While I won’t speak for everyone (a common mistake; misery does like company), the following is more than likely true of most seniors: we’re only now recognizing the gaping holes in our academic curricula. As a second semester senior, IR-Global Security concentrator, my inexperience with economics and the international monetary system is the latest in a series of problems for professional plans within “international development”. So, deficiency thus identified, I spent the past three weeks in a seminar on international financial crises, losing myself (and my sense of humor) to economic jargon and things about which, to be honest, interested me not at all. For the time-being, I’m perfectly happy in my ignorance, going about believing that economics can be taken for granted and, where not, explained through social and political happenings. And, while I’ll someday embrace the discipline out of necessity, thanks to the option of a preferred alternative, today is not that day. So, I’m a late-comer to the class.
Fortunately (a real overstretch of “silver-lining”), international finance and debt crises aren’t all that’s wanting in my academic portfolio: the little experience I’ve had living in an internationally-discussed climate of change and/or crisis interested me in the relationship between images of conflicts and personalities and their spatially (or socially/culturally/politically etc.) disparate recipients. The exchange of ideas and “realities” across borders is remarkable for the effects on involved parties. What’s most concerning about global media is how each exchange must every time be questioned for bias and [physical and ideological] lenses.
What then do global media accomplish? In my experience: [irrational] panic in my parents. Last summer I worked for about three months in Ethiopia, mostly in the capital, Addis Ababa. The day I arrived, the New York Times published an article that began: “In the Ogaden Desert, Ethiopia, the rebels march 300 strong across the crunchy earth, young men with dreadlocks and AK-47s slung over their shoulders” (“In Etiopia, Fear and Cries of Army Brutality,” New York Times, June 18, 2007). I can only imagine how the image of dreaded, gun-toting men, not yet learned in the best practices of the human rights regime, terrorized my mother. For those of us “on the ground,” however, we had absolutely no idea what journalist Jeffrey Gentleman and contributing reporter, Will Connors (with whom my colleagues and I later had dinner), were talking about. “What goes on here,” the article continued, “seems to be starkly different from the carefully constructed up-and-coming image that Ethiopia – a country that the United States increasingly relies on to fight militant Islam in the Horn of Africa – tries to project.”
The power of media is their projection of agendas that either increase or decrease the subject’s legitimacy in the eyes of the “global community.” The Times article cites two viewpoints on the state of Ethiopian democratic and human rights-related affairs, and my experience in the country identifies with neither of them. The media have enormous influence over the world paradigms into which we fit new information, and I’m interested to look at their many forms and get a better idea of which is most persuasive (read: persuasive ≠ objective).
Persuasion requires that an argument stand up to questioning, and Barthes makes a related point: “To question is to interpellate…so a game is set up: although each side knows just what the other’s intentions are, the game demands a response to the content, not to the way that content is framed” (319). This non-violent questioning is exactly what blogs encourage, as does this class. It seems that the strongest teacher-student relationship is that in which both parties take ownership for their speech by putting it out for public consumption and/or criticism. Writing does not as often come up against such immediate and pointed criticism except for in the new generation of media – blogging, in which, due to anonymity, ideas may be even more aggressively challenged for their objectivity. That looks to be one of the more interesting parts of this class – the exchange (albeit not in this case anonymous) of criticism of our written opinions. Writing, Barthes says, “has no smell” because of a temporal and spatial separation from the creator. I find this argument less persuasive for two – among a potential “many” – reasons: our blogs will “smell,” as did the reporting of my friend, Will Connors, who was forcibly deported to Nairobi after the second bad-press Times article ran in late July (“Ethiopia is Said to Block Food to Rebel Region”, New York Times, July 22, 2007).
As for the “over-mediated” death of Heath Ledger: it’s striking how profoundly the media have made celebrities a part of our emotional lives. The bloggers on Ledger’s death are at once so upset and so confused about his drug- and depression-related fall that you can’t help but recognize two things: first, media have a persuasive effect on what and who is important to us; and, second, media often don’t know – or tell – the half of it.

Posted by Kathleen Fleming at 12:17 PM | Permalink

Entry Assignment, William Leader

This is my entry assignment. I apologize for being late. I am a RUE student (I took five years off between sophomore and junior year) and senior concentrator in Political Science (IR track). I have always been fascinated with media. Books, films, Ataris and Nintendos mediated childhood escapism and fantasy that was much more alluring than my surroundings, which could most readily be described as a whirlwind tour of America’s most bland suburbs (my father having been an up-and-coming IBM executive during the corporation’s heyday).
My brother and I played with the first PCs made by IBM, but we devoted most of our waking hours to my father’s 8mm video camera – making primitive stop-start animation with legos and clay. What draws me to media is the power of the image. International relations is comprised basically of power relations, and the media permeates every aspect of modern life – becoming more “real” than interpersonal interaction.
I am attracted by the technologically oriented aspect of the course, along with its focus on praxis in addition to theory. The web log or “web blog” seems a particularly fitting medium for discussion of Barthes. Although technically writing, the blog more closely represents speech in its immediacy, familiarity and dissemination. This entrance assignment, and its public posting, positions each of us, the students, as subjects for analysis – by virtue of our parole vide, we are exposing ourselves while attempting to expose Barthes.
While perhaps another iteration in the motif of speaker as policeman / analysand, the implication of both audience and orator, student and teacher in speech tends to break down the inequity inherent in power. Student contribution on this level implicates us in “laying down the law” – an idea abhorrent on its face, but tantalizing.

Posted by William Leader at 05:13 AM | Permalink

As a junior concentrating in Modern, Culture, and Media: Track 2 (formally known as Art-Semiotics) I am looking to take my passion for and knowledge of media and film production outside of the boundaries of the MCM department and into today’s global media environment. Since I arrived at Brown I have concentrated all of my energies into the study of media theories and networks. I came in as a photographer, but have been drawn to video production, especially video editing, while at Brown. Last year I studied with Christopher Witmore, a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World, about the place for video documentation of archaeological sites. That work produced a short film documenting an underwater archaeological dig in The Black Sea, Ukraine that I was a member of the following summer, as well as peripatetic video (http://proteus.brown.edu/witmore/2241 - a form of interactive, participatory video to be played on media tools such as an ipod in places such as archaeological sites) of Patrick Dougherty’s site specific sculpture on Brown’s campus. This year my work has been focused with International Relations Professor, Kay Warren, for her Violence and the Media course. My research with her has involved producing a short film for her course depicting Bill Nichol’s theories of documentary and collecting material off the web from sites such as YouTube to be used in the course. My personal video work is mostly experimental video and digital images focused around the semiotics of fashion, exhibition culture, and electronic music.

What I am most interested in looking at is how new media and its constant change and innovation with new technologies re-defines both the reception of and the production of media. Current media makers adapt quickly to cultural change, converging the latest trend into a formal structure like the evening news, and without notice the viewer easily receives this modified form of news. Such quick adaptations change the conventional practices of viewership and bring up questions of freedom and control. New media appears ubiquitous and free in that every user of technology is also a producer. However I would like to look at the military-entertainment-industrial complex that builds and runs those technologies. I think it is vitally important to take the now with all seriousness and look at our post-industrial society as it shapes us.

The complex and well-developed structure of current media makes the serious work of cultural critique rather difficult. I would like to look at media in the way that Roland Barthes in “Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers” looks at speech, as an irreversible act. Media is defined by the thought or object of its message and the style or form of how it presents itself. Once media is presented it is instantly seared into the minds of its audience, therefore media makers work “on the side of speech.” Media uses its power of persuasion to achieve personal aims and goals often within the corporate or political party it represents. Looking at the reception of current media, we can see that we enjoy our training in unawareness of the power mechanisms of media.

Yet there is a tool against such powerful systems: theory. Barthes explains that the theory of writing is able to break down the system of language through the dispersion of its elements. Theory takes apart a situated system with specific goals into a vast field of signs and referents. Here the intellectual or artists can represents theory through giving voice to the Other, the hidden or silent forces, within the system of language from the newly revealed multiple points of interest. The viewer can distinguish this central point and see the “plurality of interpretations” for every sign within the media system. To represent media through theory takes away our ingrained desire to float with media’s structure and instead breaks down media back to its sheer materiality. It is here discovering media’s framework that the fun begins and the “war of meanings” plays out. Barthes explains it is the artists or “workers of the intellect” who have the ability to “construct a revolutionary axiomatics in which the other can finally speak.” Within the codes and method of media, the artist can represent the silent, hidden resistances and slippages that evoke truth and empower change by disarming dominant power. I look forward to working with other students in this course to break apart the power mechanisms of media and give voice to those kept silent!

Posted by Megan Goetsch at 04:26 PM | Permalink

My name is Megan Billman and I am a third year student concentrating in Modern Culture and Media. During my time at Brown I have become very interested in the intersection of media and development and have pursued every opportunity to learn and think more about the relationship between these fields. I have worked as a research assistant on a Public Health project in Mali, West Africa and have spent a lot of time as a volunteer workshop coordinator at the local arts non-profit, New Urban Arts, where I have facilitated workshops in which students engage with the local community and present their findings in media form. I have worked in many different media, with words, with metal and most recently with movement, and am committed to a sustaining a dynamic relationship to information. I hope to pursue a career which combines media production and community engagement, in which I might continue to be experimental in my attempts to interpret and represent information and may arrive at a better understanding of the ways in which the presentation of information influences our response to it.

I would love to be a part of this seminar on Global Media. I bring to it enthusiasm for and experience in critical theory and media production and would benefit greatly from an introduction to historical perspectives on the role of media and a foundation in classical international relations theory.

As for Barthes’ “Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers” I found this essay a meaningful way to attempt to come to terms not only with each other in our respective roles as students and instructors, but with the project on which we will embark. As we set out to learn more about the various ways in which we ‘inform’ ourselves about the world, Barthes determinedly reminds us of the limitations of the forms with which we work. He writes, “writing can tell the truth about language but not about reality”(320). I would like to consider the ways in which other modes of representation (for example, photography) might also be said to be “on the side of the law.” Do new journalistic forms like blogging and cell phone photojournalism subvert the law to which official language has traditionally been subjected?

Additionally, I would like to explore the relationship between class and the composition of the media establishment. Barthes writes that the proletariat occupies “the place of the unconscious” of bourgeois discourse but that though “other,” this “other” is itself but a “different bourgeois discourse.” What implications might this theory have for the relationship between formal media sources and grass roots level journalism made possible by new technologies?

I bring these questions and many more to this meeting of media- ward minds. With hopes to explore them with you all.

Megan

Posted by Megan Billman at 01:12 PM | Permalink

I am Willem Van Lancker and I am a sophomore Economics student at Brown and a Graphic Design major at RISD. When I discovered this class online I was immediately drawn to its significance in relation to my passion, media and design. In what is becoming an increasingly globalized world every day, with the spread of instantaneous media coverage, the rise of China and the integration of interests all over the planet, I understand that my work environment will demand a view of the world as a panoptic entity. Gone are the days when we can think we will be successful in our own insular domain. I want to uncover how global media has permeated our decision making over the course of history and how it has truly become a device with its own power - not just an outlet for world news. We are on the cutting edge of a revolution in how we absorb advertising and media. I want to be able to have a better understanding of the global marketplace and how I can be most maneuvering within it.

On “Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers”

What first struck me after I read Barthes’ “Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers,” was his commentary on the irreversible nature of speech, “a word cannot be retraced except precisely by saying one that retracts it” (Barthes 309). While saying this, Barthes falls into his own erratic use of language, parenthesizing all of his wayward or qualifying thoughts. When read aloud, Barthes’ piece is spoken in a stammering, difficult to follow document. However, when we, the readers, absorb it from the page, it becomes conversational and recognizable. Barthes attempts sum up his thoughts near the end of the article saying that once the written word is produced “I can objectively account for the former [writing] that ‘I’ am no longer in it” (Barthes 322).

Barthes continues to elaborate, here and throughout the article, that speech is immeasurably more powerful than writing, both for a teacher and human beings in general. Though I can agree to a point, as a student of typography and on a broader scale, Graphic Design, the written letter, word, and page hold a much more tenacious hold than the fleeting nature of a speech. Today our world is being transformed with the proliferation of digital video. When this article was written in 1971, most of the speech that was captured was very premeditated, a thoughtful act. Reading this passage brought to mind the Watergate scandal. If no one had been able to capture the spoken word, Nixon would never have been impeached. No one would believe the investigators if they had simply said, “we heard someone saying something.” The written word on the other hand, is entirely incriminating. Once the word is out there, you cannot “show the eraser yourself,” (Barthes 309). It is there; it is concrete and cannot be reversed.

This now brings me to the discussion of the power of speech in the classroom and the deconstruction of language in today’s world. It would be interesting to see what Barthes would have written had this article been published in 2008 rather than thirty years in the past. Today the contract of education that Barthes superbly lays out on pages 314 to 315 is virtually non-existent in the large university classroom. The introduction of the Internet in the classroom, where now at some large universities a student can take all of his/her classes online, has broken down the significance of the teacher student relationship. Furthermore, there is an increasing dilution of the discourse of language. If a student is sitting in his/her dorm room “attending” class the professor has no way of knowing whether or not his/her message is being received or that he/she is being boiled down to “a reduced version, dead yet substantial… not knowing if what is taken (siphoned) out of the flow of speech is erratic statements (formulae, sentences) or the gist of an argument” (Barthes 312). My closest personal encounter with something of this nature here at Brown was my Economics 11 class held in the cavernous Salomon Hall. In EC11 there was no opportunity for a teacher student relationship to be cultivated, she would stand up on stage and speak “at” us, not in a format where we were encouraged to stretch our comfort zones by participating and learning from one another. One of the most important reasons many people attend a school like Brown, is to be surrounded in a community of intelligent, motivated people. Instead, though her lectures were informative and well planned, we would sit in a passive environment one very similar in nature to staring at a computer display or television.

Today, in the in midst of the “YouTube” effect, we find that this deconstruction of language has progressed from casual speech into the media, and anyone with a video camera or phone and an Internet connection. With the introduction of video-blogging in recent years, news articles and the proliferation of ideas has become such a casual procedure that we lack the former pluralism and eloquence of writing. Watching the news today I am overwhelmed that we live in a society where even the “credible” news outlets cover the death of Heath Ledger as a “tragedy” putting on the same level of say a Mother Theresa figure (if you believe Heath Ledger affected your life or anyone’s for that matter as much as Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, or the like, please let me know). A sickening repetitive cavalcade of images bombards us, blasting our senses daily. Furthermore, everyone can offer their opinion whether informed or not and much of the blind public will accept it as a fact because the person appears to have an air of authority (Wikipedia?), something Barthes pointed out as crucial for the success of a teacher or speaker.

Both speech and writing today need to return to a world where they are regarded art forms, intellectual pursuits, not as mere outlets for self-promotion or the attempted resuscitation of worn out stereotypes. “Language is always on the side of power; to speak is to exercise a will to power” (Barthes 311). Language in teaching, writing, and everyday speech is a what makes us human, our ability to articulate and convey our realities with each other and coexist in an environment where we can “float,” and connect with an “art of living” (Barthes 331). I would hate to see that go to waste.

Posted by Willem Van Lancker at 11:16 AM | Permalink

My name is Amy Tan and I am a junior concentrating in international relations, with a focus on politics, culture, and identity. I have a particular interest in identity politics, and how this discourse is shaped by and how it shapes global media. The formation of identity narratives takes place on a very personal level, but also on a national and international level. I think that by taking this class, I will be able to better understand the mechanism of the interplay between media and identity, and hopefully gain better understanding of the consequences of such a give and take relationship. In relation to this, I want to know what kind of effects the creation of narratives, by the media, has on foreign and domestic politics. For instance, does it matter that whenever someone mentions the Vice President of the United States, I think of the heavy breathing of Darth Vader because I watch too much of the Daily Show? We consume media and it consumes us. How does this affect how we see ourselves and, ultimately, how we determine our behavior towards others?

Now, to Roland Barthes and the student teacher relationship. After reading Barthes’ text on the limits of speech and presentation in the student teacher relationship, and the critical element of style that creates the identity of “teacher,” it becomes at the very least apparent that the teacher is under a lot of pressure. In order to gain the authority in the classroom and the respect of students, the teacher cannot fumble, mispronounce words like pedagogy, and should not give in to “progressive” stereotypes so easily accepted among students, if he or she wishes to retain any form of originality. (In the interest of closely studying language, it is worthy of note that pedagogy comes from the Greek paidaggi, from paidaggos – a slave who took children to and from school). The teacher enters into a contract with his or her students, and in doing so subjects him/herself to psychoanalysis. Barthes notes “it is not knowledge which is exposed, it is the subject (who exposes himself to painful adventures)” (Barthes 313).

Barthes, thus, presents an interesting paradox when describing the power the teacher wields with the ability of speech. This power and the relationship between power and teaching can be discussed in reference to Barthes’ statement: “No help for it: language is always on the side of power, to speak is to exercise a will to power: in the space of speech, no innocence, no safety” (Barthes 311). The first point to take from this is that “language is always on the side of power,” meaning, among other things, that those able to utilize “good” language generally have power or are using such language to obtain power. It also signifies that the prevailing Law of language, which according to Barthes reigns in anyone who deigns to speak, is prescribed by the powerful. This law influences our style, grammatical structure, and our choice of words.

