Globalization and the Webs of Power

Here an aim is to establish the extent to which the media that operate across
and beyond national borders represent important source of political power, and
who or what benefits and loses from it. There are three elements to this power:

the first is associated with the influence and reach of the new media
conglomerates, the second is their power relative to power of nation states,
the third is the matter of whether they change the way citizen think and act,
meaning do they give us new cosmopolitan idea ( and global ethics).

Signs of global media economy we mentioned in lesion Media Moguls and

Media Power. They can be seen in the worldwide presence of corporations such
as Disney. This kind of organizations appears to have a stake everywhere. New
media conglomerate offer full package. Disney entertains, educate etc.
(Telemach: internet, TV). Also, mobile phone companies now focus on
providing a range of media services. The media conglomerates made certain
alliances to offer a complete media package. Therefore, these organizations
represent commanders of commercial and cultural global domination. They are
the new emperors (or this is how they seem).

Globalization here plays important role. By definition, it is the process of

international integration arising from the political, economic and cultural
interchange (webs of connections). Moreover, it is impossible to separate the
notion of globalization from the possibilities created by technological change.
The mass communication is bound up with the technical innovation and this is
true for global media as for anything else. There is no consensus why
technological development (we moved from radio, to television, to single
multipurpose device) is happening and hence what interests are implicated in
the change. First claim about this is that it is a process of (natural) evolution,
and we need only to adapt to these changes (at first worried about
consequences, but soon wondering how we ever managed without it). It makes
no sense to resist. We have to accept the political, social and cultural changes
that new technologies cause. This way of thinking is labeled as technological
determinism, it assumes that technology is driven by inner scientific logic, a
logic of progress, so people can do more that they could before. The only
reasonable response to this is to adapt, it would be irrational to refuse the
improvement of quality of life and to deny inevitable.

Also, there is another opinion, that changes are not product of some persistent
logic, they are instead the consequence of interest and intentions. The route of
technological development is mapped by the allocation of resources as
consequence of political and economic priorities (ex. radio product of military
needs it is product of commercial initiatives, corporate and state interests).

Globalization is as much a political as economic phenomenon, a product of

neo-liberalism and of the logic of market. The decision of WTO in 1997 to
deregulate telecommunications enabled global networks to operate.

However, it can be claimed that the corporations do not control the new
technologies absolutely. The degree to which the use of technology can be
controlled varies from case to case. There are hot, hard and cool, soft
technologies, the telephone allows considerable control by user, while television
allows very little. Therefore, technology itself is one element of technical and
social change. Mass communication should not be understood in terms of
technology automatically dictating it or political will and/or commercial
interest. Rather, it is a complex of interactions between the technical, the
commercial and political realms. This is the third approach to technical change
that is used here in exploring political consequences of global media.
Technological change is made possible by the new conglomerates, but it is
depended on political regimes and other participants.

Now from looking at the key players and the forces that drive change in the
political economy of mass communications, here focus will be on their
collective impact. There are two sets of arguments. The first is about
conceptualizing change as internationalization or globalization, with the
different distribution of powers that each implies. The second accepts the
existence of globalization and asks whether its impact is negative or positive,
whether it provides the condition for liberty and mixture, or it is cultural
imperialism.

Globalization represents the idea that traditional borders are being suppressed
by a system which operates at a supranational level. The expression of this
new order may be found in the content of communication, distribution and
production. The content refers to the same images and icons can be found
wherever you go (Coca-Cola or film and pop stars (Beyonc, Madonna)), but it
can be represented also in the same photos of the same event appearing
everywhere (attack on Twin Towers). The distribution refers to everyone
inhabiting the same network of communication: the same corporation
supplying television programs and news to everyone. Finally, the production
means that control of the means of communication lies with organization that
exist beyond individual nation states.

In these three dimensions of globalization, there is also involvement of global

acts being packaged differently for different contexts. Cultural content is not
standardized, rather it is customized. Here we have the example of Netflix
(McBurek), consumers targeted based on culture. Hence, there is localization of
global forces it is based on audience.

The point of drawing attention to the three dimensions of globalization is not to

suggest that they represent complete picture, but to enable us to separate
different ways in which globalization may tie media and politics, so we need to
focus on two issues. The first is the effect of globalized media power on the
powers of nation-states. The second effect is on the way in which people are
constituted and reconstituted in global networks.

Commercial success depends on constant negotiations with governments who

need corporations, but have the capacity to set the terms under which they
operate (ex. Murdoch spreading corporation in India needed government
support). There is thinking that global products are harmful economically and
culturally so governments opt for regulation in order to protect local companies
and to protect national integrity of the culture.

Moreover, there is inclusion (who is involved) and exclusion (ignored identity).

