Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Exploring Mass Communication Abroad: An Overview of Our Findings

      


      At the conclusion of our findings, several consistent themes arose; agenda setting, political controversy, and globalization. These themes are all interconnected and were prominently found in our analysis of advertising, news, and film in both the United States and abroad. Agenda setting and political controversy were the most common and reoccurring themes. In Caroline’s post regarding Bassem Youssef’s freedom of expression in Egypt, she concluded that there is both agenda setting among the Egyption media and the coverage of the issue from American media. While Youssef was censored and shut down by Egyptian media outlet, CBC, he was supported by American media organizations such as the Washington Post and CNN. The CBC was attempting to perpetuate their agenda of promoting moral and societal values, while the U.S. outlets were encouraging the value of free speech.



      The next theme of political controversy was closely linked to that of agenda setting. In that media outlets in different countries have their own specific agenda to promote, they often instigate political controversy. Ned concluded in his analysis of Venezuelan and U.S. newspapers that nationalistic tones created political controversy. For instance, Venezuelan newspaper Correo del Orinoco boldly and viciously accused the U.S. of prohibiting the U.S. of airspace for President Nicolas Maduro. They described the U.S. as an unreasonable power only yearning to flex their muscle. Yet, The New York Times vehemently refuted that accusation, calling it “absurd,” and painted the Venezuelan leader and government as irrational and vitriolic. The nationalistic tones and language created political controversy among the two countries.

      Finally, we identified the persistent theme of globalization. In Coca-Col-ization: How Coca-Cola Advertising Embodies Glocalization, Sarah identified glocalization as the “connection of many cultures that forces the homogenization of all cultures,” while glocalization ensures that the products and idea are customized to suit certain cultures. Yet, on the other hand, cultural imperialism is an example of negative aspects of globalization. As Todd Gitlin notes “if the American culture industry has long depended on American formulas: Westerns, action heroes, rock music, hip-hop. Globalized distribution expedites imitation. The American way generates proven results,” (Gitlin, 182). As Amy notes, Hollywood “charisma men” in Japanese commercials perpetuate the idea of the imperialism of American culture. The romanticized exoticism associated with the Western man is shown through Japanese commercials and imposes the cultural “ideals” of American culture. Furthermore, the economic power of the United States contributes to the cultural imperialism of other countries. Although the film industry of India, Bollywood has seen astounding success, the monetary supremacy of the U.S. has in many ways proven too difficult of an obstacle to overcome. Consequently, U.S. film is still considered a dominant cultural power affecting countries across the globe. the world.
      We have thoroughly enjoyed contributing to this blog. Through doing this, we have learned how important media literacy is to understanding the different sides of an issue as well as how vital it is to interrupting the agendas of those sides. We encourage the readers of our blog to be willing to be critical of media both in the United States and abroad. 

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Multiculturalism in Contemporary Italian Film

Since the turn of the century, Italian cinema has emphasized multiculturalism in response to Italy’s growing immigration. This emphasis is much like Hollywood’s contemporary, “token” portrayal of minority groups through which the following occur:

  • Regardless of exposure, the groups are still seen as having levels of exoticism rather than familiarity.
  • This exoticism is largely due to the subtle perpetuation of stereotypes.
  • Stereotypes replace more complex, realistic characters.

To detail Italian cinema’s focus on multiculturalism further, contemporary directors have followed this trend in order to re-think what it means to be an Italian citizen. They have also done this to perpetuate a new kind of national cinema in contrast to the 1990s immigration cinema and other’s film.

Multiculturalism in the new national cinema is aimed at diminishing the otherness of minority groups. However, this does not mean that the spiral of silence is no more. While multiculturalism puts more faces on the screen, the characters present are not necessarily flush, complex personalities; instead, their presences are connotated with exoticism and are portrayed through stereotypes.

Marco Ponti’s 2004 film A/R Andata + Ritorno provides a case study of this through his character Tolstoj. Tolstoj is one of the most pronounced ethnic characters in the movie, but his voice repeatedly lends itself to uttering foreign words of wisdom. This foreignness falls directly in line with Edward Said’s conceptions of Orientalism.

According to Said, the foreigner is exotic and therefore is the other. The stereotype of the other is meant to be a device through which the viewing party can understand the foreigner. In new Italian cinema, the immigrant is stereotyped in order to be better understood. However, this is not a simple meaning-making process. An overly simplistic, often one-sided, representation is cultivated, and it is usually framed to reinforce hegemony.

