By: Addie Thompson
11/21/12

There is no denying it: the mechanisms by which information is produced, regulated and disseminated have drastically changed throughout the years, especially in an information age of such technological surges and advancement that mere printed news is considered antiquated. Along with the development of the web space has come an alteration in the way we as news consumers absorb the news. Reading the actual newspaper happens less and less, while online publications and blogs with abbreviated articles have become increasingly popular, as have the pithy, sleek news videos that accompany them. In the interest of continuing to be informed out the world around us, global society with access to the Internet has transitioned into a culture of more passive information consumption (from blogs, videos, TED talks, etc) from a wide variety of sources.

With the initial introduction of smaller, more homegrown media sources, media took the shape of a “two-tiered structure” (Massing, 2004: v). Dissenting opinions that ran rampant in the lower tier (rife with blogs, niche publications and informal media) rarely were acknowledged at the upper tier, which often tried to target a larger, mainstream audience with fact-based reporting. But recently we’ve also seen this change; we have to consult these lower tier publications to get a complete take of current news, due in large part to the fact that major media outlets have become more politicized than ever. As recent class guest and former Press Secretary to the Obama Administration, P.J. Crowley, put it, “all of a sudden, we as a society choose our politics, then we choose our media” (Dee, 2012: 1). His insight calls into question the changing face of media, and thus the drastic and seemingly irreversible changes his former position has undergone in recent years.

The role of the Press Secretary is and has always been complex. Traditionally known as the formal, external link between the White House administration and the general press, there has historically been a great deal of responsibility imbued into this position. As the relationship between the press and the government has grown stronger throughout time, so has the position become increasingly vital to government affairs, both foreign and domestic. The Press Secretary needs not only to be deeply in tune with the pulse of the administration and the reasoning behind every political decision, but also well-versed in the ways in which the press formally and informally functions, including the importance of pressing deadlines, personal motivations and industry competition. This vital linkage between government and media is a precarious area in which to work, as it means constant attention to the message of an administration in context to a sometimes hostile press environment. Knowledge of government proceedings may come second even to an awareness of public perception of the President, or the approval ratings for Presidential decisions. The Press Secretary has to be aware that they do not in fact craft public opinion; rather, in this day and age, it is the news sources that do this.

With the change of the face of news and the proliferation of media sources, the role of the Press Secretary has become that much more complicated. Michael Massing, author of Now They Tell Us: The American Press and Iraq, speculates that an external government role (such as Crowley’s) has “becom[e] not so much a conveyor of straightforward information, and certainly not a seeker of truth, but a well-managed, -programmed and –funded polemicist whose charge is to ‘stay on message’” and in this way “all too many government officials have become salespeople” (Massing, 2004: xvi). Crowley himself drew attention to the idea that each administration has a different relationship with the press, as does each Press Secretary. The very important and very delicate government-press relationship is thus in many ways curated by this essential, externally-facing role.

Information flow has become multi-faceted, and no longer does official White House information always come from the Press Secretary him or herself (take the WikiLeaks incident in early 2011, about which Crowley became famous for running his mouth). There are organically and digitally viral rumors that reproduce and swirl at lightening speeds in grassroots networks (found in the “lower tier”) that the Press Secretary then has the challenge of addressing through the “upper tier” of media, in hopes that the intended message will trickle down to the second level of information flow, which is constantly increasing in size and scope. But this trickle-down is never certain, which is probably why Obama himself has started taking questions from popular entertainment magazines (Tapper, 2012) and why current press secretary Robert Gibbs has started doing the “First Question” series based on questions submitted from the public via social media (mainly, Twitter). These Q&A sessions have been broadcast via webcam for a sort of personal press conference effect. The Press Secretary role has become more public-focused, in light of a vibrant lower tier, in order to break through the layers of arguably elitist news sources of the upper tier that can alter information in the interest of making it more palatable.

Crowley mentioned in his visit that it is as important to have an informed citizenry as it is to have an informed government. So what exactly is the role of the Press Secretary in making sure this happens, especially in our digital age where more information is present than one can fully consume? We have the problem of gaining access to information for many people around the world; in some locations, it is a challenge even to find Internet to engage with broader political discussions. But then we have the issue of too much news and not enough interest, where many people don’t WANT to consume everything that is available for them to consume. In that case, how can media sources and information narratives ensure they secure themselves in the dominant position? At what point does a public stop consuming and start, instead, producing their own opinions and insights? It is hard enough to ideate how a media outlet stays at the top of the industry and thus at the forefront of major discourse. How does government manage, then, to get a word in with all this noise?

“Media is the one institution we have that is necessary to hold government to account,” says Crowley (Dee, 2012: 1). As illustrated in both Now They Tell Us and “Why We Fight” (directed by Eugene Jarecki), a large enough investigation of government activities around “Operation Iraqi Freedom” was never successfully conducted, and thus resulted in our government changing its mission and message over years of time. Sure, a democratic government needs to be held accountable to its people, and the media provides the opportunity for information dissemination such that the public has the ability to hold them accountable. But who holds the media accountable? It could be that media sources keep each other in check, or that the lower tier keeps tabs on the upper tier by putting them in their place. But these are all internal checks, media keeping tabs on media. Who is externally providing the check media sometimes so desperately needs? It is in journalists’ best interest to provide factually accurate representations of news and current events, but it is also important to stay afloat in the current new climate, using intrigue and flavor to create a buzz-worthy news story. The book The News Media, Civil War and Humanitarian Action asks, “is the role of media to inform or entertain?” (Minear et al., 1996: 4). It may be a bit of both.

