Re-thinking Objectivity

The ideal of objective journalism began in the 19th century. It's been questioned, it's been defied, and it's been pushed to it's limits. Yet, it persists. Brent Cunningham points out, in "Re-thinking Objectivity," that nothing better has come along to replace it. It's a good thing to strive for. Avoiding opinion in news, especially hard news, has it's advantages.

Of course, as Cunningham argues, the desire to be objective can sometimes affect the quality of investigative journalism. Tonight Josh Marshall spoke about the solution to this problem. If mainstream media is afraid to bring up issues or doesn't have the time to dig for more, there are other voices out there filling in the gaps. Independent media has less restriction, though there has to be rules to gain credibility and trust from a readership, so it can take the time and the chance to reach a little further.

Objectivity and subjectivity are both important parts of delivering and analyzing the news, but it's important to know whether your news source is meant to be factual or editorialized. Nobody is perfect and no single media outlet or individual journalist can report everything perfectly, so it's good we have a million of voices in one vibrant conversation.

Globalization: Good or Evil?

I've always had mixed feelings about globalization. There are plenty of reasons why it's good for the world and plenty of reasons why it's bad. If I was asked to write a persuasive argument either for or against globalization, I wouldn't have a problem coming up with evidence to support each case. But when I think about globalization subjectively, or when I look at it for what it is from my perspective rather than others; I don't feel too badly about it.

If I hadn't been overseas before and I hadn't met people from around the world, I might even think globalization is merely the United States and other dominant countries forcing their form of government, culture, and economy on the less developed nations. In some ways, this is the case. But I see it differently.

When you meet people from different cultures, the two best things to talk about are the things you have in common and the things you don't have in common. No matter how "standardized" or connected we become, every country or group of people within a country will have differences. Liking similar movies, TV shows, activities and music give you common ground with the rest of the world. It shows we really are not that much different. We are all human and find the same things funny, scary or entertaining. There's nothing wrong with that. We still have differences that make us unique.

Less developed countries might not be joining the race; there's nothing wrong with that. Others are eager to jump on the band wagon. There's nothing wrong with that either.

The Evolution of the News

Listening to endless conversation about the doom print news is facing is really starting to depress me. I have no intention of working for a newspaper. I actually hate reading the newspaper. It's too big and obnoxious to read. I would prefer a smaller version of print to get my news. Going online to get my news is almost as annoying. Who wants to stare at a computer for longer than necessary?

Basically, the news industry in general is really just bugging me. The video we watched in Issues in the News class didn't make it any better. There are so many why to figure out what is going on, people should be able to figure it out despite uneven coverage. I hate hearing the clashing debates where some are talking about how media is a business and others referring it to a courageous and honorable service to the public of a democracy.

What rose my spirits during the video was the talk about independent journalism. I wrote down every single online independent journalism site, so I can check them out. I would rather get news from something like that. People are not always reliable. You don't have to trust them though; you can just listen to what they have to say. It's nice to know there are people out there reporting without a hidden agenda.

Development Journalism

As Thomas McPhail outlines clearly in Global Communication: Theories, Stakeholders, and Trends, the world has experienced four eras of colonialism; they are military, Christian, mercantile, and electronic colonialism. The powerful use the means of the time to gain and spread their influence and domination to weaker human societies and civilizations. When British Empire spread across the globe, they didn’t stop and think about what they were doing to indigenous people as they conquered and overtook foreign lands, such as Australia or the Americas. As in many of these lands during this era of colonialism, Aboriginal Australians were forced inland to more remote parts of the large island. Their development as a group was disrupted; their lifestyles changed. They had to adjust to a new world brought on by a more powerful sect of the human race.

Today is the age of electronic colonialism. No longer is military force or industrialization being used to control the world. Core nations, which are more dominant and powerful, have the ability to disrupt the lives of weaker and less influential nations through mind control. With the imbalanced flow of media and information, the West has the ability to dominate how people in other countries think, what they value, and why something they are doing is wrong.

Development journalism is an attempt to counteract electronic colonialism. There are many ways to look at this. Many believe trying to control what the media is saying about peripheral countries is a violation of journalistic rights and traditions. The purpose of journalism is to keep governments in line and to report on what is happening in the world.