Ja mislim da se ovo refer kako su western ideas presented a ostale nisu.

Jana mentioned how this logic is similar as (advertisers, audience, editors -

logic). Also, the ideas are not equally spread, there are differences
geographically, technology is not equally present in all parts of the world, also
packages are adjusted. Isto sam imala zamisano SOCIAL DUMPING, ne znam
sta je ovo .
 New Media, New Politics?
(E-democracy)

There is a significant growth of the Internet and here a question is about its
present and future political consequences. Democracy developed and improved
through media technology (the Internet). New media transformed politics
trough these five steps:

Bolje je napisati da E-democracy is the idea that democracy can be developed

and improved through the use of technology and media.

1) Operation of government

Governments across the World use the Internet to deliver their services, to
inform and consult citizens, but also to implement policy.

For example, data.gov.uk offers the access to the government information.

Therefore, people do not have to be physically present anymore, making it
much more easily.

2) Conduct of elections

Now it is completely different than it was before. The changes emerged in the
late 1990s and 2000.

The use of the network communication for the campaigns:

In 1997, an American politician conducted 70% of his campaign in chat

rooms. Then following the emergence of social networks, Obamas use of these
networks was the valid part of his campaign (to attract young people, especially
because many of them do not vote at all). Donald Trump also used Twitter for
his campaign.

Moreover, a person can online register for voting.

(Also, there is the online voting, for example, Canada in 2012, but hackers
disrupted it, which is the reason why this way of voting is not widely
implemented)
3) Social Movements (Political Activism):
collective actions focused on specific political or social issue. Similar to interest
groups such as trade unions, teacher associations, but there is no formal
membership. The idea of think globally, act locally. First, they reach close
people than by using the Internet they mobilize people all over the world and
finally, they build a network (for example, a movement concerned with
teachers interest use it to reach teachers across the world). The social field
platform for decisions in the global world, links to the networks.

Spontaneous demonstrations coordinated trough internet and now not linked

to territorial and sectional interests. However, before, for activism knowledge
was necessary, now not so much. Also, it lasted longer, now people simply
tweet about it. Example for this is the student protests in the 70s and 80s,
which lasted long. Moreover, the idea of activism as such has changed. People
think that they are active when they are in fact passive. Here we have the idea
of utilitarianism, when we feel good about ourselves when we, for example, post
on fb #prayforAleppo and we thinking that we are active when we are actually
not. Hence, social movements can use the Internet to mobilize, but they are
mobilizing a bunch of non-active people.

Ne znam u kojem smislu je connected sa utilitarianism? greatest happiness for

the greatest number?

4) Journalism

There are two elements. The first element is an emergence of blogs. Before,
people have to study to become journalist now anyone who has an opinion and
access to the Internet can create a blog and become a journalist. Also, a creator
of a blog can be at the same time journalist, editor, and owner and there are no
regulations that exist in traditional journalism, no one has control over it.
Second, ordinary people now become journalists. People with their phones can
capture something interesting and report about it. For example, when the
terrorist attacks happened citizens captured pictures and videos of the attack.

5) Big Brother Society

Everything what we do, what we say is watched. There are surveillance

systems used for this purpose. Moreover, although we are free and we may
think that we are anonymous when we use the Internet, but an IP address
shows persons online identity. Also, all data is stored (ex. credit cards). Today
we perceive ourselves as private consumers, but from this, we see that we are
not.

THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW:

Skeptics

They acknowledge that we have opportunities, but the question is do we use

them. So ok, we are online, but now what?! How do we actually use our time
spent online (shopping, watching funny pictures).

Also, technology is not available to everyone. For example, in the UK 70% has
access, but in Africa only 7%.

Even if a person has the access in is not guarantee for usage, because some
skill and knowledge are necessary for it so it is limited based on education and
age (only elites).

Internet did not change who elites are, it still exist and it is still the same group
of people (white, middle-aged males)

Pessimists

Now with the use of the Internet elites have better insight who their audience
is. When using the Internet people leave their tracks (who you are, what do you
want, what are you interested in), so someone who wants to use you now
have data (similar to the idea of Big Brother society).

You make yourself publicly available.

I would add that elites already know how we are going to vote because of this.

Optimists (proponents)

Technology has a positive role. It improves peoples position. By having the

access we are moving from representative democracy to deliberative democracy
(engage in dialogue). The state being in touch with you can enable you to take
apart and shape policy. There are much more exchange and active citizens.
 Packaging Politics
Since democracy is the rule of the people, these people need to have the
information (and be critical about it). Hence, media has an important role in
the society. The concern about media exists because they can harm citizens
judgment and their respond to the exercise of power. Hence, here is focus on
changes in political communication in last few decades. The main concern is
the public representation of politics and how it is managed by certain people
such as spin doctors (it diminishes the quality of democracy, appearance
becomes more important than reality).