Secondly, and this is more speaking to the paradox, it is important to note that Barthes recognizes no one is safe in the space of speech, since in order for the teacher to speak and thus exercise a will to power, the teacher must also submit to the Laws. Paradoxically, the teacher continues to contribute to the discourse of power as someone in a position of power in the classroom, but at the same time is hampered by the pre-conditions of power present in the Law of speech. Barthes seems to be observing that in the student teacher relationship, either side takes on a performative, prescribed role that has a distinct script that follows rules, which cannot be broken without the risk of losing power.

And yet, Barthes ends his essay with an appeal to students and teachers to enter into a contract defined by goodwill, which is also probably why we were asked to read this particular essay on pedagogy. Instead of our professors being slaves to our silent will, Barthes appeals to us to enter into a truly constructive relationship. In the traditional student teacher relationship we, as students, take, we challenge and we judge, and we compress a professor’s carefully styled message into bulleted lists. Instead of doing this, Barthes seems to be asking that we disrobe from tradition and instead choose to “float” as we meet in “a space of speech divested of aggressiveness” (Barthes 330). In this space we disorient the Law, so we can perhaps get back to what teaching is all about – trying to connect with the art of living. Or maybe, as Barthes seems to suggest in his final paragraph, everyone should be on drugs, which brings us to Heath Ledger.

Heath Ledger’s death, though surely mourned by many, will remain meaningless until someone (other bloggers, US weekly, myself?) chooses a narrative. Related to Barthes, perhaps what we need is a cultural representative to interpret the significance of his death in terms of the axioms of popular culture, and maybe that’s why we were asked to write on this matter. Most of the blogs on this page have begun to do just that, so we are well on our way to figuring out what it all means. Should we grieve the loss of the characters he played and the loss of a great medium for speech or should we mourn the status of young Hollywood and the dangers of depression? Does Heath Ledger the staged character, as some of the blogs seem to suggest, matter more or is it his story as young person under a lot of pressure (neither of these capturing who he actually was)? My guess is we can’t decide on just one, but will choose to place emphasis on the story that fits best within our own particular axioms.

- Amy M. L. Tan

Posted by Amy M. L. Tan at 05:28 PM | Permalink

Who is Alejandra Piers-Torres? Well, academically you could say that I am currently a senior double concentrating in International Relations: Politics, Culture and Identity and Hispanic Studies: Literature and Culture. My concentrations have allowed me to take courses such as AN128 "Violence and the Media", SP55 "Cultures of Violence" and of course PS40 "International Politics". The combination of these classes has taught me to analyze different modules of media and consider their cultural and often multicultural impact. Not to mention, my concentrations have highlighted the humanization of violence, as it all too often becomes embedded into cultural icons.
On a more personal note, I was born and raised in “Sweet Home Chicago”. It is a city very dear to my heart and one often prone to political scandals, both disclosed and publicized. Chicago is currently trying to compete against Rio di Janeiro for the location of the 2016 Olympics and has therefore taken a greater interest in its “international” image. It has been interesting to watch the city’s international makeover with the inclusion of more cultural events and the occasional globe symbol within the city’s public domain. My mother was born in Havana, Cuba therefore I have always had a general interests in international affairs, especially as they relate to Latin America. More specifically, I have always been drawn to the often “taboo” and “controversial” depictions Cuba within US media and vice versa. I guess I feel lucky that I have been able to travel to Cuba a few times and see that people can relate outside of the exaggerated political separations.
I am interested in studying media not only as an information outlet but also as catalyst towards events. I witnessed this first hand last spring when I studied abroad in Barcelona and I was able to experience the different ways that the Spanish and Catalan media covered international affairs compared to the often censored US media. I became especially aware of this in the coverage on the Virginia Tech shootings. The local Spanish newspapers ran very graphic pictures of the victims. As a college student myself, I was obviously very sadden by the situation and I felt haunted by the images. When I called home my peers were unaware of the explicit pictures. I had to wonder how many news worthy events in my life had been sugarcoated. I think this course would be a great opportunity to develop my interests and an excellent way to top off my IR concentration.
In the essay “Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers”, Roland Barthes analyzes the assumptions and constraints of communication. Barthes specifically focuses on the sea-saw dynamic between speech to writing and consequently teacher to student when he says, “Language is always on the side of power; to speak is to exercise a will to power” (p.311). After sitting through several inspiring lectures at Brown I would have to agree that captivating an audience, especially in the context of learning has an empowering affect. I am learning this first-hand as I prepare my sample lesson plans for the Teach for America application. While I am excited about the prospect of participating in this organization, it is a very daunting thought to take on the supremacy role of a teacher. In my opinion, this inherent “power” brings into questions the idea of “freedom of speech” which many democracies seem to pride themselves on. Is one ever truly “free” to speak if they are ruled by undisclosed errors and embedded in an expressive hierarchy? I believe that the freedom of expression can survive if we take into account that this “power” is vulnerable. Even Barthes points out, “Speech is irreversible…There is nothing to be done with speech but add on more” (p.309). The “errors” of a teacher in their oratory stage cannot be concealed from the students. However, I do not see this as a negative aspect of communication. Sometimes the best lessons are learned from shared experiences, including human mistakes.

Posted by Alejandra Piers-Torres at 04:29 PM | Permalink

My name is Jessica Kerry, and I’m a senior concentrating in Comparative Literature in English and French. I want to take this class because it encompasses my most urgent interests: politics and culture; and the study and production of media. My favorite part of the five or six MCM and literary theory courses I’ve taken at Brown has been the insight they’ve given me into the subtle ways politics and power are both expressed and constituted by media, particularly media we tend to think of as apolitical. All media—not just news and documentary—take some kind of stance, intentionally or not. I think this background in critical theory gives me a different, complementary perspective to the (majority of) International Relations concentrators in the course and will make discussion and collaboration much more fruitful. I also think that the course’s IR theory will supplement and enhance my understanding of the more direct ways that politics and media influence each other.
I have been a journalist since high school (most recently interning at the Providence Phoenix June-December) and am considering entering the field professionally after I graduate; so the questions of culture, economics and politics that we will explore in this course are, for me, practically as well as intellectually pressing. I cannot be a good journalist if I don’t understand the various forces at work, not only in the issues I cover, but in my role as a media maker. This is also why the production portion of the course is particularly important for me. Although my medium has always been the written word, I don’t want to be left behind by the seismic shifts in the field of journalism over the past few years. The internet has changed the form as well as distribution of journalistic production, creating opportunities that require the practical skills I hope to learn from this course.

Barthes’ assertion that “language is always on the side of power” describes the teacher’s use of speech to claim authority over knowledge; by speaking, the teacher constitutes the content of his speech as “correct” or “accurate," negating any other possible interpretations or perspectives. This is what Barthes’ means when he says “the Law is produced, not in what he says, but in the fact that he speaks at all”—the teacher’s authority depends not on the content of the lesson but on the articulation of the lesson itself. Exposing and questioning this relationship between teaching and power is particularly important for a course that examines the workings of political power, and one that relies so heavily on student production and participation. How does the Law operate when students themselves create some of the course material (the vlogs)?
Crucially, Barthes’ power dynamic applies not just to speech within the classroom, but to all speech acts. Founding semiotician Ferdinand de Saussure argued that the relationship between words and their meanings is arbitrary and therefore must be determined negatively; lacking any essential link to its meaning, each word is defined by what it does not mean. In this way, language itself corresponds to the authoritative structure of teacherly speech: it constitutes itself by denying alternatives,
Understanding the fundamental non-neutrality of language is, I think, central to understanding media’s interpretations of international events and problems, especially when so many of the media producers who shape the course of events claim to be “fair and accurate,” etc. What can be dangerous about this is that the world we live in is so media-saturated, from our internet use to the sheer amount of images we see on a day-to-day basis, that it’s hard to tell anymore where reality stops and spin begins in our own heads. I can’t help but think of political campaign coverage, which always seems to turn non-issues into big stories simply by talking about them. Who holds the power when politicians are forced to respond to the newsmedia?
While some media are undeniably agents of power, however, others can also be agents for change—e.g. many documentaries, political blogs, web activists, etc. So I would propose an alternative to Barthes “speech,” which “is on the side of the law”: speaking out, perhaps the equivalent of a student talking back to the teacher. The difference between speaking and speaking out is something I’m personally interested in as I look to my (potential) future as a politically- and globally-minded writer, and I think it will be incredibly relevant to the media we examine in this course.

Posted by Jessica Kerry at 03:58 PM | Permalink

My name is Jessica Kerry, and I’m a senior concentrating in Comparative Literature in English and French. I want to take this class because it encompasses my most urgent interests: politics and culture; and the study and production of media. My favorite part of the five or six MCM and literary theory courses I’ve taken at Brown has been the insight they’ve given me into the subtle ways politics and power are both expressed and constituted by media, particularly media we tend to think of as apolitical. All media—not just news and documentary—take some kind of stance, intentionally or not. I think this background in critical theory gives me a different, complementary perspective to the (majority of) International Relations concentrators in the course and will make discussion and collaboration much more fruitful. I also think that the course’s IR theory will supplement and enhance my understanding of the more direct ways that politics and media influence each other.
I have been a journalist since high school (most recently interning at the Providence Phoenix June-December) and am considering entering the field professionally after I graduate; so the questions of culture, economics and politics that we will explore in this course are, for me, practically as well as intellectually pressing. I cannot be a good journalist if I don’t understand the various forces at work, not only in the issues I cover, but in my role as a media maker. This is also why the production portion of the course is particularly important for me. Although my medium has always been the written word, I don’t want to be left behind by the seismic shifts in the field of journalism over the past few years. The internet has changed the form as well as distribution of journalistic production, creating opportunities that require the practical skills I hope to learn from this course.

Barthes’ assertion that “language is always on the side of power” describes the teacher’s use of speech to claim authority over knowledge; by speaking, the teacher constitutes the content of his speech as “correct” or “accurate," negating any other possible interpretations or perspectives. This is what Barthes’ means when he says “the Law is produced, not in what he says, but in the fact that he speaks at all”—the teacher’s authority depends not on the content of the lesson but on the articulation of the lesson itself. Exposing and questioning this relationship between teaching and power is particularly important for a course that examines the workings of political power, and one that relies so heavily on student production and participation. How does the Law operate when students themselves create some of the course material (the vlogs)?
Crucially, Barthes’ power dynamic applies not just to speech within the classroom, but to all speech acts. Founding semiotician Ferdinand de Saussure argued that the relationship between words and their meanings is arbitrary and therefore must be determined negatively; lacking any essential link to its meaning, each word is defined by what it does not mean. In this way, language itself corresponds to the authoritative structure of teacherly speech: it constitutes itself by denying alternatives,
Understanding the fundamental non-neutrality of language is, I think, central to understanding media’s interpretations of international events and problems, especially when so many of the media producers who shape the course of events claim to be “fair and accurate,” etc. What can be dangerous about this is that the world we live in is so media-saturated, from our internet use to the sheer amount of images we see on a day-to-day basis, that it’s hard to tell anymore where reality stops and spin begins in our own heads. I can’t help but think of political campaign coverage, which always seems to turn non-issues into big stories simply by talking about them. Who holds the power when politicians are forced to respond to the newsmedia?
While some media are undeniably agents of power, however, others can also be agents for change—e.g. many documentaries, political blogs, web activists, etc. So I would propose an alternative to Barthes “speech,” which “is on the side of the law”: speaking out, perhaps the equivalent of a student talking back to the teacher. The difference between speaking and speaking out is something I’m personally interested in as I look to my (potential) future as a politically- and globally-minded writer, and I think it will be incredibly relevant to the media we examine in this course.

Posted by Jessica Kerry at 03:58 PM | Permalink

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'
(L. Caroll – Through the Looking Glass)

When Foucault claimed, ”we need to cut off the King’s head” if we want to find the sites of power other “avenues” became important. Needless to say, power is still ”exercised” from above, but in the ages of the Global Media, this is perhaps the most interesting place to search for new forms of power.
That explains pretty much why I want to take this course. If the Global Media is where power functions, then I would – as interested in both power and politics, like to acquire “tools” to decipher those mechanisms as well as get skills to “re-/built” new power platforms. Hence the production of media/medium

I agree with Hannah Arendt (and Nietzsche for that matter) that language cannot tell who I am, but only what I am – and what I am is Kristian Walther. I’m (still even though I attend Brown this spring) a graduate student at the Department of Political Science at University of Copenhagen – Denmark. My primary interest within the last couple of years has been International Relations and Political Theory and History of Ideas.
That also means that I have no experience in the production of media, but this is what I hope at least for a beginning to get from this course.

Barthes on “Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers”

Since the text is esoteric and contains a number of interesting issues, I only focus on pages 309-312.

The relationship between power and language is significant. As Barthes points out if one wants to be “properly” understood one needs to invoke “the Law” i.e. the grammar of language and thereby authority. The alternative is the human, all-to-human (in a paraphrase of Nietzsches book, with the same title) – the free spirit, the artist, who breaks the chains of the Law, but then is faced with the audience.
What is the alternative? – Well as Barthes points out, there is actually no alternative. Whenever one invokes language, one always produces and reproduces power. Whether the relationship between the teacher and the audience is to be taken literally or not it signifies the importance of language in shaping perceptions. This is also the case when we receive information. If the social reality only exist through perspectives it also means the each discourse invoke some kind of authority, which structures it. Teaching then should not just be in the form of learning a theory or a discourse, but in addition to critical investigate what kind of authority, power and (perhaps) interest a given discourse serves. This is hopefully the task of this course. To learn to participate in “the battle of discourses”

I apologize for not letting Heath Ledger play the (in-)significant role, that was intended

Posted by Kristian Rune Walther at 03:41 PM | Permalink

My name is Chantal and I am a sophomore most likely concentrating in IR – PCI track and Middle East Studies. I’m very much in the process of discovering new avenues and abilities of media, and my interest is honed on media frontiers in the Middle East specifically, and the developing world in general. I will be going on a Students of the World trip this summer, where other members of the Brown chapter and I will work to document the work of a yet-to-be-determined NGO and its effects the community through film, photography, and writing. I’m currently writing and editing for a radio documentary called “Between Iraq,” comprising stories of Iraqi refugee families that I recorded in Syria last summer. I also have a radio show at BSR, and I’ve worked a few summer jobs at the kind of newspaper that requires you to bring your own digital camera.

I’m particularly interested in specifically motivated media that is bought and paid for – propaganda, if you will – and its relationship to what we, as viewers or as media producers ourselves, consider “legitimate” media. When I was in high school my mother had a job directing and producing promotional films for the U.S. army, and our house was flooded with tapes called “Best of Iraq Freedom: Parts 1 and 2” and similar. I’ve also spent time living in Syria, where dozens of quasi-militaristic posters of Bashar Assad faced my bedroom window. It’s easy for us in classrooms to dismiss such media as “Army of One” or a head of state lounging in army fatigues, but its easier, I think, to underestimate the extent to which people respond to simple kitsch, “motivated” or no. And within the vast abyss of various media sources available to us right now,
the dialectic of motivation – paid or no – and objectivity seems obtuse. What exactly is our standard – can there possibly even be a standard – for “objective” media? If, as Barthes tells us, all speech aspires to power, can we not say that all speech, and all media, is motivated? And how are we to go about judging the “legitimacy” of these motives, if at all?

So on to Barthes: The quote on pg 311 hints at something I find fascinating, which is the idea of our speech as separate from ourselves, and perhaps more powerful than ourselves. More often than not, we are armed only with our speech to represent ourselves, giving our language power not just over our audience, but also over us, the speaker, he who seeks to represent and be represented. Language creates space for interpretation and possible misinterpretation, which can easily become judgment and criticism – or “reduction,” which Barthes discusses soon hereafter. For a here-and-now example, this can degenerate further into a tit-for-tat “he said – she said” situation à la Barack and Hillary, which arguably lends power to neither party. It’s worth noting that although we may aspire to power through speech, it may achieve for us quite the opposite.

So what can we do about it? Barthes is unsympathetic. Like with footprints in the snow, we can turn on our own speech, backtracking and trying to obfuscate our original position, but we run the risk of just making a mess. The canvas of our speech – a classroom, a dinner table conversation, etc – will never be “innocent” of its tracks. As Barthes would say, it “smells.” This permanence of speech differs from writing in that there is no delete key, no White Out. If I am typing by myself, and I don’t like this sentence, I can delete it, and like a good hit job, no one will ever know what went down. Written word is more vulnerable to our whims, to our sense of style and pacing, to our pretensions and apprehensions about how our words represent us. The fact that this entrance exam is written rather than oral is telling of the kind of representation we are meant to achieve in completing it.

Barthes also says: “It is difficult for a teacher to see the “notes” taken during his lectures: he has no desire to do so... out of fear of discovering himself in a reduced version.”
“Imagine that I am a teacher: I speak, endlessly, for and before someone who does not speak... I am the one who, under cover of an exposition, proposes a discourse, without ever knowing how it is received, so that I can never have the reassurance of a definitive (even if damaging) image which might constitute me.” (both page 312)

In this section, Barthes discusses the institution of class notes and how they privately “reduce” the teacher in form and/or content. With regards to my experiences at Brown, this passage evokes another institution, the end-of-semester teacher evaluation. The teacher evaluation introduces a way for the teacher having a “definitive (evening if damaging) image of what might constitute me” in his students’ eyes, something that Barthes does not consider a part of the teaching relationship. It has the same characteristics that Barthes assigns to notes – the representative and reductive qualities, the possibility for an interpretation of the “message” that would offend the “sender” – but adds an analytical dimension, one that has larger ramifications for the teacher. The evaluation associates the students with a power higher than that of the teacher (department head, etc). It is, in theory at least, a momentary reversal of the student-teacher power dynamic, that of sender and receiver, criticizer and criticized.

