#mcst 4010

[philmcniff24-blog]

One of the most important things I have taken from the Klosterman book and been able to apply to this term and will continue to apply in many aspects of my life all together, is the idea that what we know and collectively identify as the truths of our world now, are always subject to change. Everyone looks at every situation differently, and based on what we have provided as the ‘factual’ frameworks of our world to give us a basic understanding of our lives and where we fit in society helps us to determine how we feel about particular issues.

 In the Klosterman book, he discusses the idea of a “historically great President.” The argument is based around the idea is this, perhaps one day the generally accepted belief of “someone currently viewed as a historically great president would be reversed by future generations,” (Klosterman, 97). He said this would be widely believed because “everyone concedes the potential to be subjectively wrong about anything,” and goes on to anchor that by discussing circumstances in which the things people previously believed to be facts had eventually be questioned, and replaced by something new as believed to be fact and isn’t questioned.

 The examples he used is that a prior fact about dinosaurs was that they were cold blooded like reptiles, but after other theories about them being warm blooded arose and began questioning the old factual information, further research has concluded that they were more likely to be warm blooded and now that is more generally accepted by a majority of people to be a fact. But because we know that dinosaurs existed 10 million years ago and since no one was alive when they were around we are more open to the idea of thinking differently and challenging these facts.

 The most influential thing that sticks with me the most from the book is the idea that we could all be “asking the wrong questions,” about ourselves and the world we live in (Klosterman, 99). He argues that we think we learn things each and every day but are we right about any of it? The truth is we don’t really know, and somewhere along the line we could potentially learn something completely revolutionary that changes our outlooks and perspectives about everything as we know it to be.

 Or maybe we will keep making small strides and continue to learn and accept new truths gradually and with much resistance like we do now. Relating it to the class and to issues we see throughout our world exemplified by global media I have come to find that many of the issues we discuss could be looked back upon by our future society as so primal and absurd due to in change in fundamental beliefs about ourselves.

 Many of the main issues we discuss in our world exemplified throughout global media are differences between groups of people and global conflict around a variety of issues we have all taught ourselves to believe. Things like racism, gender discrimination and war are things that are all man made ideas engrained within many societies in a variety of different ways around the world. As Americans we look at the underlying racism and sexism in our country and we are outraged. But at the same time, if you look at the way minorities, women, and people of different religion are treated in our country compared to many others around the world, one would realize how far along we are compared to some different places around the globe. Klosterman says Abraham Lincoln is historically remembered as a great president. Why? Because he abolished slavery and racism, but doesn’t racism and slavery still exist? Still he is believed to be a great president because of the steps he made to push the envelope to treat everyone equally. But what if one day race, gender and conflict aren’t the subject of the questions? Maybe one day racism will be so far behind human kind, people will no longer consider Abraham Lincoln to be a great president for abolishing slavery, or Barack Obama for being the first African-American president. We will look back on this time period and probably laugh at how silly we treated one another and therefore discredit any of the ideas from our time period. Star Trek is a perfect example of Kolterman’s idea. Things like violence and inequality will be looked at as primal compared to the evolution of people in the future.

 This class, as well as this book, helped to open my eyes to many of the issues that mankind struggles with as a whole. Looking at issues around the world that are constant throughout the media go to highlight many of the things we struggle with as people no matter what skin color, religion, or gender we may be. The more differences we continue to create with each other, the further we become from achieving a new level of power and understanding about each other that could change our world as we know it forever. Hopefully generations to come will hold onto that as an objective, commonly believed ‘fact’ in their world to help move us past our differences with one another.

Klosterman, Chuck. But What if We’re Wrong? New York: Blue Rider Press.                 2016. Print.

[nhoages-blog]

What the Future Holds for Global Media

“In my left hand, there is the familiar. In my right hand, there’s the great unknown” - ”The Draw” by Bastile (2013)

In Chuck Klosterman’s seemingly slow yet alarmingly relevant book “But What if We’re Wrong?” highlights abstract concepts like our infatuation with different forms of entertainment and media, the slow yet sudden death of these platforms, and then the consequential regeneration and sometimes rebirth of new and old mediums in our society today. Klosterman (2016) describes in his book the definition of “popular” by not being overtly popular if you were to put a name to it, but rather a thing or phenomena becomes popular “when it becomes interesting to those who don’t particularly care” (p. 182). Over the course of our 3 month Global Media class we’ve firsthand witnessed media platforms begin their disintegration for various different reasons and, in turn, also witnessed the birth of new media outlets and connections, like the Facebook Live feature and interactive features pertaining to the election like on Snapchat, Tumblr, and streaming services like Amazon Fire and Hulu. It is almost obvious that the technological advances in global media have been changing the way we absorb current events and global entertainment, and essentially making it easier for us to “connect” with one another (in whatever form that may be done in) and get news blasts about politics, entertainment, etc. faster than ever. So where can we go from here? Is there still more room in the innovative landscape for new technology and ideas, or have we nearly burned out our scientific/creative brains and now continue on a plateau?

