MC1103 Approaches To The Study Of Mass Communications Part One Coursework: Question 7

TAKING A RELEVANT CASE STUDY, EVALUATE THE ARGUMENT THAT MEDIA

GLOBALISATION HAS POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS: THE
INTERNET'S GLOBAL VILLAGE

Brian Eno said of media!philosopher Marshall McLuhan, "he changed the world in one
sentence."1 In fact, the one term, 'global village.'2 with a single swipe, makes obvious the
concept of an accessible, globalised media which operates in a unified, localised context.

Perhaps more than anyone, McLuhan understood the impact which globalisation of media has
on mankind. "The electronic age," he said, has sealed "the entire human family into a single
global tribe,"3 and "makes mandatory that everybody adjust to the vast global environment as
if it were his little home town."4

The remarkable thing about Marshall's musings is that they were written years before much of
their subject matter could become a reality ! in fact, long before the seeds of the computer
revolution itself liad been planted.
!^ !Y?
But now, global telecommunications media are putting the theory into practice. If television,
radio and film had not quite formed a global village, then the Internet is proving to be the very
realisation of it.

The only inherently global medium, the Internet reaches out to media users everywhere, and is
now widely accepted as part of 'the media,' with most of the content producers working in
established media now having an additional an on!line presence, or having moved entirely to
Net!based distribution.

More than any other medium, the Internet is the enabling force for the actual creation of a
global village, pulling societies and individuals together, and opening up vast quantities of
media content for exploration ! content new to those wliose only media experiences were
restricted by tlie national boundaries which the Net flows over and around, content wliich
allows for interaction between users, and content which can have a profound cultural impact.

As the epitome of media globalisation, this global village connects people, wherever they may
^ be. The interesting point about media globalisation is that it brings to its audiences a shared
experience. Because the distribution model for content delivery can give audiences, for
example, the same episode of 'Neighbours,' or tlie same web page, the viewers and users
immediately have something in common. It is said tills bodes for greater understanding of
other cultures, regardless ofpliysical distance. Yet it is also said that it leads to tlie erosion of
cultures, the global village replacing a 'globe of villages.'

It is often claimed that tlie globalisation of media has a homogenising effect, and that
homogenisation is basically the equal of 'Americanisation.' This is because an overwhelming
amount of media content is produced in the USA, with 45% of tlie traditional programming
income derived from overseas buyers and consumers. It is, therefore, natural that concerns are
raised over the effect of letting America, or any other media!centred country, into our homes !
and our PCs. i

As a technical structure ! that is, at the same level as the series of broadcasting transmitters
that pepper nation states ! the Internet was an American development. Any medium whose
method of distribution was developed by a particular nation will undoubtedly develop an
initial rash of content that is based in the same nation.
 MC1103 Approaches To The Study Of Mass Communications Part One Coursework: Question 7

But this medium became intrinsically multi!national. The 'worldwide web' ! the facet of the
Internet which has spearheaded its arrival in media!land ! was developed by an Englishman
working in a Swiss scientific institute. It took hold in the USA because it used protocols of a
network which was already blossoming, and because means of accessing the network ! that is,
teleplione line rental and Internet subscription ! are significantly cheaper than in other nations.

So, the Internet is a medium in which the bias of the media content used by people all over the
world can be determined by particular national economic factors outside of 'foreign' control.
\
^ t^ ^ As the only globalised mass medium, how does the Internet affect our cultures, society and
^oftA politics? !!.—^!>.
,tMfl«.i/M\y
The issue of'media globalisation' with reference to television, radio and film actually relates n a(/ ^i'^
to 'content globalisation,' since it is concerned with distribution of programming which is sold i i ^ <si_i.^
to other networks, to be broadcast at non!simultaneous times. Television, as experienced by ""A !
the viewer, is not a universal medium, but one which broadcasts programming purchased in
<^ an external, economic global media framework, and the viewers' debating forum is confined
to their nation!state culture. Tlie Internet is inherently a global media access; point, a front!end
with identical content accessible to each user at any time. There is no fragmentation of, or
restriction to, worldwide media content! because any user with the correct tools can access
every web site in an identical way.

