I Heart My Country

In our reading, Silvo Waisbord suggests that Nationalism means different things to different people. “One nation’s intolerant chauvinism is the flip side of other nations’ patriotic sense of difference and community.” (Waisbord, pg. 376) When I see this picture


I think “well, I don’t agree with her at all, but her view of America, what it stands for and what it means to be ‘American’, is threatened. And that’s a discouraging problem.” I think the same thing when I see this picture


Only switch out America and American for Swiss. Some cultural similarities stop at a country's border, but fear and manipulative imagery has no boundary.

We’re fortunate to live in an era where most of us are literate, and have the capacity to be well informed. The problem I see is that in order to reinforce what we hold dear to us, we use our country and what it’s ideals are as a to isolate or invalidate those who disagree with us. I’m somehow ‘un-American’ if I think taxes help oil the machine that I rely on. I’m not a “real American” because I’m from California and therefore am obviously an out of touch liberal. Not only do some people use Nationalism to set us apart from other countries, but we’re increasingly using it against ourselves. Historically, America and being American, is something that evolved and changed as each wave of immigrant group, each invention, and each policy decision happened. Wanting to dig in our heels and stop being a part of an increasingly global 21st century is like boxing a glacier—impossible and tiring. We also don’t have to jump in whole-heartedly, as inevitably, this is the direction our past and present is taking us. But in the meantime, people around the world and in the States use media to broadcast their message, trying to support one idea over the other, via newspaper, internet or cable tv stations in the hopes of accomplishing…what exactly? Waisbord stresses the importance of understanding media's role in Nationalism. Currently, the people that run the media know that the public is increasingly only choosing to view/read/listen to one message or voice (like Fox vs. MSNBC) so for example, instead of doing what journalists do—inform—they filter and interpret, taking the thought process away from the viewer/reader.

It’s understandable that an increasingly smaller and globalized world can be a startling and scary thing. No one wants to lose their identity or culture. The more aware we are of others, their beliefs and their culture, the more we become aware of our own. We become protective of it, although sometimes without understanding what it even is, because we fear the unknown that change often brings. Being proud of, and in love with, a country is fine. Each country has an amazing history, rich culture and traditions that bring people together, and something that it can offer the rest of the world. But Nationalism brought on by fear of losing that uniqueness, and carried to far by mass media and broadcast all over the world, can cause others to fear where the sentiment may lead.(This is a good example: ) We have much to be proud of in this country, but wanting to be at the top carries a certain responsibility, I think, not to make the rest of the world afraid of patriotic sentiment. One doesn’t have to become a Globophile, as Waisbord mentioned, or a Globophobe, but we have to be conscientious of the messages we broadcast around the globe, the countries and people that share it with us, and our role in effectively communicating our pride.

And if you’re not doing anything October 30, I can’t resist a plug: http://www.rallytorestoresanity.com

Can the Actions of Communications Corporations Affect US Foreign Policy?

One thing in particular struck me in class on Thursday: the willingness of the US Foreign Policy in conjunction with US-based corporations to quickly alter, and renege on what is meant to be all-encompassing policy. This concept is one that can be explored from many perspectives, but for the sake of this communication focused blog, we will look at this issue from the stance of communication.

Our readings largely dealt with the history of new communication strategies, how new technologies affected people who were directly and indirectly in contact with them, and laws governing how the technology will be used.

As far back as ancient times, roads were the main venues of communication. These roads transmitted orders from the heads of government, all the way down to travelling traders, spreading culture, ideas, and goods. Now, the information highway has led us to abundant use of cell phones and internet to communicate with one another.

The entire purpose of new and better technology is self-explanatory. It’s new and better. Not only that, but it also streamlines communication. The world is shrinking due to increased capabilities—people no longer have to wait days, weeks, or even months for information to get to its destination. That’s no longer the case. However, increasing the ability for people across the world to communicate with one another also increases the need for states to attempt to control this information movement.