The method of the teacher’s (or of any speaker’s) “reduction” is key and potentially problematic. Is what we write truly a compound analysis of the teacher over the course, or a polaroid of our relationship with yesterday’s lesson, with our current mood, with our most recent grade? Barthes talks about the teacher’s “fear” of discovering himself in some mutilated form (shrunken head metaphor drives this home), and of realizing that he is not in control of the destiny of his speech once it is stripped of its style (“compressed”), and in this case, submitted for his own evaluation. This harks back to the volatility of speech in general.

And finally: “... for political language itself is constituted by stereotypes.”

I chose not to write on this phrase, because ranting about how political rhetoric is stereotypical is itself a tired stereotype, but it reminded me of my favorite Youtube video of the week, which I think everyone should watch.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gEaS-K3j3M8

Posted by Chantal Berman at 03:23 PM | Permalink

I am Albert Huber in the class of 2009. I am a political science concentrator with a focus in international relations. I have taken the introductory international relations theory course and I have also taken “The Illicit Global Economy.” I have not taken any media analyses courses in the MCM department, but I have studied a different sort of media and communication in the theater department, where I have taken classes such as “Performance Theory and Theater Histories” and “Acting,” where we not only study the theories of performative communication, but also how do communicate. Extracurricurally, most of my time is taken up by working in some way or another at the theater, acting, directing or helping with production elements. Bridging my interests in performance and communication with my interest in international relations is something I have been trying to work out and I think this class would be a perfect place for me to continue doing that. I have become very intrigued by the spread of user-generated media, such as youtube, and how that affects political relations between states. I want to learn how this phenemenom has come about, but more importantly, I want to become a part of it. I think that this class could help guide me in how to constructively contribute to the already oversaturated pool of information and how to produce my own quality media.

“Language is always on the side of power.” (Barthes, 311) What I love about this statement is the distinction that it draws from the idea that language is power. Barthes is pointing out that instead of using speech to weild one’s own power, power, or the law, is consistently constraining and guiding one’s speech. Barthes points out that a way to fight against this, to be the “free-thinking artist,” is to resist the rules of language, to stammer and correct and not speak smoothly and elegantly. The laws therefore, are not still constraining you, right? Wrong. When someone speaks in this manner, especially from a position of power or respect, they quickly lose that respect and become a bumbling fool in our minds, whether or not they are a fool. This reinforces stereotypes that language brings along with it. One who speaks smoothly is elegant, one who doesn’t speak much is deep in thought, one who makes smart sarcastic remarks is the snarky intellectual, and one who stammers and corrects is a fool.

One section about speech that resonated with me was the section on questions. Many times when a student asks a question, it is not actually a question, but a statement. Barthes writes, “To question is to interpellate…What I receive is the connotation; what I must give back is the denotation.” (319, Barthes) I think it is particularly interesting that while both participants in the dialogue know that the intent of the question is not in the answer that will be received, they are constrained by language to continue as if there was no other connotation other than the question itself. The relationship between the student and the instructor here is constrained by language in which they perform the parts of people who are asking and answering these questions without any unsaid connotations, and yet there are. This situation then begs the question, who are they performing for? And, How do we then break out of playing our parts in this performance of a classroom?

It seems that the only way to escape the power that speech brings with it is through writing. Written word allows the author to correct, revise and rethink his/her thoughts, without stammering and stumbling. S/he can truly be the freethinking artist without the social label of fool. Also, writing allows one to be their own objective observer of their thoughts. When speaking, one must always be defending oneself. When writing, one can even attack oneself. One can rethink one's own ideas by deleting them, instead of adding on to them. Footnotes aren't necessary a lot of the time when a good backspace button is on hand. Can this different kind of discourse, this more refined conversation that doesn't necessarily pigeon-hole people into the roles that spoken word attempts to, be utilized in the teacher-student relationship? Maybe. Can these thoughts about language be applied to the untimely death of Heath Ledger? Absolutely.

People in the general public are not mourning the death of Heath Ledger, most people in the general public have probably not seen Heath Ledger speak more than 10 of his own words. People are mourning the death of characters he played, characters which spoke words all written by someone else. Characters who spoke words other people wrote and touched people through Mr. Ledger. The power of someone else’s language was wielded through this actor, and that language then controlled him and defined him. So yes, to most Americans, the death of Heath Ledger is meaningless, but the death of the words he wielded is not. America can mourn the loss of a great communicator who was in our eyes defined by the language given to him.

Posted by albert huber at 03:20 PM | Permalink

My name is Julia Stern, and I am a Senior concentrating in International Relations and Italian Studies. I was so excited to first learn about this course – and the Global Media Project at Watson – two years ago, but due to scheduling conflicts and being abroad last Spring, I was not able to enroll until this semester. I want to take this course (very, very much) because I am increasingly aware of the important role that media has assumed – in all its various forms – in the realms of politics, warfare, diplomacy, and so many other aspects of international relations. This first became evident to me five and a half years ago on September 11th when, like every other American that day, I was glued to the TV set in my tenth grade math class (which until then, to my knowledge, had never been turned on), trying to comprehend what had happened in New York City that morning. I remember vividly thinking (naively, I suppose) that it was a terrible accident, a plane crashing into the World Trade Center—until we were blasted with another round of news when the second plane hit, this time reporters confirming that it was in fact the work of al-Qaeda terrorists. The fact is, no one really knew the whole story until much later that day, and even then, those of us around the country who were fortunate enough not to have been in New York at the time, were at the mercy of the news stations, reporters, journalists, bloggers, and any other “carriers” of media to deliver us an accurate account of what actually happened. In this way, I think media is just as valuable as the actual event taking place, as it is our only liaison to global (and local) events when we are not able to be there firsthand.

While I have not taken courses directly related to media theory or production, I feel that it is so important to learn about in the context of international relations given the major responsibility and impact it bears on our daily lives—especially in the face of such a proliferation of new technology and thus new platforms from which to express news. In the current presidential election, I am struck by the way media is used to leverage candidates’ messages, disseminate important information, and gain visibility—all seemingly compelled to take advantage of the media/communication/technology craze, so as not to fall behind their opponents. Candidates all have websites (without question), Facebook profiles, send out text messages to potential voters’ cell phones, and even utilize YouTube to answer voters’ questions in the first ever “YouTube debate.” And yet even when candidates themselves (or their parties) seek to control or spin the information that is broadcasted, the media is increasingly a public institution—with blogs and other tools of the internet, literally anybody can publicize his or her opinions.

One thing I would like to further explore by taking this course is the fact that all media must be somehow operated by a human being, and it seems very difficult not to express (even sub-consciously) one’s personal views, whether through a blog, video, article, interview, even a still photograph—we are all at the whim of the person behind the shot. In various forums at the Watson Institute (most recently last semester “Front Line, First Person: Iraq War Stories”), it was so interesting to hear the stories of soldiers, embedded journalists, and filmmakers who all offered a different perspective on their take of the war. Also, in a class on politics in Israel I took last semester, I heard from a guest speaker that she picked up a copy of Time Magazine in the Paris airport with a headline about Palestine on the cover; but when she got to the airport in Chicago, the very same issue of Time made no mention of this story (not only was the headline replaced by celebrity gossip, but the story had been eliminated completely from the issue). This is such a poignant example of how media coverage changes so drastically from place to place, and how it inevitably influences public opinion in different ways. I’ve seen this myself when I’ve tried to watch news in other countries – even on more international stations like CNN – which pretty consistently portray a different slant of news (especially regarding American politics and foreign policy) than what we see in the U.S.

To me, this is a quintessential Brown course, offering us a hands-on, multi-faceted approach to learn about several aspects of media and the ways in which it plays such an integral part in international affairs. In fact, I transferred to Brown three years ago from a smaller liberal arts college precisely for this kind of opportunity. I come to the class with a completely open mind and passion to learn about global media, as well as my college experience thus far which has taught me to question and consider all the angles.

Turning to Barthes, I was struck by his passage on Method, and how it relates to his greater discussion of speech, writing, and the “laws” of each. He speaks of “the invariable fact that a work which constantly proclaims its will-to-method is ultimately sterile: everything has been put into the method, nothing remains for the writing…no surer way to kill a piece f research and send it to join the great scrap heap of abandoned projects than Method” (318). While he acknowledges the importance of being “lucid” and “responsible” in research (ensuring that your facts are sound), I think Barthes is encouraging those who teach to consider taking Method with a grain of salt; that sometimes one’s true message that they seek to convey can become obscured in the “rules” of writing. Speaking is somewhat freer, allowing the speaker to express himself with perhaps less constraints on form. Which relates to the passage on language and power: “No help for it: language is always on the side of power; to speak is to exercise a will to power: in the space of speech, no innocence, no safety” (311). As soon as we speak (and to an extent, write), we are exposing ourselves to the opinions and interpretations of our audience. The speaker wields great power in perhaps influencing others with his assertions (enhanced by the language he chooses), yet at the same time has little control over the way his speech is perceived. As students of this course, we will learn this firsthand by publicizing our own opinions on the Global Media Blog, and using other types of media platforms to express ourselves. I have never experienced this type of “sharing” in a course at Brown, and believe that I would benefit greatly from the input of others on my work, and the opportunity to consider how my words will affect an audience.

Posted by Julia Stern at 03:17 PM | Permalink

My name is Julia Stern, and I am a Senior concentrating in International Relations and Italian Studies. I was so excited to first learn about this course – and the Global Media Project at Watson – two years ago, but due to scheduling conflicts and being abroad last Spring, I was not able to enroll until this semester. I want to take this course (very, very much) because I am increasingly aware of the important role that media has assumed – in all its various forms – in the realms of politics, warfare, diplomacy, and so many other aspects of international relations. This first became evident to me five and a half years ago on September 11th when, like every other American that day, I was glued to the TV set in my tenth grade math class (which until then, to my knowledge, had never been turned on), trying to comprehend what had happened in New York City that morning. I remember vividly thinking (naively, I suppose) that it was a terrible accident, a plane crashing into the World Trade Center—until we were blasted with another round of news when the second plane hit, this time reporters confirming that it was in fact the work of al-Qaeda terrorists. The fact is, no one really knew the whole story until much later that day, and even then, those of us around the country who were fortunate enough not to have been in New York at the time, were at the mercy of the news stations, reporters, journalists, bloggers, and any other “carriers” of media to deliver us an accurate account of what actually happened. In this way, I think media is just as valuable as the actual event taking place, as it is our only liaison to global (and local) events when we are not able to be there firsthand.

While I have not taken courses directly related to media theory or production, I feel that it is so important to learn about in the context of international relations given the major responsibility and impact it bears on our daily lives—especially in the face of such a proliferation of new technology and thus new platforms from which to express news. In the current presidential election, I am struck by the way media is used to leverage candidates’ messages, disseminate important information, and gain visibility—all seemingly compelled to take advantage of the media/communication/technology craze, so as not to fall behind their opponents. Candidates all have websites (without question), Facebook profiles, send out text messages to potential voters’ cell phones, and even utilize YouTube to answer voters’ questions in the first ever “YouTube debate.” And yet even when candidates themselves (or their parties) seek to control or spin the information that is broadcasted, the media is increasingly a public institution—with blogs and other tools of the internet, literally anybody can publicize his or her opinions.

One thing I would like to further explore by taking this course is the fact that all media must be somehow operated by a human being, and it seems very difficult not to express (even sub-consciously) one’s personal views, whether through a blog, video, article, interview, even a still photograph—we are all at the whim of the person behind the shot. In various forums at the Watson Institute (most recently last semester “Front Line, First Person: Iraq War Stories”), it was so interesting to hear the stories of soldiers, embedded journalists, and filmmakers who all offered a different perspective on their take of the war. Also, in a class on politics in Israel I took last semester, I heard from a guest speaker that she picked up a copy of Time Magazine in the Paris airport with a headline about Palestine on the cover; but when she got to the airport in Chicago, the very same issue of Time made no mention of this story (not only was the headline replaced by celebrity gossip, but the story had been eliminated completely from the issue). This is such a poignant example of how media coverage changes so drastically from place to place, and how it inevitably influences public opinion in different ways. I’ve seen this myself when I’ve tried to watch news in other countries – even on more international stations like CNN – which pretty consistently portray a different slant of news (especially regarding American politics and foreign policy) than what we see in the U.S.

To me, this is a quintessential Brown course, offering us a hands-on, multi-faceted approach to learn about several aspects of media and the ways in which it plays such an integral part in international affairs. In fact, I transferred to Brown three years ago from a smaller liberal arts college precisely for this kind of opportunity. I come to the class with a completely open mind and passion to learn about global media, as well as my college experience thus far which has taught me to question and consider all the angles.

Turning to Barthes, I was struck by his passage on Method, and how it relates to his greater discussion of speech, writing, and the “laws” of each. He speaks of “the invariable fact that a work which constantly proclaims its will-to-method is ultimately sterile: everything has been put into the method, nothing remains for the writing…no surer way to kill a piece f research and send it to join the great scrap heap of abandoned projects than Method” (318). While he acknowledges the importance of being “lucid” and “responsible” in research (ensuring that your facts are sound), I think Barthes is encouraging those who teach to consider taking Method with a grain of salt; that sometimes one’s true message that they seek to convey can become obscured in the “rules” of writing. Speaking is somewhat freer, allowing the speaker to express himself with perhaps less constraints on form. Which relates to the passage on language and power: “No help for it: language is always on the side of power; to speak is to exercise a will to power: in the space of speech, no innocence, no safety” (311). As soon as we speak (and to an extent, write), we are exposing ourselves to the opinions and interpretations of our audience. The speaker wields great power in perhaps influencing others with his assertions (enhanced by the language he chooses), yet at the same time has little control over the way his speech is perceived. As students of this course, we will learn this firsthand by publicizing our own opinions on the Global Media Blog, and using other types of media platforms to express ourselves. I have never experienced this type of “sharing” in a course at Brown, and believe that I would benefit greatly from the input of others on my work, and the opportunity to consider how my words will affect an audience.

Posted by Julia Stern at 03:08 PM | Permalink

My name is Julia Stern, and I am a Senior concentrating in International Relations and Italian Studies. I was so excited to first learn about this course – and the Global Media Project at Watson – two years ago, but due to scheduling conflicts and being abroad last Spring, I was not able to enroll until this semester. I want to take this course (very, very much) because I am increasingly aware of the important role that media has assumed – in all its various forms – in the realms of politics, warfare, diplomacy, and so many other aspects of international relations. This first became evident to me five and a half years ago on September 11th when, like every other American that day, I was glued to the TV set in my tenth grade math class (which until then, to my knowledge, had never been turned on), trying to comprehend what had happened in New York City that morning. I remember vividly thinking (naively, I suppose) that it was a terrible accident, a plane crashing into the World Trade Center—until we were blasted with another round of news when the second plane hit, this time reporters confirming that it was in fact the work of al-Qaeda terrorists. The fact is, no one really knew the whole story until much later that day, and even then, those of us around the country who were fortunate enough not to have been in New York at the time, were at the mercy of the news stations, reporters, journalists, bloggers, and any other “carriers” of media to deliver us an accurate account of what actually happened. In this way, I think media is just as valuable as the actual event taking place, as it is our only liaison to global (and local) events when we are not able to be there firsthand.

While I have not taken courses directly related to media theory or production, I feel that it is so important to learn about in the context of international relations given the major responsibility and impact it bears on our daily lives—especially in the face of such a proliferation of new technology and thus new platforms from which to express news. In the current presidential election, I am struck by the way media is used to leverage candidates’ messages, disseminate important information, and gain visibility—all seemingly compelled to take advantage of the media/communication/technology craze, so as not to fall behind their opponents. Candidates all have websites (without question), Facebook profiles, send out text messages to potential voters’ cell phones, and even utilize YouTube to answer voters’ questions in the first ever “YouTube debate.” And yet even when candidates themselves (or their parties) seek to control or spin the information that is broadcasted, the media is increasingly a public institution—with blogs and other tools of the internet, literally anybody can publicize his or her opinions.

One thing I would like to further explore by taking this course is the fact that all media must be somehow operated by a human being, and it seems very difficult not to express (even sub-consciously) one’s personal views, whether through a blog, video, article, interview, even a still photograph—we are all at the whim of the person behind the shot. In various forums at the Watson Institute (most recently last semester “Front Line, First Person: Iraq War Stories”), it was so interesting to hear the stories of soldiers, embedded journalists, and filmmakers who all offered a different perspective on their take of the war. Also, in a class on politics in Israel I took last semester, I heard from a guest speaker that she picked up a copy of Time Magazine in the Paris airport with a headline about Palestine on the cover; but when she got to the airport in Chicago, the very same issue of Time made no mention of this story (not only was the headline replaced by celebrity gossip, but the story had been eliminated completely from the issue). This is such a poignant example of how media coverage changes so drastically from place to place, and how it inevitably influences public opinion in different ways. I’ve seen this myself when I’ve tried to watch news in other countries – even on more international stations like CNN – which pretty consistently portray a different slant of news (especially regarding American politics and foreign policy) than what we see in the U.S.