Democracy implies that people make political judgments and hold their
representatives accountable. In order to do that, hey need information that is
provided by media. However, we are living in a post-civic society where the
right to be political is ignored. To make politics attractive and promote political
engagement, politics is being packaged.

Packaging politics there is no clear definition, but it refers to making politics

pretty to appeal to consumers (or def. is making politics attractive).

The idea of packaged politics is derived from the idea of the market where
products are there to present certain image rather than to serve a certain
purpose. It suggests that everything is controlled. Hence, media presents
image-makers. One of the evidence is an increase in advertising budgets (USA
elections in 2008, $2 billions spent on this).
 PACKAGING TECHNIQUES
Interviews:

For a politician, it is an opportunity to promote his/her political message. Over

time it has changed, the role of politician and journalist is now different that it
was before, used to be serious debates now it is all about appeareance. Also,
formats have changed, before it was a one-to-one interview, now we have
phone-ins, chat shows Interview techniques and rules have changed, so
politicians have more control. Hence, it is all about the balance of power
between interviewer and politicians. This new kind of interviews is there to
enable politicians to say what they want and journalists role is just to present
their political message. One symptom of this trend is sound bite; it is a short,
powerful message (so, the sole message without exchange between journalist
and politician). Another strategy employed to this different style of interviews is
moving from hard news to chat shows (where). The idea is to humanize
politicians, to avoid difficult topics and to reach wider, less politically engaged
the audience (ex. for this is Obama on The Ellen DeGeneres Show (danced with
the host, hit a punch ball)).

Images and Appearances:

Politicians and parties work at branding themselves in order to create a clear,

original image that will represent their stance. It is a way of capturing the
essence of a product (its agenda) using single memorable image or phrase
(sound bite). Stalin had it, Castro also, Trump stole Regans Make America
great again! It goes with certain behavior and the process starts with personal
appearance and way of dressing. Here we have an example of a politician on a
beach in a t-shirt (before this was hard to imagine). The intention is to image
and slogans that are easily recognized in order to get the political response.
These images make politicians appealing. Also, an example is Trumps baseball
hat as a symbol of working class and it is truly American. Now they use these
methods before they did not. This I found in the book, I did not have it in my
notes: The adoption of celebrities to acquire popularity, an example is Obamas
campaign when film, music, sports stars approved him.

Spin Doctors:

Those are a new breed of political advisers and consultants, media managers
within the political process, people with expertise in advertising, marketing,
and public relations. Some of their tasks are to secure political coverage that
their clients desire, to negotiate and set terms for interviews, providing press
releases (saoptenje za javnost), creating sound bites and arranging photo
opportunities. Hence, their job is to manage media to enhance the image and
message of their clients. Nisam sigurna kako je ovo related, ali imam zapisano:
We want to push more stories, media has to fulfill it, but also to cut the costs.
Hence, fewer people are doing more work since media has to please the
audience.

CELEBRITY POLITICS
The word celebrity refers to the people who enjoy great media presence. Some
of them are celebrities just by being born in a famous family (the Kennedys),
some by being involved in certain political scandal or by being charismatic
(Jesse Jackson).

Nonpoliticos those who move from show business into politics. Clint
Eastwood, Arnold Schwarzenegger

Politicos those with carriers in politics (already had an office) who make use
of being the celebrity. How? They tend to use celebrity formats (ex. chat
shows: Ellen politicians guests same as actors, singers etc.), methods used
by the celebrities now are used by politicians (ex. photo apps)

Political Celebrities - advocate certain political message, but without seeking

elected office (Bob Marley).

Celebrity Politicians traditional politicians who engage with the world of

popular culture in order to advance their pre-established political goals and
functions (politicols ja ne vidim razliku).

ARE THESE CHANGES GOOD OR BAD?

The critique of celebrity politics

Both types of celebrity politician threaten the principles of representative

democracy (people elect someone who will represent them). A question is can
celebrity politician claim that he/she represents the will of the people.
Moreover, the relationship between representative and represented is eroded
because images come to dominate politics so issues of political substance are
replaced with superficial appearances. Also, they boost irrelevant qualities and
superficial knowledge, so they marginalize relevant expertise. It is improper
that celebrity politicians represent citizens since they do not have knowledge
about them, there is no empathy; they can only resemble each other.

In defense of celebrity politics

Politics is following the trends of the market, the idea how to sell the products
(same as shoes). Thinking of the people generally has changed, there are lower
expectations, and then how we can criticize celebrity politicians for this issue
went we are doing it.

POWER & MASS MEDIA

Main question: What is the extend to which media effects politics?

In what way does the power of media manifest?

