The Expanding Role of Social Media

In our class discussion last week, we briefly talked about the role of journalists in an era where everyone can “report” using social media platforms. Is there a diminishing need for journalism as a specialized institution? This topic is covered in the “Media Revolution and Public Debate” where Charles Girard states, “Now that every individual can express himself through a blog and read any message from his mobile phone, the argument goes, there is no more need for journalists. Why bother reading what the newspapers print about the Arab Spring when they merely reflect information exchanged on Facebook?”

Through my internship, I organized a mass media event last week hosted by the US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission. I was able to attend a Q&A with the social media editor of the Associated Press and walked away with a few key points that I’d like to share concerning the themes of the evolving practice and profession of journalism and new media technologies that we covered in class.

User-generated content (UGC) now provides journalists access to stories that they wouldn’t have been able to report on years ago. The editor mentioned an example of the way Twitter allowed their journalists to get a story and angle that AP otherwise wouldn’t have gotten. There was an accident at a ski lift in Maine about two winters ago where the cars plummeted to the ground. Dozens of people were hurt. Journalists found someone who had tweeted that their cousin was involved in the accident. When questioned by reporters, the first thing she said is that the snow was “nice and fluffy”. People didn’t end up getting hurt; though that’s the direction the story could’ve gone in.

Russian journalists find that social media increases the scale of reporting. One argued that he doesn’t believe any media outlet would claim to be a leader in the field without employing UGC. It has now become an integral part of editorial content.

Regardless, news organizations must be very cautious when using UGC in their published material. There are some people who provide the content and may ask for compensation, while others prefer to remain anonymous, which suggests that their goal is to desperately get the material out there. AP is always certain to verify the validity of the material and source. Social media platforms make it much easier to see controversial content, and make it much easier for that content to spread. Social media increases the likelihood of misinformation, so news orgs need to take greater precautions. Concerning sensitive or controversial material that causes uproar, anger and/or violence, AP has a responsibility to report on those reactions.

When asked how social media has affected journalism, the editor responded that

AP has had to develop guidelines for the use of social media built upon their statements of values/principles. Similar to the way a reporter would have to identify him/herself and provide his/her credentials in a face-to-face or phone interview, a reporter must identify him/herself on their social media account. Concerning the code of ethics against using anonymous sources, AP believes that that code shouldn’t be rewritten to accommodate social media. Instead, AP follows normal policies. They only use anonymous content if it’s purely factual and not opinionated, but, most importantly, if there was no other way AP could have attained that information.

AP developed their own wording/language so readers can identify UGC as such. The wording also provides a window into AP’s process for verifying the content’s credibility. This allows news organizations to be more transparent, which he thinks is a positive thing.

Overall, journalists acknowledge that social media is changing the way they report by providing access to real-world content. At the same time, they realize that it remains their responsibility to “gather and distribute the news while maintaining the highest journalistic standards.”

Entertainment's Heavy Weight

Organizations that push to criminalize piracy as a form of combating the ever increasing act are doing nothing more than attempting to hold on to an aspect of the entertainment industry that is quickly dying. Government should not allow organizations such as the MPAA or others to persuade the government in drafting trade regulations. The MPAA’s success implementing, “. . . retaliatory economic sanctions against any countries which contravened in intellectual property rights of US companies” (Mattelart 322 ). This is an obvious abuse of power, for an organization to have the ability to interfere with governance for the sole purpose of their economic interest, despite the harm it does to other nations.  All industries should not be able to dictate the laws made between nations for the obvious reason that capitalistic ambitions and not the interest of the people will be the impetus for drafting such laws.

 The entertainment industry should use its current predicament to evolve with technology as oppose to holding on to archaic ways of producing revenue. Piracy is a consequence of technology, similar to how the cellular phone eventually led to the elimination of the home phone. Rather than cling to a non sustaining form of production MPAA should use their energies to find innovative new ways to sell and distribute its product in a low cost efficient manner.  I find it incongruous for nations such as the US to allow private industries to interfere with political issues between nations.  Laws between nations should be constructed by the governance of those appointed by the people with the interests of all people. In other alternative allows industries such as Hollywood to lean on the shoulder of government rather than work towards new solutions. 

Language and The Nation

In class last week we talked briefly about the idea that national identity is partly built through unity of language within a nation. Nation building through language unity is an interest of the nation-state, and the nation-state achieves this through the use of media, technology and communication to promote a common language.