A responsible government is one that is accountable to its citizens, and no one knows this better than Crowley or Gibbs: liaising with the press means communicating with the public. But in the age of technology where information runs rampant and it is harder to control government narrative and messaging, the role of the Press Secretary has taken a new form. No longer can he or she rely on practiced messaging and formal diction. Instead, the Press Secretary role has become necessarily more nimble, able to speak to a variety of types of media sources with sincerity and a willingness for open communication. Watch or listen to any press conference today (like the ones shown in Ted Bogosian’s film “The Press Secretary”) and it is immediately clear that journalists are relentless and often excessive in their pursuit of truth. More and more, people have firsthand access to information, and with the access comes inevitable feedback and opportunities for verbal attacks on the administration.

In our current times, the role of the Press Secretary needs to focus on relationship building. It is impossible to simply act as a passive, defensive government figurehead; it is time to actively engage with audiences of all types. Why ignore the lower tier of media especially with its size, intellectual rigor and collection of public opinion? The current administration’s ability to engage with the public on new levels has innovated the way government communications are conducted. It challenges the idea of traditional “news outlets” as the middlemen. It brings to question the need for the conventional publications industry at all. By adding directly to the lower tier with video blogs and Twitter chats, government figures like Gibbs are not skirting their accountability to the press, but rather making themselves accountable to a new and more widespread population.

Works Consulted

Massing, Michael (2004). Now They Tell Us. New York, NY: New York Review of Books.

Larry Minear, et al. (1996). The News Media, Civil War and Humanitarian Action. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Dee, Gabrielle (November15, 2012). Past State spokesman talks media, messaging. Brown Daily Herald.

Tapper, Jake (August 16, 2012). President Obama Takes Questions from People Mag, Entertainment Tonight, Disses White House Press Corps. ABC News.

Posted by Emily Kassie at 10:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (278)

Intellectual Property in Cyberspace
By: Anna Lillkung

In the age of YouTube, appropriation and the protection of intellectual property are becoming more complex issues. New media forms have come to play a crucial role in everyday life and people rely on the Internet for information and inspiration. Film footage, radio broadcasts, and photographs are produced and reproduced online at a speed that makes it difficult to know who was the first to create what. This in turn affects the ability to protect intellectual property. Media projects today are often results of appropriation, i.e. the act of taking someone else's work for one's own use. Free, old material is frequently utilized in new projects, more or less changed, and mash-ups are accepted as creative art forms as well as efficient ways to criticize and influence. As the IT-generation views the Internet as a pool of free resources, appropriation has become a normal practice. There is a need to come up with new policies and regulations when the masses are becoming supporters, consciously or not, of breaking intellectual property laws. Freedom online has the potential to enable learning and reaction that can lead to societal change. In a country like the US, where class mobility remains limited, illegal streaming of e.g. political documentaries online can educate and bring possibilities to less affluent people who otherwise remain ignorant. Therefore, the challenge lies in finding the balance between a respect for the original creator and the potential that the free Internet offers to increase equality.

The issue of intellectual property is not a new phenomenon, but the rise of the Internet has changed and augmented the related problems and how appropriation is viewed in society. Firstly, the speed of the Internet continues to reach new levels as more files are uploaded and copied more quickly. This enables more people to download files, change them or stream them illegally on new sites, while it is difficult to find out where the file came from or who is resposible for breaking laws. In addition, more and more individuals come up with ideas, get hold of cameras, applications, and put films and music up online. Creating media is not the job of a select few anymore, but rather done by different kinds of people from diverging parts of society. Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to know who developed an idea first, if you can even determine that. Music is e.g. created through artificial bands in applications like GarageBand and then shared on MySpace. There are a myriad of creative projects out there, waiting for recognition, and consciously or not audiences are influenced by clips seen or music heard. The overabundance of files can therefore lead to an increasing difficulty in knowing where an idea came from and consequently lead to the usage of already existing material. The frequency of file exchange thus adds to the enormous issue of protecting intellectual property on the Internet. The identification of the original is a much more problematic process today than it was just ten years ago.

Moreover, the generation that has grown up with the World Wide Web has become used to viewing it as a free source of information and material. Because of the enormous amount of free resources that the Internet indeed provides, such as magazine articles, episodes of CW-shows, etc., many users have come to think that everything should be without charge. Therefore, if one newspaper charges to read its articles, there is a good chance another newspaper will offer the same information for free and most people will choose the free site, disregarding the possible moral reasons for why one charges while the other one does not. Similarly, if iTunes charges you to listen to their music, you can use a site like Pandora or Spotify to listen to the same song without paying the extra dollar for it. Therefore, shared movies on YouTube are often looked at as public goods; once they are up online, you have the right to watch them, take them, and develop or transform them however you like. Few people consider a video clip that includes footage from TV-broadcasts with a soundtrack as anything illegal, even if the video clip uses material that is copyrighted and so goes against intellectual property laws. The Internet users have become accustomed to the low cost of Internet material and lost the sense of traditional ethics when it comes to intellectual property online.