At this point in the media metamorphosis we seem to be hitting a fork in the road, should we increase productivity with things like iPhones, tablets, headphones, speakers, etc. and keep slightly revamping these familiar pieces and then pushing them onto consumers? Or is there a remodeling revolution upon us that is focused on revamping the old or already previously introduced and (somehow) making it new again? I tend to lean towards the latter. I’ve thought it odd that people lately have been making the observation that American cinema and TV is just recycling already used stories so many times and making it a more “modern version” (3 different Spiderman adaptations in less than 15 years???). Hollywood and the silver screen reduce, reuse and recycle concepts from their own repertoire (Batman movies, Footloose, any original Disney movie being recreated into live-action) and, even more as of late are adapting stories and creations from around the globe and tweaking them for the American audiences. The most recent version of this appropriation has definitely been the new “Ghost in the Shell” trailer that has just been released. According to The Hollywood Reporter the film is “based on a Japanese manga about an anti-cyberterror task force set in the mid-21st century” who is led by “cyborg Major Motoko Kusanagi,” played by Scarlett Johansson (???).

I think this takes America and Hollywood back so many steps and essentially tarnishes the progress we’ve made to put an end to cultural appropriation, especially when whitewashing Asian characters. But I think the future of global cinematic media, or at least from an American perspective, will actually see a few more instances of this type of thing in the future before it will ever start to get through people’s heads that it’s a problem (and with the election results I’m sure that type of thinking will be perpetuated even more, but we won’t get into that now).

Also, something that lies ahead in the not so distant future in terms of innovative media technology is the development of virtual reality headsets and software. This may seem like something that would just interest those involved with the gaming world (which it definitely is) but the possibilities with this type of access could mean new ways to communicate around the globe with this type of device. In a survey taken by Statista, 47% of males surveyed said they would be interested in owning a VR device, whereas 25% of females would be, which more likely than not mere curiosity could lead to purchasing. The Oculus Rift is a new device that includes goggles and touch sensors to allow its user to become fully immersed, and their website states that the experience can include “stepping into your favorite game, watching an immersive VR movie, jumping to a destination on the other side of the world, or just spending time with friends in VR.” Virtual reality seems super hip and cool at first, but I could see it blurring the lines between real and fake with immersive platforms like this. Immersive software in general is a very real trend that could be in the world’s future.

While the future seems like a scary place with lots of unknowns in terms of politics, culture, and technological advances. The world is each and every one of our oysters with the resources we’ve been given, and it’s up to us how much we want to be immersed in it (enabled by virtual reality) and by what means we decide to absorb it and respond to it (lately with cultural app. in cinema, music, fashion a multitude of other mediums).

Works Cited

Klosterman, C. (2016). But what if we're wrong?: Thinking about the present as if it were the past. New York: Blue Rider Press.

[regorley1-blog]

The Future of Global Media

At first, Chuck Klosterman’s book, But What If We’re Wrong? Thinking About the Present As If It Were the Past, was utterly confusing to me. I could not tell if Klosterman was serious about what he was writing or if it was meant to be satirical. But after reading the introduction, chapter one, chapter five, and chapter eight, I gained a much better perspective on the author’s beliefs of change and prediction. His concern is the fact that we don’t even consider the possibility that we could be hugely wrong about something, or that our current worldview might drastically change. When it comes to global media, I think there is no definitive answer for how it will change. On the grand scale, it is clear that the world is shifting towards a more digital method of obtaining news and other media. Since the early 2000s, many United States newspapers have shut down their physical papers and turned to online-only editions. On the last day of 2007, media giant E.W. Scripps shut down the shrinking Cincinnati Post and Kentucky Post, a zoned edition that served the city's Northern Kentucky suburbs. A day later it launched KyPost.com, with a veteran Post editor as managing editor. In Madison, Wis., the struggling afternoon Capital Times halted daily print publication last April and unveiled a beefed-up Web news operation.

