Blog Quiz - Chapter 2

1. The increasingly deregulated environment in which these media organizations operate.

As the media giants grew larger and larger they began to eclipse their competition. In a capitalist society, regulations really only survive beside competition, so with a lack of it, regulations became more and more lax. Soon these organizations began controlling their own regulations, to some degree, outsourcing to different countires where the United States government has no jurisdiction. Examples of this can be seen anywhere, from McDonalds having its toys built in child-labor facilities in Asia to the shameless advertising of these media giants, intruding even into the most private lives of consumers across the globe through the internet, television and now even text messages.

2. The promotion of the ideology of consumerism, which is therefor bound up with the capitalist project.

With the intrusion of this new and more and more unlimited advertising, the message being projected to consumers is "buy buy buy". New items are deemed necessary to live a status quo life, and even more to live one of disctinction or admiration. Celebrities are praised on their expensive clothing and accessories, and the following day those same products and cheaper knock-offs fly off of the shelves. In a rapidly changing technological society, it is no longer enough to buy a single cell phone or refrigerator or even a vacuum cleaner. There is always a better model or a cooler accessory. These media giants are sustained on their ability to make the general public buy from them, whether it be in the form of goods or services. We are taught to trade up, to supersize for those few extra quarters, because not doing so would be a supreme waste, right? It is in this way that our lives are not complete until we own the best product AT THAT MOMENT. As Tyler Durden put it so eloquently, "The things you own end up owning you." And since the media organizations own them, they do, too.

3. The use by these media conglomerates of new information and communications technologies.

To do all of this, the media organizations utilize the latest of their own products to assail you with even more advertising. Besides the government or military, the first to move on to a new technology is usually one of these media giants. By getting a foothold there and staking out their territory, it is possible for them to gain an influential position in a new and blossoming digital world. Even those corporations who before were not involved in certain areas are getting involved now. No one wants to be left behind, every useful demographic has to be hit and pounded into the ground from every direction. More and more organizations are sending text message advertisements, with some companies even specializing in local advertising through your phone based on systems that can tell exactly where you are. The internet is capable of logging your general patterns of visitation, and catering the advertising that pops up onto your screen to your perceived tastes. The same can be said for some digital cable advertising. All of these new technologies seem to be centering around personalization, negating a lot of wasted advertising dollars but creeping a lot of people out while doing it.

Concerns and Worries

The largest concerns about media globalization seem to be a loss of local culture in exchange for a global one. I can't say I agree here. What I see instead is an enhancement of local culture with global elements. Rather than erase the local experience and awaken the user into a more universal culture, what globalization seems to be doing is giving people new information and new topics to then interpret through their localized lense. Their interpretations are in no way separate from their original ways, but are directed by them. A young man in Amish country when suddenly, unwillingly and unexpectedly bombarded with Hollywood images of Las Vegas and neon signs is not going to forget he's Amish. Rather, he will view it through his cultural lense and more likely shake his head and turn away, those things unacceptable in the way he's been brought up.

Another concern is the indoctrination of the audience of these new forms of global media into staunch consumerists whose only goal in life is to buy the next big thing. Again, I think this concept severely underestimates the human capacity for rejection. Each audience member, regardless of whether he lives in a globalized society or not, is an autonomous being. He has his own likes and dislikes and values and goals. If the message being brought to him is against these things, he is extremely likely to reject it. People are not sponges, as some theories of globalization would like to assert, and while they may be affected by the media they view, they are definitely not always bent by it.

Finally the worry arises that not all members of the global community have equal access to the channels of communication within that globalized society. This is an obvious point, and not a correctable one. Levels of economic and social opportunity will always exist in human society, and so to declare it here as an alterable or even a new problem is somewhat ridiculous. While it is unfortunate that not all sides can be heard on every level of media organization, it is an unfortunate fact, and while efforts can be made to limit or alter the nature of that separation, it can never be completely dealt with.