One question that found itself into our discussions on Thursday was the nature of mass media as a deliberative or exploitative force. Defining the role of media in such polarized terms seems a difficult task, but as a prompt for a broad discussion on how mass media has evolved in the time of blogs and social networking, I think it is an intriguing starting point. Particularly in the instantaneous media environment that surrounds us, the ability to create such networks and communities with common interests is an unparalled phenomenon with an infintely positive upside. Deliberative voices have the potential to be heard louder than ever. For those with causes to promote, there are instantly accessible listeners and plently of mediums through which to communicate. Media can be seen as a vehicle of empowerment, as the International Campaign to Ban Landmines has illustrated.

On the other side of the spectrum, as easy as it is for campaigns such as the ICBL to impact positive change, the tools and rules of media do not change in the hands of those whose wish to use it for exploitative means. Mattelart points out a new era of rhetoric which stemmed from the energy and successes of the international expositions of the late nineteenth century, the age of "Western Civilization" had found a foothold. Not to say this new language had negative intentions, but I do think that it was the foundation of the North & South, East & West dichotomy that continues today, and is often used in a suppressive way. Rather than be a voice for emerging nations and disempowered populations, mass media in the wrong hands is often used as a tool to maintain imbalanced and unfair social and political hierarchies. The most obvious example in international arenas, is North Korea, whose propaganda and system of social-through-media-control (does that make sense?) has now cycled through several generations. Other examples can be seen in the perpetuation of negative ethnic stereotypes all throughout Western media channels. As media conglomerates grow in stature due to mergers and buyouts, the exploitative potential of mass-media grows as well.

As quickly as new social mediums are emerging and taking hold, the same consolidation of mass-media power seems to be occurring in nations all around the world. As empowering a place as the blogosphere can be, the population as a whole is still exposed to the rhetoric created by a shrinking number of voices in mass media. As MSNBC skewers Jan Brewer, Fox News takes a swipe at Rahm Emanuel and in between all of it, we digest five or six commercials without ever really benefitting from any of it. One positive possibility that comes from the rise of the new social networking/blog era is the establishment of an arena to voice and respond to criticisms of the mass media. Will this force mass media (in the US, at least) to become more accountable? In this respect can it inflict social change in a positive way? In a super-distilled way, it can even be framed in a "will the new powerful tool be used for good or evil?" lame-storyline kind of way...

Week 1: The Synergy of Change

What was particularly interesting during our discussion of the origins of international communication this week was the synergy of social change and technology. While I’m not a determinist, it’s not far-fetched to say that technology has a significant impact on social change. But in many ways, as we’ve seen, social change can play a greater role in dictating technological advances. Do they become, at some point, so inextricably connected it’s hard to tell which inspires which? Maybe. Particularly in today’s society, where information and connection to the rest of the world are literally at our fingertips. Who is to say that the creation of Facebook won’t result in some newly formed group identity that challenges the idea of the nation-state? There are more people in the world who “like” Michael Jackson on Facebook than populate the Netherlands. That could seem like pretty good ground for a national identity, right?

History led us to this point of instantaneous communication, and it is in history that we can see the most clear examples of social change inspiring technology (and vice versa). Armand Mattelart put it clearly when he wrote in the Mapping World Communication: “as the notion of freedom of opinion became more concrete, a variety of technical inventions made possible the development of new networks of communication.”

When we look at inventions that inspired these “new networks of communication,” the two most obvious examples are the printing press and the telegraph. These revolutionized not only the channels of communication, but also the way in which we communicate.

Language became standardized with the invention of the printing press, which had significant impacts on the premises of “national identities.” The (relative) ease with which people could access information completely changed the scope of how people felt about their information. The masses were no longer reliant on a few powerful people to dictate the terms of their lives and, as Hanson put it in Information Revolution and World Politics, the printing press “facilitated the diffusion of dissenting views,” or in other words, gave rise to the world’s first versions of Jon Stewart.

The telegraph built on the foundation initiated by the printing press. Technology could deliver information faster than a person could physically travel at the time. Because of the ease and speed of this medium, information did not have to be all-inclusive at one time, unlike the printed word of a newspaper. Of course, imperialism was assisted by the telegraph, with governments accessing and controlling their economic interests faster than ever before. And as imperialism and these economic gains made societies grow, technologies had to develop to keep the order. And here is what we discussed: the synergy between technology and social change. One thing inspires the next, which inspires the next.

Week 1

International communication has always been a strong tool for States throughout history. With advancement in information communication technologies (ICT), it has played role in maintaining and strengthening relations between states, traders and ordinary people. In the past, communicating internationally was basically created for specific purposes such as: trades, wars, spreading religions and ideologies, and proving imperial sovereignty. Therefore, it has been essential for economic and political functions. Whereas today communication has become the value its self in that head of states and various strata within communities try to maintain strong ties with their counterparts in other states. In the past, the advancement of communication channel was only the device that helped meeting specific needs. But today the continuous, and rapid development of communication technologies lead communicating internationally on a larger scale; such as, social, cultural, educational and lifestyle. It freed international communication from the state monopoly that was limited to economic and political reasons. It has become centered on people and individuals and growing towards society, and state.

Nowadays that people are exposed to information from around the globe with relatively little control, domestic and international communication must be open, transparent and credible or it will fail. Today’s audiences are interactive and aggressive; that is why international communication has become more challenging for states. In fact, governments spend fortunes on public diplomacy to draw the image about their states as seen in the international arena; and many pay effort to do internal reforms in order to maintain their relations with other states.

International communication has become integrated with many other factors rather than the communication procedure its self. Therefore, it requires extensive analysis and critical vision not only from the political and economic aspects but also social, educational and other ones that are concerned about individuals and states as well.

Noor Hameededdin

Hello Everyone!!!!!

;)

Trial

Thats a trial