In many ways, the Internet 'subverts' the mass media, giving users a two!way medium with
which they can talk back to the media producers, or talk amongst themselves.

The Internet connects people of different nationality ! even at the point where cliat in a 'room'
on a web site is a legitimate media commodity, with the discussion's own content being tlie
5
reaction to the given news or entertainment on the site ! "content gives chat context."

So if mere discussion, a natural multi!directional communication process, becomes globalised

media content, in what way can the Internet be guilty of liomogenisation? The telephone and
the letter, too, are media for global communication, but they cannot be said to be the tools of
cultural erosion, because we each bring to the discussion the product of our now!established
cultures ! the multi!culturalism then mingles in tlie chat content itself, rather than permeating
the nationalism of the participants.

Language is a highly important part of culture and of keeping it alive, and it could easily be
argued that English is the dominant language of Internet media. With such a huge amount of
mono!lingual content on the Internet, it is particularly feared tliat native languages will
become used less in the countries which open their doors to global connectivity. Hence, for
example, France's reluctance to ween itself off the French!only 'Minitel' computer network,
occupied by 14.5 million, and embrace the Internet, with just 1 million French users. Prime
Minister Lionel Jospin declared "France and French culture must occupy their rightful place in
the global information society."6 This would mean an in!take of non!francoplione material,
but "it's not going to be a problem, as long as we have enough French sites on the Internet,"6
said a spokesman for tlie French Embassy in Washington DC. There is clearly a feeling that
any society with a globally!peripheral language can only maintain it in a globalised context
like the Internet if it produces an equal amount of native!language media content.

Multi!lingualism in 'global culture' could be the stumbling block to McLuhan's "single global
tribe." It could be the case that only a universal language in Internet media could facilitate an
 MC1103 Approaches To The Study Of Mass Communications Part One Coursework: Question 7

age "when our central nervous system is technologically extended to involve in the whole of
7
mankind." As such, it would appear that cultures wliose native language is not the one
dominant in Internet media would inevitably become less pronounced. ^/

However, the Internet is tlie first participatory mass medium. It offers the ability to talk back
to the producers of content, as well as get talked to, and become a media producer of one's
own ! it is a naturally empowering medium. ^ ^

So, the concerns raised over cultural erosion by television and film do not necessarily or fully
extend to the Internet, because the Internet allows the audience to contribute something of its
own culture to the media melting pot. thus helping to resist global culture's alleged onslaught,
apparently giving fringe cultures greater representation and a fairer crack of the whip. ^/

Concerns that Internet media, because of this worldwide reach, could create a 'global culture'
may be unfounded. On current evidence, because of the diversity of interests and groupings
within societies, individual communities exist around on!line media which serve some
members of society, but not all members, ^(^ly^—co ^

The trend is, therefore, that because individuals liave varying interests and media
requirements, they fragment and use the media content of most interest to them. The Internet
draws different people from within the same national cultures. This then creates communities
of media consumers, perhaps on the very web site which delivers the initial content. A group
of people watching The X!Files,' discussing Anglo!American politics, or playing networked
Tetris, has an immense amount in common during tins experience, whether they are in the
"lion!space" of global on!line media! or in tlie local lounge of their own society.

But. even when put into practice with this global medium, this does not constitute a global
culture. It does not harbour traditions, customs or even languages which are common to all\J^\!
worldwide particinants. Rather, these are highly focused, active media!communities, a
reaction to content received within a nation!state society, but further deliberated over with
invisible audiences around the world. This is not cultural homogenisation. Tlie subject retains
national status because in the physical, off!line society, he must still operate within his
country.

