One of the best books I have come across that deals with this topic is Mc Nair, B, 2006, Cultural Chaos- Journalism, news and power in a globalised world, Routledge, New York and I would recommend it to anyone interested in further reading on globalisation.
Mc Nair (2006) argues globalisation has permitted diversification, decentralisation and democratisation within the international media sphere as we are no longer limited to information within our own country or cultural space. Mc Nair (2006) also believes this diversity of media will reduce notions of Western cultural imperialism, because it has allowed groups such as Al-Jazeera to voice their opinion online, regardless of the wishes of the West. However I tend to agree more with the readings, that media globalisation is threatening journalism and local laws. The more technology expands, the harder it will be to regulate, and as Breit (pg 213) says "while freedom of speech may flourish in this environment, other rights such as personal privacy are suffering." Similarly, the concentration of ownership is clearly dominating the market, so even if other voices are out there they are being drowned out, and have less chance of widespread success and expansion as the TNC's. I also believe that ultimately, media giants spread their interpretation of world events. Already sites like You Tube, which gives ordinary people a voice, have now been taken over by strong commercial interests, and this is bound to have an effect on the way the site's are run. So I think news and information has indeed become a commodity, and this relates to the idea of why there is little practice of public journalism. 
The emergence of new technology that can communicate across time and geographical boundaries has produced uncertainty for journalists, and requires them to re-evaluate their role and responsibilities on a global scale, something which can be detrimental to the local media landscape. There is much debate as to whether globalisation is a positive force, demolishing censorship regimes and allowing the free-flow of information, or whether it is fostering cultural imperialism (where the market of ideas is dominated by the hegemonic views of the West and its media organisations). Indeed, if we are solely exposed to global news we will inevitably become unaware of events within our own community, and this absence of local stories will affect identity. Although local adaptations and news stories still exist, syndication and globalisation increase the risk that one message will be sent to all audiences. Therefore, the journalist’s role as watchdog will be threatened, as will their ethics and accuracy, with increased pressures for speed and reliance on secondary sources. However we must not loose faith in the role of journalism, rather individual values of journalists will determine the extent to which globalisation emerges as a positive or negative force.
So what do you guys think? Has new technology really helped us learn more about global events? For example look at the lack of context provided regarding the conflict in Georgia.
Other useful sources include-
Other useful sources include-
1) Lull, J, 2000, Media, Communication, Culture- A Global Approach, 2nd edn, Polity Press, Great Britain
2) Thussu, D.K, 2006, International Communication- Continuity and Change, 2nd edn, Hodder Arnold, London
3) Tomlinson, J, 1997, ‘Cultural Globalisation and Cultural Imperialism’, in A Mohammadi (ed), International Communication and Globalisation, Sage, London, pp. 170-190
4) Barker, C, 2000, ‘Alternatives: Channels of Resistance?’, in J Beynon & D Dunkerley (eds), Globalisation- The Reader, The Athlone Press, London, pp. 193-195
5) Flew, T, 2008, New Media- An Introduction, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press, Australia
No comments:
Post a Comment