To take a quick look at this, I will relate this idea to a current situation involving disunity of language within a nation. In Spain, there are currently several different languages spoken. Castellano (Castilian) is the only official language of the nation; yet there are several other ‘co-official’ and ‘recognized’ languages which are official in their respective regions. To name a few: Gallego (Galician) in the North-West, Vasco (Basque) in the North-East, and Catalán in the East. There are still even more unrecognized regional dialects, including Andalucían among others.  For the purposes of my comments, I will focus on Catalán and País Vasco (the Basque Region), which I see as examples of language creating a ‘regional’ identity and a conflict of sorts in terms of national unity. In the case of Catalán, language has created unity within Cataluña, and disunity in Cataluña’s relation to the nation of Spain. How is this identity created? For example, in the region of Cataluña the Catalán language is taught in schools starting at a very young age. The identity of this region has lead to an extreme ‘nationalist’ movement – a movement seeking economic and political independence from the nation of Spain. This can also be contrasted with the case in País Vasco where the result of the Basque language unity created the ETA ‘Euskadi Ta Askatasuna’ or ‘Basque Homeland and Freedom’ - a Basque nationalist and separatist group which has resorted to extreme violent acts to assert their separatist beliefs.

This is not a new issue - These conflicts and separatist movements have existed for many years. What happens in these various regions is the creation of regional identity based on unity of language other than the national language of Castellano. Recently, the 11^th of September, was ‘La Diada’, Catalonian ‘National’ Day. With the current Spanish economic situation, the Catalonian nationalist movement seems to be heightened. Below are a couple of pictures of the demonstrations of La Diada (from El Pais' website), expressing the desire for independence from Spain, to illustrate the scale of this movement. For more click here.

 

 

Why do nations care to create unity of language? Does this have anything to do with the nation-state controlling the media? Throughout history the nation-state has used other means to promote one common language within its borders. However, modern communication technologies and media are powerful tools of communication and influence, so it seems natural that nation-states want to use them and perhaps have certain control of them.  Daya Thussu alludes to the power of media stating, “During the past 100 years, the media have been transformed into one of modern society’s most important institutions, exercising influence in virtually all aspects of social and political life, assuming a central role in the shaping of culture and becoming one of the primary ways by which people learn about and interact with their world and between each other.” (Chapter Three: Creating a global communication infrastructure).

I am fascinated by the idea of identity as it relates to language, and how language contributes to the development of cultural and national identity. The case in Spain - of Cataluña and País Vasco - is just an example of the effects of language and identity, and why a nation-state would be interested in creating national identity through language unity. I’m interested in delving into this subject in further detail and to do so I’d like to get my hands on Manuel Castells’ book The Power of Identity (The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Volume II), which I know has chapters dedicated to these topics.

Governance of the media is a hot button issue among American’s, many Americans believe the media should be an independent entity free of regulation.  This belief mainly stems from the divisive interpretation of the First Amendment, and its guaranteed freedom of speech and expression from the interference government.  However, according to Siochru and Girad, it is also a responsibility of the media to aid in, “expressing, celebrating , sustaining and evolving diverse cultures and groups within society” (Siochru & Girard, Introduction to National Media Regulation). Although we are granted freedom of speech, it is also necessary to inculcate within society awareness and celebration of all its diverse members.  

With the minimal regulations in place today we are still failing to meet one of the primary tenants of the media, the celebration of the diverse groups within society. As of today, “women make up only 3% of mainstream media, but account for 50% of the population and only  20% of news articles are about women, and  many of these stories are of violence and victim hood” ( Missrepresentation.org).  Although women make up 50% of the population they are disproportionally depicted in media. This leaves media consumers with a skewed perception of the actual role of women.  As well as unrealistic ideals of the role of women and minority groups.  As long as groups are underrepresented and portrayed in stereotypical roles in the media, America will remain stagnated in its fight towards equality for all individuals.  A fight that if won will spur progress for all citizens.

 Media regulation may infringe upon the right of free speech by attempting to compel the media to represent all individuals in society, but this infringement upon of our First Amendment right is a necessary evil. The regulation of this aspect of the media helps create a more tolerant society that accepts all individuals and their differences. 

No internet, no globalization?

Branching from Dianna’s great discussion surrounding alternative networks and flows of information, I would like to bring up Colin Sparks’ essay What’s wrong with globalization? , in which Sparks concludes that the internet cannot be a truly global medium because much of the world does not have access to the internet because they do not have access to electricity. He states, “no electricity, no internet” (Sparks 152). Does it follow, then, that no internet equals no globalization?