This fragmentary process ! that of a media consumer looking for content of relevance to a
particular interest ! adds value to the relationships Internet users find in cybei'SDace. These
audiences may be scattered around the world, and when they gather around media content on
the Net their cultural background is not so much thrown away, as put aside until they return to i'>
v
the 'meatspace' of the 'real world' society. ^.W) o^ c*o '<JO<^ )s/vio to \ '•!'•• • ' . fct? >' a^. ! <<. •!

{ O!^lt has also been shown that, even with this most global of media, the power to re!connect non!
! global societies is vast. When media companies from these cultures turn to the Internet as a
v
publishing or broadcast medium, audiences from within their national or local target group \ \"^
often go on!line, using the same product produced by tlie border!controlled company, but in a ) ji v
global mediaspace. There, nestling amongst the geographically!focused news or entertainment \,•^1^)^)'^' c!
content, they will even find cultural ex!patriots, who are eager to re!gain something of the '^
society they left, and perhaps this strengthens the identity of the native cultures previously
thought to be under threat.,, ^o.xV'—G'!^^'a^ A t>(^^2> ^ ^ ^'!^v'P^ ^^'^"!^
^ ^MJA!i'&i!^'h^ ekC<c<o;\!ic5 S^^!io!s ^Si. ^^ "N^.
This culture of interaction on the Internet is not limited to representation of one's own culture
in the media, or to tlie possible resurgence of local societies in a medium with global context.
In politics, too. active citizens can hi!jack a worldwide stage to put over their views ! whether
MC1103 Approaches To The Study Of Mass Communications Part One Course

lobbying for UN policy amendment, or highlighting to an international audience wrongdoings

at^i^!^! .^•^:!, r.^,~^.
"Digital citizens are not ignorant of our system's inner workings, or indifferent to the social
and political issues our society must confront,"8 read the editorial of a recent survey of the
Internet population, claiming more of the 'connected' believe in democracy than the
'unconnected.' "Instead, the on!line world encompasses many of the most informed and
participatory citizens we have ever had or are likely to have." '>J.. •!»•(' •..;'^_ sr^oi^v',^ i?. +<~i.t.^ ^<'^?iJ
1
9o^| ^^ ^ ' V & ' v ^ ^o^iAiiicA iM"^,^ ' ^t'Jc^!'"'! '^!it.^.
This political awareness is surely due, in part, to the diversity of content available in on!line
news media. Media globalisation brings to the audience a greater plurality, of international
opinion and information, whether that be news reports from organisations in a variety of
countries, or foreign policies direct from conflicting governments. With this information
plurality, the user can arrive at a more balanced, informed opinion.

Global Internet media has another, quite drastic effect on politics. Content broadcast on
national television, which is deemed to be illegal, can be censored, or the producers
reprimanded. This is because the broadcaster exists within the same national legal framework
as the government. ~J

However, this does not apply to Internet media content. Exactly because the Internet is a
global medium, it frequently taxes the governments and authorities which seek to regulate the
information on it. The production network is worldwide, and the computers which serve to
users the content they store can be located anywhere. So, by placing a server outside of the
legal jurisdiction of the objecting nation state, publishers can escape prosecution, yet still
reach the audience within the country in question. Politically, the ramifications of this are that
the voting citizen is further empowered with the possession of potentially!important
information ! as was the case in December 1997, when most British!based media were
forbidden from revealing the identity of the politician's son involved in a drug!selling
incident. The Internet made a mockery of the ruling because news content providers all over
the world could publish Jack Straw's name on web sites that were accessible to everyone !
including Britons. The Internet by!passed laws designed for use within a wireless state,
opening up the personalities and private lives of politics for all to see. So, globalisation of
media politically empowers the electorate and potentially increases the vulnerability of the
elected, while flouting the regulations they create for media. \/ h '
..,!',,^_, :...,!. ^!,.,,.,,__
1
„. L^!A ^ctto^..^ ! .!,.^, yam, A(^(A \^fC;^ \^ CCr!^,,<C\.c^ •IrSo^!l ^
dv^M^^c^ c^ ^^A;,^! </• !!, ^^V^A !"3>i^ i^\^ ;

In conclusion, evaluating the extent to which the Internet's global village has implications for
politics, society and culture is often difficult.