To me, this is a quintessential Brown course, offering us a hands-on, multi-faceted approach to learn about several aspects of media and the ways in which it plays such an integral part in international affairs. In fact, I transferred to Brown three years ago from a smaller liberal arts college precisely for this kind of opportunity. I come to the class with a completely open mind and passion to learn about global media, as well as my college experience thus far which has taught me to question and consider all the angles.

Turning to Barthes, I was struck by his passage on Method, and how it relates to his greater discussion of speech, writing, and the “laws” of each. He speaks of “the invariable fact that a work which constantly proclaims its will-to-method is ultimately sterile: everything has been put into the method, nothing remains for the writing…no surer way to kill a piece f research and send it to join the great scrap heap of abandoned projects than Method” (318). While he acknowledges the importance of being “lucid” and “responsible” in research (ensuring that your facts are sound), I think Barthes is encouraging those who teach to consider taking Method with a grain of salt; that sometimes one’s true message that they seek to convey can become obscured in the “rules” of writing. Speaking is somewhat freer, allowing the speaker to express himself with perhaps less constraints on form. Which relates to the passage on language and power: “No help for it: language is always on the side of power; to speak is to exercise a will to power: in the space of speech, no innocence, no safety” (311). As soon as we speak (and to an extent, write), we are exposing ourselves to the opinions and interpretations of our audience. The speaker wields great power in perhaps influencing others with his assertions (enhanced by the language he chooses), yet at the same time has little control over the way his speech is perceived. As students of this course, we will learn this firsthand by publicizing our own opinions on the Global Media Blog, and using other types of media platforms to express ourselves. I have never experienced this type of “sharing” in a course at Brown, and believe that I would benefit greatly from the input of others on my work, and the opportunity to consider how my words will affect an audience.

Posted by Julia Stern at 03:08 PM | Permalink

In the classroom, speech commands, guides, exposes, and takes risks. The teacher holds power over speech, free to exercise it at will while also capable of demanding it or silencing it from students. In this way, the teacher controls, even manipulates, the classroom atmosphere. Through speech, the teacher guides the students not only in their work but also in the way in which they engage their work. At one extreme, the teacher monopolizes speech, “laying down the Law,” (310) by speaking clearly, efficiently, and authoritatively. The teacher positions himself above the students, linguistically constructing a hierarchy. While this style of speech does not deny the power of speech to students, it is more likely to intimidate them and inhibit their speech. At the other extreme, the teacher loosens the perfective rigidity off his speech. With this style of speech, the teacher appears more human, as Barthes says, yet it invites the students to actively exercise their power and right to speech.

In the classroom, teachers do face limited choices with regard to speech, in the sense that Barthes argues, yet they are not bound by them. A teacher’s goal should be to inspire students. Therefore, many of them do not “choose” but rather naturally incline toward a certain style of speech to best accomplish this aim. The reality is far less dire than the dilemma presented by Barthes.

Students also face limited choices as well when it comes to speech in the classroom. When they speak, they “exercise a will to power,” (311) to attract attention, to reassure themselves, or to show off. At the same time, any attempt at speech makes them vulnerable to criticism or correction. Speech is direct. Speech is personal. Speakers are exposed to their audience unlike writers who enjoy the degree of anonymity afforded by bound pages and computer screens. Speech engenders feelings of proximity, thereby raising the stakes of communication. At the same time, speech becomes all the more sincere and forgiving because it exposes the vulnerability shared by everyone in speech. In the classroom, no one would learn without risking a little speech.

Classrooms are not simply places that facilitate transferences of knowledge but are places of experimentation and innovation. In the same way, speech constantly grows and builds upon itself. Barthes, however, oversimplifies the complexity of speech by presenting a linear image: an infinite line of text streaming from our mouths like reams of paper from old adding machines. Speech is more like a forest, each time beginning as an idea that sprouts into words and grows, in some places thickening, in others twisting and intertwining, and sometimes culminating in blossoming conclusions. Speech is alive and diverse.

Globally, the power of speech has spread as more and more people can voice their opinions to an international audience. The development of a global media community has enabled many to attain power through speech just as it has humiliated and exposed many others. As more people “exercise a will to power” (311) by speaking to the world, the world shrinks and people come closer together, creating opportunities for those on opposite sides of the world to better understand each other.

My name is Alan Johnson. I’m a Junior (’09) IR - Global Security concentrator. In many of the classes that I have taken at Brown, the media, whether domestic or international, have been important tools for studying issues in history, political science, international relations, statistics, comparative literature, history of art, and cultural studies. In these areas I have studied topics through the media but have never had the opportunity to take a deeper look at the media itself. I have always wanted to learn what is, and was, behind it all, to see the foundations that lie beneath so much of what I have studied. This seminar would make a perfect complement to my course of study, aside from being a requirement. With my diverse background and interests, I have much to contribute and so much more to learn from this course.

Posted by Alan Johnson at 02:53 PM | Permalink

My name is Josh Sargent. I am a sophomore in the Global Security track of International Relations and am studying Arabic to meet my language requirement. I want to take this class because I believe Afghanistan and especially Iraq are the first blogged wars as Vietnam was the first televised war and this has changed the nature of the Global Media. I feel the media has segmented and now, instead of there being a universal figure like Walter Cronkite was during the Vietnam War, there is Fox News for conservatives, NBC/CNN for moderates, Jon Stewart for liberals (and yes I understand the irony of mentioning a comedian as a news source) and a blog for whatever an individual's ideological viewpoint is. Instead of a universal media for all cultures, I see a media that is becoming more and more divided and I want to understand how that effects issues of global security, especially the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the “Global War on Terror.”
“The militant who in the name of praxis (the idea that philosophy should actively change the world) dismisses all discourse as trivial”
I would disagree with this statement and say in this age of terrorism violence becomes a form of discourse. 9/11 and the train bombings in London and Madrid were statements, not strategic targets. Al Quaeda has a very sophisticated propaganda department and presents very different faces to different audiences. For example, Bin Laden’s offering of peace to the United States was not intended for American audiences (who vehemently rejected it) but for Muslim audiences to establish his own credibility as a leader in the Muslim world. Also when Bin Laden darkened his beard he was attempting to remind Muslims of how he led the mujahideen against Russia in Afghanistan (the mujahideen darkened their beards with henna before going to war) and again establish his credibility as a Muslim leader. The terrorist organization Hamas is now the ruling party in the Palestinian Territories and just blew a hole through the Eqyptian border so that they can establish legitimacy by reestablishing control over the border (and how convoluted is that). Discourse is necessary for legitimacy and legitimacy is what every militant group requires in order to maintain its existence.
Legitimacy is at the heart of every discourse. When Barthes mentions a “will to power,” that power is being recognized as a legitimate authority on a subject. In speaking some of this legitimacy comes from a speaker's physical characteristics, which are out of his control, while writing comes almost from a void and a writer can be legitimate regardless of his speaking ability or physical characteristics. Terror subverts this paradigm because it can attach a power to a group that it cannot attain through the more ordinary methods of speaking and writing.
I should be in this class because I want to do this work and I think I bring a unique perspective because I want to focus on security issues and the media's usually facile interaction with them (the "surge", the causes of terrorism,). These issues cannot be explained in terms of sound bites or absolutes such as defeat or victory yet the media tries to pinhole them into these terms in order to meet their qualifications of what they think their audience wants.

Posted by Joshua Sargent at 02:38 PM | Permalink

My name is Elizabeth Berger; I am a member of the class of 2010 pursuing an independent concentration in Persuasive Communication. I am fascinated by the power of language to affect change in the thoughts and actions of others. I want to find the synthesis of language – between what is written and what is spoken, what is said and what is heard, what is gathered and what is disseminated. While I am not a senior, I believe I bring a unique perspective to a project of this nature. I have experience using the web not only in all the usual ways, but this past semester I worked with a nonprofit and the Weinstein Co, using online advertising and viral marketing to build buzz about a film, The Great Debaters (a media company propagating itself through other forms of media – how elliptical!) In addition to a lot of writing and academic research experience, I am a hopeless media junkie – and by media I don’t mean solely the frantic cult of celebrity. You mentioned the death of Heath Ledger – what about the death of Benazir Bhutto, the news of which was completely sublimated on US news stations by the escape of a tiger in the San Francisco zoo? Popular culture is more than Andy Warhol or the Superbowl; it is information, the vocabulary to cultural literacy. We are what we consume, in fat and facts. I want to understand this craving, and use it to change the world that barrages us with language every day.

Reading this article, I had one great regret upon its conclusion – that Quel published this in 1971, before the internet became the great equalizer of language. Quel details a comparison between the writer, the intellectual, and the teacher, separating the written word from the spoken word. The power of language, thus, is divided, and wielded only by those with power in each of those separate spheres. But what would happen if those spheres of influence were united? A blog, a discussion forum, a Twitter entry – these are all spaces in which anyone and everyone has the power to contribute to a dialogue. To claim that “language is always on the side of power” (311) is no longer true, or at least does not have the same elitism it once had. There are two ways to consider this argument: either those without power at last have a forum to express their own thoughts, or, by providing a free forum, the internet has redistributed power among the masses.

The factors of dissemination of information have changed. Even the language of the internet has changed communication. All the “abbreves” associated with IM and text messaging have spread to all forums of communication (one would be hard-pressed to find someone who did not recognize “lol” in even a spoken conversation). Grammar, political correctness, even capitalization has lost its power to legitimize information. The informalization of written language brings it somehow closer to speech, with all its flaws and imprecision. While the written word can be endlessly edited and perfected, Quel makes the fascinating point that “Speech is irreversible: a word cannot be retraced except precisely by saying that one retracts it. Here, to cancel is to add…” (309) The internet has established a language somewhere between the two. While more information can be added to, say, an article on Wikipedia, once something is posted on the internet it can never be completely deleted from existence – it remains on a server somewhere, regardless of its merit. Things are copies and pasted, quoted and shared, posted and reposted. The sheer quantity of the compiled language and information is staggering.

How similar is this to Quel’s description of the relationship between teacher and student? When a professor lectures in front of a class, no matter the quality of the information or presentation, it is copied down in note form, discussed in sections and at lunch tables, repeated in essays – in short, disseminated through a variety of means, mutating from its original form into a sprawl of tangents and new ideas. Authenticity can be lost because there are no checks in place to counteract the natural tendency towards confusion and chaos. The endless dialogue of the internet preserves the authenticity of text while allowing it to go through the endless process of discussion and verification. What the internet provides that teaching lacks is an addition to the teacher-student contract – it invites dialogue, and, through the efflorescent cacophony of voices, perhaps also invites truth.

Posted by Elizabeth Berger at 02:27 PM | Permalink

I spent the first year of my undergraduate experience as a film and television major at NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts before transferring to Brown to pursue a liberal arts education. I am currently a senior in my last semester at Brown. I concentrate in architectural studies, but my true passion is documentary filmmaking and I have engaged this passion over the past three years through documentary, anthropology and history courses at Brown, working as an artist mentor in filmmaking at a Providence youth arts non-profit called New Urban Arts, interning with a youth media non-profit in Charlottesville, Virginia, and working on a Watson fellowship as Public Information and Media intern with the International Rescue Committee in Thailand this past summer. My decision to leave an intensive film training program at NYU in favor of a liberal arts education at Brown was rooted in my belief that filmmaking (especially documentary filmmaking) itself is not the driving force for ideas, but rather ideas are the driving force and film (media) is a uniquely powerful instrument for turning those ideas into real change. When I graduate in a few months, I plan to pursue documentary work and in my last time at Brown my goal is to expand my understanding of what “documentary work” means, and what, in fact, a media-maker is capable of on an international scale. Last semester I had the privilege of taking a course called “The Good Fight: Documentary Work and Social Change”. In thinking about the title of the course and what it meant for me personally (and this is also the reason “Global Media” is a logical next step), I arrived at this: ‘The good fight is the fight to create opportunities for empowerment and connection through one of the most powerful forces at our disposal: the media. In video and film technology we have an awesome tool for reaching out across traditional boundaries, giving voices to those who would otherwise be silent, and binding people through honesty and common experience. The good fight can be fought on a small or large scale, as long as the fundamental goals of the fight do not become lost in the search for something artificially real. The good fight is a process, not necessarily a product.'

Looking back on this idea of striving for an effective process to connect people and experiences (what else is media, really?) while reading Barthes’ Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers, lent a particular resonance to the text not only as a piece on teaching, but also as a piece on communicating, and as such, also a piece on media-making and messaging. Barthes assumes a top-down “teacher”-“student” relationship of exchange in which the “teacher” holds power of speech and position over the “student”. When, on page 311, he writes, “No help for it: language is always on the side of power; to speak is to exercise a will to power: in the space of speech, no innocence, no safety,” he points also to a fundamental challenge of the “teacher”, and I would venture to say that his discussion could be broadened to equally include the “media-maker”. His essay resonates loudly today in an environment of unprecedented access to information seemingly limitless forms with which to mediate/communicate that access.

With regard to the relationship of speech to writing, the Democratic primaries seem a perfect example of the ‘powerful’/’puncturable’ position of the teacher/speaker (I will conflate the two here). Clinton and Obama each have their points, well-researched, well-spoken, but they are open immediately to criticism (crisis) when the other candidate takes jabs (it is not even an issue of positioning here, as they are side by side and above the audience). Barthes describes the very situation: “…when the teacher speaks to his audience, the Other is always there, puncturing his discourse; and his discourse, though sustained by an impeccable intelligence, armed with scientific “rigor” or political “radicality,” would still be punctured: it suffices that I speak, that my speech flows, for it to flow away” (313)). Presumably, writing does not expose one to the same level of immediate and interruptive nakedness. I would argue, however, that blogging might actually disrupt the speaking/writing binary Barthes proposes, by increasing the speed and availability of the latter and thus exposing it to some of the same “out in the open” dangers that Barthes ascribes to the former. What that means for this class is that we are dealing in a realm of entirely new possibilities for communication and that through the technology (and equally, new ideas about positioning) at our disposal, the speech/writing binary is only one of myriad binaries we have the power to destroy. This means we can create an international playing field with traditional and non-traditional players if we can get our imaginations juiced up to envision it.

-Bremen Donovan

Posted by Bremen Donovan at 02:12 PM | Permalink

First and foremost, just to get it out of the way, I am a senior International Relations concentrator who needs to take a seminar in order to fulfill my concentration requirements. Not to say that that is the only reason why I want to take this course, but it is certainly an important one. There are of course other seminars that I could potentially take, but I am particularly interested in this Global Media seminar as it seems to take a fresh approach to teaching and learning in our technologically advanced world. I for one am not as technologically advanced as I should be, considering I’ve grown up my whole life with a computer; I am just now becoming comfortable with using interactive features of the internet such as posting videos and blogs. However, despite my slow growing knowledge of the internet, I am still a large consumer of media information, be it from radio, television, newspaper, and even the internet (I at least know how to visit websites). Whether we realize it or not, the consumption of both old and new forms of media plays an integral role in shaping our responses to the people and events that constitute both our local society and the greater global society. We learn about important cultural and political issues through our exposure to different forms of media. Every time we turn on the television, or listen to the radio, or surf the internet, we have the opportunity to learn about events that directly affect our lives. Furthermore, using these various forms of media allows us the opportunity to gain insight into events from which we may feel disassociated. Ultimately, there is essentially almost nothing that is not accessible through the use of the various forms of media available to us today. It is up to us as spectators to decide how to internalize (or dismiss) these forms of media and the information that they provide us.

This brings me to Roland Barthes’ essay “Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers.” One of the most important aspects of this essay is Barthes’ analysis of the student-teacher relationship. This analysis can be used as an analogy for the media and its spectators. As the teacher, the media sets out to portray a message or an argument that it believes to be right or fact. All forms of media take their audiences into account, but ultimately it is only the form of media itself that is accountable for the message it relays. Those who construct the media are thus, as Barthes writes, exercising a “will to power.” The media exercises this “will to power” as being the creator of the stories that spectators view as fact, the creators of the lessons from we which we are to learn. As spectators, we take in what the media presents us, often giving the media the same level of authority that one would any teacher. In this role of spectator and student, we dissect, interpret, and internalize what the media gives us. From this process of analysis and internalization we then form our own opinions and life views. As spectators and students, the information we receive from the media is always a subject of our study.

But rather than simply being spectators, taking in what the media gives us, we must also learn to exercise our “will to power.” That is, we must learn not only to view but also to understand and use the various forms of media that are presented to us. This mission of being able to understand and use different forms of media illustrates the potential usefulness of this course. Studying the history and theory of global media allows us to better understand the different forms and their different functions. Studying the production of media allows us the opportunity to create media of our own and to convey our own important messages that can then by interpreted by others. Ultimately, this course has the potential to set us on the path of becoming teachers rather than students.