The Nollywood film industry, an industry which emerged from alternative communication networks, is an example that globalization can and does exist in the absence of the internet and other modern communication technology.  Sparks’ notion is that those who have no access to the internet have no access to the global network through this medium. However, although some may have no direct access to global networks through the internet, they still obtain access and a presence in that global network, albeit through alternative methods. Nollywood is a perfect example of this globalization phenomenon.  The directors and producers of the Nollywood films do not use internet as a medium to distribute or advertise their films. Far from it, they make a basic copy and distribute it by hand to their customers. Eventually, after their customers have made several copies of the original film and sold each one for their own profit, the copies make their way to the internet. Someone who has obtained a copy of the film downloads it onto the internet and viola Nollywood is in the global internet network. Nollywood, in my opinion, proves that human desire, ambition and creativity are the driving force behind the development of these alternative networks, as Dianna proposed in her post. People adapt to their conditions and the technology they have access to in order to effectively participate in globalization.         

Going with the Flow of Alternative Networks

As we continue on the subject of globalization, more and more "alternative networks" seem to be coming out of the woodwork. These networks of information, trade, and cultural production "run counter to and under the radar of dominant global networks" (Jade Miller, "Global Nollywood: The Nigerian Movie Industry and Alternative Global Networks in Production and Distribution", Global Media and Communication, 8.2: 118). In essence, these aren't the typical channels of communication. Even Karim H. Karim, in his chapter on diaspora communities and their place in the global network, mentions that these communities a creative in their use of communication technologies in order to create new identities within a new national context ("Reviewing the 'National' in 'International Communication' Through the Lens of Diaspora", IC Reader, 403). Essentially, through their use of technology, they are creating alternative connections to information and culture, since their new nation may or may not include the home nation in their network.

Though Miller is speaking of the flows of cultural products, and Karim speaks of the flow of information, both authors deal with the fact that the current dominant networks that structure the globalizing world are either not available, not accessible, or not the right connections needed to accomplish a goal. The question is then: why are so many more of these alternative communication networks popping up?

Is it simply a power struggle against the West-dominated networks? Is it simply a bi-product of globalization? Are these alternative networks the direction the power structure is moving? Or, are these networks a new form of identity that is culturally situated (both authors talk about the networks being formed through cultural proximity or through direct diasporic ties)?

Tying into MJ's blog last week on cosmopolitanism, I wonder if these alternative networks are what are truly creating the "Third Space" of identity. What if we have been looking at the wrong cog in the wheel? Is it really the technology, social media, trade, policy, etc. that have created global networks and new forms of identity? I have a tendency to say no; instead, perhaps it is the people who are creating the third space that Tagore and Yeats wished for so badly. It is human need, desire, and ambition that is the driving force. These networks connect the world but connect to nationalistic identities as well, and so those who create it and participate in the alternative flow have more of a chance of vacillating between the global citizen and the nationalistic one. 

Whether I am grasping at straws or not, alternative networks are obviously being built and maintained, and I believe that these networks will be incredibly important to understanding "undeveloped" parts of the world in the future. However, these networks appear to be anything other than that; they are complex, built on both human contact and technology (another "hybrid" culture that should be researched in its own right). But how do you look into a phenomenon that only creates more questions every time you answer one? Perhaps we will just have to "go with the flow" and attentively watch how these alternative networks grow, change, adapt, and redefine our global communication structures.

Response to Dianna's comment on cosmopolitanism

Image: Bust of Diogenes the Cynic. From the grave, he says, "I'm a dead Greek guy. What would I know?"

Dianna, that was a wonderful and thoughtful response. Thank you!  Thank you also for highlighting Uma Narayan's works, too.  Yes, Narayan rightly points out that for all the discussion focused on untangling the knots that bind the concept of identity and national-affiliation, the  rhetoric, painted language, and dominant cognitive framework still hang on the walls closing in on the discourse on cosmopolitanism.

In noting how, even when one has the intention to dismantle the binary associations that often come with nationalism and national identity with ideas about cosmopolitanism, Dianna is right in concluding that one is still defining oneself by what one is not.  In other words, in discussing the theory of cosmopolitanism, one does so by acknowledging/affirming the antitheses to cosmopolitanism (nationalism, regionalism, ethnocentrism, et cetera).  In a way, this binary approach often limits how we can expect to think about culture in a new way since, as Dianna highlights, we are still using the same old rhetorical, nationalist tools in attempt fashion a new paradigm about being a citizen of the world.  It's pretty darn difficult to escape the naming of national identities.  (Would 'a rose by any other name would [still] smell as sweet"?)  It's even more difficult to do if we were born into geo-political nationalist culture that inculcated certain habits and systemic beliefs.

