So I loosely adapted a line from 30 Rock for the title of this post. The real thing is something like "This is a sham, your DIS-honor...Nay, a mockery! I put the system on trial! You can't handle the truth! I'm out of order?! YOU'RE out of order! Victor Sifuentes! HOOAH!"
I thought I should start this post with something funny, because what follows is far from it. In light of the recent media coverage of high-profile legal cases, I would like to dedicate my post this week to discussion of the internationalization of the legal system.
I know coverage of court cases is nothing new, especially in the age of sensationalization, but it's an especially hot-button issue lately thanks to the controversial execution of Troy Davis in Georgia. I don't spend too much time on Facebook, but the day of his execution, I couldn't help but track my news feed as my friends and peers posted notices, action alerts, and their feelings on the matter. In the aftermath of the execution, the momentum from the case is being used to propel the movement against the death penalty (see sites like Amnesty International for confirmation of this). As I'm sure you all know, this case garnered international attention and had folks from all over the world weighing in.
As one country failed to reconsider, another showed mercy. The same day as Troy Davis was executed, Iran released the two remaining captured US hikers, Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer, from confinement. The Omani government is said to have brokered the arrangement and paid the US $1 million bail. This being a case of international proportions, of course the world was watching. Here's an article on CNN.com about their release. This case is significant since the hikers were freed with help from a government that was not their own. Does this mean the erosion of the nation-state? Of course not, since it was an interaction between states, but it does show an interest across nations, instead of simply within the nation of note. In other (less-globalized?) points in history, I don't think this arrangement would have been probable.
I know it would take far more than a blog post to really delve into any of the issues, but I have been thinking increasingly about the impact international (and not necessarily diasporic) actors can have on national issues and laws. Does international coverage of legal proceedings keep us all honest or does it erode the ability of the prosecuting nation-state to effectively try suspects? I think more transparency can't be too much of a bad thing, but it's also easy to say that given that it's somewhat of an inevitability at this point. Now if we could only get some more focus on Guantánamo...
Friday, September 30, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
An African Spring?
Earlier this week I read an article on The Atlantic called, "In New Sub-Saharan Leader, Hints of an African Spring." I'd been following the Zambian election, see last week's blog post, and when I saw the headline it peaked my interest since we had just mentioned the Arab spring in class and the importance of social media in driving that event. This part, in particular, stuck with me:
The issue of Zambia and their election, and especially the case of the new President Michael Sata, is an example of one of the trends that Sinclair talks about in his article. Feelings of nationalism were essential to this election, Sata ran on the campaign of regulating Chinese mines and largely on his popularity and pragmatism. As the article states, "There's something else of Sata's populism that has echoes in the Arab Spring. "Don't kubeba," a phrase taken from a popular song that literally means "don't tell them," became Sata's signature phrase." Nationalism and a focus on the Zambian culture, regulating of foreign investors in the country and protecting the Zambian workers played a huge role in his campaign.
It also is an example of another trend Sinclair describes, the growth of an organization challenging the nation-state, and successfully. It was a clean switch-over of power from the incumbent party to a new ruling party. And, as of now, it seems as if it will continue to go smoothly. Former president Rupiah Banda, who lost his reelection bid, attended the inauguration of Sata and said in interviews he looked forward to his upcoming downtime.
The end of the article, however, makes one of the most important points:
"There are plenty of entrenched presidents in sub-Saharan Africa that could give good impersonations of recently deposed Arab dictators. Zimbabawe's Robert Mugabe is surely a match for Libya's Qaddafi in terms of stubborn self-destruction and bizarre narcissism. Cameroon's Paul Biya, who has so rarely actually governed during his 30 years in power that he sports the nickname "the ghost of Africa," could give Mubarak a decent competition in the realm of complacency and corruption...And yet none of these African autocrats seem threatened by dissent in their own countries."The relation of the African dictators to those overthrown in the Arab Spring isn't terribly far-fetched and it's an interesting comparison to help readers less knowledgeable about African politics or who may not have heard of Mugabe or Biya.
The issue of Zambia and their election, and especially the case of the new President Michael Sata, is an example of one of the trends that Sinclair talks about in his article. Feelings of nationalism were essential to this election, Sata ran on the campaign of regulating Chinese mines and largely on his popularity and pragmatism. As the article states, "There's something else of Sata's populism that has echoes in the Arab Spring. "Don't kubeba," a phrase taken from a popular song that literally means "don't tell them," became Sata's signature phrase." Nationalism and a focus on the Zambian culture, regulating of foreign investors in the country and protecting the Zambian workers played a huge role in his campaign.