When Dominant countries overtook the lands of indigenous people, nobody stopped them and said, “Hey these people have yet to grow scientifically and technologically. We shouldn’t try to disrupt their growth.” Over the course of history, the powerful will overtake the weaker. It’s just how it goes. Western media has this ability to influence the minds of people in peripheral countries, forcing them to question their governments and causing fragile nations to crumble or fight internally. It just seems like human nature to continue to flourish personally at the expense of others. Or, in this case, to point out to someone who is inferior exactly why her or she sucks. We can always apologize years later for the damage we did (Look at Australia: they just enacted “Sorry Day,” a public holiday that openly apologizes to Aborigines for past abuse and injustices).

Another way to look at it is a sports game. When playing against a much weaker opponent, it doesn’t help anyone if the stronger throttle the weaker. The developing team will never learn how to improve if they are just constantly getting hammered. The better team may be doing its job by playing hard and winning, but it just doesn’t seem right to destroy the other team.

Development journalism as a theory or a plan probably won’t work. After all, there is so much information flying around the world these days, nobody can hide. Everyone is talking about everyone and there’s very little stopping it. I think it comes down to the journalist or media organization. This isn’t something that can be internationally regulated. I would have a hard time publishing stories about a developing country’s never ending problems without being extremely thorough. McPhail refers to some international journalism as “parachute journalism.” This means the reporter spends little time in a foreign land. They collect the drastic, disastrous, or corrupt information or event and relay back to the rest of the world. If a journalist is going to analyze and report on happenings in LDC’s, they have to be sure to do a thorough and mindful job.

It is something to think about. It’s nearly impossible to balance the flow of information, but, as journalists with human brains in our skulls, we have to be mindful of what we are doing. We are infiltrating vulnerable and uneducated minds. It’s a claustrophobic world. Just because something is our job, doesn’t mean we can’t take a moment to consider the consequences. It might be against human nature, but who said we weren’t allowed to defy human nature?

The Rise of the Rest

In an excerpt from Fareed Zakaria's book, The Post-American World, he claims Americans have more chance of drowning in their bathtub than being attacked by a terrorist. This is just one of my many interesting points he talks about.

I've been reading a bit of Zakaria lately. I really like his optimistic perspective. Even his recent article commenting on Russia's invasion of Georgia was enlightening in some ways. He sheds light on parts of issues I, and I'm sure others, don't always see. After reading "The Clash of Civilizations" or the "Coming Anarchy," it's nice to hear positive theories about the world's future.

It's nice to hear someone point out that the world isn't as horrible and violent as it appears. According to the excerpt, there is far less violence today than usual. The amazing availability of information just lets us know what is going on on an hourly basis. He even reminds us our fear of Iran is nothing compared to the threat Germany had 70 years ago.

"If this is 1938, as some neoconservatives tell us, then Iran is Romania, not Germany."

Maybe violence will continue to decrease. It's hard to say, especially with realities Kaplan and Huntington talk about looming over the globe. With better means of communication, disputes might be more easily settled. Of course, I might be too idealistic. Zakaria is really going to my head. Well, for another few paragraphs, I'm going to let him hang out up there.

One of the coolest things he talked about was the third major power shift: the rise of the rest. It's great to hear other countries are growing. No longer are we the top of the heap in every category. This is excellent news for the history of the world. Things can never be even in this world. But the more balanced, there might be less confrontation and conflict.

When I went to Australia last year, where I lived for six months, I wrote a paper about "Americanisation" (they don't use "z" as often as us in their version of English). It was a big discussion in an Australian sociology class. Apparently, this is a big concern around the world. We dominate the entertainment industry. Everyone loves our TV shows, movies, and music. I didn't think there was anything wrong with this. After all, when something is quality, you can't not like just because it's from America. I loved "Summer Heights High," an Australian TV show, just as much as they loved watching "The Biggest Loser."

But it did bother me when they complained about American dominance. This is a problem. America shouldn't be the only voice anyone can hear across the globe. It makes it sound like the only reason everyone loves our stuff is because it's the only stuff anyone knows. This could be the case in many circumstances.

