Analysis Question #2 - Global Governance

As McChesney illustrates, the global media “system is dominated by fewer then ten global TNCs, with another four or five dozen firms filling out regional and niche markets.” Should we be concerned that so much power is held by only a few entities? Absolutely. With conglomerates controlling the content of information distributed to the public, we as consumers are not always getting unbiased, unfiltered, objective information. The information that we do receive is subject to the whims of the corporate conglomerates that produce the information in a manner which is beneficial to their bottom line, as well as the bottom lines of their sponsors. McChesney describes the global media system as “one that advances corporate and commercial interests and values, and denigrates or ignores that which cannot be incorporated into its mission.” Nation-states indeed must consider revising the global governance of media systems in order to increase the diversity of information that is produced. The current global governance system does not encourage media companies to produce information that would be considered critical of their parent company. Therefore, how can we rely on them to adequately and objectively inform the public of diverse views.

There needs to be strong national governance over the media systems. This is necessary in order to ensure that the public sphere allows for discourse on public issues without the influence of media conglomerates that have their own agendas. In the reading “Global Governance,” the authors(Siochru, Girard & Mahan) explain that the public sphere provides “diversity in media content” where voices that are disinterested in sectional interest and more concerned with transparent and open communication and debate can express themselves on matters of common concern. A functioning public sphere is essential for democracy, however the current global governance systems does not allow for this. With media conglomerates dominating the information that we consume, we are not exposed to a diversity of ideas, but rather, we are exposed to information that highlights what is in their best interests.

The authors of “Global Governance” explain that plurality encourages “a multiplicity of different types of media, offering people different avenues for media participation and reaching different audiences with a variety of range and depth of content.” However, what good are these various sources if they are all being controlled by one entity. Just because there are many different media outlets does not mean there are a diversity of opinions being expressed through these channels. It just means that a singular opinion is being expressed through multiple channels. In fact, the increase of media offerings is perhaps more dangerous to the public sphere because it gives the guise that diverse opinions are being expressed, when in fact this is not the case.

With more national governance, we will be more likely to receive information that would allow for uninfluenced public discussion without the interference of corporate interests. The public sphere is necessary for democracy, and it will only work properly if the media stops functioning as a tool of corporate interests and is governed on a national level.

Telenovelas Promoting the Census

There was an interesting article in the Post (sorry, Prof. Hayden) about a new effort by Telenovelas to promote participation in the Census by Latinos. (As Thussu's article alluded to last week, this popular format provides an effective vehicle for transmitting messages.) A character on a popular Telenovela will gain employment as a census worker to both temper fears that participation is not private and to emphasize the importance of this effort in securing funding for groups that may not be accurately counted. The Post questions, "What is Telemundo up to? Does its experimental census subplot have something to do with subliminal advertising, product placement, ratings? The answer is sort of, but not exactly. What it's really about is a mash-up of a familiar tradition in Latin American media behavior with the needs of a sophisticated modern gringo public-service campaign."

The print version is a bit longer and has more detail on this arrangement (which involved no exchange of money and no contract.) Of course, in accessing the online version I thought of last night's class again when I was delayed by two successive ads that covered the entire screen.

You Can't Have One Without the Other

This week’s reading, “Geo-ethnic storytelling,” particularly resonated with me, and put a lot of my childhood into perspective. Everyday when I was home with my mother, who is an immigrant from Guyana, I would be forced to listen to Guyanese news radio broadcasts. In particular, I have fond memories of my mother blasting “Caribbean Experience,” a Saturday evening radio show that plays Caribbean music and infuses news stories about the Caribbean in order to “bring the island home a little closer.” As my mother cooked Guyanese “pepper pot stew”, “ox-tail soup” and “sorell juice,” she would listen intently to the news stories from her home country and dance up a storm to the rhythms of her native Caribbean music. As a child, I never understood why that radio show was such an integral part of her life and often made her cry, laugh, smile and shout about issues in her home country. Now, it all makes sense.

My mother was simply feeling the effects of geo-ethnic story telling, which the authors describe as “a practice that aims to produce culturally relevant and locally vital information to immigrants in the host society.” The reading focuses on print material, however, geo-ethnic story telling can play out in any form of media. Caribbean Experience is broadcast from Howard University and focuses on reaching the Caribbean Diaspora in the Washington DC area. The article argues that geo-ethnicity has to be ethnically or culturally relevant AND geographically bound to effectively reach the immigrant community.