It also is an example of another trend Sinclair describes, the growth of an organization challenging the nation-state, and successfully. It was a clean switch-over of power from the incumbent party to a new ruling party. And, as of now, it seems as if it will continue to go smoothly. Former president Rupiah Banda, who lost his reelection bid, attended the inauguration of Sata and said in interviews he looked forward to his upcoming downtime.
The end of the article, however, makes one of the most important points:
"The Zambian election, for all its signals of a potentially new era in African politics, is also a reminder of one of the most serious challenges to politics there. A true African (political) spring will be unlikely to occur until a younger generation of leaders emerge with real power, at least in civil society if not in electoral politics, closing black Africa's generation gap and making men and women like Sata less of an exception and more of a norm."
Media Olympics
An interesting article that is a few years old, but comments on some happenings after the Beijing Olympics. I'm surprised that author seems to be challenging Korea with his point - since typically Korea has more of a free press than China.
Friday, September 23, 2011
The Zambian Election
The Zambian election that took place earlier this week took an interesting turn when technology came into the picture. The incumbent, Rupiah Banda, was a member of a party that had been in power for twenty years and was behind in the polls. The challenger, Michael Sata, came out strongly criticizing Chinese involvement in the mining industry of the country and the lack of oversight on Chinese-run mines. Prior to the election, stories came out that the vice president was accusing opposition parties and private media of attempting to undermine the results of the election and incite violence.
Shortly after the election, riots began to occur because the Electoral Commission of Zambia's website had been hacked, and announced that Sata had won in a landslide. While the website was taken down temporarily and the fake results were removed, the riots were minor and the real results were announced before the end of the week, it was an interesting example of the role of technology in Africa, especially in terms of the electoral process. The readings this week talked about the globalization of the media. Journalists weren't covering the Zambian elections as much as they would for a country like Zimbabwe or Sudan, there isn't a lot of interest in a relatively stable and democratic country. There was coverage in the Chinese media because of their history in the country, especially following the shooting of Zambian miners in a Chinese-run mine by the Chinese mangers. The story was covered, but since then Zambia has fallen out of the spotlight until the hacking of the website to change the results.
This relates to the Castells reading, because it talked about how globalization is creating a challenge for nation-states as a set of institutions. The changing media landscape in places like Zambia is changing how elections and other major events occur. The way they are communicating with the people in the country has changed, they are engaging the citizens of Zambia differently. There is easier and more widespread access to the internet so people can get the poll results online instead of listening for the announcement on the television or radio or even by word of mouth. But that has also created the chance for a crisis of communication, supporters of Sata used the technology to their advantage. They hacked into the website and said that he won in a landslide. The results that are being reported now say he won with 43 percent of the vote. But this is an example of how the changing face of the media, and the growing globalization of the media, is creating a challenge for governments. They need to ensure that websites like those of their Electoral Commissions have the firewalls necessary so people can't hack in and announce the wrong results. But it never would have happened only a few years ago in Zambia, which is why no one probably would have predicted that this would have occurred.
Shortly after the election, riots began to occur because the Electoral Commission of Zambia's website had been hacked, and announced that Sata had won in a landslide. While the website was taken down temporarily and the fake results were removed, the riots were minor and the real results were announced before the end of the week, it was an interesting example of the role of technology in Africa, especially in terms of the electoral process. The readings this week talked about the globalization of the media. Journalists weren't covering the Zambian elections as much as they would for a country like Zimbabwe or Sudan, there isn't a lot of interest in a relatively stable and democratic country. There was coverage in the Chinese media because of their history in the country, especially following the shooting of Zambian miners in a Chinese-run mine by the Chinese mangers. The story was covered, but since then Zambia has fallen out of the spotlight until the hacking of the website to change the results.
This relates to the Castells reading, because it talked about how globalization is creating a challenge for nation-states as a set of institutions. The changing media landscape in places like Zambia is changing how elections and other major events occur. The way they are communicating with the people in the country has changed, they are engaging the citizens of Zambia differently. There is easier and more widespread access to the internet so people can get the poll results online instead of listening for the announcement on the television or radio or even by word of mouth. But that has also created the chance for a crisis of communication, supporters of Sata used the technology to their advantage. They hacked into the website and said that he won in a landslide. The results that are being reported now say he won with 43 percent of the vote. But this is an example of how the changing face of the media, and the growing globalization of the media, is creating a challenge for governments. They need to ensure that websites like those of their Electoral Commissions have the firewalls necessary so people can't hack in and announce the wrong results. But it never would have happened only a few years ago in Zambia, which is why no one probably would have predicted that this would have occurred.