3 Different forms of media power

1. Discursive power:

Is steaming from words, talking (the way people act is conditioned by what
they feel).
- What people think and feel is ultimately conditioned by the image of the world
that is presented to them by media.

- Most potent ability you can have is to shape someone's mind.

- Media is responsible for understanding of the world, and media operates
according to specific interests which are pushing for specific ideology.

2. Acces power:

- Markets (variety of resources available to us)

- At any given time at any given place we will not have access to every media
out there, but we will have access to specific media. Thats why we know only
specific information and that influences on what we know.

- Specific identities, specific interest> We perceive some things differently

based on our background.

The main question here is who gets included and who gets excluded? Access
power operates on tho levels: 1) what do we get access to? 2)does that reflects
our identity? This can be best explained through the Katrina and Stanley
example in which we get access to only that source of info that is reporting about
Kartina that way we identify ourselves more with American population.

3. Resource power:

Its about the power that conglomerates have over the state to make specific
decisions and also about how power in distributed among conglomerates.
- Conglomerates themselves have a specific maskinery that pushes for a
specific propaganda.
This also operates on 2 levels:

1) Relationship between conglomerates and nation-states (Conglomerations

are necessary to provide us with info, making governments vulnerable.
Governments benefit from conglomerates more than conglomerates benefit
from nation-states and therefore, nation-state needs to play in accordance
to rules posed by conglomerates, because congomerates can decide to
transfer their investment somewhere else, wherever they get the better
profit

2) Who within a conglo enjoys the greatest power

 (It is not just an owner who decides about the media content and who is
the most powerful because he relies on advertisers and audiences.

This does not only focus on individuals, but larger structures. How
commercial decisions attract certain advertisers, how cutting down costs
influences editorial and journalistic practices.

Theoretical approaches

1. Pluralist theory

Tries to explain the process of delivering information (who says what, through
which channel, with what affect, who is the source, what is the content and
media).
- Delivering of information starts by receiving a message from a specific source
and ends with a specific action.

- According to pluralist approach, media is the distributor of information, it

doesnt creat
Media is considered to be neutral, not trying to shape the opinion of people, but
rather to provide them with information.

2. Constructivist theory

Media is the architect, it construct specific political system.

- Politics is constructed through media, through media representation
specifically.
3. Structuralist theory

Media becomes a supermarket and becomes a part of larger political economy

and appeals to specific economic interests.
- Relates to packaging of politics.

In contrast to Constructivists, Structuralists argue that media does not construct

politics. Instead, political structure constructs media. Media is just a part of the
larger political structure and takes part in political economy.
4. The network of power

The power circulates through different networks, its not static.

- Constant flow of power: emergence of global civil society.
- The power of information: If you dont have info, you arent a part of larger
global society.

INFO has 2 functions: 1. To dominate

The more knowledge we have, we become dominant and more competitive
2. Resistance ( if you dont have information, you
cant form any critical opinion, then you need to
accept what is represented to you).

Free Press
Free press can be defined as a system of communication that allows variety of
opinions and ideas. It is not an agent of single view or propaganda, neither it is
regulated by the state.

Characteristic of legitimate democratic system is that it allows us to vote and to

express our opinion. In other words, liberal democratic society cannot function
without the free press. Media needs to function as the system of accountability
that informs us about relevant topics. Media should be used as a platform to
judge those that are in offices or running for offices. This idea existed in 17 th
century when John Milton talked about the freedom of thought. In addition,
John S. Mill argued that only if we allow diversity of opinions can we develop
our own ideas.

However, there is a question about to what extent should free speech be

exercised because sometimes it can be harmful and offensive for example,
hate speech. And if there are limits to free speech, who gets to impose them?

ONil argues that there is no right or wrong answer to this question, because
there is a lot of contradiction within media regulation and we care more about
the source of information without caring about where this information
manifests.

Democratic regulation

Tannsjo 1985 argues that media needs to be democratically regulated, meaning

that there needs to be a system of checks led by the state.

Things that need to be regulated: biases, access, journalism, public sphere

1. Bias (Do you represent your audience or are you writing in the interest of
your nation? Who are you speaking to? Do you represent all political
views equally?)
2. Access (who gets to participate? The dumbest things take part on
internet because internet provides access to everyone. Therefore, we are
directly participating by writing comments or voting on polls and while
doing that we are not regulated. Besides, there are shows such as
Odgovorite ljudima that allow people to directly participate and comment
via phone to say whatever they want.)
3. Journalism (Journalists also need to be regulated and held accountable
just like politicians. There are already well established regulations that
need to be respected such as privacy laws, defamation laws and copy
right laws)
4. Public Sphere (Jurgen Habermans argues that media used to be platform
for people to meet and discuss about relevant political topics. Nowadays,
media is used only for the purpose of entertainment.