Files found in cyberspace can additionally be uploaded without the creator even knowing it and as more files are uploaded and more applications downloaded for little to no money, more people start to play around with editing programs, mashing up old videos with new ones or incorporating snippets of different songs into a new remix. In a setting where it has become so common to obtain material online without paying or giving someone else credit, this type of appropriation has become regarded as normal and legal. As long as there is no exploitation of revenue for someone else's work, it is not perceived as breaking copyright laws, but rather as activity that can boost the selling of the originals. True or not, it constitutes a problem when the original producers do not get sufficient credit for their work. This is why Western governments are cracking down on sites like Megavideo and threatening to impose bills like the Commercial Felony Streaming Act that would make unofficial online streaming of copyrighted material a crime that can lead to five years in jail. As the Internet does not appear to slow down, as more files are uploaded and copied, it is justified that production companies and artists worry about their own futures when so much can be freely obtained online, then also altered and reproduced. The question if this kind of appropriation, the building on existing works of art, can be viewed as wrong or not is less interesting than the fact that this is our reality and we need to find new ways of handling it rather than keeping up with the blame-game.

As the digital technologies are only evolving and becoming more complex, it is time to look for new ways to handle intellectual property on the Internet. Tracking down file sharers and closing down illegal mash-up videos online are costly and time-consuming activities that in the end probably will not save the art industries as much as damage them. Rather, when illegal practices have become largely accepted by the public, such as YouTube sharing, a site that also brings in revenue through the commercials shown before the films, we need to look for alternative ways to be aware of and give the originators credit. Chris Anderson has argued in his book, “Free”, that digital recordings need to be used for promotion instead of for sale, so that it would become advertisement for concerts and new releases in the movie theaters (Erisman: 2011). This way there would be incentives for artists to continue creating and putting their work up online voluntarily. If the copyright laws online were not so strict, there is a possibility that more people could be transparent with what has influenced their work and there could be greater creative exchange online. The art industry could find ways to use the Internet to influence and sell films and music, without always bringing in direct returns.

The positive aspect of documentaries, films, and music being freely available online is the possibility it gives to promote equality. Music and film have remained privileges of richer people who can afford to pay for albums on iTunes without giving up a week's money for food. If the government starts to shut down sites showing political documentaries, influential films and all other kind of art forms, it is yet again the same people who will suffer that always suffer. These are the people who will not have access to the same cultural aspects of society and are more likely to be caught engaging in illegal cyberspace activity. These are also the citizens who often are the least educated and the ones who should be able to use exactly the benefits the Internet can provide: self-education and motivation that can lead to change. Even though it is understandable why a freelance documentary filmmaker would be upset about his or her movie being shown for free online, this is an important part of the micro-practices the Internet enables. Instead of only having access to mainstream TV, funded by different interest groups with specific agendas, the Internet is the one access to multiple inputs, perspectives and sources. It is the forum where the most ignorant in society can be reached. Many citizens in the world cannot afford to buy several films online and the Internet gives the opportunity to be part of the modern society regardless of economic background. With new policies that, rather than target the normalized illegal actions of many people, focus on online transparency and giving credit to the originators, the Internet can continue to be a road to more equality. In order to change society and the existing norms and perceptions within a culture, there needs to be greater outreach to the groups who know the least. Free information sources online can realize this aim.

There needs to be a balance between respect and credit for the people who first created a project and the possible utility for those who can enjoy and use these sources for free. By working out new policies in collaboration with young people who make up the IT-generation, with production companies, economists, and lawyers, there can be new ways of looking at intellectual property online. Of course, there will not be complete regulation of what is put on piracy websites, and copying and downloading will not cease to exist. However, the situation can change from being the hysterical search and identification of copyright law-breakers, to being one of more transparency. People should certainly continue to pay for e-books and movies, but in a world that is infested with inequality, I personally find it more important that the most unfortunate in society can get educated than that a single movie producer gets all the revenue he might be legally due. The Internet is expanding, and the idea that anyone can control what is put up and used online is becoming more and more absurd. The Internet wants to be free, and policy makers need to work out new laws that will enable intelligent material to be shared online in order to increase equality and stop the current issue of the majority becoming law breakers.

Bibliography:

Erisman, Albert. “Intellectual Property in the YouTube Era: The Justin Bieber Problem”, Econtent, 27 Oct. 2011.

“S.978: Commercial Felony Streaming Act.” Open Congress. 20 Jun. 2011.

Posted by Emily Kassie at 10:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (383)