This kind of representation has long been seen in Hollywood films as well. Taking the recent blockbuster wave as an example, an increasing number of man vs. "other" movies have been produced. Remember Man of SteelOz the Great and PowerfulWorld War Z, and Captain Phillips (to name a few)? Each exalts the heterosexual, white man as the hero who vanquishes the unknown enemy. This gives power to whiteness and those who fall under hegemonic masculinity.

These movies also highlight how political controversy can be portrayed in abstract ways. The U.S. is at war and is paranoid of terrorism, so its culture more readily consumes texts that deal with vanquishing the outside enemy. Similarly, Italy is dealing with immigration, so its cultural products try to connect the audience with that controversy. Furthermore, although Italy and the U.S. have maintained positive relations since 1944, a hypothetical quarrel between the two would also generate cultural products with immediacy. Still, cultural products tell stories that are just as stereotyped as characters. A film's framing of people, places, and situations cannot completely escape cultural contexts.

Sources:

Hollywood vs. Bollywood: An Even Playing Field?




When one mentions Bollywood, to most people, the first and sometimes only thought that comes to mind is the sensational film, Slumdog Millionaire. However, India has realized and capitalized on a wildly successful industry that exports more films than the U.S. In fact, India exports on average 1000 films a year to a worldwide audience of over 3 billion, compared to the United States’ 500 films and 2.6 billion people respectively. Our world can be considered both a “global village” and a globalized economy, which refers to “the growing dominance of western forms of political, economic, and cultural life.” Although this has helped Bollywood thrive, it has also shaped the industry and created competition.

But has globalization also made for an uneven playing field?



Globalization has allowed the United States to take full advantage of the advancements in both technology and capitalism, evident by the $60 million average that the film industry spends to produce a movie. Comparatively, Bollywood only spends around $5 million per film. Furthermore, 50% of the movies produced by Bollywood are never released, and of those that are, 95% result in losses. Moreover, America’s dominance and wealth has afforded them the ability to offer filmmakers tax credits and subsidies. Michael Cieply of The New York Times examined this aspect of the film industry and notes that states will offer film producers astounding tax credits to shoot the movie in that state. The Texas Film Commission states that movie companies can receive 5%-22.5% in tax credits in Texas, based on how much they spend. Additionally, ticket prices in India go for $1 on average, compared to $8.38 in the U.S. The Indian film industry will have a very difficult time competing with these incentives. They are not afforded tax credits, and due to the high-risk environment, cannot spend $100 million on a movie like U.S. productions can.


Yet, Michael Schuman of Time notes that the world is now turning the tables, with many countries such as China and India exporting their goods. He states that although, in the past, globalization was a one-way street, “it is knitting together a society that, more than ever, is truly global.” Whereas developed nations were solely exporting to developing ones, countries such as the U.S. are now consuming those nations’ goods.

So, has globalization been advantageous or detrimental to Bollywood?


Although globalization has given countries such as India a worldwide market to consume their movies, it has also afforded the United States the ability to hand out subsidies to film producers, once again destabilizing the playing field.

Sources


Film Ratings: Sensible or Censorship?



If you live in the United States, it is likely that your television set contains a V-chip, used in accordance with the 2008 Child Safe Viewing Act. These chips, mandated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), allow TV users to voluntarily censor their household from television and movies that earned certain ratings.


Because of an influx of technology plus an increase of violence among children (citing the Desensitizing Theory), film and television ratings have gotten more attention.

This post will compare the United States' rating system (regulated by the Motion Picture Association of America - MPAA) and that of Britain (regulated by the British Board of Film Classification - BBFC). The BBFC and MPAA function as gatekeepers.

Both systems are very similar. And both focus on protecting children, an idea not uncommon in the media industry.

For the sake of brevity, this post will compare BBFC's "18" rating with MPAA's "R" rating.

BBFC's "18"
BBFC ratings breakdown. 
  • No children under 18 can see the film in theaters or buy/rent a copy.
  • "Adults are free to pick their entertainment under the law."
  • These films may contain:
    • Very strong and detailed violence
    • Frequent strong language
    • Strong portrayals of sexual activity
    • Strong horror
  • However, these may be cut from the film:
    • Material that breaches criminal law
    • Material that harms individual morals


MPAA ratings breakdown.