Source:The Brand Builder Personally, I see global media becoming more popular specifically in the United States within the next 10 years because outside media tends to be more honest when it comes to reporting US centered news. Then again, as Klosterman points out, we can never actually predict outcomes or the future because the world is constantly changing. What my impression is of global media at this moment in time may not be the same next year or even a few years down the road. When I was following the Daily Nation, I noticed that there was minimal reporting on news that occurred outside of Kenya. Given time, I think that technological advancements will allow Daily Nation and other global media sources to join the online community in a manner that fosters much better news coverage. Klosterman suggests that the internet is fundamentally altering the way we intellectually interact with the past because it merges the past and present into one collective intelligence, and that it’s amplifying our confidence in our beliefs by (a) making it seem like we’ve always believed what we believe and (b) giving us an endless supply of evidence in support of whatever we believe. A Brian McNair discusses in his text, The Internet and the Changing Global Media Environment, it was clear that even in 2009, that global media was going to either evolve to digital media, or die. The text “assesses the extent to which trends such as the growth of the blogosphere, "citizen journalism," and other forms if user-generated content, have complicated and problematized news and agenda management as engaged in by both media and political elites. It argues that, in large part due to the rise of the internet and the proliferation if online producers of information and commentary, alongside 24-hour news channels such as CNN and Al Jazeera, political and social actors today face a much more complex, chaotic communication environment than ever [before], an environment characterized as one of cultural chaos” (McNair, 2009). It is because of this complicated atmosphere that I predict a majority of global media will shift to being online dominant, because readers want access to instant fact-checking and the ability to look across multiple sources for shift in attitudes, cultures, and views. The question that McNair aims to answer is, “Can authoritarian regimes in China, the Middle East, and elsewhere survive the onset if internet-fueled global journalism, for example” (McNair, 2009)? After reading the Chinindia papers, I believe that such regimes can survive the “internet-fueled global journalism” because these regimes have already begun to see success in this area, specifically in the Middle East with Al Jazeera’s AJ+. Furthermore, I believe that if global media is going to change, then the ethics that surround global media must change as well. New forms of communication are reshaping the practice of a once parochial craft serving a local, regional or national public. Today, news media use communication technology to gather text, video and images from around the world with unprecedented speed and varying degrees of editorial control. The same technology allows news media to disseminate this information to audiences scattered around the globe. The idea of a global media ethics arises out a larger attempt change, improve or reform the global media system to eliminate inequalities ion media technology and to reduce the control of global media in the hands of minority of Western countries. This attempt to re-structure the media system have been controversial, often being accused of being motivated by an agenda to control media or inhibit a free press. The debate continues today. When it comes to covering international news, I think that future global media leaders must take into consideration what they report and how they report it, because it is becoming increasingly easy for consumers to run companies out of business. Works Cited McNair, Brian (2009) The internet and the changing global media environment. In Chadwick, Andrew & Howard, Philip N. (Eds.) Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. Routledge, pp. 217-229.

[drixen]

The Irish Times Critical Thinking #4

Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, while Southern Ireland separated from Northern Ireland in 1922 and is now known to be the Republic of Ireland. BBC News says, “Ireland emerged from the conflict that marked its birth as an independent state to become one of Europe’s economic success stories in the decade of the twentieth century”. This conflict BBC is discussing happened in 1921 between the 6 Protestant dominated countries of Northern Ireland and the majority that were Catholic. This conflict leads to Ireland splitting up into Northern and Southern Ireland. Northern Ireland wanted to be apart of the United Kingdom while Southern Ireland wanted to be a united Ireland. After the economy collapsed in 2008 (global financial crisis) Ireland has been trying to recover once again with the help of a bailout program. The capital of Ireland is Dublin; which is located in Southern Ireland. The majority speaks English/Irish and also are Christians. Their currency is the Euro and their population is around 5 million people. Ireland is a very young country that started in 1949 known as the Republic of Ireland. Immigration from other countries is what made Ireland the country it is today. The Central Intelligence Agency states that 4.9 million people have cell phones, and there are a total of 3.9 million people using the Internet. The Central Intelligence Agency also says that about 75% of households use multi- channel satellite TV services that provide access to a wide range of stations. Their broadcast media system is a publicly owned broadcaster Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE). Which operates 2 TV stations, 4 national radio stations and a number of commercial broadcast stations that operate at the national/regional/ and local levels. By 2015 the Irish were connected with 82% of the population by people using the Internet and around 56% of the people were using Facebook. Print and broadcast media are some of the big sources of media outlets for the Irish.

