The American Media Dominance

Today marks the second newsprint since the death of Michael Jackson, yet newspapers transcending continents from Jamaica to Japan, Chile to New Zealand and Israel still display news of Michael Jackson’s death all over the front pages. The American pop sensation’s popularity exemplifies yet another aspect of the dominance of US media product around the world. US cultural imperialism is an undeniable fact in the world that we live in. From the music that we listen, to the movies and series that we watch, America is the leading supplier to the rest of the world. A theme related to globalization, the US is a major force in the media industry.

The US is the biggest exporter of TV programmes and movies for consumption throughout the world. How many of the prime time shows on our local English terrestrial channels originate from the US? And look at the programmes on offer on our Starhub cable service; predominantly the programmes aired are made in the USA. So how does that translate into cultural imperialism in our local context?  We all agree that through consumption of the media, people are socialized in a certain way. Along with the exportation of their media, inevitably they are also exporting their culture. Through images and the continued reoccurrence of subject matter in the various programmes audience are presented with the ideologies and lifestyles which are prevalent in the US society. It is somehow a subtle indoctrination that ultimately shapes the society. Although in Singapore we have not fully embraces the culture of the Americans, but it is noticeable how we mimic certain traits of the US culture.

Going back to the music industry, look at how we bought rights to stage our own version of the highly successful talent show American Idol. I remembered an article in the local newspaper relates how before staging Singapore Idol, we had a similar talent show called Talent Time, (remember Triple Noize and Cherry Chocolate Candy) though we had incorporated the same format of SMS votes and what not, it failed to take off as Singapore Idol did. Quite a few years ago we similarly produced our version of Wheel of Fortune a highly popular game show originating from the US staring Eunice Olsen. Another interesting programme would be the local Gotcha series which was revived from the depths to mimic the popular US series, MTV’s Punk’d. These examples highlight the popularity of US productions in Singapore that the local producers try to produce a local version of popular shows in the US.

The Media Blackout: Iran

What the World Didn’t See in Tehran

By Howard Chua-Eoan

In this image taken from amateur video posted online from Tehran, Thursday, June 20, 2009, shows supporters of opposition leader Mir Hossien Mousavi setting fire to a barricade as they protest in Tehran. APTN /AP (Time.com)

“Iranian state television yesterday broadcast the soap operas and covered the news about Rafael Nadal’s withdrawal from Wimbledon and Pakistani operations against the Taliban as if they were the most important stories in the world.”

Above is an article which deals directly with the agenda setting function of the media which is being controlled by the ruling Iranian government. Tehran has spiralled into chaos in the last few days as thousands of protestors took in the streets in violent clashes with the authorities. The protestors are mainly supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, the opposition candidate defeated by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran’s recent presidential election. Iranians who took the streets claim that the presidential elections have been rigged. Iranians residing outside of the country have also mounted their own protest; a group of Iranians in Singapore held their own protest at Speaker’s Corner on Friday June 19, 2009.

Picture by Faramarz on Flickr

Acknowledging the ability for the media to set an agenda through repeated news coverage, the Iranian government had purposely imposed a media blackout. The Iranian government hopes that by limiting the movement of international press in the country and not reporting about the violent clashes in Tehran on state television, they would be able to contain the news of political instability in the country to the world.

Quoting an article

Iran bars foreign media from reporting on streets

The Associated Press

Hundreds of thousands of supporters of leading opposition presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, who claims there was voting fraud in Friday's election, turn out to protest the result of the election at a mass rally in Azadi (Freedom) square in Tehran, Iran, Monday, June 15, 2009. (AP Photo/Ben Curtis)

“Iranian authorities are restricting all journalists working for foreign media from firsthand reporting on the streets.

The rules cover all journalists, including Iranians working for foreign media. It blocks images and eyewitness descriptions of the protests and violence that has followed last week’s disputed elections.

The order issued Tuesday limits journalists for foreign media to work only from their offices, conducting telephone interviews and monitoring official sources such as state television.”