  
  MPAA's "R(estricted)"
  - Children under 17 require an accompanying    parent or guardian.
  - It is "not appropriate for parents to bring their    children to an R-  rated movie."
  - These films may contain:
     - Intense or persistent violence
     - Hard language
     - Sexually-oriented nudity



It appears that Britain is more lenient once a child reaches 18, marking them as adults. In the United States, however, R-rated movies are available to 17 year-olds so these films may be less graphic.

It is also interesting to note that the BBFC and MPAA are private media businesses. This injects economics directly into the ratings system and begs the question of objectivity. 

Ultimately, ratings lose to the uses and gratification approach. Media users are attracted to the types of content that meet their psychological and social needs, no matter the film rating.

At a basic level, ratings are censorship. Organizations like the BBFC and MPAA examine material and remove parts that are harmful, or rate it "higher" to limit access. However, even in two countries that value freedom of expression, the ratings system provide the benefit of protection, something worth the regulation.

Check out the full sources for more info.


Monday, November 18, 2013

U.S. vs. U.K. [The Battle of the Offices]


Thus far, This blog has examined how advertising and news translate across international boundaries. Today, we are examining how mass communications effects theories apply to film and TV. I have a deep love for the U.S. version of The Office, a 'mockumentary' that follows the lives of fake office workers. Over the course of 9 seasons, I, along with many others, grew attached to the characters. I cried from laughing at the humor and I cried when [spoiler alert] Jim and Pam almost broke up. This article in The New Yorker is a great portrait of the impact that the show has had on its viewers.

I always knew that the show was based on a hit BBC comedy, but I was so satisfied with my viewership experience that I never had an inclination to watch the U.K.'s Office. I have, since, watched a few episodes of the U.K. Office, and I think I know why the American version has run seven seasons longer than its predecessor.

It's all about character development. I know, this sounds cliché, but I think it's true. Michael, played by American Steve Carell, and David, played by British Ricky Gervais, star as the bosses of their respective offices. Michael is a lovable, innocent, crude child, while David is a mean-hearted and petty authoritarian. No matter how ridiculous Michael is, the workers, along with the audience, pity and coddle him. On the other hand, David is hated by his employees. Watching nine seasons of Michael's Office is much more enjoyable than watching David's wrath.

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the U.K. Office came first. The U.K's Telegraph posted an article that compares the characters of the different shows. The article supports the concept of the American show being a copy of the British one.

So why has the American version been so much more successful? I first thought that maybe its because Americans watch more TV. The American Media Usage and Consumer Spending Report chart by the U.S. Census Bureau shows that Americans spend approximately 1,650 hours per year watching some form of television, while BARB's British Television Usage shows that the average Brit spends 1,460 hours per year watching television. Americans do watch more TV, but this increase, although it may seem large, is not large enough to exclude the watching of an entire show such as The Office.

I believe that the reason the American version of the show was wildly more successful has to do with its American-ness. Princeton's site provides an explanation of Herbert Schiller's ideas of media and cultural imperialism. He says that certain societies are brought into the global community by institutions like Hollywood, and this shapes those societies mind sets to believe that what Hollywood says is good, right, true, normal, etc. Hollywood reigns over all other film industries. It is idolized. I remember, on one of my travels to Africa, wondering why only American movies that I was already very familiar with were being shown on the TV.

The U.S. Office is globally popular. Hollywood, because of its legacy and its skill in such arenas as character development, as I mentioned above concerning Michael Scott's lovableness, is highly influential over Americans and foreigners. This enables it to generate successful film and TV.

For further investigation into the power of Hollywood, watch this video. It's a glimpse into stars' understanding of the City of Angels, and it helped me understand how idolized the place really is.

Sources:
Steve Carell and Ricky Gervais
The Office
Jim and Pam
This article in The New Yorker
article that compares characters
U.S. Census Bureau's American Media Usage and Consumer Spending Report
BARB
BARB's British Television Usage report
Schiller's cultural imperialism (via Princeton.edu)
this video on the influence of Hollywood


Government Broadcasting in North Korea and the United States

North Korea


It's been a while since anyone in America has seen a test pattern on their TV. However, in North Korea, the pattern in the video is more common on TV than regular broadcasting. The pattern, the accompanying music, and the youtube channel from which they are sourced are from Korean Central Television, the oldest television network in North Korea. This network is government-run and features news programs, political programs, children's programs, and other programming on subjects such as economics, agriculture, and government contests. These programs only run about 5 hours a day, and 17 hours on Sundays. There is no non-government programming on North Korean television.