According to Zakaria, we are still dominating in the entertainment industry. With his talk about the third power shift, i feel less bothered by American or Western cultural dominance. As countries grow, I believe their voices will be heard. At least I know I'll listen.

What is the future of the world?

As of 1997 when Zakaria published "The Rise Illiberal Democracy," more than half of the world's nations had some form of democracy. According to Fukuyama, we'd long since reached the final form of ideology. Now the only problems facing the human race were clashes between civilizations or even the coming of anarchy as Huntington and Kaplan both wrote about during the '90s.

But as Zakaria points out, democracy isn't used universally. Free elections and the protection of our inalienable rights isn't exactly what democracy means to everyone. He claims democracy might mean having elections or granting the people some say in how the country is run, but constitutional liberalism is what protects the people by giving them basic human rights.

Many democracies don't honor their citizens with these rights; these are what Zakaria considers illiberal democracies. As he says constitutional liberalism "is not about the procedures for selecting government, but rather government's goals. It refers to the tradition, deep in Western history, that seeks to protect an individual's autonomy and dignity against coercion, whatever the source--state, church, or society."

Everyone has their own version of democracy. Some countries, such as China, have economic liberalism but don't have a democracy. Sweden has a democracy but restricts its citizens' individual property rights. This is expected. As Zakaria says, "cultures vary, and different societies will require different frameworks of government."

But Zakaria also points out that illiberal democracies, which make up about half of the democracies around the world, are dangerous:

"Democracy without constitutional liberalism is not simply inadequate, but dangerous, bringing with it the erosion of liberty, the abuse of power, ethnic divisions, and even war."

Maybe it's dangerous because of how different each form of democracy is. Differences in civilizations may be able to account for the differences in democracies. Huntington's theory, the "Clash of Civilizations," may help explain this. The United States likes to spread its liberal seed, but it's hard to create the exact form of government in every nation in the world. There is no ideal democracy because every society requires something different. Civilizations unable to understand one another's differences may be the exact reason why they will continue to clash and cause war.

After reading Fukuyama, Huntington, Kaplan and Zakaria, I fear what the future brings. Kaplan is probably the one who struck me the most. Yes, civilizations will continue to clash, especially with differences in government and culture, but Kaplan's "Coming of Anarchy" might be shining light on the true problems of the future. His view was extremely pessimistic, but he was right about the environment, the diminishing of resources and the inevitable problems this will someday bring. The increasing population ensures this future will always be a possibility.

I really can't predict what will happen to the world as natural resources begin to run out. When you live with as much luxuries as middle class America lives with, you can't imagine a world where survival is the first concern. My main concern is making enough money at my part time job to pay rent and the gas and electric bill. I have no idea what it's like to live in a Third World country.

More wars will probably litter the future of the world. Civilizations will consider to clash as everyone creates their own personal style of democracy and as cultures continue to cross one another. These tensions will never disappear. And if these tensions never disappear, they will only worsen when the Earth begins run out of supplies. I suppose we can only hope science and technology grows faster than the world's resources run out.

The Power of the News

"Newspapers and television news, even the tightly edited pages of a tabloid paper or internet web site do considerably more than signal the existence of major events and issues."

That comes from McCombs's article on media's agenda setting role.

Of course they do more. They tell us how to think about these prominent news issues. The media is not only responsible for telling us what to pay attention to; it analyzes these issues and even helps the public form an understanding and even an opinion on a particular topic in the news.

"Throughout their day by day selection and display of the news, editors and news directors focus our attention and influence, our perceptions of what are the most important issues of the day. This ability to influence the salience of topics on the public agenda has come to be called the agenda setting role of the news media."

It's frightening and realistic all at the same time. The reality of the amount of power the media has over what and how we think is incredible, but it's also how democracy works. The purpose of the media are to keep the public informed. They are the gatekeepers. With a world as vast as ours, gatekeepers and information providers are necessary.

The theory of agenda setting may seem scary at first, but it makes sense. What else can we do? We are not capable of investigating every part of this world ourselves.