Both elements are absolutely necessary, and without them, the ethnic media will not have an impact on the desired community. I saw this play out when I would travel with my mother to visit my Granny in New York. Granny faithfully, and almost exclusively, listened to New York-focused Caribbean radio broadcasting. My mother would listen as well, however, she was never really persuaded by these broadcasts to participate in the New York Caribbean community. Of course, she was interested in the broadcasts because it informed her about her homeland, however she was not as engaged in New York Caribbean issues as she was in DC. She perceived the New York broadcasts to be irrelevant to her daily life in DC.

This sentiment also appears to play out within the Caribbean media itself. For example, during the Carnival festival season, neither the New York, nor the DC Caribbean media seem to make a concerted effort to promote Carnival celebrations in other areas of the U.S. Most focus on encouraging their constituency to attend the local version of Carnival, as there are approximately 19 Carnival festivals held throughout the U.S. over a four month period. Although Caribbean people in the U.S. usually travel to other regions to attend Carnival festivals, there does not seem to be any media campaigns to promote the festivals on a macro level. In turn, my mother would never make an effort to attend New York Carnival, even if she was in New York, during festival season. Although she was culturally tied to the Caribbean people in New York, she was not vested geographically and therefore had no desire to attend.

Ethnic media plays a great role in preserving cultural identity and keeping immigrants connected to the homeland. However, in order for this media to be relevant to its target audience, it must not only be culturally relevant, but it must have some significance to the local community. Without both of these crucial elements, ethnic media will not be meaningful to immigrant communities.

Globalization: Exports and Imports of Foreign Media

This week’s readings had a recurring topic: the global media, who dominates the sphere and the factors of imports or exports of foreign media. McChesney, Thussu, and Tunstall all agree that the United States (US) is the largest exporter of media to the extent that many people call media globalization, the Americanization of media. Although it has been proven that people have a preference for local media, many countries import some US content. I personally think that even if you do see American movies and television programs, it does not mean this will eliminate your local culture. Maybe some phrases and fashion trends might be copied from the TV shows, but the culture in essence will not be affected by it.

In Puerto Rico, being a Commonwealth of the US, most of our media is imported from the US. We only have about 4 local TV channels, all the rest are American. I have also experienced the glocalization Robert McChesney describes in his article, “The Media System Goes Global”. Glocalization refers to the globalizing media with a local focus. For example, international broadcasting stations like ABC, FOX, The CW, CBS they keep the same basic programming but add some local features so it appeals more to the public in a specific country. They do this by showing local commercials, renaming the channels as, for example FOX Puerto Rico, ABC Puerto Rico, and so on. For some reason, this makes the channels seem more unique and gets you thinking, “Wow! This programming is made just for me”, although they are just passing the same schedule as they do in the US.

The US’s biggest export market is the European Union (EU). US media products also reach many other countries in either a direct or indirect manner as Jeremy Tunstall explains in “Media Nationalism”. Direct exports refer to programs, movies, etc. that have no alterations and is presented in the foreign country exactly as in the country of origin. Indirect exports are the ones that include alterations such as: subtitles, dubbed in another language, cutting out scenes because of cultural, religious, or political reasons, and selling a program idea and format to another country so they may produce it. The indirect forms of exporting media make it less obvious where it is coming from.

Hollywood has an extraordinary dominance over the film industry since the beginning of its days. Daya Kishan Thussu tells us that in 2004, US exports of film and TV programs totaled $10,480 million and it continues to grow annually. Hollywood just as other international companies has many joint ventures and partnerships with countries such as Canada, Great Britain, and Australia. This variety makes Hollywood movies appeal to a more diverse audience which maximizes profits and increases exports. Hollywood does have its competitors, like: Bollywood, a film industry from India; Japanese anime and manga, which has grown to be very popular; and Telenovelas, Latin American soap operas shown in most Spanish speaking countries and in the US where there is a large Hispanic population.

The globalization of media has many different faces: imports, exports, dominating countries… It is clear that the US has great control over media globalization and is country with the most exported media. Although new technologies have allowed new competitors to come into the mix with Hollywood, this will probably not affect its growth and quantity of exports.