When "our central nervous system is extended" in this way, society can operate on two levels.
In the global village created by the Internet, the media content and the people we meet are
familiar to us. But we don't naturally, continually inhabit the global village, instead frequently
returning to the physicality of the actual village, and to the obvious relationships and
environments within it.

Perhaps in the same way mat we can switch off the television to exist outside of the national
media, we can disconnect from the global village media produced by the Net, living outside
of it, within our preserved, geographical culture, and re!producing that when we switch on
again. , !\ i . »
jt
<^JrU^ ^!\ ^ ^^ ^ ! ,c_ ^'^^ !^ '^

L^A!^ ^\V ! •\ TV ! ^\^t^OU^ ^L^&^ • • ! ^(^ y^fe^

ENDNOTES/BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Eno, B. (1997 (1968)), cited in McLuhan, M, & Fiore, Q. War And Peace in The Global Village: Hardwired, San
Fransisco

2. McLuhan, M. (1962), The Gutenberg Galaxy. p31; RouBedge & Kegan Paul, London

3. McLuhan, M. (1962), The Gutenberg Galaxy, p8; Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

4. McLuhan, M. & Fiore, Q. (1968) War And Peace In The Global Village. p11: Bantam, New York

5. Fink, C. (chief creative officer, Greenhouse Networks ! America On!line's media division) cited in Geiriand, J. 'Making
AOL a Media Company,' in Wired 5.11 (1997, Nov), p233; Wired Magazine Group Inc., San Fransisco

6.Jospin, L. andParuta, F. cited in Lazarus, D. 'Death of Minitel,' in 'Electric Word,' Wired 5.11, p54; Wired Magazine
Group Inc., San Fransisco

7. McLuhan, M. (1987 (1964)) Understanding Media. p4; Ark Paperbacks, London

8. Katz.J. (1997, Dec) 'The Digital Citizen; in 'The Netizen; Wired 5.12. p71 •. Wired Magazine Group Inc.. San
Fransisco
 APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF MASS COMMUNICATIONS
ESSAY

Name of Student: Robert Andrews

Subject of Essay: Globalisation

Regerding the amount of research you did, the originality which you show in picking and
presenting your subject, and the level at which you aim your discussion, this essay should
and would have been a first ! if it weren't for some shortcomings that marr your otherwise
high achievements. These shortcomings are the following:
.. •> i . i .

1. The biggest problem is that you decided to defend the positive effects of the internet at
all costs, so you present a onesided discussion of the subject that doesn't pay attention to
the problems of the Net such as
! it's addictive, sometimes socially distinctive effects (Experience speaking here ! I got
more than one net friend who lost their jobs because they spent too much time chatting.) I
grant you that a lot ofnetters are enlightened world!citisens ! but because you are more or
less stating that all of them are, you lay yourself open to criticism.
! The establishment of a tech! / nontech!society with much greater consequences than
we've seen up to now ! already you can only make use of most of the internet if you have
access to a computer and an account, something that cannot be taken for granted even in
Western societies, much less in other parts of the world.
2. Linked into this seems to me that you restrict your research to critics that are mostly
net!positive ! though McLuhan certainly is one of the major voices in the field, he's far
from being accepted without critique. Additionally, you don't indicate where the general
statements and 'facts' you present come from ! how the hell do you know?
These are the main problems I see ! slight problem as well that you don't give a seperate,
alphabetised bibliography and that your structure sometimes is not 'linked up' enough ! you
make a point, then seem to forget about it to make the next point. Still: this is a very good
essay, and if you come to terms with the point that an essay has to show both sides of a
coin, I expect great things of your next one. Nice work!

Grade: 69 %

Seminar Tutor: Eva Vieth