By: Kevin Pires

In our search for solutions we are often burdened with the need for originality. Responses to analogous past issues appear, in common parlance, to be tainted. This quest for unique treatments often overlooks simple solutions. There seems to be an unwillingness to consider the adaptive reuse of history's tested answers. We are plagued by this myopia. Accordingly, when faced with the structural issues of today, with inequities born of systems damaged, we should look to the past where the answers lay quietly gathering dust. Little more than a hundred years ago, the United States was witness to a particularly effervescent moment of reform: the Progressive Era. Bridging the 19th and 20th centuries, the Progressive Era was characterized by muckrakers, reform minded journalists who sought to uncover the spectacular corruption and wayward practices of both the country's private and public sectors. There are lessons to be learned from these individuals and how they sought to effect change within uncooperative systems.
Journalist Upton Sinclair's 1906 inadvertent (Sinclair was more concerned with worker's rights) take-down of the meatpacking industry, The Jungle, is a lesson in the ways that creative reporting can be the impetus for change in a place that actively resists it. The fictionalized account of a family of Lithuanian immigrants working in the appalling conditions of Chicago's meat-yards first brought the terror there witnessed to the American public via serialized newspaper printings. The then novelized publication outraged America with its depiction of lost fingers in slabs of beef. The outrage that ensued ultimately led to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 which in turn led to the founding of the FDA. The far-reaching consequences of Sinclair's work show how a careful, unmitigated journalism that is nevertheless "entertaining" can provide just the right spark to incite an unforeseen and yet much needed change. Sinclair realized that you can't only make people aware of the issue; you have to also make finding a solution salient to them. We need to follow the lessons of the Progressive Era.
Individuals like Sinclair had to their advantage a populace that was not nearly as divided as we are now. The multiplicity of platform options that the modern citizen has seems to stand in the way of news media producing any piece of investigative journalism that has the power to crystallize public opinion. We simply get our news from too many different sources that now come tailored to our own political and social biases to really engender any sort of wholesale change. Documentary film is worthy of this task. Film's form, one which calls for the production of a cogent whole, requires the filmmaker to synthesize information into an absorbing and comprehensible final product that responds to both the director's and viewer’s needs. The final product after navigating the complicated web of distribution that requires a certain amount of dealing with the enemy (the enemy always has the money) then has the power to reach the type of audience that here parallels the readers of the Progressive novel and serialized magazine or newspaper account. There seems to be though some subconscious distinction drawn between journalism's power to both inform and entertain and documentary film's corresponding properties. Film is maligned for a perceived lack of gravity. Relegated to serving only entertainment purposes, the power documentary has to dissect, interrogate, and ameliorate corrosive systems is underestimated. One of the problems of depending on documentary film to enact change is that even if the film was doing something important, the glamour or superficiality pegged to film could possibly obfuscate it, wrapping people up in the art of the moment without the insistence on a substantive follow through.
Documentary film is one of the best ways to effect change within a system because it circumvents many of the restrictive forces that one may encounter while attempting to produce measurable difference. By providing the issue at hand with a platform divorced from the oppressive structure itself, the film can start to erode the malaise and bureaucracy that plague organizations and institutions and that makes it difficult to come to edifying solutions. Large structural issues are often allowed to run rampant because they lack an internal system of checks and balances. Documentaries are uniquely positioned to fulfill this role, as a pseudo public consciousness they can bring to light that which goes grossly ignored. It's important to understand that resistance is not the only contradictory force at play. Often it is much easier to let things be, to grow complacent under the powerful inertia that develops around organizations. If anything, documentary film can effect change within restrictive structures because documentary's with their paradigmatic mix of fact and entertainment reach a wider audience than any esoteric report can possibly hope to do. The mere production of a documentary film acts as a propulsive force.
The recent past has proven that documentaries are adroitly capable of producing change on both the public and private levels. One particularly salient example is Davis Guggenheim and Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. The film's depiction of the former Vice President's slideshow detailing climate change and global warming, wove the social and scientific into a comprehensive warning of the dangers inherent in ignoring the mounting signs of precipitous environmental damage. The inconvenience in the film's title refers to the oft-avoided reality of climate change but could also be understood as a signal of the pernicious ways that the government's intervention in global climate policy is colored by special interests. The film's emphasis on scientific evidence of the changes being outlined and the insistence that the cause is not only not lost but can be ameliorated avoided the fatalistic view often associated with climate change. An Inconvenient Truth brought the discussion of climate change onto a global stage and propelled the creation of the Select Committee On Energy Independence and Global Warming, allowed for the dissemination of Gore's slideshow presentation around the world and reportedly aided in the offsetting of 106,000 tons of carbon. By avoiding scare tactics, presenting a scientifically comprehensible view of the problem, and marking the different ways that citizens could take action on the smallest of scales, the film was able to effect change in the face of malaise, apathy, and the force of an angered opposition.
A film of a decidedly different tenor, Morgan Spurlock's Super Size Me, took a less nuanced approach that nevertheless was able to produce results in the face of a preposterously moneyed enemy. Spurlock's chronicle of the nutritional detriment of an extreme thirty-day McDonald's diet precipitated a public discussion of the dangerously high levels of obesity in the United States and the fast food industry's active role in perpetuating the issue. Even though Super Size Me's hyperbole was dismissed by some as a piece of shock jockeying, the film was the catalyst for a national discussion about the importance of healthy dietary habits and perhaps most telling of all, resulted in McDonald's withdrawing of their Super Size meal option. The film did not fall on deaf ears. Spurlock may have envisioned his film as the impetus for a more thorough derailing of fast food, yet the increased awareness that lead to changes like the listing of caloric details at fast food chains cannot be underestimated. The film had a real and lasting impact that countered the detrimental status quo established by the fast food industry.
What we have with these two films are diverging accounts of productive ways to bring about change in the face of structural opposition. The visual and storytelling devices that are often taken for granted when appraising a documentary are also of importance. Both An Inconvenient Truth and Super Size Me take into account the need to produce an entertaining film, there is nothing dowdy or pedantic about either. They manage to be both informative and captivating without relying on the professorial tone that plagues many documentaries and that however important the message routs the opportunity for impact because the audience is lost. Documentary's singular mix of entertainment and fact is a worthy successor of the muckraking practices that brought about such widespread results at the beginning of the last century and is a preternaturally effective actor for change in the face of restrictive institutions.
Effecting change within a system that resists it requires the careful towing of diverging priorities. Because of the resistance endemic to organizations and the inertial qualities that make effecting such change nearly impossible, there has to be a consideration of both content and audience, one that acts as propulsive by making the need for change seem necessary, pertinent to the lives of all. By drawing on civic considerations of responsibility while couching the call in attractive content, documentary film is uniquely positioned for success. Documentaries remind us of what we owe each other, the bonds of human and citizen that propel our national longevity.