You Say Global, I Say Glocal

When we received our syllabus, Prof Hayden made mention of the fact that while our textbook was literally being printed this fall, it would swiftly become out of date. While the theory and history of Thussu and others remain relevant, reading our articles from even as recently as 2007 makes me wonder what has happened since their publication. Have the big three media giants changed? Are the predicted countries continuing to show promise? I looked up current news stories on this week’s topics and discovered that, in short, the predictions of our readings have played out. From India and China continuing to experience incredible growth – even admit infrastructure issues and censorship debates – to Murdoch’s empire continuing to grow – these articles provided an accurate framework for understanding today’s updates.

The Economist had a cover story feature on the telecom industry in emerging markets last week, focusing on a range of topics from mobile phones being used for paying bills in Africa to the challenges and victories of infrastructure in India. Fox announced just last week that it is investing in its first Chinese film. (An interesting development considering Murdoch’s murky past with China, as discussed by McChesney.) Murdoch’s team has been busy in other areas as well, having announced this week that News Corp. is creating its own “internal wire service”. As an example of “glocalization”, this service will not be responsible for original content, but will “rejigger copy from the company’s far-flung news outlets so it is suitable for local audiences”. Other changes are afoot as well. Similarly, Murdoch announced today that it will begin charging for select content within its websites for The Times and The Sunday Times. “We are moving away from the traditional model of volume in favour of developing more direct relationships with our customers based on their interests and passions."

While our readings focused on globalization, what they demonstrated (which was reinforced in these news stories) is that globalization has never achieved an equal flow (thank you, Castells) between nations. As Rai and Cottle point out, while it’s great that India is watching CNN, how many of us have ever seen ZEE TV? At best, we’re experiencing “glocalization”, typically in one direction, and even that has limited reach (and questionable effectiveness).

Further, McChesney’s article proposes that globalization may encourage media, especially films, to move away from displaying controversial messages such as negative portrayals of ethnic groups because their products may be seen and challenged by an international audience. We’re also seeing this work in reverse, however. In an attempt to “glocalize” their products, multinational companies such as L’Oreal and Pond’s are using their extensive advertising budgets to tailor campaigns – and hoping their controversial messages won’t be found out. While in India this summer, I repeatedly saw advertisements that strongly insinuated that love could be found after using skin lightening creams. This article raises the question of the ethical responsibility of multi-national corporations and points out that “multinationals are falling over themselves trying to "think globally and act locally". Here is a case where acting locally has been manipulated into a calculated double standard.”

McDisney

We all remember the days growing up filled with McDonald’s Happy Meals and Disney Movies. Some of my fondest memories were days where we would be picked up from school by my dad and then meet my mom for dinner near her office. While I’m sure my parents would have preferred to any other type of food fare, they always obliged to our request and shouts of “McDonalds”. And there we would sit with our greasy food, around a not so clean table, discussing the events of the day. The only thing that further contributed to the happiness would of course be a Happy Meal Toy. Then we would go home and gather in the living room to watch the newest Disney video on VHS. Those are the memories that make up childhood for most of us.

Robert McChesney’s “The Media System Goes Global” discusses the rise and impact of global media partnerships, one of these being the 10 year partnership between two of the worlds giants – Disney and McDonalds. When consuming happy meals and playing with happy meal toys as children it never occurred to us to think of the logistics behind such a merger. Although the partnership was not in existence until 1996 and we were past happy meals by then, the story still lends itself to a great case study. As McChesney states, “Disney and McDonald’s [had] a 10 year exclusive partnership to promote each other’s products in 109 nations, a relationship so detailed that the Wall Street Journal termed the two firms McDisney”. This means that between 1996 and 2006, all the Happy Meal toys were promotions of Disney movies and other Disney products. However, this seemingly genius partnership was not to be renewed when it came to a close in 2006.