The Irish Times was first published in 1859. They transitioned from print to online publication, while still upholding the journalistic principles. This tradition has earned it the reputation as Irelands paper of record. The principles of the Irish Times is supportive of constitutional democracy expressed governments, supportive of progressive achievement of social justice between people, discouragement of discrimination of all kinds (religions, sexes, race, etc.), promotion of a friendly society, promotion of peace and tolerance, promotion of understanding other nations, and pursuing people to make their own informed and independent judgments. The Irish Times has these principles so that each article they produce has the same basis to work off of. The Irish times was a conservative paper that started in 1859 by Major Lawrence Knox who decided to only publish articles every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. The Irish times went through a lot of different owners by 1974 a trust was formed with the idea of securing and maintaining The Irish Times as an independent newspaper concerned with serious issues. By 1999 The Irish Times began to publish online editions and by 2008 the print and online newsrooms were integrated to irishtimes.com. Over all the Irish Times history shows us that they have gone through several different owners, a couple different political views, and located in several different locations. But over all since 1859 till now The Irish times has been Irelands central source for news and their political view now is social liberalism.

The Irish Times covers news, sports, business, opinion pieces, Life styles, and culture. Under the news section it covers news about Ireland, UK, Europe, US, Africa, Middle East, and Asia-Pacific. It also covers health, education, science, politics, crime & Law, and social affairs. Under the sports section it covers rugby, soccer, school sports, Gaelic games, women is sports, golf, racing, and other sports. Under the business section it covers the economy, work, innovation, your money, companies, technology, and commercial property. Under the opinion piece section it covers editorials, letters, columnists, an Irishman’s Diary, options & analysis’s, and Martyn Tuner. Under the Life & Style section it covers food & deinks, traveling, homes & properties, Abroad, health & Family, people, motor, and fashion. Under the culture section it covers books, films, art & design, Treibh, music, TV/Radio/Web, Heritage, stage, and photography. The target audience that normally reads all of these sections on The Irish Times is adult men. The political role of The Irish Times towards the country and global media is Social Liberalism.  

In the UK section on The Irish Times has an article called ‘Imagine what trump could do to our little Country’. This article discusses how this man named Henry The Eighth (Barack Obama’s Irish Cousin eight times removed), visited America and discussed the fears if Trump was elected. They discussed how Trumps victory could harm Ireland’s fragile economic recovery. If Trump was elected next week the dollar will drop and that’s not going to be good for the US and Ireland. They also discuss that if you believe in what Trump says he will try to pull back the multinationals out of Ireland. This article explains that for the UK and Ireland specifically they don’t want Trump to win the election because there are a lot of bad things that could possibly happen to their country if Trump wins. From this article the UK is hoping for Hillary to win the election.

In the Europe section on The Irish Times has an article called ‘Irish official to join European Commission Brexit taskforce’. This article discusses how an Irish official (Tadhg O’Briain), has been appointed to the European Commission’s Brexit negotiating team in Brussels as the European Union steps up preparations for Britain’s exit. The taskforce team will meet with representatives from each of the commission’s directorate generals or divisions as issues relating to Brexit arise. This article explains that the Brexit is real in Europe and is a real big issue. Europe has now selected certain people from each place in Europe to come together when issues arise and they will come up with solutions to fix these issues.  

In the US section on The Irish Times has an article called ‘America Letter: Emails reveal Clinton’s tensions over Irish linked firm’. This article discusses how Bill Clinton’s long-time aside, Doug Band, and his business partner, Irish journalist- turned-PR man Declan Kelly, using Clintons connections to advance their business interests and open doors to top contracts and plum contracts has long orbited Planet Clinton. Declan Kelly explains how they have very little ties to the Hillary foundation and that they make their money on their own from their business. This article explains that the Irish businessmen are also linked to the Hillary email wikileaks. No one wants ties to the Hillary Wikileaks.

In the Africa section on The Irish Times has an article called ‘UN’s grand goals struggle to gain traction in slums of Nairobi’. This article discusses how the UN’s general assembly in New York recently claimed the country was on track to achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs). They say that they have brought three aspects to a sustainable development stage- the economic, social and environmental parts for this country. Critics say they have not really accomplished any of these goals. This article explains that the slums in Nairobi are in real need for some help. They don’t need the UN’s who thinks they’re helping but there really not.

In the Middle East section on The Irish Times has an article called ‘Isis is using thousands as human shields, says UN’. This article discusses how UN human rights investigators reported that the Islamic State fighters have killed scores of people and are using tens of thousands more as human shields as government and Kurdish forces battle to reclaim Mosul. This article explains how UN journalists are risking their lives to write about all of the horrible things Isis is doing to tens of thousands of people for land that isn’t even theirs.  