Posted by Emily Kassie at 03:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (1551)

James Der Derian and Tom Levin raised an interesting issue in our discussion on the 17th of October. Their contention was twofold. First, they argued, people believe that there is some sort of unadulterated, pure reality which is then represented through media. The second point (and main thrust) of their argument is that this belief misses the point. Instead, they argue, we represent as we perceive reality. That is, whatever we think of as objective fact has already been colored (in just unconsciously) by our experiences prejudices and preconceived.

Two obvious examples help illustrate this fallacy (appropriately for a media class, they’re both movies). The first is the Lumière Brothers’ groundbreaking 1896 L’arrivée d’un train en gare de La Ciotat. It’s a 50 second film showing the arrival of a steam locomotive from a train station platform. As the now-apocryphal story goes, the audience was overwhelmed by the life-size image of a train coming towards them, and, screaming, stampeded in a panic out of the auditorium. Their perception of this film was shaped by their background and knowledge; they could not perceive it as it was. Today, jaded as we are by moving images, this is a boring 50-second film, not worth the time to load on YouTube. Zola’s description of a crashed steam locomotive in La Bête humaine provokes a stronger reaction.

The next example comes from Intouchables, the 2011 Tokyo International Film Festival Best Film Award-winning French movie about a Franco-Senegalese nurse and his friendship with his wealthy Parisian quadraplegic employer. Their differing reactions to masterpieces of classical music help evidence Der Derian and Levin’s contention. As Phillipe is a quadraplegic, music is one of his main pleasures. He attempts to share some of his favorite pieces (from Bach, Vivaldi, etc.) with Driss, the nurse. Driss hears the same pieces that Phillipe does, but to him, they represent the switchboard waiting music of various Parisian government agencies. The perceptions of the same music differ so strongly because both characters are representing the music (unconsciously) as they hear it.

Of course, this is an international relations class—we must not limit ourselves to media analysis. Instead, the interesting question is how Der Derian and Levin’s explanation of this fallacy applies to thorny issues of international relations. It causes unfavorable policy outcomes because, despite the media and public’s assumption of useful “fact-checking,” the facts that are being presented are already filtered through the voting public’s perception. A recent intersection of media and foreign affairs provides useful material for examination: the 3rd presidential debate on American foreign policy. Any mention of Iran was only unhelpful because of the voting public’s general ignorance of the history and culture of Persia—the filter for most is that Iran is the screaming Mullahs from Ben Affleck’s Argo. Worst, however, was the candidates’ appeal to the public sense of fairness: both alluded to “rules” that countries need to play by in the international arena. This plays well to the audience: their sense of American decline is because other countries aren’t playing fair. But it ignores that the realist assumption that the world is a vicious, relatively unregulated place. The way both candidates appeal to voters’ representation (which voters see as mere perception) of the real is ultimately unhelpful.

The misconception that people believe they perceive reality, when in fact they represent to themselves as they perceive. Any candidate’s mention of Iran during the debate was seen by an audience conditioned by media stock footage on cable news. Things like clips of flag burnings, crowds chanting anti-American slogans, and angry-looking pictures of Iranian religious leaders have locked in American attitudes towards that country. This is, of course, a silly reductive view of Iran. But it directly informs American perceptions of Iran; the public represents Iran using those tropes anytime they hear or think of that country. In the debate, the candidates played to this, using blustery, aggressive language which reduced Iran to an adversary to be put in its place, or vanquished. This is not necessarily the best strategy for American foreign policy interests. Der Derian and Levin’s fallacy causes this problem.

The most shocking example of the candidates’ appeals to simultaneous representation and perception of voters was the way they both referred to “fairness” and “rules” in the international arena. There is currently a sense from an aggrieved country that the United States is unfairly beset upon throughout the world. The public sees themselves and their country as decent, hardworking and fundamentally well meaning. There is no reason for others to hate the United States. It’s inconceivable that other countries could be growing faster, or holding US debt. There is a sense that many American problems around the world are almost illegitimate. Somehow, other actors are cheating, violating global rules of conduct. This attitude affects Americans’ perceptions of global issues. Even as they hear of an event, they are already representing it through this filter. Both presidential candidates play to this attitude. Mitt Romney has loudly stated that he will label China a currency manipulator (“cheater”) on the first day of a hypothetical Romney administration. Obama talks of fairness. But this pandering is unhelpful because it obscures a fundamental truth of international relations: there is no guiding set of rules between states. It is true that countries often sign agreements regulating wartime conduct, trade, flows of people and capital, etc. But these agreements are only backed by the ability of one country to punish another for violating them. When decentralized non-state actors are considered, “rules” become even more of an abstraction. The international arena is a harsh place where countries have to fend for themselves. Obama and Romney should have acknowledged that fact, and expressed themselves accordingly. That both presidential candidates explained US foreign policy setbacks by blaming other actors for breaking rules or behaving unfairly is unhelpful. They pander to an electorate whose perception has been affected.