The last Disney movies to be promoted with Happy Meal toys were Cars and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest. Although the 10 year deal probably benefited both companies, there were negative implications. Due to the language of the contract, McDonald’s advertising budget was largely spoken for in terms of happy meals. Confined specifically to Disney promotions, McDonald’s was stuck often promoting a movie that was not successful, such as Treasure Planet. While McDonalds was forced to promote such failures, its competitors such as Burger King could promote other studio’s films, such as DreamWorks widely popular Shrek series (Fast Food Chain has Beef with Disney). Disney also had issues with the partnership. As McDonalds faced increasing complaints about the unhealthy nature of its food, Disney wanted to distance itself from the often criticized fast food giant. The connection between Disney’s movies and McDonald’s happy meals may not have been a big issue if the food in the happy meals kids begged for was healthy (Disney Dumps McDonalds).

Disney is characterized as a part of “The Holy Trinity” by McChesney, its holdings including ABC, ESPN, Miramax, resorts, and much more. Its widely popular movies have developed young teenage stars who appeal to kids around the world. On the surface, such a popular culture firm should have been successful with the most recognized golden arches in the world. However, the negative implications as mentioned earlier led to conflicts of interest, and ultimately the decision by both partners to not renew the agreement for another ten years. The fairy tale of mergers did not end in happily ever after. But, both firms continue separately to encourage children around the globe to find their own happily ever after with their happy meal toys and animated movies.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/05/disney_mcdonalds.html (Disney Dumps McDonalds)

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jun/14/business/fi-disney14 (Fast Food Chain has Beef with Disney)

The Global Film Industry and one Australian (or American?) Movie

Today I saw a movie, The Boys are Back, about a father (Clive Owen) who must raise his two sons alone after his wife suddenly dies of cancer. Boys was set in southern Australia, although it featured a mix of Aussie and British actors. As an independent film, it came out in DC this week in limited release. I had thought, naively, that because it was an indie film set and filmed in Australia, the country would see its hospitality returned by having the movie released there first, or at least on the same date as in the US.

But when the movie was starting and I saw the Miramax logo glitter on the screen, I began to question that assumption. A quick search on IMDb when I got home revealed that The Boys are Back will not be released in Australia until November 12th (and, just for good measure, in the UK until January 15th, 2010). Miramax, headed by the Weinstein brothers, is an American film production and distribution company. So it follows that Boys would be released in the US before going to European and other countries, despite the fact that it features no American actors and was not filmed in America. As a moviegoer, I found this rather ironic--albeit not that surprising.

For the record, I really enjoyed the movie; the acting was superb and the cinematography gorgeous. I also found it refreshing to watch a movie not set in the US, that did not feature big-name American actors or an American director (Scott Hicks is a Uganda-born Australian). The irony of the distribution schedule just made me think about mass media globalization and its impact on the film industry--a very relevant application to this week's IC Reader selections, especially Robert McChesney's. In "The Media System Goes Global," McChesney provides lists of the holdings of the "holy trinity" of global media: TimeWarner, The Walt Disney Company, and The News Corporation, which we read about in detail last week. Miramax is owned by Disney, making it part of one of the most powerful media TNCs in the world. As a subsidiary of a major American company, Miramax naturally promotes and pursues American interests, which translates to releasing films in the United States first, even when those films are not set in America and/or have American casts. Perhaps it's telling that The Boys are Back has only a limited release here; Miramax probably reasoned that the film would have more of a niche following than a widespread one. It will be interesting to see how the film does in Australia and secondarily in the UK (since Owen, its lead, is British). I think it will be at least somewhat successful; according to McChesney, 95% of Britain's box-office revenue comes from US films, and Clive Owen is a fairly big-name actor.

But the question lingers for me: Is The Boys are Back American or Australian? Yes, it has an American producer/distributor, but in my opinion nothing else about it was American in nature. From the natural setting to the characters' way of speaking to the laid-back culture portrayed, it was Australian through and through. To me, this is a prime indication of the globalization of media culture in the film industry. What makes a film American versus Australian, or any other nationality for that matter? Is it just the film distributor that deems it so, or should we look more at the film's content, cast/crew, and style?

Jeremy Tunstall makes a good point about this in "Anglo-American, Global, and Euro-American Media versus Media Nationalism": "Today, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland all have film industries that operate in partnership with Hollywood." After reading Tunstall's piece, I would term The Boys are Back as an Australian film with an American distribution partnership. This somewhat satisfied my question about the film's national identity. I still don't think it's quite right for this very Australian movie to be released here first, but it's just another indicator of America's dominance over the worldwide film industry, which seems likely to continue for the foreseeable future.