Posted by Roger Ramirez at 02:10 PM | Permalink

My name is Sarah Kay, and I will graduate from Brown in Spring of 2010. I am concentrating in Modern Culture and Media, Track 2. The Track 2 concentration is designed so that students can study and analyze theories of production in a number of different contexts (philosophical, artistic, technological, political, etc.) and also produce works of their own that reflect and critique these fields. I was attracted to this concentration because it allows me to study media from whatever angle interests me. Both of my parents are photographers, and visual media—photography, visual art, video, and film—have always been a big part of my life. However, because I come from a multi-cultural household, was born and raised in New York City, and attended an International school, visual media has always been intertwined with social or political implications and never existed purely as isolated art. I am fascinated by the power of media to alter politics and social structures: how one photograph or news story can alter an entire country’s view of itself or of others.

Last January I attended a class in Cape Town, South Africa as a participant in the “Democracy and Diversity” conference sponsored by the Transregional Center for Democratic Studies at the New School in New York City. While I was there, I studied the Democratization of Media, which focused on how the media (local print journalism as well as public access television and local websites etc.) can affect the politics of a developing democracy like the one in South Africa. Afterwards, I was completely hooked. As the world continues to grow into a giant global network with linked economies and intersecting political spheres, “power” is going to be determined by the ability to communicate between people and countries. This communication comes in the form of news channels on the radio and television, on the internet, in movies, newspapers and magazines. While I am at Brown, I want to study the power that media has to affect change. Besides taking MCM theory classes, I took Radical Media last semester, which focused on the way that media can be used as an instrument for radical action. I really hope to take Global Media as a way to continue my education on how powerful and multi-faceted media can be. I think that only by really understanding its potential can we ever hope to harness it and find a way to facilitate important social progress.

This idea of power being tied to communication is touched upon in Roland Barthes’ essay on “Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers” in Environs of the Image. Barthes notes: “No help for it: language is always on the side of power; to speak is to exercise a will to power: in the space of speech, no innocence, no safety.” Barthes is describing the relationship between the teacher and his students, but the metaphor is extremely relevant to a study of global media. Within a paradigm of communication, the person speaking is the one in power. Even disregarding the content of what is being said, the very action of speaking is what grants the speaker authority, or as Barthes phrases it, “the law is produced, not in what he says, but in the fact that he speaks at all.” The same might be said for the media. The person or corporation who controls the output of a stream of media communication (for example, a television news channel) has access to an audience that will be receptive of whatever message is being sent. The message on the news could be anything, but it is the creation of the media, (the production of the news channel) that makes the television the speaker and grants the television authority over the viewer. The same way a teacher has “no innocence, no safety”— they act of speaking makes them responsible for their authority, so do the creators of a news channel have no innocence or safety in the incredible effect they can have on a nation of viewers. How much do unofficial polls during an election year end up being self-fulfilling? By airing a news program that seeks to guess who the winner will be, how much does that influence potential voters to follow the prediction? Just like Barthes’ “teacher” television news “proposes a discourse, without ever knowing how it is received.” How does this affect a nation’s internal politics? Its prejudices about itself and other countries? Its foreign policies? Power lies in the ability to communicate, and right now that communication relies on the media.

Posted by sarah kay at 02:02 PM | Permalink

For a Political Science concentrator with a focus on American politics, the repercussions of the media's failings resonate from the theoretical realm (why do we have freedom of the press?) to the politics of policy formation (how can uninformed constituents hold their representatives accountable?). I am interested in considering how the media conducts its work today, whether it always has acted this way, and how Americans can improve the field in the modern communication landscape while remaining faithful to the ideals of freedom of expression.

In “Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers,” Roland Barthes asserts, “[…] all speech is on the side of the Law.” The context within which one speaks grants the speaker (or teacher) authority, as he or she delivers ephemeral, yet irreversible, words before a silent audience. The importance of identifying and understanding the dynamics of power in communication, as it pertains to Global Media, may be found in the role the modern media plays in the governance of people. Just as the teacher serves numerous functions (he or she is not here simply to relay information, but, as Barthes notes, to enter into a contract with the students based on a number of trivial goals, including: promoting Method, representing the “movement of ideas,” including the students in a “private language”) the media serves numerous functions, today, the least of which is a summary of the day’s news events. Reporting on the war in Iraq, American news outlets do not found their coverage on the war itself, but on the context of the war within the viewing audience’s society. In this way, above the scrolling stock numbesr at the bottom of the screen and below the American flag graphic in the top, left-hand corner, CNN does not provide a lens into lawless war (a perspective at life and death), it contextualizes it within a grander, American narrative. American forces are winning or losing, etc. The viewing audience is directed and governed by embedded reporters, politicians, and other television personalities holding some greater knowledge, which is always out of reach to the viewer, but may come closer “…when we return.”

Barthes asks that the regions of speech be made reversible. And some argue that the decentralized nature of the Internet makes it the ideal platform to break down the traditional lines of one-way communication and create an environment in which everyone (or at least, Barthes’s “proletariat representatives”) can receive and transmit. They may become the writers, detailing first-hand the events most intimate to them; the audience will no longer need to rely upon the summaries of commercial media. It remains to be seen whether or not the speakers at this time—mass media outlets like News Corporation, government agencies like the FCC, and Internet service providers like Verizon—will allow for such an exchange, unfiltered. Moreover, in accepting Barthes’s conception of the contract between the teacher and the pupils, we may also be undercutting the genuine contributions of the speaker—we may need CNN to verify information as a multitude of voices begin contributing to the global sphere of information.

Posted by Michael Dupuis Jr. at 12:49 PM | Permalink

I am a graduate student at Brown enrolled on the public policy Master’s program, where my interest lies primarily in media and internet policy. I was an undergraduate at Cambridge University in the UK, where I read law. Aside from my studies, I have abused a position of power as a journalist and editor, first for my the Cambridge student rag “Varsity”, where I was online editor, then for the UK news network ‘Sky News’. While there last summer, I innovated a new way of online reporting, using social-networking tools Twitter and FlickR to create real-time microblogs. I since used these methods to cover the New Hampshire primary for Sky. I would love to be enrolled on this course as I have a very strong fascination for the way in which the internet may help redress the balance of power between media outlet and consumer, and would love to underpin my experience with an historical and theoretical framework.

In his article ‘Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers’, Barthes identifies the inevitable power relationship engendered by the teacher when addressing his class: in speaking, the teacher becomes the advocate for his own subjective thinking – he is unable to escape the bias of his though process, and must either freely embrace the indelible nature of ‘ephemeral speech’ or be bound to the role of conscientious functionary, rigidly reciting his premeditated thoughts. Barthes views this constraint as inherent in the natural law of speech, where one must either dismantle all vocal delivery, or simply remain mute in order to shun the authority of the speaker.

Barthes continues: by committing to language, the writer, the teacher or the thinker endures an inescapable challenge in his quest for truth. Barthes muses that “in writing about speech I am doomed to the following aporrhoea: denouncing speech’s image-repertoire through writing’s unreality… For writing can tell the truth about language, but not the truth about reality.” In the context of the classroom, or the newsroom, it seems that we are unable to escape bias, and our discourse is plagued by a constant struggle to redress the balance of power.

Barthes’ observations are thought-provoking, but what concerns me more than the inherent power that spoken or written form may embody, is the recognition of that power in open forum. I contend that the imbalance seen between teacher and pupil is explicitly acknowledged through the construction of their relationship, and is relatively unproblematic. Rather, it is in the media that the relationship of power strikes a darker, more concerning construction. There is no tacit identification, nor acceptance of the power relationship; rather, the news anchor, the reporter, the commentator – these speakers and writers engage us under the guise of truth, yet they are as confined to bias and subjectivity as any other speaker. For example, they may exploit this position of power, as they did last week, to declare a state of mourning for the death of a man whose name and form I had, until then, never encountered.

Posted by Joe Braidwood at 12:00 PM | Permalink

Courtney Hutchison: I am a senior concentrator in International Relations with a focus in Global Environment. When I graduate I plan to take an editorial assistant position at a magazine or publishing company. At heart, I am a writer who is in love with the stories of humanity. I love literature because it creates a stage for the playing out of these stories and psychology because it analyzes these stories. I have not had much experience with the non-fiction of the news and media type however. I am intrigued by the issues of subjectivity in the of telling a story that requires factual integrity in the way that news does, and also by the inevitable fictions that make it into, and perhaps are integral to, the production of media. In addition, I am eager to gain skills in the presentation of media in non-written venues, especially film. I think I should be able to take the class because of both practical and personal reasons. I need to take a senior seminar in order to graduate and this one is by far the most interesting to me. From a non-requirement standpoint, I think the experience with media in its many forms and the theory behind it will be indispensable to my (hopeful) future in publishing.
The article discusses the implications of speech and writing as forms of communication that both the formal teachers of the classroom and the informal teachers of the newsroom or interview often take for granted. There is both an implicit understanding and an implicit power in the act of speaking which the article references when it writes “to speak is to exercise a will to power”. By speaking, they mean, we assert and accept a position of authority on what we say, and the expectation is that when we communicate information we are in fact communicating knowledge, or even truth. Thus in speech we must accept this inescapable power and with it the culpability of our words. Though we often may not realize the teacher-like position we place ourselves in when we convey “news” in media, this expectation of truth and responsibility places us in a precarious situation in which we must attempt truth in a necessarily part-fiction retelling.
I found the concept of the “dangerous summary” particularly interesting. In speaking the words are somehow loaded bullets waiting to go rogue by the incapable interpreters the bad note-taker, or even the malicious intended editor. This is particularly pertinent to the role of the reporter on two counts. First, that his words can be taken out of the context and summarize in a way that invalidates the factuality of the message he wished to convey. Second, he is a middle man between the reality and the story in the mind of the public/audience, he is responsible for being that talented editor and summarizers, it is to him we trust the distillation of the truth for our impatient ears.

Posted by Courtney Hutchison at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (35)

My name is Mark Ramadan and I’m a senior double concentrating in International Relations and Economics. I’ll admit upfront that I’ve been an internet addict since before AOL existed, and in this time I’ve fervently followed the various stages of online media production and distribution. I think we’re at an incredibly exciting time for media in the internet age, one in which the production costs have dropped to nearly nothing and distribution costs are literally nothing—one in which consumer power far outweighs traditional “producer” power. More importantly, it is a time in which niche ideas and opinions are given equal access to interested minds alongside those greater adopted by the mainstream. The result of this shift in roles will have important ramifications globally, not just those with access to the internet, and it is on this eve of a pseudo-revolution in media that I think it would be incredibly valuable to revisit its history and theory as a communication tool. I will bring to the class my knowledge of modern, online media, as well as my passion for production. From a more personal standpoint, my International Relations concentration has largely focused on economic development thus far, and I think it is critically important, especially at an institution like Brown, to be given the opportunity to delve into a more interdisciplinary, diverse, and distinctly different seminar, and I think this course is the perfect prospect for me to accomplish this.

A speaker and an audience mutually enter into an implicit contract at the outset of a speech, lecture, or presentation: the speaker is there to impart knowledge, and an audience is there to absorb it. There is no pretense that the speaker would present falsified or inaccurate information, but rather the opposite: the speaker has come to share genuine knowledge, and the audience is there to learn. Thus, by this mutually beneficial understanding, the speaker’s reputation is bound to his or her words, and the audience is thus guaranteed an interesting experience. However, the problem lies not in the speaker or the audience individually, but instead in the act of communication itself, which is what this article articulates. Communication is imperfect: because all spoken messages are subject to summaries by the audience, and a summary necessarily produces, at best an incomplete version, and at worst a bastardization of the intended message, the audience is likely to leave with a distorted, or perhaps fictional understanding of the material. In turn, the speaker is held accountable for not just words spoken, but words heard and transcribed, and the two are not the same.

What the author means, then, by “language is always on the side of power” is that, by the implicit contract described above, the audience is placing the power of truth and credibility into the hands of the speaker, whether this is advisable or not. And, because of the trappings of communication itself, there can be no innocence in speech, and thus no safety. It should be noted that a “speaker” is anyone dictating any material through any medium, whether it is a professor at the head of a lecture hall or it is a newscaster on CNN, and therein lies the crux of the issue: the global audience relies on a communication medium, whether television or otherwise, to gain factual, objective news. However, any communication is both subject to distortion and believability, a dangerous combination in the broadcasting arena.

Posted by Mark Ramadan at 11:50 AM | Permalink

As a senior International Relations concentrator on the verge of my final semester at Brown, I knew that my time to take an IR senior seminar had come as I began shopping last week. What I did not expect, however, was that I would find a senior seminar that I would want to take even if it did not fulfill a concentration requirement. After attending the first class meeting of “Global Media: History, Theory, Production,” going through the syllabus, and reviewing the course readings, I am confident that I have indeed found that seminar. I have been intrigued by the interplay between the media and international affairs since 9/11, but have yet to formally explore this relationship in an academic setting. Even as I write this entry, I think back to that fateful Tuesday at the beginning of my sophomore year of high school when it was announced over the loudspeaker that two planes had crashed into the World Trade Center. Soon after, a live feed of CNN was broadcast in my school’s auditorium and hundreds of students sat transfixed as the news media reported on and replayed the day’s events.

More recently, the coverage of the 2008 presidential election has crystallized my interest in the role of the media. While this specific coverage may not necessarily fall under the focus of the class, it has nonetheless made me increasingly aware of and curious about the impact of the media. As an avid political junkie and active volunteer for the Barack Obama campaign, I have developed an almost obsessive relationship with the media. I read online news sources, check blogs, watch debates and speeches broadcast on television, and follow Sunday morning news programs. I have witnessed the media create particular narratives, seek out soundbites, and craft primary results into sensationalized rollercoaster rides. All in all, I am confident that “Global Media” will provide me with the opportunity to delve further into the media’s position as both a passive observer reporting from the sidelines and an active participant often shaping the course of international affairs. I look forward to exploring the history and theory behind the role of the media as well as producing my own work. As a member of this class, I will offer an unwavering willingness to learn and a commitment to always work my hardest. I will bring the knowledge garnered from over three years of academic study in the field of International Relations and a summer of research at the Watson Institute. I will respect the views of others and work effectively in groups whenever necessary. Overall, I have the right perspective, work ethic, and interest in the course material to help build a diverse and engaged class.

Barthes on Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers
For me, one of the most striking passages within Barthes’ work is his explanation of the, “implicit contract between teacher and taught” (314). Fresh off a semester in which I took “Persuasive Communication” with Barbara Tannenbaum, this passage reminded me of lessons about speaker, audience, and their respective goals. As Barthes accurately suggests, each and every speech act is not only about the speaker, but the listener as well [he again calls to mind this idea with a series of questions a few pages later: “Where is speech? In locution? In listening? In the returns of each?” (323)]. Both sides have certain objectives that must be met in order to achieve effective communication and a working relationship. Barthes’ deconstruction of the contract between teacher and student is impressive for its detail as well as its accuracy. He aptly articulates the underlying expectations within this relationship and, in the end, finds the teacher’s responsibilities to be more extensive. On the one hand, Barthes determines the teacher’s expectations to be largely centered around (the perception of) authority. On the other, he outlines the student expectations as more concrete and varied. Ultimately, what appears to be most significant in this passage is the acknowledgment that there exist definite constructs within the teacher-student relationship. We determine “good” teachers and “good” students by how closely they follow these dominant conventions.
Barthes on Language and Power

The notion of strict constructs is also central to Barthes’ argument about language and power. At the end of the first section, he makes clear that language and power are closely intertwined: “No help for it: language is always on the side of power; to speak is to exercise a will to power: in the space of speech, no innocence, no safety” (311). According to Barthes, just as we are able to recognize “good” teachers and “good” students, we share ideas about what makes for proper speech and proper delivery. In the realm of language, we are expected to abide by a particular speed of delivery, accept the shared meanings given to words, strive for clarity, and stage public speech (namely, in the classroom environment) in a certain manner. If we fail to follow these norms, we risk being seen as unintelligible, weak, and socially inept. While we may think that these conventions are universal truths, we forget that there is nothing natural about the way in which we perform language. In fact, normative judgments define language: “if you add up neithers and nors, you will see that this impartial, objective, human speaker if for this, against that” (326). Thus, Barthes reasons, to speak in accordance with prevailing conventions is to play into the hands of power.

More broadly (and more applicable to the focus of this class), Barthes’ analysis of language and power calls to mind the use of the phrase, “war on terror” and the growing resistance to this terminology. Soon after 9/11, George W. Bush, the United States, and the media began to employ the phrase, “war on terror” to describe the general fight against Islamist extremism. Global leaders, international news outlets, and ordinary citizens around the world bought into this terminology (and, in turn, the United States’ ideology and framing of the issue), despite its grammatical ambiguity (i.e. how can one use physical force to combat an amorphous idea?). In recent years, however, more and more people have stopped using the phrase. Why? Maybe these people simply cannot accept poor grammar any longer, but, more likely, it appears that this move represents a coordinated effort to stand up to the United States and its capacity to shape the international agenda. Here, if we equate “war on terror” with Barthes’ conception of stereotypes, this argument becomes apparent: “But can one not ‘transcend’ stereotypes instead of ‘destroying’ them? Such a solution is unrealistic; the operators of language have no power except to empty what is full” (317). If the United States’ global authority rests partly with language, then the decision to not use its phraseology stands as a clear affront to power.