In these five different articles done by The Irish Times shows that they have some sort of news connection to each country they write about. The journalism is very descriptive and more liberal based writings. The coverage of these articles show that the Irish always include themselves a little bit in the writings they do. Whether it has to do with the US elections, the slums of Africa, or the killings in the Middle East. The journalism plays a huge part for the country because it not only gives the people information about news going on in their country, but also news that is going on around the would that can or possibly will effect their country. Reading the Irish Times the past 6 weeks I have learned from their press that they write a lot about the US election and a lot about the protests that were going on about abortions. Finding information about anything else you would have to do some digging to find. I believe the country feeds into the news this site puts out. For example when their were the abortion protests a lot of the Irish and other countries were supporting the Irish women by holding posters up saying vote for taking the law away about making abortion illegal. This paper is very divers and plays a huge part in global media. It covers every part of the world whether it is news, sports or business.

I loved writing/observing/ and reading from the Irish Times even though I had to pay some money to continue working with this site. Half way through the trimester the site gave me a pay wall of a $1 charge since I was using the site so much, which then would end up being $28 by the end of the month. Even though I had to pay $1 it was worth researching how Ireland viewed different issues around the world and how they tied most article back about them. I really found their articles interesting when they would talk about their hatred towards Donald Trump and their thoughts on the Hillary emails. I also enjoyed that they had a lot of different information in different countries as well not only on news. This is a site I would tell anyone to use when trying to look at global issues or global views about the world. As a whole this site gave me more ideas on how to look at different situations around the world. Rather than just hearing the American views on situations it was nice getting a different view. This site shaped me to have a better understanding on global media as a whole. They looked at different situations in America, The Middle East, Russia, and China. Looking at all these different situations in a different perspective was really eye opening. I really enjoyed having this opportunity to study The Irish Times.

[ashleejwu-blog]

The News is Dying... I Think.

In the introduction for his novel, But What If We're Wrong?: Thinking About the Present As If It Were the Past, Chuck Klosterman states: “It’s impossible to understand the world of today until today has become tomorrow.” Klosterman spends the publication, which he insists is not a series of essays, reiterating the idea that it is impossible to make accurate assumptions about the future due to our inability to foresee the motivations that will drive future change. Even though it may be a completely fruitless effort, humans are a nervous species and people continue to predict on every aspect. A favorite topic: Is television really dying? Some, like Evan Shapiro at Huffington Post, hold the opinion that TV, especially American TV, is “the most liked, followed, desired and demanded content on earth,” that may not be the complete truth. While television as a storytelling device is flourishing–we spend over five hours a day watching on average–the television as a device may be declining in popularity.

According to AdWeek, about 40% of Americans subscribe to a streaming service like Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, or HBO GO. Netflix alone has 41.3 million subscribers, which as a singular service, approaches half the combined viewership for the top 13 cable providers. While over 3.8 million American homes “cut the cord” in the past 6 years, more Millennials are refusing to ever pay monthly cable bills in favor of picking their preferred streaming services for slivers of the cost. PBS NewsHour called this group “cord-nevers.” All this talk about the conceptual cord, and streaming, and Netflix’s success… this is dialogue we have all been hearing about for years now. Narrative television series will continue to exist, in a very similar dramatic format, for the foreseeable future. News, though? That may be a different ballgame.

Source

Younger generations are getting news differently. In 2015, Pew Research Center found that about two-thirds of Millennials get their political news from Facebook and the other third rely on traditional broadcast news for information. With Baby Boomers, those statistics are flipped. A quarter of Millennial Facebook users say about 50% of their newsfeeds are made up of political or governmental information, which is almost three times the population of Gen Xers or Baby Boomers that say the same thing.

With virtually all major news providers going digital, it is not difficult to see how these users are filling their feeds with news. Some are more successful than others, though. AJ+, Al Jazeera’s online-only Facebook-focused outlet created in October 2013, boasts over 7 million followers. Both AJ+ and their similar competitor, NowThis, focuses on content that is video-centric, with an emphasis on visual. The success of the two pages can be partially attributed to shareability, which is directly connected with the potential for volumeless viewing. Their videos are generally about a minute long, with textual highlights and high quality visuals that pivot around one specific subject. This allows viewers to focus on the details of a singular situation instead of getting the overview of many events that is the standard formatting of a broadcast news show. Instead of being saddled to watching a whole half- or whole-hour report, a ten-minute stint on Facebook can provide fairly in-depth stories covering a large range of topics, both new and from channels that the viewer has intentionally subscribed to about specific stories that they care about.

Source

The aim of AJ+ as described on Facebook is to create a “global news community for the connected generation.” By abandoning the medium of expensive cable television subscriptions, online news has the potential to not only become more global, but it has become more obtainable. Whoever said, “If it's inaccessible to the poor, it's neither radical nor revolutionary,” had the right idea. Social media is a vital asset in developing countries, and with internet access and smartphone ownership rising globally every year, news centered around online users may be the only true potential for a global news community. Of course, none of this can be certain. Personally, I will have to accept the inevitable uncertainty of Klosterman’s Razor on this.