So, then, Der Derian and Levin’s contention is useful in International Relations. People believe that there is “the real” and representation of that reality. What they ignore is that people represent as they perceive reality. Both presidential candidates want to appeal to a public affected by this fallacy. They thus make mistakes in explaining issues of foreign affairs; this can lead to unfavorable policy outcomes. It is impossible to truly correct this fallacy. But being more aware of it can lead to better implementation of foreign policy.

Posted by Emily Kassie at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (718)

Written by Polina Godz

“But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with a click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete” – Barack Obama

It is quite symbolic that President Obama’s speech at the 67th UN General Assembly has been published online and has reached the furthest corners of the planet within minutes from its delivery. It addressed the accessibility of information and was consciously made accessible around the globe. What influenced such conscious choice in this particular case and what influences such choices in general? When is such choice conscious and when is it not? Most of Obama’s speech addressed these exact questions. One particular argument that was made is that the spread of information is inevitable in the presence of modern technology. This, however, needs clarification, since there are numerous theoretical and practical ways to limit the spread of information by punishing and outlawing activities that either directly spread unfavorable information or contribute to the cause. Technology, in fact, helps to document the information and makes the surveillance easier.

Information has a potential to cause major harm and even USA law recognizes it in the exceptions to the first amendment. A simple example is that a person that causes panic by falsely alarming about a fire, or a bomb will rightfully get arrested. Considering the expanding access and simplicity of use of the technological devices that can spread the information, we have to acknowledge that there may be cases of extremely dangerous flows of information that aren’t yet restricted by American law or any law due to their sheer inexistence years, months, or even days ago.

In fact, a drastic change that is caused by the introduction of technology to the spread and production of information is the shift in scope and speed of these processes. The movement of ideas became instantaneous and global. The globality of environmental problems is acknowledged, the interdependence of economic and financial flows is accepted. Nowadays, Ideas spread on the global scope more as well. And just as with other global problems, too often humanity has to bear the costs of mistakes or lack of compromise on the regulatory measures all together. United States may have its laissez-faire stance on the maximization of the freedom of speech and belief in the self-regulating quality of information flows. But other nations may think differently, whether rightfully or not. Each country has its own historic, social, cultural and economic relationship with media and technology’s role in media and each individual scenario and isn’t likely to give it up.

If recognized to be a global issue that needs international action, international information flow can be regulated in two ways. First one might be utopian and involves the creation and enforcing international law. This path is complex and idealistic, as such international set of rules involves agreeing on too many controversial issues and will need the creation of additional organizations, institutions and authorities that will enforce this law. Another measure that can be undertaken is restricting and controlling the global media sphere, which seems reactionary, but would be in a way reminiscent of international dealing with immigration, which is currently heavily controlled contrary to the trends of globalization.

In the age of social networks and cell phones, it is harder, but not impossible to control the spread of information, including arrogant and offensive ideas. The firewalls and censorship has proven to be ‘bypassasable’, but the prosecution measures are still quite effective to decrease the information flows across the globe. As the Freedom House’s Report on the Net 2012 states “the restrictions on internet in many countries have continued to grow, though the methods of control are slowly evolving and becoming less visible” . A kitchen knife is a common object to possess of but simultaneously can be easily used to commit a murder. However, just because moral and most importantly criminal law is in place, crimes committed with a kitchen knife are fairly rare. No one would ever think of outlawing kitchen knives, but controlling the harm that can be done with them is a very real concept. Both cell phones and World Wide Web are constantly updated that usually results in bureaucratic governmental apparatus’s inability to completely control and regulate it. But as Freedom on the Net 2012 report shows there have been more and more creative ways to stop the flow of information, such as for example Bahrain’s method of implementing “trolls” in the web space, who comment and leave feedback, questioning and undermining credibility of online speech.

It is false to make a claim that USA allows any speech. Multiple laws protect individuals and society from the harms that information, whether false (as in the case of defamation or false alarm and bomb scares laws), or true (the prohibition of the disclosure of the troops location during military conflict). Such laws are put in place for the larger benefit of society, which may be not as obvious on an individual level and, therefore, not enforced, if individuals were absolutely free in expression. Here, it is appropriate to make an analogy with different levels of economic regulation within different states. Some economic theories praise the independency of economic activity and have faith in self-regulating ability of free markets (often claiming that severe regulation can result in black markets), other emphasize economic regulation as a means of market failure prevention and wiser distribution of resources. As in economic activity, technology makes it significantly easier to make economic transactions that bypass the authorities (online markets, cell phone money transfers etc.), but it doesn’t prevent many states, including USA from implementing certain economy regulating policies.

With the laws controlling free speech the problems arise from the difficulties in the assessment of the harms of the speech and the frequent manipulation of such laws to suppress the criticism and investigation aimed at officials. More often than not, the latter is the case and in the larger scheme of things, the maximization of the freedom of speech seems to create journalistic infrastructure and more information competition, which Obama describes as “the strongest weapon against speech”. But with the cell phone and internet technology there arise more subtle and less visible ways of surveillance and insertion of propaganda – the tools of autocratic governance.