Posted by chk at 10:46 AM | Permalink

I guess I’ll begin with my interpretation of the quote from the article.
When we speak aloud, whether conscious of it or not, we are seeking to gain a bit of power …perhaps often over our own immediate or distant future. But in playing the power game, one is forced to use some of the language tools of those in power/the status quo. To make language clear and “good”, one must follow certain rules, inevitably established over time by those in power. So in speech, we either use these rules of power, aligning ourselves with power, or we seek to subvert these rules, attempting to gain power. But it’s hard to...well..."stick it to the Man" when you have to inevitably use the same tools as him. Hence the need for “altogether different intelligibility”.
I think the last part about the danger of speech just emphasizes the risks involved in speech due to its “irreversible” and “will to power” nature. No revision, and no protection from inevitable challenges, critiques and attacks. Its interesting thought – because sometimes I think that writing though, in suppressing the rawness of emotion and spontaneity through revision, is often less truthful and even less powerful than speech. I think this idea of language as power is increasingly important. Modern technology, such as websites and film editing, is allowing language to be separated and dissociated from the speaker.

Okay so I’m a senior, former biology concentrator turned IR concentrator. I spent last semester studying abroad in France, dealing with their uniquely confining teacher-student class structure as well as their often archaic approach to the internet. I’ve been a fan of the global media project long before I knew it existed as a class. I attended the majority of the public movie viewings and have a very clear memory of being blown away by “Control Room” and then by the “Guerilla: The Taking of Patty Hearst”.
I’m a documentary and general film junkie. And though I know that not every groupie would make a good rock star, I feel like I have something positive to contribute to this field. And as media has been an increasingly significant part of my internships and work outside the classroom, I would love to somehow continue this trend in a post-graduation job.

I am very interested in why certain voices in the public forum have power of influence and others don’t. And yes, these philosophical inquiries justify my late-night YouTube addiction. It may be obvious to some why YouTube users the world over love to watch laughing babies, daft punk hands and Beyonce falling down stairs. But what happens when those people click on the nearby video showing Mike Huckabee responding to a question about evolution (2,272,000 did just that) or add their voice to the long list of people responding to The Davos Question? YouTube and personal internet blogs are providing new avenues for public expression, as well as new and often confusing patterns of power acquisition.

I’m fascinated by the ever increasing rate of change in the development and use of media technology. But for many parts of the world, still relying on radio or print, they are left out of these changes and the evolving power dynamics that come with these changes. When I was working in Senegal a couple summers ago, I was assigned to a project in a rural village in the south. The NGO I was working for was using radio waves to disseminate information on health and human rights to rural and urban villages. Late one night I was invited to a field behind a tiny house where the entire village was gathering. Lying sleepily on the grass, we spent that night watching a small TV blaring early 80s episodes of “The Young and the Restless”. In talking with my neighbors over the next few months I tried to grasp what kind of image of the U.S.A. was represented by this show and all the odd tidbits of America that survived the Atlantic trek. It never corresponded with my reality. The soaps had won.

As part of the 9/11 generation, I watched from my desk in sophomore homeroom and chewed bubbalicious as two towers burned. Equally vivid is my memory of the start of the “shock and awe” campaign shown 24/7 on CNN and the sick feeling in my stomach after I realized the horror and death that lay covered beneath those brilliant and beautiful fireworks and streaks of light. War was reduced to a light show. Global Media has become such a powerful and pervasive force. I think that all of us who plan on a career with global connections desperately need to better understand the role of global media. And maybe a part of me is resentful of this media onslaught and wants to fight back. I want to understand this force that often feels more like a one-way street rather than a dynamic conversation. I have so many questions and could probably be absorbed for a lifetime by them. So with a couple lines left in my allotted blogging space – I suppose I should just grovel and beg...and say again how much I would love to take this class. (And did I mention this class would also fulfill my senior seminar requirement that I need in order to graduate?)

Posted by Megan Loucks at 10:14 AM | Permalink

My name is Maria Mahler-Haug and I am a Junior concentrating in International Relations- Global Environment.

I wrote what I realize was a pretty inexperienced article on “The Future of Journalism” last year for a journalism class at Brown. While the article itself may have been admittedly green, the research that I did for it was fascinating and left me with some big-picture questions about global media and its future place in our societies. I interviewed Steven Brill, Mark Oppenheimer, and Peter Phipps on their predictions for the future of journalism. They spoke of a more global, more encompassing media that would be a hybrid of written, oral, and visual journalism. The accredited, print journalism would be combined with the “couch-journalism” style of blogging, along with radio, and television style news. The advancement of technology would clearly enable this hybrid system to come to be, but I would like to explore some other implications of this type of new media. The same advancement of technology that would enable this hybrid system to exist may simultaneously allow the news to become more globalized. Will this technology bring the news to more people and to different social spheres? What are some international implications of a changing media? While I would like to learn about global media as it relates to international relations, I would also like to learn about the process of creating media.

I should be in this class because I have seen the effects and power of the media on a political level within the United States. I just came back from working on HRC’s campaign in New Hampshire. I jumped on a bus to Manchester after my last exam of the fall semester with the expectation that I would be permanently glued to one end of a phone line for the entirety of my internship. However, I was happily thrown into the frenzy of the New Hampshire primary countdown: demobilizing snowstorms, eager surrogate speakers, hundreds of volunteers, and of course, the press. My whole experience in New Hampshire actually had very little to do directly with the press. The most direct contact I had with the press consisted of journalists calling my campaign phone line, slyly trying to see if I knew the Senator’s schedule, or hounding me once I stepped outside the Headquarters, trying to get a feel for the atmosphere behind the guarded doors. But my experience on the campaign seemed to be very centered around the impressions that the media had created. I could see changes in the campaign’s message and focus as polls emerged, and I saw how the campaign reacted to the media’s reporting on the situation in Iowa. I saw from within the boiler room the power that the press held as AP called the primary in Hillary’s favor. I was lucky to get to see the campaign’s interaction with the media, and I think it’s a great background experience to have when examining the media’s power on a much more global level.

In “Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers,” Roland Barthes writes that writing and speech are linked. He writes on page 320 that “it is because I have written that I speak; writing is represented by its contrary, speech.” This passage I think is particularly pertinent to global media because global media allows both the written and the spoken word to be distributed to a broad audience. Modern teaching theory talks about the three different pathways of learning: audio, visual, and kinesthetic. Global media, especially with globalization of media through new technologies, is an excellent example of providing the three pathways of learning. The media now provides visual media (both written and video), audio media, as well as opportunities for the lay person to participate in the media through blogging. In this way, the media can be viewed as “teaching”.
But Barthes gives special weight to the power of speech. He writes on page 311: “No help for it: language is always on the side of power; to speak is to exercise a will to power: in the space of speech, no innocence, no safety.” When putting this sentence in the context of global media, Barthes gives power to spoken media over written media. The fact that there is no safety behind speech almost gives speech more credibility and integrity.
However, speech in a global media setting lacks the teacher’s interaction with the audience, or the “Other”. Barthes writes on page 313 that “when the teacher speaks to his audience, the Other is always there, puncturing his discourse.” He writes that the student audience is the “exemplary Other because it seems not to be speaking—so that then, from deep in its apparent silence, it speaks all the louder in you.” This statement raises some interesting questions about global media’s audience. With no opportunity to instantaneously respond at all to the speaker or teacher in any way, is the media’s “Other” an exemplary one?

Posted by Maria Mahler-Haug at 09:41 AM | Permalink

My name is Michael Schub; I’m a 2008.5 concentrating in International Relations with a focus in Global Security. The only class I’ve taken that dealt directly with film theory was MCM26: Cinematic Coding and Narrativity, and it was one of my favorites. The idea of media as a form of political power has always fascinated me. Of particular interest is when film or television crosses borders, either strategically, as with military propaganda, or in less directed cases of globalization, like the phenomenon that is/was Baywatch. In past courses, the focus has always been on media’s impact within a nation. With so much talk of global issues – the environment, terrorism, disease, etc. – it’s easy to forget that the news sources discussing this information are themselves acting on a global scale. Beyond fulfilling my senior seminar requirement, this course would deepen my understanding of film, radio, and television by putting them in a real-world context. It would hopefully unveil the forces at work behind these everyday media. The production aspect of this course is also an attraction. I never had the chance to take Video Production, and I look forward to coming out of the course with at least some technical skill.

“No help for it: language is always on the side of power; to speak is to exercise a will to power: in the space of speech, no innocence, no safety” (Barthes 311). I find it interesting that Barthes discusses teaching in terms of following a Law. In his view, it is the how of speaking that defines the type of teacher rather than the what. Speaking is more than just power, it is a “will to power” in that the teacher, unlike the writer, consciously takes on a separated, if vulnerable status to his listeners. It’s interesting that the second type of speaker, the “free artist” is choosing what seems like imperfect speech in an effort to come across as liberal and human. I would normally assume that everyone strives for the role of authoritarian when presenting a topic of expertise. That Barthes refers to the silent thinker and the militant as lacking speech implies that they cannot be teachers, yet I believe that silence carries its own pedagogical significance. In fact, many world leaders, from Churchill to Mandela, appear to have “taught” through multiple such roles. And what about formal speech making, such as the State of the Union address. When the words are written by someone else, must the speaker then become an authoritarian by necessity?

Barthes discussion of “An odor of speech” on pages 321-22 appealed to me because it seemed almost poetic. Descriptive phrases like “vertigo of the image” and “collapsing soufflé” add a sensory feel to an article full of technical descriptions and esoteric allusions. Barthes contrasts the lingering effect of speech (smelling) to the permanent distancing of writing (falling). He then goes on to discuss accountability as it relates to speaking and writing, noting that risks are higher when writing. Barthes concludes the section with a long aside to the reader, whereby he questions the very process of writing about speaking. Because he refers to memories and instances of speaking in the text, the “smell,” that immediate vulnerability unique to speaking still has an effect on the author. This dichotomy makes me question other instances where writing meets speaking, such as screenplays. When the dialogue is prewritten, does the actor feel the temporary self-consciousness of speech, or does he take comfort in the permanence of written words? What about the writer himself? With Heath Ledger’s death, some say method acting was to blame. They claim that, in reciting the pre-written words of a sociopath character like the Joker and making them his own, Ledger altered his self-identity. Personally, I believe this talk is sensationalist, but the path from speaking to believing is certainly worth thinking about in some broader context.

Posted by Michael Schub at 01:31 AM | Permalink

My name is Veronica Cortez and I am a fourth year student majoring in International Relations. I would like to take this class because I need a seminar to graduate and this is the one that most caught my interest. This is the first time I post a blog and according to what I heard in class on Wednesday many of our other assignments will also be new to me. I should be in this class only because I can learn an enormous amount from it.

Now on to the quote on page 311, my interpretation of language being on the side of power is that those that are in power are the ones that are able to speak out. Those that have the power with one word can dictate how things turn out for the masses. Those that are in power can purchase television and radio time. They are able to spread their words throughout the country, the world. People that are in power choose their words carefully, with a purpose that is why there is “no innocence no safety” everything is deliberate.

The other section of this excerpt that catches my eye is the one referencing a teacher and what is really understood by the student after a lecture on page 312. Barthes says, “…[a teacher] proposes a discourse, without ever knowing how it is received.” The teacher stands at the front of every class discussing history, psychology, philosophy and yet is never really sure if the students are truly absorbing what he or she is saying. The words being used are very important because they are supposed to convey ideas and those that are dense with words do so poorly. A teacher must always decide how they will word what they want to say. It is through language whether it be written in books or spoken out loud that teaching is done.

Another section that is interesting in the teacher/student dynamic is familiarity on page 321. How is one supposed to address their teachers, especially when they are in the position of power. Those students that feel that they are above respecting their teachers will speak to them as equals instead of using deference in their speech. In English it is much more difficult to show deference to someone in a position of power than it is in the Latin languages of which Spanish I am particularly familiar. The tu form is extremely casual when talking to a person in power. It is preferable to err on the side of caution and use the usted form until explicitly told to do otherwise.

Posted by Veronica Cortez at 09:58 PM | Permalink

Richtel’s article on high definition (HD) sex movies is relevant to global media on a few interrelated fronts. First, the move to produce porn in HD represents a constant drive towards bigger, better, faster, and snazzier technology. This drive is pushed by both consumers and by corporate wallets. Secondly, the decision by Sony to refuse to produce HD porn represents a desperate clinging to some sense of “morality” within an anarchic system of global media today. Sony is not going to stop the production of porn, or even limit the ability of porn to be distributed in HD. But the fact that they are refusing a clearly lucrative opportunity represents a last ditch effort to sanitize production—at least on one superficial, publicly visible level. The assertion that “pornography helps technologies spread” is clearly relevant to global media. Sex sells, as we know, therefore it comes as no surprise that new ways to enjoy pornography have pushed markets for new technology. Members of the porn industry insist that Sony is making a huge mistake by refusing their business, supposedly because consumers are bound to buy HD porn above any other HD production. Finally, and most importantly, the discussion of the porn industry sheds light on the ways in which American popular culture is exported. It is arguably the lowest example of America’s cultural imperialism—the fact that American made porn (often featuring foreign women) can be found in markets across the world, is a testament to the globalized nature of media today.
The social and cultural implications are complex, many of which are alluded to in Richtel’s article. One social implication of porn’s shift to HD, as it doesn’t take a mastermind to realize, is the impact on girls and women who are urged to emanate sexuality as it is depicted through pornography—by women who have not only been nipped, tucked, and digitally edited, but who also have “lifestyle” coaches, who remind them to eliminate carbs and chain themselves to the treadmill. As Richter reports, producers of HD porn allege that this new technology allows a more intimate, “real” view of actors. As director Robbie D explains, “It puts you in the room.” Attempts to mimic these fabricated women may be harder than ever, given the increased demand for cosmetic surgery by actresses in the industry as result of the sharper picture. If you want to be sexy, you have to look like Jesse Jane, who has had breast surgery twice, or Savanna Samson, who has the luxury of having her pimples craftily avoided by film-makers while the rest of us are left searching for the perfect product to amend our imperfections. The idea that HD is going to make pornography more “real” is ludicrous.
The effects of these meticulously staged depictions of what is sexy or beautiful has both domestic and international reach. A recent article in the New York Times described the influence of Hollywood and American pop-culture, particularly the stick-then models and actresses of the red carpet, on the conception of beauty in Brazil (Rohter, Larry “In the land of bold beauty, a trusted mirror cracks,” NYT, Jan. 14th, 2007). While Brazilian women were traditionally prized for full-figured hips and butts, models are increasingly shaving off inches, and worse yet, the past year saw the first steep rise in eating disorder related deaths. American pop culture has been exported to every corner of the globe, and unfortunately it is not home-made or grassroots productions like those typically found on YouTube. These images have been carefully crafted by people working strictly within American society’s mainstream constructions of sexuality and gender—because, after all, that is what sells. When HD porn sports a tag line that assures realistic sex, it is only offering sharper images of more fictionalized women. America’s perception of beauty, as it becomes ever more distorted, will continue to take casualties from Hollywood to Rio. A similar phenomenon may be seen in the export of American consumerism, a mainstay of our sociocultural landscape. You can get a McDonalds meal super-sized in Bangkok, Quito, Geneva, or anywhere else you care to indulge yourself. Pornography is just one example.
I am a Senior concentrating in Development Studies. I am interested in the way American media depicts other cultures, specifically regarding US foreign policy. I am interested in global media as it affects the heartstrings of America, how the media affects the public’s perception of international affairs, particularly international conflict and international health. I am interested in how different types of leverage can be used through the media to affect change—for example, how YouTube might affect domestic politics, how the celebrity one.org movement featuring George Clooney and Angelina Jolie might affect poverty reduction and HIV/AIDS in the developing world, how Bollywood stars could be mobilized in the fight against HIV/AIDS in India, how the media’s representation of conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, and Darfur has direct implications for the course of events in these war-torn societies. I am interested in how media can be used to change an abstract and distant international problem into something personalized for the viewer, and through that spur action (for example, the recent photo exhibit at List on the genocide in Darfur that forced the audience to move beyond rhetoric and politics to a gruesomely realistic portrayal of the situation). I am interested in how organizations working for social change can best harness the power of media. Besides being a student of development studies and international relations, I have worked abroad extensively, and I am a writer and a teacher—all of these experiences I think will deepen both what I could bring to the table, and what I hope to do with what I will learn from the course.

Posted by Katie Panella at 10:15 PM | Permalink

Youtube is generally accepted as the most expansive open-source media community in the country, if not the world. With a computer, an internet connection, and of course, a video capturing device, a person can display their story to the globe. By using these tools, along with Youtube’s blog function, M Dot Strange, the subject of David Carr’s January 22nd, 2007 New York Times article “M dot Strange Finds a Way at Sundance,” has demonstrated the power of Youtube as a stage for individuals to transmit their independent unadulterated work to a wide audience. But while I am pleased with the democratization of art media that Youtube promotes, I wonder what M dot Strange success stories might yield for the democratization of news media.

