Carterwrites

The worldwide exportation of movies, particularly by the American film industry, is exposing cultures to one another in a manner foreign to past generations. Individuals and even entire societies are learning of the West through the viewing of movies; unfortunately, such exposure indiscriminately erodes cultural identities. Movies are a vehicle for globalization, and the question of globalization as a positive or negative force is paramount. Does the influence of film serve to unify viewers across the globe with common understanding, or erase the diversity that enriches the human experience?

Our class assignment this week was to explore a possible negative effect of a mass medium; through secondary research and analysis I have concluded that the film industry’s role in globalization is detrimental to the fragility of culture.

To gain insight into the trend of globalization through America’s hegemony on filmmaking, I have examined several academic journals that address the issue. The International Journal of Cultural Policy was fairly critical of Western media’s influence, as it recognized “the homogenizing trend of global markets dominated by American films and television programs” (Feigenbaum, 2004, p. 252).

There is little doubt that in film we export more than simple laughs and explosive adrenaline-packed action. I believe the effects of American film are extremely powerful, framing worldviews and repackaging Western ideas under the benign label of entertainment. Feigenbaum addresses the issue, asserting that with the increased distribution of media, “people located over increasingly extended areas began to see themselves as part of the same culture, and part of the reason for the change is that the barriers of distance had been demolished by technology” (2004, p. 252). With further reading, a clear argument crystallized upon diversity as vital to the human race, “a kind of insurance policy” that encourages “constant renewing of the intellectual environment” (Feigenbaum, 2004, p. 253).

In reviewing three academic articles, I confirmed my understanding that many nations are beginning to pursue cultural protectionism and developing a sense of cultural nationalism that is often juxtaposed with a world moving toward economic liberalism. It may seem strange to view the film industry as a threat to national cultures, but it is a theory supported by well-respected researchers across the globe. The connection between film and globalization is much more abstract than many areas of research, but its existence is generally undisputed in academic circles; the matter becomes subjective at whether or not it is harmful, and in that I take my cue from researchers who have spent lifetimes studying the mal-effects.

Mitsuhiro Yoshimoto, in the journal of Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, even goes as far as to name the Hollywood cinema as having a “complicit relation with a particular vision of globalization in which the world is divided into the U.S. as the unmarked centre and the rest as national particularities” (2003, p. 451). I find it difficult to accept that the American media is in possession of an ethnocentric agenda for globalization, but I do believe its sole aim is to create a profit. In that pursuit, elements of culture are trampled and the film industry serves to corroborate claims of American imperialism.

Although it is evident that the pervasion of Western movies is instrumental in reshaping societal mores, such transformation is inevitable. Whether led by Hollywood’s capitalistic industries, the advent of the Internet, or the gradual erasure of borders through modern transportation, there is a movement toward uniformity. I hope the sharing of ideologies revitalizes humanity’s recognition of a common foundation while allowing cultures to maintain independent identities. It remains to be seen whether globalization will be of benefit to the world or if will provide additional tools for exploitation and degradation of the weak by the powerful. Perhaps the outcome is beyond control, or perhaps it is in the hands of my generation.

*Ishmael Beah’s memoir A Long Way Gone, speaks of his time as a boy soldier in Sierra Leone, and the heavy influence violent films had upon young recruits. It was the special adoration Beah’s squad had for Rambo that contributed to the development of a violent psyche.

References:

Carroll, R. (1952). Selecting motion pictures for the foreign market. Journal of Marketing. 17(2), 162-171.

Feigenbaum, H. (2004). Is technology the enemy of culture? International Journal on Cultural Policy. 10(3), 251-263.

Yoshimoto, M. (2003). Hollywood, Americanism, and the imperial screen: geopolitics of image and discourse after the end of the Cold War 1. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies. 4(3) 451-459.

Attention world: a stripper’s flying shoe has sparked a lawsuit somewhere in the great expanse of the American south. More specifically, at Florida’s Booby Trap club. 

Oh, and 300 suspected illegal Mexicans in South Carolina were torn from their families and are awaiting deportation in the wake of a massive immigration raid.

Whatever. Doesn’t the stripper intrigue you? Now that will sell advertising space! At least CNN seems to think so, as evidenced by the story’s prominent and bold placement online.

This week’s assignment for Mass Media & Society was to reflect upon the differences between a mainstream media source and an alternative medium. I chose CNN because it’s a favorite and trusted source for many, and Democracy Now because I have confidence in their independent reporting. The first three minutes of my exploration had me chuckling at the stark contrast in my chosen sources’ top U.S. headlines. It would have seemed melodramatic to cry at CNN’s ridiculous focus on sensationally cheap stories, so instead, I laughed, not without bitterness, and obligingly read on.

Conversely, the nonprofit activist group Democracy Now gave me hope in its attempt to force Americans to face the harsh realities of a nation bordering the impoverished Mexican state. Yes, the issue of immigration was highlighted over the many glittering and popular topics of the day. It would seem that the alternative news medium seeks to address current issues with a force and dedication less evident in the corporate world of CNN.

I do not believe mainstream media is fatally flawed, but it is likely their freedom to report the news is restricted, as they must answer to money. To visit CNN online is to be exposed to consumerism at its worst. Pop-up ads, messages encouraging weight loss, flashing Netflix links, and enticing offers for phone service. Once I was able to swat away the pop-ups, there were some relevant articles reported on location by journalists, along with a disappointing amount of coverage wired from the Associated Press.