It is clear that the freedom of information becomes a global issue precisely due to the presence of technological advances, as the authorship in this sphere is rarely associated with a specific nation and the spread of the information occurs without boundaries (even heavily firewalled Chinese web has leaks). Obama uses a very strong word to describe the necessity for information control “obsolete”. However, a lot of the political phenomena associated with the concept of nation-state can been labeled “obsolete” in the context of globalization. It is clear that we are in a transitional age and, just as other global problems cannot be resolved on the national level, it seems like the questions of the worldwide information flow cannot be addressed by states individually as well. There are different ways to go about it. The first one involves creation of international authorities that oversee the international information flow trends and make suggestions for particular states. In fact, such organization exist (Reporters Without Borders, Freedom House), but unfortunately, just as in cases of environmental harm control measures, it seems hard to avoid “the tragedy of the commons”, unless such authorities have judicial force and not just spread the awareness about the problems and. This would call for the creation of international law that is a utopic and idealistic concept that requires major reassessment of world order and the principles of international relations.

On the other hand, while the information may inevitably be entering global realm, it may be wise to attempt to contain it within the boundaries of the states and implement certain control over what is made available globally. Just as immigration law is still heavily implemented despite the advances in world communication and transportation and according to many contrary to the trend of globalization, there can be filters that assess and control the influx of information on a national level. Information can be reviewed both by the producer country and the receiver country with the disclosure of the decisions made upon the review of such information. Meanwhile, the above-mentioned non-governmental authorities can address the fairness of such decision and bring up illegitimate decisions to be further addressed by international community. It may seem counter-progressive, but it has been made clear that while the benefits of free flow of information have been praised, some if the dangers of it were overlooked.

There are certain utopic concepts, (including democracy) that are benign in their final stage, but dangerous in the transitioning towards. Free global information flow may be one of them and before the global society has matured enough to embrace it, it may be necessary to reinvent the controls of information flows instead of removing them all at once.

Posted by Emily Kassie at 03:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (225)

Written by Spencer Parsons '13

“In 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with a click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete”
- Barak Obama

Last Week, President Obama in his address before the United Nations and the international community at large, recognized an incredibly powerful force that is impacting global events and even altering International Relations in profound new ways. The force he spoke of, is the overwhelmingly rapid and voluminous flow of information in a digital era. In this era of globalization and the technological revolution, the rate at which information, ideas, and technological advancements are shared is accelerating at a dizzying speed with the result that old boundaries and layers of control are fast eroding traditional concepts of International Relations, while simultaneously presenting novel challenges for the international community. From the 2011 January protests in Tahrir Square to Midtown Manhattan and the occupy movement, individuals around the world finding empowerment and opportunity through access to a larger global community. This access is made possible by a digital revolution that places both power and agency in the hands of everyday, average individuals. Yet, this this new and powerful force is creating interesting, if not conflicting and contradictory effects throughout different parts of the world. Unexpectedly, we are discovering that some countries and some societies are seeing simultaneously more freedom and less freedom, and additionally, increasing transparency and yet occasionally the sacrificing of truth.

More freedom

The ability to communicate and share ideas between individuals is eroding layers of censorship and control, as older regimes that attempted to control this output of information are literally flooded by the speed and quantity of information that passes unfiltered through physical and virtual borders. On a positive note, this rapid exchange of information is quickly leading to greater individual freedom and innovation while simultaneously leading towards the demise of obsolete and repressive regimes.

Looking at Myanmar for example, a country that has ruled by military dictatorship in one form or another since 1962 under rather repressive and closed military dictatorships, has in recent months been taking great strides towards freeing and opening their society. Along with significant democratic reforms, and the release of many influential political dissidents from jail, in its latest overture, the government has announced that it will disband its long infamous official censor, leading toward a much more open and freer society. Government leaders have recognized the impracticality of using censorship in the age of online communication, and as such have given way to the natural, self-evident advancement of a more open and interconnected society.

Additionally, the ability to communicate ideas and share information online is rapidly revolutionizing the way that we tackle societal problems. While the success of social movements still rely on the basic tenets of organization, leadership, and a grassroots following, the age of technology has dramatically altered the face of these movements. Traditionally, historical social movements like the American Civil Rights movement gathered momentum and followers in churches and town halls. These holy places provided refuge for creative expression of thought and radical ideas, where leaders found their voices, and where communities already accustomed to gathering for communal worship and prayer became grassroots organizations to take on the challenges of social inequality and racial prejudice. Though this access to meeting places like a church for the convening of great minds to collaborate and exchange ideas, still remains equally crucial to the rise and success of any social movement or cause, its shape is changing form. No longer limited to local town halls and churches for meeting places, individuals with a cause can find similar like-minded individuals and meeting places virtually, in online forums and networking sites. Through access to a laptop, tablet, or smart phone, individual users can find access to an online community that goes beyond geographical borders and is able to unite people around a cause.

After photos of a brutal attack by Egyptian police on a youth were widely distributed on the Internet. People swarmed to respond to the perceived communal threat. Using twitter and Facebook to organize and arrange protests that culminated in the occupation of Tahrir Square. It is unsurprising that the former dictator Hosni Mubarak and his corrupt regime sought to fight the protests in the only way they knew how with physical force. Only when they saw the resolve of the protestors did they try to tackle the movement’s main machinery by cutting their access to the Internet and thus the support of the wider global online community.

Ultimately for all their steps to control the growing threat to their power, however, the Mubarak regime was unable to withstand the power of a people united by their aspirations and longings for revolution and a new beginning. Thus clearly, the ideas and words of a few, when joined together with a collective consciousness of a society at large can spark something greater one individual’s aspirations. In this case, those who first initiated the protests met wide approval from their own communities but from the global online community as well, and were able enabled by the flow of information outside the power of the government to transform that support into a social enduring social movement. Arab Spring was thus essentially the product of a new form of individually exercised power towards a common goal – ending dictatorship and repression.