Cites

Klosterman, C. (2016). But what if we're wrong?: Thinking about the present as if it were the past. New York: Blue Rider Press.

[drixen]

Critical Thinking #5

In 10 years I predict that there will be no books, the news will be controlled by the government, films will still have the different genres but have a bias view towards what ever the political view is at that time, and television will also have the bias view towards what ever the political view is at the time as well. As a whole I predict that the world will become like the book called 1984 by George Orwell. I also believe that there will be a couple years of cultural appropriation/appreciation/and hybridity in the fashion world, but in 10 years I believe that phase will be over. I also predict that in 10 years our technology will have grown substantially. I believe we will have new technology to measure substances we couldn’t measure before, robots, and new technology that can broadcast news worldwide simultaneously. These are some of the predictions I have that the world will be like in 10 years.

In 10 years I believe that there will be no books worldwide. I believe everything will be digital by that time. Everyone will be reading books off of kindles, I Pads, and other electronic devices that are made at that time. I also believe people will not really be reading books at that time because they will believe everything they see or hear on the television and radio. People will not want or have the need to pick a good novel up and read. In the book called But What If Were Wrong? says, “The library in my sixth-grade classroom contained many books that no one ever touched. It did, however, include one book that my entire class touched compulsively: The book of lists. This was a book you didn’t really read, per se; you just thumbed through it at random and tried to memorize information“ (Chuck Klosterman, pg.13). This quote explains that even then students didn’t really like reading a good novel. They just read books that they were forced to read for their classes. Overall everything is becoming digital so if people want to read they will have to purchase a digital version online, and this will be happening worldwide.

In 10 years I predict that the government will control the news. I believe that America and Europe will have a more democratic and Liberal view on situations, which will skew the news point of view that way on situations. I believe that Russia, China, and the Middle East will have a political view that disagrees with America causing possibly WW3. I think their news will be trying to discriminate and put America down as much as they can, so that they can get their people on the same point of view. I know this is an outrageous prediction, but as Klosterman says, “But the objective world is different. Here, we traffic in literal facts-but the permanence of those facts matters less than the means by which they are generated” (Chuck Klosterman, pg. 96). There are already predictions of this situation possibly happening, but we all might be wrong. Maybe China, Russia, and the Middle East have had enough of America but don’t want to start WW3. These are only predictions, so we will never know the outcome till it really happens.

In 10 years I predict that the films will still have their different genres and Television will still have its different shows, but they will be skewed by the political view of that country. As a whole I believe it will have the same political views as I stated in the above paragraph. Klosterman says, “Perhaps a prominent wide receiver is killed on national television, and his death dominates the national conversation for three months. The issue becomes political, and the president gets involved”  (Chuck Klosterman, pg. 179). This quote explains that stations on TV are already politically influenced. Which connects with my above paragraph.  

I believe that there will be around 5 years of cultural appropriation/appreciation/ and hybridity in the fashion world, but that phase will end. I really believe this will be happening in America due to the fact that our country is still trying to battle with racism. But in 10 years I don’t think this phase will still be continuing, because all of the issues on this subject will get sorted out and the fashion icons will realize that doing fashion in another country’s culture is not correct because they never went through the suffering like that culture did. The Atlantic went more in depth in their article on how to attack cultural appropriation ethically. As you can see this is a big issue going on now but I believe in 10 years this issue will be solved. Other countries don’t do a lot of cultural appropriation/appreciation/ and hybridity, but there is some of that when it comes to Nollywood. But as I stated before this issue will get figured out in 10 years.

I believe in 10 years they will have come up with technology on how to measure substances we couldn’t measure before, new phones, robots will be created, and new technology that can broadcast news worldwide simultaneously. Klosterman says, “For two hundred years, Isaac Newton had gravity down. There was almost no change in our thinking until 1907. And then from 1907 to 1915, Einstein radically changes our understanding of gravity” (Chuck Klosterman, pg.3). This quote explains that our basic knowledge of gravity ended up being wrong once we created different technology to help us measure and make a better educated synopsis of what gravity was. I believe in 10 years this same type of technology will come out again. Whether it is a new computer, cell phone, or some new technology they create to help us all communicate. Overall I think we see big change in our technology worldwide in 10 years.

Overall I believe we will see big changes in our technology, change in the way we look at appropriation/appreciation/ and hybridity, and change in books, news, movies, and television worldwide. But as I have stated through out this paper, this is only what I predict to happen in 10 years with technology and media sources around the world.

