than the'unconnected.' "Instead, the on!line world encompasses many of the most informed andparticipatory citizens we have ever had or are likely to have." '>J.. •!»('• •..;' _ sr^oi^v',^ i?. +<~i.t. ^<'^?iJ

9o | ^ ^ 'V&'v^ ^o^iAiiicA iM"^,^1' ^t'Jc^!'"'! ' !it. .This political awareness is surely due, in part, to the diversity of content available in on!linenews media. Media globalisation brings to the audience a greater plurality, of internationalopinion and information, whether that be news reports from organisations in a variety ofcountries, or foreign policies direct from conflicting governments. With this informationplurality, the user can arrive at a more balanced, informed opinion.

Global Internet media has another, quite drastic effect on politics. Content broadcast onnational television, which is deemed to be illegal, can be censored, or the producersreprimanded. This is because the broadcaster exists within the same national legal frameworkas the government. ~J

However, this does not apply to Internet media content. Exactly because the Internet is aglobal medium, it frequently taxes the governments and authorities which seek to regulate theinformation on it. The production network is worldwide, and the computers which serve tousers the content they store can be located anywhere. So, by placing a server outside of thelegal jurisdiction of the objecting nation state, publishers can escape prosecution, yet stillreach the audience within the country in question. Politically, the ramifications of this are thatthe voting citizen is further empowered with the possession of potentially!importantinformation ! as was the case in December 1997, when most British!based media wereforbidden from revealing the identity of the politician's son involved in a drug!sellingincident. The Internet made a mockery of the ruling because news content providers all overthe world could publish Jack Straw's name on web sites that were accessible to everyone !including Britons. The Internet by!passed laws designed for use within a wireless state,opening up the personalities and private lives of politics for all to see. So, globalisation ofmedia politically empowers the electorate and potentially increases the vulnerability of theelected, while flouting the regulations they create for media. \/ h '„. L^!A ^ctto^..^ ..,!',,^_, :...,!. ^!,.,,.,,__ ! .!,. , yam, A( (A \^fC;^ \^ CCr! ,,<C\.c^ •IrSo !l1^

dv^M^^c^ c^ ^ A;, ! </• !!, ^^V^A !"3>i i \^ ;

In conclusion, evaluating the extent to which the Internet's global village has implications forpolitics, society and culture is often difficult.

When "our central nervous system is extended" in this way, society can operate on two levels.In the global village created by the Internet, the media content and the people we meet arefamiliar to us. But we don't naturally, continually inhabit the global village, instead frequentlyreturning to the physicality of the actual village, and to the obvious relationships andenvironments within it.

Perhaps in the same way mat we can switch off the television to exist outside of the nationalmedia, we can disconnect from the global village media produced by the Net, living outsideof it, within our preserved, geographical culture, and re!producing that when we switch onagain. , !\ i . »

<^JrU^ !\ ^ ^ ! ,c_ jt ^'^^ ! '

L^A!^ ^\V ! •\ TV ! \^t^OU^ ^L^&^ • • ! (^ y^fe^

ENDNOTES/BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Eno, B. (1997 (1968)), cited in McLuhan, M, & Fiore, Q. War And Peace in The Global Village: Hardwired, SanFransisco

2. McLuhan, M. (1962), The Gutenberg Galaxy. p31; RouBedge & Kegan Paul, London

3. McLuhan, M. (1962), The Gutenberg Galaxy, p8; Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

4. McLuhan, M. & Fiore, Q. (1968) War And Peace In The Global Village. p11: Bantam, New York

5. Fink, C. (chief creative officer, Greenhouse Networks ! America On!line's media division) cited in Geiriand, J. 'MakingAOL a Media Company,' in Wired 5.11 (1997, Nov), p233; Wired Magazine Group Inc., San Fransisco

6.Jospin, L. andParuta, F. cited in Lazarus, D. 'Death of Minitel,' in 'Electric Word,' Wired 5.11, p54; Wired MagazineGroup Inc., San Fransisco

7. McLuhan, M. (1987 (1964)) Understanding Media. p4; Ark Paperbacks, London

8. Katz.J. (1997, Dec) 'The Digital Citizen; in 'The Netizen; Wired 5.12. p71 •. Wired Magazine Group Inc.. SanFransisco

APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF MASS COMMUNICATIONS

ESSAY

Name of Student: Robert AndrewsSubject of Essay: Globalisation

Regerding the amount of research you did, the originality which you show in picking andpresenting your subject, and the level at which you aim your discussion, this essay shouldand would have been a first ! if it weren't for some shortcomings that marr your otherwisehigh achievements. These shortcomings are the following:

.. •> i . i .

1. The biggest problem is that you decided to defend the positive effects of the internet atall costs, so you present a onesided discussion of the subject that doesn't pay attention tothe problems of the Net such as! it's addictive, sometimes socially distinctive effects (Experience speaking here ! I gotmore than one net friend who lost their jobs because they spent too much time chatting.) Igrant you that a lot ofnetters are enlightened world!citisens ! but because you are more orless stating that all of them are, you lay yourself open to criticism.! The establishment of a tech! / nontech!society with much greater consequences thanwe've seen up to now ! already you can only make use of most of the internet if you haveaccess to a computer and an account, something that cannot be taken for granted even inWestern societies, much less in other parts of the world.2. Linked into this seems to me that you restrict your research to critics that are mostlynet!positive ! though McLuhan certainly is one of the major voices in the field, he's farfrom being accepted without critique. Additionally, you don't indicate where the generalstatements and 'facts' you present come from ! how the hell do you know?These are the main problems I see ! slight problem as well that you don't give a seperate,alphabetised bibliography and that your structure sometimes is not 'linked up' enough ! youmake a point, then seem to forget about it to make the next point. Still: this is a very goodessay, and if you come to terms with the point that an essay has to show both sides of acoin, I expect great things of your next one. Nice work!

Grade: 69 %

Seminar Tutor: Eva Vieth