As far as art media is concerned, we have long had independent movie studios, art galleries, and independent bookstores through which to transmit alternative artwork. The news media is considerably more fettered. However, the public nature of the production of M dot Strange’s “We are Strange,” in which he kept his viewers abreast of his progress, reminded me of the alternative, open-source news media which we already have at our fingertips: Wikipedia. But just as I thought to praise Wikipedia, I thought of its lack of reliability. As university students and faculty, we have collectively agreed on what constitutes a reputable source, worthy of use in academic research. Wikepedia, of course, is not one of those. As an adherent to this collective ideal, I was stunned when I read the January 29, 2007 New York Times article “Courts Turn to Wikipedia, but Selectively.” According to the article written by Noam Cohen, “more than 100 judicial rulings have relied on Wikipedia, beginning in 2004, including 13 from circuit courts of appeal, one step below the Supreme Court.” I was astounded that lawyers and judges had used material from a source that could be so easily edited and/or appended to. But, then, doesn’t Wikipedia do the exact same thing as Youtube, but with text? There is an accepted format for our stories and images in the mainstream that is subverted by folks like M dot Strange through their use of Youtube and similar communities. To get his film seen he has side-stepped conventional studios and producers. Likewise, Wikipedia-type communities subvert mainstream notions of acceptable form and presentation; they are accountable to nobody but the individual authors.

If we are to rejoice in the proliferation of small (media) arms and our expanded access to modes of production, is it possible for us to restrict our beliefs on what media should be fully democratized and what media should be carefully regulated? Even now, I’m not sure how comfortable I am with the idea that Wikipedia will one day become an acceptable source of information. But I do know that it unsettles me to think that we may make certain demands for the freedom of art and entertainment media, while leaving the news media fettered, and inaccessible.

I am an MCM concentrator with a keen interest in issues of black representation via film. I am concerned with this notion that upper-middle class white constitutes the norm of characters in films and on TV, and that other characters must be analyzed in reference to this norm. The idea of other, and how to deconstruct that notion in a cinematic sense, is perhaps what interests me most. As far as film experience, I have made some productions on my Digital 8 camera, including a few shorts back in high school. I’m currently working on a script about the traditional conception of American war heroes in opposition to the new impersonal standard of armed warfare. But of course, I’m putting this project to the side so I can first learn the tools of the trade.

Posted by Daliso Ngoma Leslie at 11:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

January 22nd, New York Times, Business Section
“Gambling Subpoenas on Wall St.”

The crackdown by the Justice Department on four prominent Wall Street firms for underwriting the Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) of internet gambling sites outside the United States has recently sparked debate. The main relevance of this article to discussions on global media is that with forms of widely accessible international media like the internet, that transcend geographical borders, it is becoming harder to enforce laws specific to certain regions, and harder to pinpoint responsibility for media that the government of a certain country disapproves of. In this case, gambling online is illegal within the United States but these sites are legal in places like Costa Rica and Antigua where they operate from. This discrepancy in the legality of certain sites is an issue because even though the government can crack down on a few sites, and target a few firms, ultimately controlling the internet is a mammoth task and defining who is responsible for such violations is the main problem. Are the banks at fault for orchestrating these IPOs outside the United States? I don’t believe so: they are ultimately not engaging in online gambling, nor are they increasing access of Americans to these sites.

Such forms of technology (the internet, which makes online gambling possible) and the act by the Justice Department bring up certain interesting ideas. Firstly, the economic effect here is that even though these firms are legal and licensed within the place where they operate, if American investors are not allowed to engage with them, their revenue will decline greatly. This could imply that with legal controls on the internet, a crackdown in one country could affect the economic outlook of another country very easily, without any physical measures like tariffs or sanctions even required. This could be used as a power tool in international relations in the present and future. Secondly, this act raises the question of social control. Gambling is perhaps socially discouraged in the United States, but it is becoming hard with the internet to restrict exposure of US residents to this act. This issue of social control definitely exists with other websites as well as television – for example American TV shows often project a value system very different from countries in Asia but are still widely accessible to citizens there and can influence them greatly, resulting in them growing up to be more Westernized.

Since I’ve been born and brought up in Asia (India), such an act by the Justice department does not surprise me at all. Even though media control is much stricter in China than in India, we do have our fair share of crackdowns. What is most striking is that in such situations the government is usually confused about whom to blame and whom to fine. For example, recently a video was sold on Baazi.com (The Indian version of eBay) that was deemed inappropriate. The person who was prosecuted was the CEO of Baazi, and this raised questions in India about whether it really was his fault – he hadn’t personally encouraged the video, or taken it himself. The video was taken using a cell phone, and was sent across the country in a matter of minutes, so people raised questions about whether the cell phone services should be prosecuted as well. Or should it be the person who took the video? The entire country was confused and since the CEO involved was an American citizen the United States was involved in the matter as well and ultimately negotiated for his release. These issues of identifying responsibility for certain actions and enforcing legal restrictions within physical borders in the age of global media, where the number of players are infinite, and material so easily transcends geography, are definitely going to need dealing with.

Posted by Shveta Raina at 09:09 PM | Permalink

January 22nd, New York Times, Business Section
“Gambling Subpoenas on Wall St.”

The crackdown by the Justice Department on four prominent Wall Street firms for underwriting the Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) of internet gambling sites outside the United States has recently sparked debate. The main relevance of this article to discussions on global media is that with forms of widely accessible international media like the internet, that transcend geographical borders, it is becoming harder to enforce laws specific to certain regions, and harder to pinpoint responsibility for media that the government of a certain country disapproves of. In this case, gambling online is illegal within the United States but these sites are legal in places like Costa Rica and Antigua where they operate from. This discrepancy in the legality of certain sites is an issue because even though the government can crack down on a few sites, and target a few firms, ultimately controlling the internet is a mammoth task and defining who is responsible for such violations is the main problem. Are the banks at fault for orchestrating these IPOs outside the United States? I don’t believe so: they are ultimately not engaging in online gambling, nor are they increasing access of Americans to these sites.

Such forms of technology (the internet, which makes online gambling possible) and the act by the Justice Department bring up certain interesting ideas. Firstly, the economic effect here is that even though these firms are legal and licensed within the place where they operate, if American investors are not allowed to engage with them, their revenue will decline greatly. This could imply that with legal controls on the internet, a crackdown in one country could affect the economic outlook of another country very easily, without any physical measures like tariffs or sanctions even required. This could be used as a power tool in international relations in the present and future. Secondly, this act raises the question of social control. Gambling is perhaps socially discouraged in the United States, but it is becoming hard with the internet to restrict exposure of US residents to this act. This issue of social control definitely exists with other websites as well as television – for example American TV shows often project a value system very different from countries in Asia but are still widely accessible to citizens there and can influence them greatly, resulting in them growing up to be more Westernized.

Since I’ve been born and brought up in Asia (India), such an act by the Justice department does not surprise me at all. Even though media control is much stricter in China than in India, we do have our fair share of crackdowns. What is most striking is that in such situations the government is usually confused about whom to blame and whom to fine. For example, recently a video was sold on Baazi.com (The Indian version of eBay) that was deemed inappropriate. The person who was prosecuted was the CEO of Baazi, and this raised questions in India about whether it really was his fault – he hadn’t personally encouraged the video, or taken it himself. The video was taken using a cell phone, and was sent across the country in a matter of minutes, so people raised questions about whether the cell phone services should be prosecuted as well. Or should it be the person who took the video? The entire country was confused and since the CEO involved was an American citizen the United States was involved in the matter as well and ultimately negotiated for his release. These issues of identifying responsibility for certain actions and enforcing legal restrictions within physical borders in the age of global media, where the number of players are infinite, and material so easily transcends geography, are definitely going to need dealing with.

Posted by Shveta Raina at 09:09 PM | Permalink

Two weeks ago, Tyree Simmons, a.k.a. DJ Drama, a prominent producer of “mixtapes”—compilation CD’s featuring unreleased and usual unlicensed songs—was arrested on racketeering charges (as reported in the New York Times on January 22, see “Cracking Down on Mixtape CDs”). However, although it is true that he profited off of music that he was not licensed to reproduce, it would be a mistake to pass off DJ Drama’s CD’s merely as unlicensed copies of other people’s music. The mixtape does not merely reproduce culture—it produces it. DJ Drama is regarded by the rap-savvy as an artist in his own right. In selecting and arranging the songs on a mix, DJ Drama performs a creative act; an act that, in itself, impacts culture, as made evident not only by his reputation throughout the rap underground, but also in his ability to make or break artists. Yet the cultural force of his mixes goes far beyond the rap underground—major record labels have approached him and many other such DJs to offer them jobs as talent scouts and producers of licensed compilations. In short, the producers of the so-called dominant or “mass” media follow the lead of DJ’s like Drama. Although the existence of a dominant media has lead many to believe that the rise of the mediated society has lead to a centralized production of culture, the case of DJ Drama, a member of Atlanta’s rap underground, reveals the reality—that in the age of global media, culture continues to flow in from the periphery.

Furthermore, the example of DJ Drama illustrates two trends of current media technology. The first is the effect of digital information technology on the informational commodity. In the market society, an industry can grow up around any commodity that can be produced in a material form. Although one may be able to commodify his/her own ability to recite information, an information industry (to mass produce the commodity for the market) can only exist if the information is tied to a material manifestation that the typical consumer cannot easily produce him/herself. For centuries, media technology did exactly that. After the invention of the printing press, while one had the ability to copy an entire book by hand, so as to create a free copy for a friend, it became easier to simply purchase a copy from a printer, who could produce them cheaply en masse, hence the rise of “print capitalism.” The same phenomenon can be attributed to the rise of the early recording industry (the reproduction of records was no simple task), as well as the early film industry. Thus, tied to various material forms that were difficult to reproduce, information began to be mass-produced for the market. Over time, the information industries grew—and became more centralized. However, the “digital revolution,” which was initially conceived for marketing purposes, has challenged the mass production of informational commodities. By storing information in coded arrangements of numbers that can be easily interpreted and reproduced by personal computers and other accessible technology, digital technology has essentially liberated information from its material manifestation. As computers become more widely disseminated, the power to reproduce information is restored to the average person. As a result, information becomes liberated from the sphere of capitalist economics, and thus is no longer controlled by centralized industry. DJ Drama’s ability to obtain and distribute music with digital technology bears a testament to this shift. Thus, to some extent, when DJ Drama distributes mix CD’s, he is distributing them as cultural items, not as commodities. Rather then reinforce a mainstream culture, digital technology has empowered those outside the mainstream.

Of course, one will note that not only was music being illegally distributed in this case—it was actually being profited off of. It would be a mistake to think that, although information has to a large extent been liberated from its commodity form, it will ever cease to be commodified in some measure. However, the illegal sale of mixes speaks to another trend sparked by new technology—the rise of commodities produced by the masses, as opposed to those produced for the masses. At the time of the birth of the media industries, production was expensive. As technology like printing presses, movie cameras, and recording devices were immensely costly, it was only worth producing newspapers, books, films, and records in large quantities. This meant that media was only produced by those in the industry, and accounts for the rise of the centralized dominant media. However, new technology has undermined the centralized industry by making production (as well as distribution of materials) affordable and available to much of the population. Hundreds of millions throughout the world own computers, digital cameras, digital recorders, printers, and CD burners, which means that a perplexing number of people have the power to participate in the commodity trade of information. If DJ Drama’s mixes are viewed to be in some part his creation, then, in producing and selling CD’s, DJ Drama may be regarded a manufacturer of commodified information. Thus, even if digital technology has not eliminated the commodity trade of information, it has decentralized the production of commodified information, and shifted power to the periphery.

Though many found DJ Drama’s arrest to be a crushing defeat, the fact that the story landed on the front page of the New York Times business section is proof of the cultural impact one person at the margins can make in today’s world of global media. If that’s not sufficient evidence of global media’s democratization, I don’t know what is.

I’m a sophomore with no concentration at the moment. I’ve often been frustrated by the narrow analysis of society made by economists, political scientists, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, etc, and thus prefer to examine society through a broader lens. Accordingly, I’ve discovered that I have a predilection towards critical theory, which I imagine might be useful for a class like this. Also, I’ve worked as an intern with a group that pursues open government and freedom of information, which, to some extent, is in line with the spirit of the class. What motivates me? I’ve been told again and again by adults that their generation messed things up and left our generation in one heck of a predicament—and I completely agree. Maybe it’s typical for any given generation to claim that it’s the last before the end of the world comes, but I think that, in our case, we might actually have some serious crises (like, mondo serious) threatening us, and I’d really like to avoid it if at all possible. What with Ecological threats, security threats, an economic bubble in danger of bursting (i.e. the national debt), and the gradual erosion of democracy in America, we’ve got a lot on our plate, and these problems aren’t going to solve themselves. In fact, a solution will take the coordinated effort of the entire nation, and in some cases, the entire globe. But how can such coordination ever be accomplished? I think media might be the beginning of the answer. I believe that media can be used both to lure people towards their own good and to lure them away from it, and thus it can actually be a liberating force. As of now, the power of media to solve major problems has hardly been unleashed. Yet as media becomes more and more democratized, it becomes more and more in our power to use it to prevent disaster, and to save lives. And I think that’s pretty cool. Which is why I want to take this class. Plus, I don’t really have much practical experience with media production, just intellectual endeavors inside and out of the classroom, so I’m excited to learn the “how to.”

Posted by Andy Garin at 06:33 PM | Permalink

Pornographers have long made liberal use of makeup, tanning sprays, lighting, and camera angles. Who wants to see real—real blemishes, scars, acne, cottage cheese—when you can see perfect, or so the argument goes. But these tools have been blunted by high definition cameras and increasingly crystal-clear close-ups. New York Times writer Matt Richtel offers his own view into the mutually evolving worlds of porn and technology. Richtel scrubbed away the word porn from his title and replaced it with “sex movies.” His title’s verb, “could be,” implies that he’s speaking hypothetically and ostensibly gives him credibility as an observer and breathing room, lest he come too close to Jesse Jane.
Fortunately for us, plenty of writers in blogs and online magazines don’t care if they get their hands dirty. They don’t bother sanitizing their every sentence for a high brow publication. After all, major American newspapers are the only forum to reflect on global media (here, the movies, articles, blogs, cameras, presentations, etc.). One enormously powerful community of porn watchers, actors, and commentators is the gay audience. Richtel speaks only to women in heterosexual porn, but had he reached out to men of any sexuality, he mightn’t have reprinted the same clichés about men caring more about technology than looks. He would also have realized how old hat this topic has become and that gay viewers and producers have been at the cutting-edge of these technologies for at least five years. (I would be more than happy to share links to blogs, video reviews, and articles which discuss this very topic, but I fear they’ll be edited out.)
Consumers have already demanded high definition porn to watch on their $3000 plasma televisions. Much content has been filmed and released, to mixed reviews. Some consumers lust after the high definition experience and want, or think they want, high definition porn, so they’ll keep buying. Others want the high definition experience without unsightly, if all too human, blemishes magnified 1000-fold. They’ll gravitate to HD-DVD or Blu-ray discs that’ve been heavily edited and airbrushed. To be sure, better editing technology is within reach of anyone willing to commit the time and money. Porn’s rewards ensure that. If gay porn production company Raging Stallion can easily edit away condoms, giving the appearance of unprotected sex (which, though condemned widely by health professionals and gay public, nevertheless makes up a huge percentage of demand), surely moviemakers can paint away blemishes. Maybe they can even import technology from computer animated features like Shrek to make poorly constructed silicone breasts bounce in a more “lifelike” fashion. However, there’s something to be said for amateur porn. Barebones production and grainy video haven’t stopped tens of millions from enjoying XTube, the youtube of porn. Clearly the global community demands porn of all stripes, though I personally enjoy the free kind.

Continue reading "New Porn, Old Hat" »

Posted by David Nickels at 04:27 PM | Permalink

Pharmaceutical advertisements hold a special place in advertising for being among the most ridiculous commercials out there--healthy, fit, lively adults "celebrate life" or "experience nature" while a soothing, calm voice lists terrible side effects and other warnings for using the medication. At least some people, if not most people, must find them completely frustrating--they are the perfect examples of advertising that seek to gloss over the difficulties of the real world and sell an emotionally charged fantasy of "the good life," when what is really being sold is product that is not depicted in the advertisement at all. Television is the medium to reach the infamous "lowest common denominator;" to sell to the largest and what corporations assume is the least sophisticated demographic. With this point of view it's not hard to see why pharma companies dumb down their ads--they're meant to communicate to a very large, undifferentiated mass of consumers who don't understand medicine. I think that this approach to advertising creates the problems that drug ads run into in Milt Freudenheim's article. When the message is dumbed down, superlative, even hyperbolic statements are far easier to make.

I found it interesting that in the article, the FDA and members of Congress sought to amend the misinformation advertised in drug ads by, in one sense, further limiting the flow of information to the consumer. Government officials in the article ask for a delay in the initiation of drug advertising campaigns--12 months, 15 months, etc. At first it seemed reasonable--How can pharmaceutical companies really advertise a sophisticated chemical formula that treats a complicated disorder to the proverbial lowest common denominator? The government's demands are somewhat sensible--delay the touchy-feely, dumbed down, emotional advertisements until the smart people can really figure out what's going on, and then unleash it on the public. It struck me, though, that this is a very undemocratic way of viewing information. Is there not some way for drug companies to advertise effectively and intelligently? To communicate a nuanced message to a "lowest common denominator" that, due to poverty or lack of education, may have more real-world experience with sickness and/or death than the creators of the ads?