In the United States, the basic freedoms as outlined in the First Amendment of the Constitution allow for freedom of speech, press, and association; in addition, the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. The communication between cell phones and between internet search engines and their servers, by a literal interpretation of these amendments, should not be searched without probable cause, nor should language be censored. However, many will argue that for national security reasons, this still occurs. Because the United States enjoys these freedoms, it is the belief of many that these rights are universal rights.

In late January 2010, Hilary Clinton’s gave a speech on internet freedom in conjunction to addressing the then-recent earthquake in Haiti. Referencing a saved woman and child’s life—due to their ability to send an emergency text message while trapped underneath cement rubble—Clinton expounds upon the idea of information as a basic necessity. In addition, Clinton looks to private corporations who conduct business internationally; Clinton warns countries that limiting access to information hinders growth, of their population and population productivity, hinting to China, whose information debacle with Google has proven that Google can be censored provided that (in my opinion) they are paid enough. In a similar situation that was also brought up in class, the UAE and Saudi Arabia have plans to block BlackBerry IM services for want of the access to transmitted data. This came as a result of BlackBerry’s owners, RIM (based out of Canada), refusing to create proxy servers nearby to be monitored by the state governments. In class, there was some concern over the future of the proxy servers: Will RIM go the way of Google and give in? What sign does this give to foreign governments about our stance on communication freedom? And finally, what does this mean for the future of information and communication freedom in the world?

“Communication has always been critical to the establishment and maintenance of power over distance.” (Thussu) This is one of the most important lessons to learn in communication. Because communication is so vital in its connection with power, it is very important for a state’s foreign policy decisions to be somewhat solid, and communication clear. A lack of this solidarity and clarity could potentially cause other states to attempt to undermine the former.

I believe the answer to the title question is yes. When the US attempts to create a stance on international communication that is very anti-censorship and anti-invasive, corporations such as Google undermine that stance by allowing themselves to be censored. While the US government has little direct influence over Google's actions abroad, perhaps changes can be made to reduce the censorship of Google in China.

And then, its important to consider that it may be better to have a censored Google in China than no Google in China.


Jessica Fayne

Information technology impacts social and communication norms

Throughout the history of information technology innovation, we see examples of how this evolution has impacted the social and behavior of the day.

A story in yesterday’s Washington Post illustrates how new technology continues to influence the structure of mass media and how information is communicated locally and globally.

The first news report of the Discovery Chanel hostage situation was not released by a TV station, radio station, or newspaper. Employees in the building used Twitter to let the outside world know what was transpiring through “tweets” and photos. Only then did other news agencies hear of the story and go to the scene to report.

This notion of citizen journalism, or any person being able to be a reporter by simply owning an iPhone or Blackberry device, is a transformation in how we receive news. It inspires debate about whether it is in the best interest of the public to have instant access to any news event, or if it’s better that the authorities or government have control over what information is available.

The use of Twitter as a social transformation tool has not proven to be unequivocally effective. The Twitter revolution in Iran failed. In class discussions, we learned that the Iranian government, also being tech savvy, was able to monitor the use of Twitter and identify the leaders of the political movement and quash the movement’s momentum.

This raises the historical issue of government control and regulation of emerging communication technologies.

Twitter, like radio in the early 1920s, started as a hobby and also another tool for social networking. In the early stages of radio, amateurs, or “hams" as they were known, dominated the airwave frequencies. Eventually the frequencies became overcrowded and it was difficult for the government and military to communicate effectively. According to Hanson, the Navy heavily advocated for government regulation of wireless technology. The sinking of the Titanic in 1912 finally motivated the government to take action. This eventually led to the Radio Act of 1927 in which government took control of radio frequencies requiring licensing for any station that wished to broadcast.

The argument over what is the government’s role in regulating information technology is as big now as it was then. Twitter, and other Internet tools such as Wikileaks, affects the power of the government to control sensitive information. The Internet is a mass medium for the exchange of knowledge, current events and a forum for public debate.

This issue also relates to another discussed in class: what is the effect of social and political factors on communication technology? Did Twitter exist and therefore change the social norms for communication and news gathering? Or did the social need for alternative news sources prompt the Twitter innovation?

Either way you look at this debate, Twitter’s impact on social and communication norms cannot be denied.

Washington Post story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR2010090105987.html