Ideally a government would want the various entities of Mass Media to be within their full control. Reports by the mass media of a country’s instability would tarnish the country’s reputation to the outside would. In today’s context this is extremely difficult. Gone are the days when the mass media is the only source of information to the average person when the mass media had such power that they were able influence their consumers such as the infamous War of the World broadcast. (Catering to the Magic Bullet theory, a portion of the listeners of the radio programme actually believed that a Martian Invasion was happening.)  New media such as blogs, Facebook, Tweets and YouTube are providing the outside world with gory accounts of the happenings in the Iranian capital unedited. As much as they try, the Iranian government would not be able to stop the news leak to the outside world.

American Individualism

On examining culture one may look at it as a collective programming of the mind which provides individuals with values with which they hold. Below is an article on the marriage culture or the lack of it which is an increasing trend in the United States.

All but the Ring: Why Some Couples Don’t Wed

By Lisa Selin Davis Monday, May. 25, 2009

The article relates the various reasons for many American couples who forego the process marriage but have decided to start a family. Most couples cite that the fear of divorce is the leading factor in their decision to not marry as the prevailing divorce rates in the United States are among the highest in the world.

Quoting Andrew J. Cherlin the author of “The Marriage-Go-Round: The State of Marriage and the Family in America Today” he explains that the change in perspective may be due to “the nature of American culture, which is unlike the culture of any other country when it comes to marriage and personal life. Americans believe in two contradictory ideals. The first is the importance of marriage: we are more marriage-oriented than most other Western countries. The second is the importance of living a personally fulfilling life that allows us to grow and develop as individuals—call it individualism.¬¬” This thus is able to explain the high divorce rates in the United States from a cultural prospective.

I believe that the American culture is a very individualistic culture. They place much emphasis on the notion of freedom. This is manifested with the principle of ‘Freedom of Speech’ which the country fiercely upholds. Among the core values that most groups in the United States share, Robin Williams (the sociologist, not the actor) identified that Americans place high value on personal achievement, especially outdoing others and that Americans cherish the ideal that an individual can rise from the bottom of society to its very top. Americans generally find fault with that individual rather than with the social system for placing roadblocks in his or her path. This parallels the characteristic of an individualistic society where reward distribution is based on individual performance. I feel that through globalization where exposure to the different cultures of the world is more rampant then at any point in human history, Singapore is increasingly adopting the individualist culture and thus is moving away from its traditional collectivist’s culture.

The Identity of a Fan

“Loyal and true Reds, please stand for the brand new Liverpool away shirt..”

Just over a week ago, the club unveiled the official new away jersey for the upcoming 09/10 season. Notice the opening line, especially the words ‘Loyal’ and ‘True’.

Here’s the video advertisement.

From my observations of the various football fanatic friends that I have, it has become clear to me how fans of Liverpool FC seem to be the most passionate lot from among the various supporters of football clubs in Singapore. As someone who do not affiliate or have particular loyalty to any sports club or sporting personality, I have always wondered what factors lead people to be such devout fans when the results of a particular football team may bring such joy or even spoil one’s day. I know of a guy who cried when Liverpool went 3-0 down against Milan in the historic Champion’s League Final in Istanbul. Why do people become such eager fans?

“You will never walk alone” the famous words on the emblem of Liverpool Football Club. The characteristics of a group as in the case here, the Liverpool fans, involve four factors, interaction, interdependence, shared behavioural standards and collective identity. Log on to your Facebook account on match night of an important Liverpool fixture and you’ll see how all the Liverpool fans would be updating their status in relation to the upcoming match and commenting on each other’s status. (I know the scenario holds true for other major clubs too, but we’ll just concentrate on Liverpool on this one) Here we see a shared behavioural standard and interaction between the Liverpool fans. Head to the screening of the live matches at the eateries, and you’ll see the Liverpool fans displaying their collective identity by donning their team’s jersey.

