Archive for the ‘Political World’ Category

By Jhansher Khan

I’d like to look at the issue between “Corporate Culture” and “Open culture.” I found this area to be significant, as we covered this in Dr.Strangelove’s CMN 2160 class. The idea of the Corporate Culture trying to destroy our own “open culture” created through the realm of the social internet is so prevalent. As Dr.Strangelove stated, that certain countries are banning the use of video hosting programs such as “YouTube.” Apparently voicing our own opinions is a negative aspect? I personally believe this to be ridiculous. In the case of Italy for example, these sites are generally being banned from use and even posting a video up, it has to go through multiple procedures put forth by the “Corporate Culture.” In an article called, “Italy Preparing to Hold Youtube,” it states, “The move toward regulation continues with a new policy that could force sites like YouTube to obtain TV licenses from the Italian government. Such sites could also be fully liable for copyright infringement and libelous or illegal material posted by users.” (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/) Is society supposed to be this regulated, aren’t people being marginalized with regards to free speech and opinion. What makes us human is to be opinionated and to voice those opinions. Therefore we are losing aspects of ourselves that make us “human,” to the corporate world.

This is honestly a type of Tyranny, but what kind of threat do Italian citizens pose by posting up their own media material? Will it destroy the corporate world if citizens voice their opinions and other citizens watch this user generated content? This is basically a “dominant” model of media, meaning no alternative media what so ever. These types of laws are not as prevalent in North America, but certain policies may take a turn for the worse if this type of “censoring” trend continues.

According to the article, “Sites that allow video uploads would be responsible both for copyrighted content posted by users and for libelous material in uploaded videos.” (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/) Therefore, its not only the citizens who post up videos who are to blame, its also the sites that allow them too that will suffer from this policy as well. I personally believe that this is a type of “internet” fascism in a way, since the corporate world wants to almost control citizens entirely. In the past, it used to be control through the political world. However, now its the corporate world that has its grasp on society.

“Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is one of the country’s biggest media barons, and his properties are directly affected by infringement on sites like YouTube.” (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/) This indicates a mixture between corporate and the political world. Since Berlusconi owns both the corporate world and the political world, he has found a way to implement policies in corporation’s best interests.

Will all of this control increase as time goes on? Corporate Culture seems to be taking more of an effect on us and it seems that the main purpose of the corporate world is to gain profit, as well as to be the only unitary voice in society that everyone must turn to.




Read Full Post »

By Jhansher Khan

Determinism, is the idea that we must think in extremes and only through one model or idea. However, when assessing a reason for why anything occurs, there is more likely multiple reasons and explanations that are at hand. The theorist I would like to bring up, whom is very deterministic would be Marshal McLuhan. His type of view is that society changes due to thriving technology and that is the only driving factor in this case. In the book, “The Toronto School of Communication Theory: Interpretations, Extensions, Applications,” the author states, “What about the institutional power and political implications of electronic communication?”(86)

It is true that besides technology, there are political and corporate factors at play. According to McLuhan’s view, society is heavily ingrained in the idea of the printing press, since that is where technology seemed to begin in the media and newspapers were one of the first mediums in society. Newspapers were a source of enrichment and education, as well as an outlook of the outside world. Through this medium, the media was able to exercise its own power and domination over people in society. It could be at times bias or misleading as well, which brings in the idea of how the political and corporate world begin to use these mediums, as well as the idea of cultural factors being imbedded behind messages. If a government for example wanted to use this medium to justify acts of war for example, through the newspaper, a one sided biased article may explain how the government essentially has the right to invade another country. Therefore, the use of mediums can lead to corruption and deceit in society.

As technology developed over time, new mediums were formed and generally the same messages and the idea of control was implemented. The invention of televisions, the radio, and computers for example are used in modern times. All this new technology did was open up a new window of opportunity for the corporate and political world to reach us in society. This idea of reaching us and conveying messages to us has been implemented for years, regardless of technology. The only major change is that it is now much easier to convey messages across to us, since the mediums we use in modern day society can be flooded with advertisements put forth by corporations. Therefore, we are more manipulated now than ever.

An advertisement does not necessarily just sell products, but presents us with certain ideas that corporations want us to absorb in everyday lives. Even the political world may use advertising, it is not just limited by the corporate world. One example that was more prevalent in the past two years was the idea of Barrack Obama running as a presidential candidate in the United States of America in the democratic party. Certain ideas were created in his campaign, such as the idea of “change” during the aftermath of an economic crisis caused by the previous government. There were multiple advertisements for his campaign and he eventually took a stand in popular culture as some sort of political prophet that would take office and would succeed in completely reshaping the United States of America.

“Barack Obama looks more like a movie star than a politician”

Here is an article by CNN, that has already analyzed the idea of Obama as a pop culture figure:

Not only did his reach take effect in North America, in other countries around the world that praised him. Even products that certain companies made had the label of “Obama” on them. (I’ll attach a few pictures to give examples) He was basically seen as a charismatic leader and a sign of hope, much like other political influential leaders, such as Nelson Mandella in South Africa. It wasn’t just a simple election. Something originally intended to be just in the realm of the political world, extended its reach into the corporate world as well. Everyday, before he was eventually elected into power, citizens of the United States of America were always reminded of his change campaign and all of the positive hope he presented to society. Through multiple advertisements presented on T shirts, pins to his face on practically every magazine, advertising was effectively implemented and practically being treated like a pop icon may have tremendously helped him win the election. Yet once again, this is an example of the political world at play and its relation to advertising.

Read Full Post »