[bchopp72-blog]

But What if We’re Wrong and Global Media can exist without English

Global media around the world has been dubbed for English audiences. But what if we’re wrong? By catering global news to English readers, the media feeds into the western colonized few and slumps all bodies into one speaking language, English. With the rise of thriving cultures such as China and India, many news sources have the ability to thrive on their own, by being written and produced in their country’s native language. These two nations, China and India, as mentioned in our class readings question the capitalistic and globalization set forth by the west.(Javnost 2013)  Because of this, the rest of the globe has the ability to do the same. Each nation, country, or section of the globe can report globally and cater to its native audience. With the rise of Chindia it is entirely possible for other nations to thrive on their own and rise while challenging the western view.

“But the objective world is different. Here, we traffic in literal facts…” Klosterman states in But What if We’re Wrong?(Klosterman 2016 Burn Thy Witches) His outlook on the globe backs up the idea that nations can thrive, write, produce and create on their own. The objective world is different and can continue to be different in a beneficial way to individuals and globally. It allows for competitiveness to exist and understand how other countries are rising. This is seen through his example of landline phones and how America was living on the hype of having landlines, while simultaneously Japan was creating and using mobile phones. While colonization may be the reason many of these nations exist, it does not have to be the reason they thrive on their own. The media industry is made up of multiples upon multiples of sources from around the globe. Most of these sources are written in English or have an English version. By challenging the west, global media can function entirely on its own for its own. The English version can be removed and translated if need be, each news and media source could write for its native and specific audience.

By writing specifically in English, global news sources are not catering to its own audiences. This concept is also mentioned in Klosterman’s book and the idea behind football and the audience surrounding the sport. (Klosterman 2016 Sudden Death) Similar to football, global news stories are not always going to be catered to multiple news sources. But by catering to English read people, the global news industry is wrong. They are wrong because their only allowing the west and those who are colonized by the west to read their coverage and news. The future has the ability to have global news that is catered to native speakers of the country that it is writing for, but still covers what is going on in the world. Global news could be written from specific countries like China or Israel in their native language and will hopefully still cover what is happening globally but in their own format, language, and media source.

Japan has been more technologically advanced for years. Because of this, other countries have the ability to advance as well in technology, media, and resources. With individual advancement, each country can create and produce technology on their own. Technology advancements allows for better media to be created throughout the globe. This will allow for cultures to represent themselves respectfully. If media sources are catering to their audience yet still covering global issues, the opportunity for cultural appropriation becomes smaller and smaller. Because, with advanced technology and native written media, cultures are able to be represented by themselves and not appropriated by the west. Locally written media allows for friendly competition to exist among news sources. As Klosterman writes about the competition surrounding sports fans, that approach could exist for global news as well. This would happen by multiple sources from the same country covering the same story such as national holiday coverage and how it relates to that specific country’s culture.

The future can be made up of a lot of opportunities. However, when it pertains to global media and news coverage, there is the opportunity for news to exist in every country and cater to their culture and audience while still covering stories on a broader scale. This can be done by writing in their own language and covering stories from their perspective rather than accepting the west. Global media could grow to a larger scale by existing and thriving in every country. With advancements in technology, countries can create their own news and still cover what is happening on a larger scale that helps inform their people with the language they know. Global news could become competitive on a hyperlocal scale where individual press sources compete for the best story. Alongside that, this future opportunity allows for cultures to be represented by themselves and not misrepresented by others. By having individual control of their own media, countries around the globe can write their own story and provide understanding of their culture from their view.

Works Cited:

Klosterman, C. (2016). But what if we're wrong?: Thinking about the present as if it were the past. New York: Blue Rider Press.

 Thussu, D. K. (2013). De-Americanising Media Studies and the Rise of “Chindia”. Javnost - The Public, 20(4), 31-44. doi:10.1080/13183222.2013.11009126

[oliviaescribe]

But What If We’re Wrong? Let’s Fix It.

In But What If We’re Wrong (2016), author Chuck Klosterman urges readers to reassess what they think they know about the present by looking at the current time period as if it were the distant past. A geocentric model of the universe used to be unflinchingly thought of as truth and reality for more than 1500 years; today, the idea that the Earth serves as the centerpoint of the universe is seen to be entirely ridiculous. This is what Klosterman’s method for reassessment and prediction is. In the year 3000, how would we see the year 2016? From the year 2016, how can we imagine the coming decades and centuries to unfold?