Liverpool Fans by Jamie McDonald/Getty Images

A possible reason why people associate themselves with an entity that exist thousands of miles away which bear little effect on their lives could be the inclusion need of some individuals to “establish identity by associating with others”. Some people find their sense of belonging when they proclaim their loyalty to the club. Being part of a large group of fans may serve a personal need to enhance one’s identity. A die-hard fan may define much of their identity as a particular club fan. Another possible reason could be that being a fan allows one to fill their affection needs where they form an emotional attachment to the particular sporting entity therefore somehow satisfying the need of close relationship with others.

Personally, I do not see myself ever being so passionately favouring a sporting entity or a particular sportsperson. The idea in itself sounds quite obsessive to me. I do enjoy sports as an exercise and occasionally watch a football game. And that’s as far as I go.

Err, She’s just a friend in cyberspace. Honest.

Charles Pitts by Wall Street Journal

As detailed in the article “On Streets and on Facebook, Homeless Stay Wired” published May 30th 2009, quoted a man who has been homeless for two years, Mr Pitts, where he said that “You don’t need a TV or radio and you don’t even need a newspaper, but you need the Internet.”  The homeless now has an avenue of communication online with the SF Homeless, an internet forum with 140 members posting schedules for public-housing meetings and news from similar groups in the US. What does this say about the communication model of today? Often we hear of how the world is shrinking into a global village, where geographical constraints no longer affect how effective we can be at communicating.

On the various factors mentioned in the Relational Formation and Development, one factor that I find quite interesting is the proximity factor. According to Festinger, Schachter & Black (1950), “research has shown for example that we have a greater likelihood of becoming friends with those who live closest to us”. The theory related how, when people interact frequently, they have more chances to engage in communication or to seek out relationships.

Fast forward 59 years from when the trio brought up the theory. Today, the internet as a catalyst for change has revolutionized the rules of communication. The world now witness the latest media phenomenon, a new system of communication termed ‘social media’. Popular social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter allows people to connect to each other in cyberspace through online profiles allowing users to communicate more effectively where information could be disseminated by any individual to everyone in his/her network in just a few clicks. Social networking sites allow us to engage and manage our relationship in cyberspace, increasing interaction frequency with our peers without limiting ourselves to geographical constrains, opposing the view related by Festinger and his two buddies how we are likely to be friends with people close to us. As a prominent example, I do not even have someone who I would deem as a friend in my neighbourhood. And mind you I have been living here my whole life.

Facebook by Dave (http://www.weblogcartoons.com/)

The question now lies with proximity offered on cyberspace. In my opinion, one thing for sure, cyberspace allows for more flexibility and opportunity for communication. I could leave a message for a friend on their Facebook account thus maintaining communications and they could reply to me at their own time. Facebook also makes it easier for me to start an engagement in interpersonal relationship with a total stranger from another continent. This clearly increases the possibility and occurrence of communication in general.

I believe that the limitation in cyberspace is the personal touch one gets from face-to-face interaction. Somehow, even through webcam where we are able to see the other party on our screen, it lacks the magic of being physically close. Somewhere in being physically close, we are able to draw more from the exchange. Some forms of nonverbal cues are lost when not in physical proximity. That explains why even with the advances in teleconferencing businessmen still fly over to meet their clients to add a personal touch in communicating to their clients. As such, I feel that cyberspace allows for greater management and engagement of relationship however it loses to face-to-face contact which still reigns as the most powerful form of communication in relationship.

Sexy Chocolate

“Candy Bar From Mars Aims For Women From Venus”

Published May 17, 2009

“Naughty, but not that naughty.” That’s the tagline for a new chocolate product launched in California, branded ‘Fling’ the first new chocolate bar by Mars in more than 20 years. “Fling” is specifically marketed for the woman market with its overly feminine appeal  of distinctly pink packaging and low calorie count. The article touches on the overly sexual nature of how the Mars marketing team had developed their new candy bar.

A promotional postcard for the Fling. Courtesy of Taylor Global Inc.

The guest speaker mentioned how the language of the marketing campaign had made used of many sexual innuendos. Keeping in mind that it is being marketed for the ladies, the chocolate bars are suspiciously named as “chocolate finger” and putting that together with a tag such as “Pleasure yourself” in pink lettering, consumers might come to other conclusions.