So yes, it seems like we're still using the same rhetorical tools to discuss culture, but I believe our society's frequent references to nationalities is a really an instinct for convenience at the international level (the word international has 'nation' in it, quelle surprise). This instinct shifts at the national and local levels (when there's no nationality to distinguish between, e.g. when referring to Americans, they're, well...all Americans, so we might elect to distinguish each one from the other with say, cultural political categories such as 'Independent,' 'Democrat,' 'Republican' or 'Pastafarian.'

All jokes aside, culture exists beyond national borders and boundaries -- we can look at the Kurds or diaspora, religious, and/or political communities around the world, to list a few examples, and acknowledge this fact.  Culture is also contradictory.  I think Arjun Appadurai appropriately sheds light on a path to changing the way in which we talk about cultural identity by identifying five primary imaginary "landscapes"-- ethnoscapes;  mediascapes; technoscapes; finanscapes; and ideoscapes in "Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy." I agree that nationalism will not just go away.  However, I don't believe nationalism remains fixed in our international system because of a matter of "language space" within the discourse of inclusion.  (That's a separate blog post!)

Martha Nussbaum's interpretation of cosmopolitanism is fascinating.  The idea that "we should recognize humanity wherever it occures, and give its fundamental ingredients, reason, and more capacity, our allegience and respect."  I believe one can apply ethics and have respect for other cultures within a nationality and outside a nationality.  This does not mean abolishing the idea of the nation-state or regionalism.  In contrast, this means recognizing that we are wholly capable of upholding cosmopolitanism as not only an embrace of other national cultures, but outlooks, orientations, religions, and political cultures.  This is certainly made possible by "language space," but also by action.  

This may be but a small detail, however, when Diogenes first declared that he was "kosmopolitēs," (and thus announced the birth of cosmopolitanism) it was long, long before the Peace of Westphalia and the birth of the modern nation-state.  As Nussbaum states, "Diogenes knew that the invitation to think as a world citizen was, in a sense, an invitation to be an exile from the comfort of patriotism and its east sentiments, to see our own ways of life from the point of view of justice and the good. The accident of where one is born is just that, an accident."  Diogenes' statement that he was a "citizen of the world" was qualified by his belief in the power of action over words to sustain and communicate respect for humanity.

--

Dianna's Response - September 30, 2012 at 7:18 PM

First, thank you for inserting the Tagore and Yeats quotes. Having two anti-colonial writers argue for a moderated form of cosmopolitanism brings a very interesting perspective to the debate of the modern "global citizen". However, after reading your post, I found myself wondering if the "third space" is in fact possible when it is still trapped in the language of nationalism. 

Both the utopian global citizen and the Yeats/Tagore balancing act are predicated on the existence of a nationalist discourse and identity. Without knowing what nationalism is, you could not understanding its antithesis or even create the "third space". To me, that would make both ideas slightly problematic to initiate. With the "third space", nationalism is permitted, but is supposed to be tempered by respect for other cultures. But isn't that a hard thing to balance against an idea that still has power in the modern world? Even pure cosmopolitanism, which says it erases nationalism, actually doesn't because nationalism as an idea still underscores the very language of cosmopolitanism.

It is very hard to change or even erase an idea when that idea is still very much alive in the language of a culture. When it is in the discourse, it means it still has agency in the system, and can therefore impact modern ideas for good or ill. 

The reference to Tagore and Yeats brought to mind the work of Uma Narayan. Though she deals predominantly with "Third World Feminism", she spends a whole chapter in her book Dislocating Cultures talking of "Anti-Western" sentiment and how that lead to third-world nationalist movements. But as she points out, in their attempt to create a new identity for themselves, the colonized ended up appropriating the same system of cultural identity that their colonizers used ("Us" v. "Them") and just making their definition of nationalism as "Anit-Western" (14). By not changing their discourse on identity, the colonized were still bound by the meanings that discourse conveyed on them. Though it may seem like going in the exact opposite direction would free you from the shackles of a discourse you do not agree with, it actually binds you even closer, because you can only define yourself as NOT that discourse. 

Tagore and Yeats are both writing in this colonialist era, and so it fascinates me that they bring up this idea of hybridization in such a context. But even they do not offer a means to change the actual language of identity. As you noted, "national identity" is still a part of their "third space". So my question to everyone is: how can you expect to think about culture in a new way -- to include the possibility of a hybrid culture -- if you cannot change the way in which you talk about cultural identity? 

Even with social media and other communication technologies giving us access to cultures and perspectives, nationalism still plays its role, because to this day you identify yourself as Chinese, American, Indian, Moroccan, etc. Until that language can be taken out as a signifier of our identity, I will have to remain skeptical that the third-space -- even if we are occupying it -- can be sustained. Nationalism dominated international relations for so many years, and I worry that that much history and power in our world means that it will not easily share its language space with the discourse of inclusion.