In today’s coverage, CNN reported on a successful air strike that killed 60 Pakistani rebels. Democracy Now exposed the death of 35 Afghan civilians as a result of a NATO strike last Thursday. Further, Democracy Now states that NATO has recognized that an attack was carried out, but is refusing to acknowledge the death of civilian noncombatants. Such a tragic story is unlikely to appear in mainstream media for months, and in my opinion, will not surface at all unless forced by undeniable evidence and a unified call for the truth. But who wants truth when it is so entrenched in the mud of our own failures? Without reporting by alternative media groups such as Democracy Now, the “informed” American would know only of a great success in Pakistan, and a (promising?) silence in Afghanistan.

Although I generally believe CNN leans to the left in their coverage, I found it surprising that their reporting on the wars and conflicts in the Middle East were fairly supportive of U.S. policy, or at the very least, blind to any missteps. Most disconcerting was that of today’s four stories in the Middle East section, two uncritically addressed U.S. actions, and one told the story of a couple arrested in Dubai for having sex in public. I would like to believe in a world where “sex sells” is overcome by “unbiased, uncomfortable, and undeniable facts sell”, especially in this time of worldwide upheaval and war. I guess I can just keep on dreaming. Either that or read Democracy Now.

The constant barrage of media assaulting Americans during this controversial election season requires us to discern responsible reporting from shallow, grasping headlines. My professor has asked our class to monitor several days of election coverage in order to discover the balance and quality of its presentation. We will use the roles described in Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman’s book “The Press Effect” as a frame to analyze our chosen media source. To best diagram my argument, I will utilize Toulmin’s model.

Over the last three days, I have followed election news posted by the New York Times. Despite the Times’ attempt to conceal journalistic biases, the paper often served as a platform for partisan politics. In my opinion the Times’ political articles within the last three days have done a disservice to their readers, inadequately preparing them to navigate the complexities of the 2008 election.

The New York Times has presented me with a disproportionate number of articles relaying only the facts without verification, and ignoring their implications. It became clear that like many media outlets, the Times easily falls victim to the “press as storyteller” role. Articles that dealt with enormous issues such as the candidate’s views on nuclear power, diplomatic efforts with Pakistan, and the impending recession did nothing to address the plausibility of offered solutions, or even their probable impact. The governing philosophies of Obama and McCain were rarely called into question. Instead the focus remained upon the tiresome game of “he said, she said”, or even worse, lofty analyses and unsupported claims of what the politicians were really saying. I also noticed a disconcerting amount of horserace coverage, with terms such as competition, battle, winner, and loser saturating the stories and creating an empty sense of urgency. Prominent alongside storytelling was the supporting role of “press as psychologist”. The Times has created caricatures of the two tickets, and is now selling them to the public as accurate portrayals. The magnification of selected traits was prevalent in many articles, and it did much to distort the candidates’ character and public perception.

There are significant problems found in the media’s concentration upon promises rather than governance history, their propensity to allow stories to shape the facts, and their creation of political personas. The primary goal of journalists should be to attain the vital role of “press as custodian of fact”. The New York Times seemed much more prone to fulfilling roles inconsistent with its duty to seek truth. A quality journalist must provide a balanced frame from which the public can become informed, but in my reading that purpose was abandoned. The Times’ was able to compensate marginally for its jaded and willful voice by acting as a watchdog, selectively calling attention to misplaced quotes and freeing them of rival politician’s distortions. If it could have expanded the emphasis on truth and analysis more often, I would have come away with higher confidence in the Times’ recent coverage.

As a devoted reader of The New York Times, I expect to receive information that will both challenge and inform me. When that does not happen, the media has failed itself, and it has failed the public. The mission of the press should not be corrupted by the need to sell headlines, or the extreme bias of its source. If influential and reputable outlets like The New York Times were to consistently slip in their provision of comprehensive and informative coverage, then our society would be deeply damaged. It is imperative that the media maintain a reverence for truth, as the press is the strongest form of accountability.   

“But words are things, and a small drop of ink, falling like dew upon a thought, produces that which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think.”

~Lord Byron

The beauty of this quote is something I was taught to believe in at a young age. I love the great power of language and its ability, as Byron said, to institute change. As a student at the University of Oregon, I have been given the opportunity to define myself within the educational community, and within the world. I am working toward undergraduate degrees in Journalism and International Studies. They are fields that will complement one another in giving me a platform from which I can begin to make an impact.

Perhaps this blog will help me to publicly develop a voice. To not only share my views with my readers, but to cement them within myself. I sincerely hope that with this first blog, I will begin a journey that will last a lifetime. Today I am finding within myself the courage to express my views, and tomorrow perhaps I can empower others to do the same.

Why this decision to begin writing in a forum as broadly accessible as WordPress? The credit for my creation of a blog must be given to my Mass Media and Society professor, Tiffany Gallicano. As part of our class curriculum, I will be writing consistent entries addressing assigned topics. The prompts will surround the mass media, communications, and their effects on public opinion of controversial subjects. I believe that the media has a profound influence in our society, and as responsible citizens, we must encourage honesty, and be willing to stand up when we experience otherwise.

I’ve been given 400 words to introduce myself to you. 400 words to give you insight into my character. 400 words to familiarize you with my writing. I’m surprised to find that I am struggling to reach the threshold of 400. Is that a reflection on my own inability to allow the focus to linger within my own mind? It has always been easier for me to invest in others, and dig deeply into their personality, thought processes, and opinions. No doubt more interesting. This blog may be the turning point at which I finally find comfort in Erin Carter. Not in relation or contrast to others, but solely as myself. Uncensored. Pure. Free of distraction. Here I am. Welcome.