Less Freedom

Yet, during Obama’s speech and in his reference to “obsolete” notions of controlling “the flow of information” there was a warning as well, to states and individuals alike, that seemed to overshadow if not at least cast doubt on the positive benefits of individual empowerment that come with the free flow of information. Thus while we see many advantages of the advantages when individuals are empowered through their access to information we have seen disadvantages as well.

In an age of such a globalized international community, the written and spoken word extends far beyond the domestic territorial boundaries of the United States and can affect communities around the globe. As a result, this ability to reach a wider audience can occasionally create conflict and strife when it is used to as a tool to disseminate hateful messages. President Obama’s remarks come in response to recent riots and mass protests in much of the Arab world that left several Americans, including American Ambassador Chris Stevens, dead. The catalyst that sparked these riots was the appearance of a YouTube clip featuring a film “the Innocence of Muslims” which depicts the prophet Muhammad as a womanizer, child molester, and mass murderer. Though the film was produced and first screened in the United States, its message had little impact on American society. However when shared with the larger global online community, the film had the power to incite incendiary comments and turbulent reactions from many Muslim communities around the world. Ultimately, in this super globalized era, a message of hate can reach far beyond territorial borders to reach a global community at large, sometimes with devastating consequences.

Yet while many people including the President have claimed that the film was morally and to another degree aesthetically reprehensible, we need to potentially indict another culprit complicit in adding to the conflict. Traditionally the “old” media regime (ranging from Newspapers, to television, to radio) has long been heralded as the 4th estate, a term that is credited to English political theorist Edmund Burke in 1878, for its role in providing a series of checks and balances to government through its integrity and honest reporting. However, with information so instantaneously and immediately available, media coverage has had to adapt to keep apace with the news in order bring the most immediate stories. As with the case of the reporting on the “Innocence of Muslims,” this need to produce quick reporting can result in shoddy reporting and poor fact checking. Though the film was itself a major source of tension in many Muslim countries, the Media’s poor fact checking and incessant in depth coverage of the film only continued to frame the issue in ways that produced more tensions. Though the Media seeks to report from above the tumultuous events it covers it is complicit as well in the production and dissemination of coverage that can actually fuel greater conflict.

The video “The Innocence of Muslims” and its impact on the international community is a clear example that the increasing transparency of information and the ability to make that information easily accessible around the word can lead to greater conflict and less freedom as opposed to more freedom. When individuals and even journalists are responsible for, or are complicit in the dissemination of messages of hate, in this age of digital connection, such messages are able to reach audiences far larger and more global than ever before, creating more opportunities for misunderstandings, tension, and even violence.

Where does this take us?

In his address before the United Nations and the international community as a whole, President Barak Obama outlined a very stark reality. The “notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete” and as such he officially recognized the ushering of a new era. The President’s address adequately and appropriately recognized the dual nature of this revolutionary era in which we live, and as such he embraced and spoke to us of the many benefits as well as dangers inherent in this age of information. As we have seen, the development of a greater access to information and the rapid exchange of ideas and projects has in the past few years enabled the toppling of regimes, the rise of campaigns gone viral world wide, and ultimately altered the face of the world.

But where does this lead us as an international community? In this evolving society, who are the important actors? And is this, on a whole, a positive force for good or for bad? Clearly the issue at hand is truly too nuanced and complex to outline is such polarized normative values.

Like most topics in International Relations it becomes a question of Power, which we have defined as the use of influence, be it military, economic, or other for the production of intended effects, and of Agency referring to those that wield that power. Both the definition of power and those who can wield it, has changed in an international community that has become super globalized by the Internet.

Power now rests in the hands of the individuals and as we have seen in recent events, the power to produce an intended effect, be it topple a regime or incite anger, can and will be used by individuals who can spread their message. The spoken and written word has taken on a new potency in this digital era and the ability to sway issues in politics, economics, and society. Thus, as the authors of those words we as individuals have incredible power that can raise a signal individual to the international level overnight with as President Obama accurately asserted, “the click of a button.”

We need to seriously address this newfound power and though we cannot reverse time to control this newfound power, nor perhaps should we, we can at least take it upon ourselves to recognize it for what it is – a weapon. It is a weapon that can start a movement, topple regimes, incite violence and anger, and ultimately change the face of the world. Like many advances in weaponry, it has increased both in its breadth and accuracy, and it has simultaneously made the world a safer and more volatile place because of it. Perhaps governments cannot control this weapon alone, but rather we as individuals and as members of a concerned global community should take it upon ourselves to self-censor and control our thoughts and opinions keeping in mind the far reaching and even global consequences to our actions.

As Winton Churchill once said “ the price of greatness is responsibility.” Through our ability to connect in new and meaningful ways with the unstoppable flow of information – we as individuals have been raised to the international level and to “greatness”. Using our power we can achieve great things – letting this power use us, and we will only see larger and more prolonged conflicts. Thus what we need is more dialogue – not less dialogue, more free speech, not less free speech, as long as we keep in mind the power of our arsenal of words and ideas.

The world can be a better and safer place because of it, as long as we know how to use it.

Posted by Emily Kassie at 01:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (189)