I'll have the salad, please
We've been talking about the difference between a nation and a nation-state, and then proceeding from that idea into a discussion of nationalism. The doubt in my mind is about how we approach the idea of a nation, especially regarding the United States? It's easy enough to identify the US as a nation-state (borders, government, laws, etc) but how do we define it as a "nation"? Is there one American culture that we can all agree upon? Or does it fit enough as a nation that we recognize it's a tremendously diverse place and the "culture" is that of a melting pot?
A visit to Wikipedia gives an interesting bit of insight into the idea of American culture: the idea has been introduced that we're not a melting pot of a nation, we're a salad bowl. While I'm glad we kept it in the kitchen (possibly my favorite room), I wasn't familiar with the term. It's simple enough to figure out, however: where a melting pot holds a soup made, say, with the help of an immersion blender - no pun intended? - in an attempt to create a uniform taste and texture, a salad bowl contains an assortment of vegetables (well, and fruit, meat, starches, seeds/nuts, condiments) that are left unscathed by a blending mechanism, maintaining their original characteristics. It's the difference between assimilation and multiculturalism, as I understand it. The idea is an obvious oversimplification, but at least it attempts to tackle the big picture.
And really, how do we define American culture? It seems too weighty of a task to sit down and determine what "American" culture is as we can hardly decide who counts as an American to therefore sort out their similarities and call it culture. (Side note, it's rather a shame that Usonians didn't catch on as a term, as I know Central and South America take some contention to our attempted monopoly on "American." Vespucci can't have known his given name would be in such high demand!) This is where the idea of nation vs nation-state comes into play. It would be easy to say, official government-recognized citizens of the United States are Americans. But of course, nation isn't the same as nation-state; citizenship is therefore disqualified as a metric for "Americanness" and we've hit a roadblock.
Thanks to this roadblock (and a subsequent blown intellectual tire), I don't have a good answer for the question I'm asking. I'm not certain anyone can effectively convince me that there is one culture that is uniquely and uniformly American. Whether it's desirable for us all to assimilate to a prescribed norm (although the necessary next question is: what is that norm and who sets it?), I can't say that I think that's what's at play in the US. It seems we indeed are more of an American salad, replete with varied ingredients (and probably swimming in a full-fat ranch dressing, as these days I'm told you can't consider American culture without considering obesity). This metaphor fits for me especially when I think about the way we talk about salads. It might be taking the metaphor too far, but consider the restaurant menu. Tomato soup is billed as just that, but a salad listing will spell out all of the various components (a la "spinach with tuna, tomato, and raisins"). The shoe fits: American culture is complex enough that you can't just call it "American culture" and have the restaurant patrons understand what they're ordering; all the components must be considered.
...of course, I haven't really solved my problem, just gotten hungry.
Alphabet Soup
How Exclusion Can Foster Independent Development
It has been argued that the globalization of media and the creation of media conglomerates have yielded productions without a sense of identity that panders to a general audience, resulting in the exclusion of cultural minorities. Programming churned out by major network, particularly in the United States, endeavor to appeal to the widest swath of the population so as to attract advertisers and ultimately increase their revenue. However, the major networks’ goal of appealing to a mainstream audience has created an opportunity for specialty networks to appeal to niche audiences. These networks appear to thrive as new specialty channels are added to the television lineup almost weekly.
Specialty channels present themselves to niche markets targeting a variety of demographics ranging from gender to age and special interest to cultural programming. Examining the proliferation of non-English networks, specifically Spanish-language channels, illustrates that media can facilitate the preservation of minority cultural identity and even the creation of a different media-state within a nation-sate.
Data from the 2010 Census illustrates the trend of minority population growing at a significant rate. Figures from the most recent count indicate that in the last decade the Hispanic population “accounted for more than half of the total U.S. population increase.” As the Spanish-speaking population grows so do the opportunities for niche networks. Television networks like Telemundo and Univision have progressively spread into new markets in an effort to pursue their growing target demographic. The expansion into new markets to reach a target audience directly contributes to an increase in viewership, greater advertising dollars, and ultimately revenue to support the production of in-house production. An article in Miami Today details how the increase of the Hispanic population has generated substantial revenue that can be funneled into independent content production. The networks’ ability to produce Spanish-language programming in the U.S. decreases their reliance on Venezuelan and Mexican imports fostering an independence essential for tailoring programming to the Hispanic-American population. Producing content suited specifically for a community of people within a nation-state rather than for a general population that may share nothing more than a common language exemplifies a media success in supporting minority culture in the nation-state while circumnavigating trans-national media and program imports.