The sexual theme continues with its commercial.

The commercial is very direct in steering our perception.Using cognitive schemata, the commercial employs a typical script of a couple fooling around in a dressing room. It starts off with the sexy lady with her high heels and short dress, walking into the changing space. She turns her head just before pulling the curtains making sure no one was around. The action starts here, our focus of attention (figure) is now the two pair of legs, and from the clever camera work, the audience is led to believe that both pair of legs are in the same space(ground).

The audience is then fed with limited stimuli forcing them to form their own closure to the scene. With the suggested stimuli our perception leads us to conclude prematurely that the couple is having sex. The non verbal cues would be the dress and handbag falling to the ground dramatically and the male having his pants around his ankle. The sexually provocative movements from both pair of legs, ‘responding’ to each other’s motion coupled with the ‘moaning’ sounds was included to mislead.

The camera finally pans over the top which finally debunk all the earlier misconceptions to show that both ‘legs’ were in different cubicles. The man was grunting as he’s having trouble yanking his pants off and the lady was only moving about in the cubicle, trying on a dress while enjoying her ‘Fling’ bar.

Sex sells, period. In a post ‘Sex and the City’ world where a woman’s sexuality is a public affair, an issue available for public discourse, I am not very surprised how bold the marketing campaign for the new candy bar have been. We’ll just have to wait and see if the audacious move will pay off for the candy makers.

The Game

Israel’s Netanyahu: Taking a Turn Toward Pragmatism?

Published Monday, May. 18, 2009.

Summarizing the article, it states how Netanyahu on his first talks with Obama is taking a pragmatic perspective on presenting Israel’s issues such as expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and preventing the Iranians from attaining nuclear weapons.

In politics, it pays to be pragmatic. “Tony Blair, the special envoy of the Quartet powers to the Middle East, was struck by Netanyahu’s pragmatism when the two men met recently. Obama came away with a similar impression last July during a brief stop in Jerusalem.”

• Israeli-Palestine dispute.

Netanyahu, equipped with his past experience as Prime Minister will avoid unproductive moves. The Israeli premier has studied the “moves” or acts of his partner, Obama, and has formed a pattern to it. Netanyahu foresee that “Obama and his advisers are expected to move briskly to an equally pressing matter: Netanyahu’s refusal to back the idea of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.” Netanyahu therefore is ready with his counter arguments on “why should he risk civil unrest–Israeli soldiers fighting Jewish settlers–if the Palestinians can’t keep up their end of the bargain?”

• Iranian nuclear ambitions.

The Prime Minister comes to Washington armed with counter strategies to any payoffs from the talks. The Israeli will respond to his American partner’s moves in relation to Israeli’s ambitions and anticipation of American future action. Netanyahu is anticipating and instigating a White House response to Iran. Israel wants a push for military action against Iran while the US still believe in handling the issue through diplomacy. Israel would be pleased if Obama supports military action but even if Obama holds firm, Israel has prepared for their next move. “In the lead-up to Netanyahu’s Washington visit, Israeli newspapers have printed stories about the air force carrying out dry runs for an Iranian raid and antimissile crews having practice drills.” An evident sign for what lies ahead.

As much as I want to believe Netanyahu’s new pragmatic perspective as the dawn of a new era, I cannot help but be pessimistic that on his second term in office he would be able to make breakthroughs in the Israeli- Palestine conflict. “(A) friend of Netanyahu’s, the novelist Eyal Megged, says the Prime Minister’s hard-line ideology has not mellowed.” As evident from Netanyahu’s past dealings with the Clinton administration, similarly Obama might be on cause to hitting a stone wall on securing peace in the Middle East. Critics have even suggested that the ‘two-state resolution’ mantra is getting old for both sides. (Read Can Obama Change the Game on Middle East Peace?)

Can the eloquent Mr Obama do it? Or will he be remembered only as the novelty president? Time, will tell.