Chapter by Rhonda Breit.
The term global village was first used in the 1960's to describe the 'linking of humanity in all parts of the world' (Kirby 1998:3) Developments such as cheap print, electricity, radio, TV, satellites, direct-dial phones and mobile phones have helped to break down boarders to create a global media audience. The Internet has even further accelerated this process.
Technology has given the media a global audience but corporatisation has given them power.
“Paradoxically, while the digital revolution has extended the frontiers of the global village, the vast majority of the world remains unhooked from this unfolding phenomenon. With the ever-widening gulf between knowledge and ignorance, the development gap between the rich and the poor among and within countries has also increased. It has therefore become imperative for the world to bridge this digital divide and place the MDGs on the ICT-accelerated speedway to achievement.” WSIS (World summit on Information Society)
“The reference to ‘society’ inspires good old sociological questions of power, profit and participation: who benefits, who decides, who participates, and who is accountable?” (Hamelink, n.d) It would appear that in theory this kind of situation would be beneficial to different communities, even in the situation of less developed nations however, it fails to address poverty, hunger, poor health and exploitation all of which are associated with less devolved nations.
There is still a huge distinction made between the have and the have nots in terms of a global village or a global infomation society. How can we expect everyone to be connected globally to an information society via the internet or mobile phone systems while some countries barely have the money for food and clean water. There is continuously the questions of “How to preserve fundamental human values in the face of economic or technological pressures tending to undermine them” (Samuelson n.d) “There are undoubtedly ‘informational developments’ in modern societies and through interaction with other social developments these will have an impact on how the future of such societies shape up in different ways dependent upon different historical circumstances.” (Hamelink, n.d) From this position it would be easy to say that the development of modern Western society in relation to a global information society would ultimately be beneficial to improving the living standards of less developed nations. We need to question, however, whether the information which is being spread globally by largely western countries is going to be beneficial to poorer or disadvantaged countries. Is there really much we can offer them in relation to technological regulation which they do not even have?
Not only this but concentration of media ownership threatens the integrity of of journalism.
The consolidation of news corporations both in terms of daily news and television news means a dilution of reporting in news stories. Instead of receiving two separate news stories we are seeing the same ones rehashed on television as we have already read in our daily newspapers. Consolidation works under the premise that because there are more people working under the same production then journalists can work harder on stories giving us better quality news but in reality I'm not sure this is how it works. There of course would be the temptation to simply reuse what has gone before.
"Not one global body has the power to impose change, so any steps to restore public confidence in these institutions much take place in the individual nation states. The must be a global corporation if changes are to have any real affect." I think this statement from the text is true yet highly idealistic it is all well and good to say we need to have a global regulation body but realistically how could this work. How could it govern over ever state with ever law and be fair and objective. It seems unrealistic.
The term global village was first used in the 1960's to describe the 'linking of humanity in all parts of the world' (Kirby 1998:3) Developments such as cheap print, electricity, radio, TV, satellites, direct-dial phones and mobile phones have helped to break down boarders to create a global media audience. The Internet has even further accelerated this process.
Technology has given the media a global audience but corporatisation has given them power.
“Paradoxically, while the digital revolution has extended the frontiers of the global village, the vast majority of the world remains unhooked from this unfolding phenomenon. With the ever-widening gulf between knowledge and ignorance, the development gap between the rich and the poor among and within countries has also increased. It has therefore become imperative for the world to bridge this digital divide and place the MDGs on the ICT-accelerated speedway to achievement.” WSIS (World summit on Information Society)
“The reference to ‘society’ inspires good old sociological questions of power, profit and participation: who benefits, who decides, who participates, and who is accountable?” (Hamelink, n.d) It would appear that in theory this kind of situation would be beneficial to different communities, even in the situation of less developed nations however, it fails to address poverty, hunger, poor health and exploitation all of which are associated with less devolved nations.
There is still a huge distinction made between the have and the have nots in terms of a global village or a global infomation society. How can we expect everyone to be connected globally to an information society via the internet or mobile phone systems while some countries barely have the money for food and clean water. There is continuously the questions of “How to preserve fundamental human values in the face of economic or technological pressures tending to undermine them” (Samuelson n.d) “There are undoubtedly ‘informational developments’ in modern societies and through interaction with other social developments these will have an impact on how the future of such societies shape up in different ways dependent upon different historical circumstances.” (Hamelink, n.d) From this position it would be easy to say that the development of modern Western society in relation to a global information society would ultimately be beneficial to improving the living standards of less developed nations. We need to question, however, whether the information which is being spread globally by largely western countries is going to be beneficial to poorer or disadvantaged countries. Is there really much we can offer them in relation to technological regulation which they do not even have?
Not only this but concentration of media ownership threatens the integrity of of journalism.
The consolidation of news corporations both in terms of daily news and television news means a dilution of reporting in news stories. Instead of receiving two separate news stories we are seeing the same ones rehashed on television as we have already read in our daily newspapers. Consolidation works under the premise that because there are more people working under the same production then journalists can work harder on stories giving us better quality news but in reality I'm not sure this is how it works. There of course would be the temptation to simply reuse what has gone before.
"Not one global body has the power to impose change, so any steps to restore public confidence in these institutions much take place in the individual nation states. The must be a global corporation if changes are to have any real affect." I think this statement from the text is true yet highly idealistic it is all well and good to say we need to have a global regulation body but realistically how could this work. How could it govern over ever state with ever law and be fair and objective. It seems unrealistic.
No comments:
Post a Comment