This success demonstrates that the exclusion of minority culture and language from mainstream media can support the creation and success of an entirely different media-state within a nation-state. Perhaps under certain conditions, exclusion from mainstream media can yield a separate medium that creates programming that preserves cultural integrity where it may have been lost if incorporated in major network programming in the first place.
It has been argued that the globalization of media and the creation of media conglomerates have yielded productions without a sense of identity that panders to a general audience, resulting in the exclusion of cultural minorities. Programming churned out by major network, particularly in the United States, endeavor to appeal to the widest swath of the population so as to attract advertisers and ultimately increase their revenue. However, the major networks’ goal of appealing to a mainstream audience has created an opportunity for specialty networks to appeal to niche audiences. These networks appear to thrive as new specialty channels are added to the television lineup almost weekly.
Specialty channels present themselves to niche markets targeting a variety of demographics ranging from gender to age and special interest to cultural programming. Examining the proliferation of non-English networks, specifically Spanish-language channels, illustrates that media can facilitate the preservation of minority cultural identity and even the creation of a different media-state within a nation-sate.
Data from the 2010 Census illustrates the trend of minority population growing at a significant rate. Figures from the most recent count indicate that in the last decade the Hispanic population “accounted for more than half of the total U.S. population increase.” As the Spanish-speaking population grows so do the opportunities for niche networks. Television networks like Telemundo and Univision have progressively spread into new markets in an effort to pursue their growing target demographic. The expansion into new markets to reach a target audience directly contributes to an increase in viewership, greater advertising dollars, and ultimately revenue to support the production of in-house production. An article in Miami Today details how the increase of the Hispanic population has generated substantial revenue that can be funneled into independent content production. The networks’ ability to produce Spanish-language programming in the U.S. decreases their reliance on Venezuelan and Mexican imports fostering an independence essential for tailoring programming to the Hispanic-American population. Producing content suited specifically for a community of people within a nation-state rather than for a general population that may share nothing more than a common language exemplifies a media success in supporting minority culture in the nation-state while circumnavigating trans-national media and program imports.
This success demonstrates that the exclusion of minority culture and language from mainstream media can support the creation and success of an entirely different media-state within a nation-state. Perhaps under certain conditions, exclusion from mainstream media can yield a separate medium that creates programming that preserves cultural integrity where it may have been lost if incorporated in major network programming in the first place.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Nationalism and the U.S.
Sorry for being late with the blogs, but thankfully it won't effect the group. For my own sake I will get things straight soon.
Okay, on to reading - I was immediately taken in the discussion of nationalism in the Waisboard readings. A day or two leading up to 9/11, one of the talking head segments on, I believe, MSNBC, comparing the current climate of the country to that of the period after the disaster occurred. One of the commentators stated that the feeling of unity country felt after the terrorist attack was brief but powerful; the lack of unity that citizens are confronted with today is one of the country's primary problems. The argument was not that we become jingoistic, as we arguably have a political party that embraces that, but true nationalism, a true coming together of the country. I'm not sure I heard the words "World War II" but they were likely there - it seems that whenever pundits have these conversations WWII comes up, Roosevelt, New Deal and such for comparison. However I haven't recalled anyone mention (on-air anyway) that perhaps the dissent and suspicion plaguing American's today is not being helped by the media's contribution to the division of America.
Okay, on to reading - I was immediately taken in the discussion of nationalism in the Waisboard readings. A day or two leading up to 9/11, one of the talking head segments on, I believe, MSNBC, comparing the current climate of the country to that of the period after the disaster occurred. One of the commentators stated that the feeling of unity country felt after the terrorist attack was brief but powerful; the lack of unity that citizens are confronted with today is one of the country's primary problems. The argument was not that we become jingoistic, as we arguably have a political party that embraces that, but true nationalism, a true coming together of the country. I'm not sure I heard the words "World War II" but they were likely there - it seems that whenever pundits have these conversations WWII comes up, Roosevelt, New Deal and such for comparison. However I haven't recalled anyone mention (on-air anyway) that perhaps the dissent and suspicion plaguing American's today is not being helped by the media's contribution to the division of America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)