In regards to media, it’s safe to say major changes will be made purely from a technological standpoint. Perhaps everything will be a touch screen, for instance, and then evolve into off-screen, interactive projections. Perhaps Apple was right about removing the audio jack from the iPhone 7, and every smartphone from here on out will be cardboard thin and sans audio jack, and the auxiliary cord, a staple of the millennial driving experience, will vanish in the next few years. These are relatively safe predictions and they and many like them will likely be realized in the not-so-distant future.

I predict that the way media is run will change drastically and in ways that are much harder to imagine. I think News Media will be the first to undergo significant changes, purely because of the intense political role it currently plays in the US and abroad. Because I’ve spent a good deal of time reading and analyzing content from The Guardian this term, I’ll use the US and the UK as my points of reference.

Within the past year or two in particular, it seemed the role of major news outlets were (dangerously) influential in the political changes in these two nations, namely with “Brexit” and the US presidential election. Major media outlets in the US, such as CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, seem to be straying more and more from nonpartisan, facts-based news and more towards political opinions and blatant bias. These channels have become more a part of a supply-demand exchange where they supply and reinforce the opinions that their target audiences hold rather than focusing solely on the facts behind political campaigns and current events. Many Americans know that if one supported Bernie Sanders earlier on in the campaign season, they’d be a happier audience finding an alternative media source rather than the liberal favorite, CNN. Hillary Clinton supporters digested news much more easily watching CNN, and Republican voters have been consistently associated with Fox News viewership.

To the frustration of many, in a race mostly concerned with social issues (or social issues masked as economic or national security issues) these particular channels were more devoid of hard-hitting facts and honest discussions about actual policy than ever before. Instead of thoroughly discussing the validity of Clinton’s economic proposals and pushing for more facts and figures to bolster her plan, discussion focused on her email scandal, her position as first major-party female nominee, and her role as a gun-abolishing, baby-murdering, crook. Instead of pressing Donald Trump for details behind his economic, immigration, or foreign relations policies, most discussion centered around his racist, sexist, and otherwise intolerant remarks, inflammatory rhetoric, and past business endeavors. Ultimately, the cultural climate of this country led to Clinton’s email scandal outweighing Trump’s bigotry, and the presidential race was decided.

In regards to Brexit, much journalism has been published since June discussing the role British news sources played with the referendum vote. Both The Guardian and Al Jazeera have proposed the great influence British media had on the “leave” vote, saying “British newspapers were overwhelmingly in favour of Brexit, with the Mail, Telegraph, Express and Star accounting for four times as many readers and anti-EU stories as their pro-remain rivals” (The Guardian) although the editors of those papers claimed they were impartially reporting concerns the British public already had. In a segment entitled “Media Divide,” an Al Jazeera correspondent discusses the tidal wave of anti-EU headlines from the above sources in the months before the vote. The Daily Mail in particular is criticized for their lack of substantive coverage on what leaving the EU would mean for the United Kingdom, that is, until after 52 percent of Britons voted leave. After the UK voted in favor of Brexit, the Mail, as well as the Telegraph, Express, and others, changed their tune when they finally voiced concerns over what the EU referendum vote meant for political, economic, and social stability. None of the above papers anticipated, or even thought to mention, the coming devaluation of the British pound, concerns over Article 50, and the implications of racist and anti-immigration rhetoric on an issue that was about far more than race and immigration. To make matters worse, many who voted “leave” on the referendum began to regret their vote after realizing what the referendum truly meant for the economy and their weakening parliament.

These news sources, from both the US and the UK, have caused irreparable damage with their lack of substantive coverage and blatant political bias. By not performing their due diligence to properly inform their public in social, political, and economic matters, they’ve contributed to what may be considered as two of the most spectacularly ill-conceived political decisions the world over in recent years. Americans and Britons who wish to educate themselves on political issues but are not well-practiced in news media literacy are met with poorly reported, even unethical, journalism. When the major news media sources fail carry out their journalistic duty, it makes finding the facts incredibly challenging.

In light of these developments in just the past year, I believe there will be a push towards more facts-based journalism, or an increase in independent journalistic sources. I believe news sources like Al Jazeera, or even The Guardian, may become recognized as the gold standard (even if they’re not perfect, they’re both some of the most reputable sources across the globe) in news media. I believe that in the coming decades or centuries, discussions on Brexit and the 2016 US presidential election will certainly include discussions about the failings of major news media outlets, especially given the fact that these stations are not state-run, and should offer better nonpartisan coverage than they do. I suppose the realization of these predictions are contingent on the outcomes of a Trump presidency and a post-Brexit Europe, but I have hope that the American and British people will eventually learn to ask more of their news sources in order to make better informed decisions, even if it takes more potential political missteps to get there.