Showing posts with label Agenda Setting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Agenda Setting. Show all posts

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 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