United States

In the United States, PBS is the closest equivalent to the government-controlled Korean Central Television. PBS is a publicly funded broadcasting company that receives government funding, but abides by the guidelines of the National Program Funding Standards and Practices, which state,
"Public television is a major participant in the great tradition of a free and independent American press. Therefore, public television must protect its journalistic integrity and it must reinforce the accurate perception that it is a free and independent institution."

This broadcast involves discussion of a variety of political issues, the most volatile of which is the Affordable Care Act. In the discussion, a guest on the show provides his expert opinion as to why or why not elements of the Affordable Care Act are effective.


This promotional video from PBS gives an idea of the children's content on the show. Like Korean Central Television, the network incorporates material aimed toward a wide variety of audiences, including both news and entertainment material.

Broadcasting Law
While the kinds of public broadcasting material may be similar in order to appeal to a wide audience, the laws surrounding public broadcasting differ greatly between the two countries. These regulations become a form of gatekeeping for the media in each country. In North Korea, the propagandist nature of much of the programming provides a form of agenda-setting.
The United States Department of State has provided guidelines for the "inalienable right" of freedom of the press, one of which is, "A free press is courageous and will pursue those stories that are important to its readers and viewers, without fear or favor."
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), also guarantees freedom of the press in its statement, "working people have the right to work and rest, the right to education and free medical care and freedom of scientific, literary and artistic pursuits." However, in 2009, the International Freedom of Expression Exchange reported, "Human rights conditions in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, remain dire. There is no organized political opposition, independent labor unions, free media or civil society."

The limitations in the Korean press caused by government regulations are clear. Debates an independent programming that is prominently featured on publicly-funded PBS in the United States would never be allowed on government-controlled Korean Central Television. Because of these, the messages that are permitted to get to the Korean people are far different from those distributed through American media outlets.

Sources

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Underlying Nationalism in Venezuelan and U.S. Newspapers

       

Although the United States and Venezuela are not considered vicious enemies, the two countries have differing political ideologies and have been known to clash on certain issues.  Recently, the two nations did just that. On September 19th of this year, as Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was flying to Europe, he was initially denied passage through U.S. airspace over Puerto Rico. Although hasty diplomatic talks granted the President permission, the event caused a stir in Venezuelan newspapers, which cited it as an “act of aggression.” Within a week of the flight, both the New York Times and Correodel Orinoco ran stories regarding the issue. Unsurprisingly, each had its own take on the situation, with both newspapers blaming the opposite country.




            
          In Correo del Orinoco’s September 27 edition, Ewan Robertson writes of the airspace issue, immediately bringing to the reader’s attention that President Maduro and his government were denied permission for no apparent reason. Furthermore, he quotes Bolivarian President Evo Morales as saying that Latin American stands as a "united people," defending the Venezuelan President should anyone such as the United States “‘mess with Maduro.’” Robertson intends to evoke nationalistic emotions among the Venezuelan people, inciting pride for Venezuela and Maduro and anger against the United States.
            
          On the contrary, in the New York Times article titled “U.S. Denies Trying to Bar Venezuelan President From Airspace,” William Neuman highlights that the U.S. never turned down Maduro’s request to fly over their airspace. Rather, Neuman notes that Maduro was not flying in a state department plane and the Venezuelan government only entered the request one day prior to flying, instead of the three days needed. Furthermore, he emphasizes that the issue is of very little significance, only gaining notoriety due to the dramatization of the Venezuelan government and press.


          Yet, these two contrasting articles share common trends. Both articles are in their own way inciting political controversy. Correo del Orinoco is attempting to dramatize the story by painting it as a international travesty of justice, with Venezuela once again being slighted by the arm of the United States. Furthermore, Correo del Orinoco is trying to set an agenda for the Venezuelan government. They want to incite nationalism among the citizens, hoping to ensure that the issue is not soon forgotten. On the other hand, the New York Times is creating political controversy by downplaying the issue in a way that demeans the Venezuela government, calling the issue “absurd.” Although both news sources are attempting to inform their respective readers, neither is completely objective. Rather, both are trying to persuade the public with nationalistic ideals and values. Consequently, this political controversy creates new conceptions of news. Instead of focusing on more pressing issues in both countries, media outlets have prioritized the coverage of issues such as this, dramatizing them for the sake of readers. 


Sources

Venezuelan Article- Ewan Robertson

U.S. Article-William Neuman

Venezuelan Nationalism- Kirschke