It may have something to do with the connotations with television--actually, I think it is entirely because of the type of medium television is percieved as. Nuanced, "real" advertisements are not expected on television. Perhaps in an upscale magazine or The New York Times, perhaps on certain radio stations or on billboards in elite urban areas--but television remains a medium whose viewers are thought to be incredibly simple and slow. I have no way of knowing how intelligent the average swath of humanity is, but I wonder what would happen to the pharmaceuticals market if advertisements came out and honestly said, we know that sometimes these things don't work, but we spent millions of dollars making this chemical formula, and though it might make you throw up in the mornings, it might actually help. If the sugar coating was stripped away, maybe the pills would go down a little easier.

Posted by Sonia Saraiya at 02:39 PM | Permalink

David Carr’s article on movie maker M dot Strange shows clear transition in the direction of media distribution. While M dot Strange’s video, “We Are the Strange,” was shown at the Sundance Film Festival, its major followers did not even need to leave their homes to view the trailer. With movies, such as this one, appearing on the internet, through You-Tube, even in virtual online communities with their own video centers. Not only is the material reaching out and becoming accessible to more people, but this online culture is allowing greater interaction between the producers and filmmakers, and the audience. In turn, the mainstream, or traditional, models of distribution are being challenged: would you rather watch this movie, or be able to do the same while participating in an online film school started by the film’s director? Which scenario would you gain more from?

The internet has become such a powerful tool for the spreading of information. With all sorts of videos available on You-Tube and online communities such as Second Life, anyone can create a film or introduce their idea. The internet has provided a cheap way for beginning filmmakers, or those with limited resources. To get your idea to reach every corner of the globe, you just need a little time and patience. But there are more than just economic effects to the internet phenomenon. The internet has a great political and cultural impact on the world. While internet is yet to become in developing countries what it is in countries such as the US, it will have great impacts everywhere. No longer will the US be able to have a monopoly on the news distribution (ie CNN), if home-made movies, cell phone videos, and the alike can get the attention of the rest of the world. These new venues are creating choices for the viewers: the no longer have to believe the one source of information, now they can choose and decide for themselves.

I am a senior International Relations concentrator, PED track. I have been able to witness, first hand, the way the CNN effect has affected the way America (among other countries) has viewed different wars. During the bombing of Belgrade in 1999, I was living in Boston, while the rest of my family was in Serbia. I was able to hear what was going on from my relatives and was surprised at how different the two accounts were, and realized that much of the world was only hearing one side. Since then I have always been interested in learning more about how the media can control politics, but have never really had the chance to explore that topic until now.

Posted by Mia Levi at 02:38 PM | Permalink

The New York Times piece "Showdown Looms in Congress over Drug
Advertising on TV" raises a number of important questions about
direct-to-consumer (or DTC) drug advertising by America's
pharmaceutical industry. These ads have been sharply criticized by
watchdog groups and congressional advocates who have argued that these
ads often mislead consumers about the risks and benefits of certain
drugs. Such questions about DTC drug advertising became especially
salient after Vioxx--Merck's heavily marketed painkiller
medication--was found to dramatically increase the risk of stroke and
heart attacks in a number of patients.
This piece brings to light a number of ways in which the media is
changing the face of America's pharmaceutical industry. No longer are
doctors the sole providers of information about medical treatments;
whereas in the past patients would come to a doctor's office so that
the doctor could diagnose their symptoms and prescribe treatments,
today patients often come to doctors' offices knowing exactly what
script they want written out by the end of their appointment. In this
sense, new media forms like DTC drug advertising empower patients by
providing them with information they previously could only get from
their doctors. This power can prove dangerous, especially when
unchecked advertising by pharmaceutical companies misleads patients
about the dangers of certain drugs.
At the same time, new media forms do have the potential to empower
patients in a number of positive ways. Patients can now check
advertisers' claims against a wealth of information available online
from sources like WebMD, and they can discuss their experiences with
different treatments in a range of blogs and self-help forums.
The success of DTC advertising by pharmaceutical companies also says
something about the power of the convergence of different media forms.
Patients can now watch an Ambien commercial on TV, go online and take
a quiz confirming that they do indeed have insomnia, and then go to
the doctor's office and receive a free Ambien sample along with
promotional materials provided to their doctor by the Ambien drug
"representative" (read: salesperson).
Bio: I'm a senior International Relations concentrator, focusing on
political economy of development. Ever since I saw this course in the
course catalog, I've wanted to take it. In IR135, I found our
discussion of the intersection between the media and international
politics fascinating, and I only left wanting more. I'm an avid
reader of online news and blogs like mediamatters; my RSS reader is
pretty much always running on my computer desktop. I'm especially
interested in Middle Eastern politics; I spent Spring 2006 studying
abroad in Israel, a country with a surprisingly open and vibrant news
media. Although I don't have any experience in video production, I'm
excited and willing to learn.

Posted by Ben Grin at 02:17 PM | Permalink

The Justice Department’s investigation into the online gambling industry is a sign of increasing willingness by U.S. authorities to extend their jurisdiction well beyond the traditional limits. This type of action is not unprecedented in the U.S.’s attempts to deal with the illicit transnational economy. However, in this case, authorities have targeted the investors, the money behind the operations. Importantly, the case shows just how vulnerable many internet websites and businesses are to an attack on their finances. While many see the internet as a completely free network of exchange and communication - offering a great deal of hope for those who don’t have the money or means to get their message across conventional media channels - the reality is that money still dominates the means of production and communication. The net is not quite as free as is often assumed. The Justice Department’s “war of intimidation” has already resulted in the arrest of several top executives of foreign-based online casinos, as well as the decision by many others to cease doing business with U.S. residents.

This investigation could have wide-ranging consequences for the free exchange of ideas on the web. As a lawyer in the article observed, “the development was disconcerting because the prevailing wisdom had been that investment in a company that is legal and licensed in its jurisdiction was not grounds for prosecution.” It is troubling that a government would attempt to prosecute against something it does not like, in a place where it is legal. While it’s easy to stomach it when the target is online gambling or child pornography, it would be less acceptable if the target were a government’s critics in another country. The article also points to the effectiveness of government regulation, even in this new age of global media (where, presumably, one nation’s ability to control the media should be diminished). Global communication almost always requires money, at some point in the process. If you cut out the money, you cut out the communication. As a result of this investigation, investors may be more squeamish about investing their money in global enterprises, businesses, and media, for fear of running afoul of a particular nation’s regulations, and subsequently facing prosecution.

A bit about me:
I’m a senior Political Science (IR Track) concentrator, with a strong background in International Relations theory. I would say I’m also a bit of an MCM enthusiast, having taken courses on film theory, critical theory, animation/manga, and African cinema. I’m very interested in new media, its theorization, its impact on discourse. I’m particularly interested in blogs, as I have several of my own and follow countless others – I’m very excited about the class blog! I’m also an experienced YouTuber – I have some videos uploaded and I have some experience exploring the “YouTube community.” I’m familiar with message boards, wikis, listservs, etc. etc. I’m also very interested in film theory and contemporary film. I have a familiarity with global cinemas, especially those in Asia and Africa. I'm excited to explore the ways in which these different types of new media have changed global discourses on war, peace, and politics.

Posted by Daniel Bowman at 02:08 PM | Permalink

David Carr’s article on M Dot Strange and the Sundance Film Festival raises some interesting questions about this film at the confluence of many new forms of media. M Dot Strange’s enigmatic “We are the Strange” will appear in the real world, at Sundance, online at YouTube and in an totally artificial cyber world in a “theater” on Second Life. What does this mean for global media? More choice. Mainly new means of access for producers and consumers, and a lot more volume or media that can be accessed. We’re witnessing the figurative trade-in of nukes for small-arms, to follow the Orwellian metaphor from class; and that means more arms out there. So choose your weapon --Paramount or YouTube? This may give studios a run for their money, but the fact that M Dot Strange saw it necessary to come to Sundance shows that the mainstream still has a lot of power, and a lot to offer.

As we have seen with MySpace, YouTube and countless sub-sub-culture websites, the internet has provided a means for the previously anonymous to speak their voice or play their music video to a much larger audience. With this in mind, the internet can bridge the gap between media maker and media consumer while allowing a certain level of anonymity and distance promoting more honest critique. M Dot Strange discusses this with Carr in the video attached to the article. Now, media can become more of a collaborative enterprise, blurring the line between creator and audience. This collaboration, could help empower the marginalized to spread their plight or explain their lives. The sex-worker in Amsterdam or the slave laborer in India could have their lives broadcast via fiber optic cable around the would in seconds, perhaps ultimately producing material results. My fear, however, is that the ease of production and the increased media volume will result in dumbed-down culture-jam, or an overwhelmingly large and confusing amount of information that will send us running back into the arms of CNN.

I am a junior international relations concentrator focusing on global security and very much want to be in this class. I wanted to get in last year, without success and was very energized by the first lecture and class introduction. I have had an interest in media and in its relation with politics since I learned about how important it was ending Vietnam. In high school, I spent the better part of a semester researching and writing a paper about the portrayal of war in film before and after Vietnam. I also have video production and editing experience. I used Final Cut Pro to produce a 40 minute long set of shorts for my senior project in high school.

Posted by Alex Seitz-Wald at 11:25 PM | Permalink

“M dot Strange Finds a Way at Sundance” tells the story of a new breed of filmmaker, one who is more interested in promoting his films through personal connection with his audience than distributing them for profit. But the article is just as much about a new type of audience, one that values interaction with the director perhaps more than the actual content of the film. While "We Are the Strange" has inspired cultlike devotion among fans, one of whom responded to a blog posting by director M dot Strange with a film of his own, the film received a poor reception among Sundance attendees. This is less a story of a new kind of director moving in on the territory of the filmmaking elite than it is a story about the emergence of a whole new audience for film, one that favors the intimacy of the personal computer screen over the anonymity of the movie house.

The creators of Second Life, used as a distribution tool for another film mentioned in the article, are fond of discussing the potential of their virtual world to level the playing field for talented programmers, such that a programmer in Romania who makes valuable goods in-world has the potential to tap into the pockets of First World customers. YouTube and Second Life provide venues for directors to take charge of the marketing and distribution of their films, eliminating the promotional expense that has often served as a barrier to entry for low-budget and independent films. While this article tells the story of a young American director of limited means, artists in developing countries could employ a similar strategy, given sufficient bandwidth. I believe we have yet to see complete transnationalization of the YouTube effect. Most content will continue to come from developed countries because of the expense of video equipment and Internet access. Nevertheless, if people in developing countries such as Iraq or Haiti are able to share their on the ground experiences of the impact of American and Western foreign policy directly with citizens of these developed countries, their governments may find it more difficult to use media as a foreign policy tool. Perhaps this will lead to a more personalized dissemination of foreign policy-related news that will resonate with those who crave the (false) intimacy of YouTube, people similar to the devotees of M dot Strange. Maybe in the near future, soldiers and civilians on the front lines of conflict won't need Deborah Scranton's encouragement to make and distribute confessional films. Maybe the actors themselves will find it natural to be their own embedded journalists, and maybe their viewing public will grow as a politial constituency.

I’m a senior IR concentrator in the PCI track, and I’ve been interested in intersections between the study of global politics with media theory ever since “Introduction to Modern Media and Culture” opened my eyes to new theoretical perspectives my sophomore year. I’ve been involved with Brown Student Radio as a features producer for two fictional/documentary collage shows, “Novelty Radio Scrapbook” and “Radio Happening,” and produced short pieces for BSR’s award-winning local news show, “Off The Beat.” Over the course of my junior year, I had the chance to study abroad in two countries, China and France, and to see how those two countries, despite sharing strong tendencies to protect their domestic film and other media industries, situate media very differently within political discourse. I hope to bring these various perspectives to bear on the issues we’ve already raised in class.

Posted by Shepherd Laughlin at 08:50 PM | Permalink

The New York Times piece “Cracking Down on Mixtape CDs” of January 22, 2007 explores a number of issues involving modern sources of media. The article discusses the selling of mixtape CDs (mixtape because originally these were in the form of cassette tapes), CDs that often include in their track-lists unreleased and/or illegally copied songs. These CDs are especially important to the hip-hop world, though they can be produced by any number of individuals interested in any genre. On the one hand, the recording industry is concerned about piracy of the music it produces and sells and the, arguably, corresponding harm to record sales. On the other hand, these CDs, like other forms of illegal music distribution, can generate interest in the music, and act as a means of rapidly, easily, and inexpensively distributing music or other media. In this latter sense, the mixtape CD, or more generally, the burnable CD (or more recently DVD) relates to Global Media in a way similar to how Professor? Mr.? Dr.? Jarecki described YouTube. It has a democratizing effect, as he put it, allowing all sorts of people to create a piece of media that is easily accessible to the community. At the same time, especially in the case of the CD, which more often than not contains illegal material, it comes with the same issues of piracy and copyright infringement that arise with YouTube when copyrighted material is used.

The burnable CD, and the accompanying CD burner, as a source of media, has a number of different effects. In the economic realm, label executives worry their sales are being hindered by the abundance of their music available for free. The music industry has certainly seen clear losses in sales in the past decade and some of those losses can most likely be attributed to the availability of free sources of music like the mitxape CD. This free distribution medium also has an impact on the creators of the music. For some it is a great boon, a great way to get their art or their statement out to the world efficiently. For others this does considerable damage to their financial situation, because they loose the royalties that would have been earned through legal sale of their work. Another impact, and a major reason why this issue is so strong in America currently, is that this piracy does damage to American values of the sanctity of personal and intellectual property. Finally, one more effect I’ll mention, and one particularly interesting from a global perspective, is the fact that the streets of Atlanta are not the only place that these CDs are found. They show up in great abundance in places like China and other countries around the world. The presence of cheap sources of American music and other media can more easily leave an American cultural impact on those countries. Instead of paying $20, or I don’t know how many 元, apiece for a new CD, a young Chinese person can indulge in the wonders of gangsta rap for only a few dollars.

Though my experience in actual video production is limited, I’ve gained a reasonable amount of experience in the media/entertainment world. I also have a strong interest in global security and international affairs. My primary source of media experience comes from my work at WBRU (the commercial, alt rock one). As a radio DJ I spend time in front of a microphone broadcasting to a large audience, representing an important media outlet, and learning something about how the media world works. Maybe even more relevant, as part of my obligations as a DJ, I have been trained to use Pro Tools audio production software. I make commercials as well as pieces of station imaging, mixing, editing, etc. So, if my video production experience is limited, my audio production experience is considerable, and music and other audio is certainly crucial to any video. Additionally, I spent time in high school interning at a music publishing company and learned a good deal about how the entertainment business works, more knowledge that I could contribute. My interest in IR spans a range of issues, especially of global security—terrorism, WMD, human rights and development, as well as issues of energy and the environment. I can certainly add my interest in exploring these issues more deeply, and in learning how to communicate them well to the group. Finally, though I’ve never studied media per se, it has often occurred to me how important the media is to perceptions, and how crucial those perceptions are to the choices made in a democratic country. I think of the idea that history is written by the victors and the impact that having the means to record and present one or another side of a story changes the story itself and the impact it has for the future. And I think of how cherished free expression has been as a right, and what the impact of that right has been on society. I would really enjoy having the ability to consider and analyze these issues in a more significant and constructive way

Posted by GAdler at 04:43 PM | Permalink

Subpoenas issued to "at least four Wall Street investment banks" as part of the US Department of Justice's ongoing investigation of the online gambling industry demonstrate the US government's attempts to extend its control. The crack down on online casinos is really just an attempt by the American government to prevent gambling in jurisdictions where it cannot be taxed and to make sure that the currency transactions involved can be traced. Unable to directly attack the casinos--which are based outside the US--that host online gambling sites, the DoJ has gone after the American portions of the industry: "American partners, marketing arms and now, possibly, investors." Since US residents comprise over half of all customers, the DoJ's "war of intimidation against Internet gambling," has had a serious effect on casinos, such as BetonSports, that have decided to eschew US bets. These subpoenas have brought questions of sovereignty and boundaries as pertaining to the internet to the forefront.

Continue reading "Online Gambling" »

Posted by Ann Kidder at 10:48 PM | Permalink

Greetings 180.95 2007:

The bell has rung, Round 2 of the Global Mediafest has officially commenced, and if you want to get into the ring, you need to post your read of any single article from the front-page (C1) of the Business Section of the New York Times, 22 January 2007. Your response (due next Tuesday) should:

a) identify relevance to Global Media (what it is)
b) show how a particular technology of representation produces a social, cultural, economic, political, or other effect (how it works)
c) demonstrate what you bring to the table (brio or bio)

To assist you in this assignment, the paper is posted outside room 205. Watson Institute, 111 Thayer. I'm 2 doors down if you have pertinent and pressing questions. If you prefer the e-versions, they can be found at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/business/media/22drug.html?_r=1=slogin

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/business/media/22carr.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/business/22gaming.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/business/22mixtape.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/business/media/22porn.html

(with thanks to Christina Kim for tracking these down)

News:

Screening of Why We Fight will be this coming Tuesday, Jan. 30, 4-6 pm, Joukowsky Forum, Watson Institute.

Finally, a heads-up on room shift: Next class (corrected: Jan 31), the first Jarecki GlobalMediaLab with special guest Nick Fraser, producer of BBC's Storyville documentary series, will be held in the Joukowsky Forum, Watson Institute. Come focused.

VTY
JDD

Posted by James Der Derian at 02:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (26)