News Media and the Global Public Sphere

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Literature Review
Case Study
Conclusion
List of References

Introduction

Globalization has a great impact on the world transforming social, political, cultural and economic spheres of life. Innovations in transportation have been complemented by the swift development of communication technologies. The 20th-century arrival of mass circulation newspapers and magazines, film, and television further enhanced a growing consciousness of a rapidly shrinking world. Globalization transforms economic system of the world brining new opportunities to less developed countries; it changes cultural and political spheres popularizing democratic values and principles and promulgating western style of life. Globalization in media sphere is influenced by changes in political and cultural spheres brining new economic opportunities and financial capitals to media giants. These needs lead to digitalization, consolidation and deregulation of media environment around the globe. Globalization creates new social and new public sphere influenced by changes in all aspects of like. The aim of the paper is to analyze and evaluate the problem of digitalization of new media and impact of global changes on this sphere.

Literature Review

The main layer of literature discusses the role of globalization and global integration in new media development. MacGillivray (2005) states that the main problem is that the new media and social values confront national ideologies and self-identification. The strategies and goals of integration are developed by the state agencies but they do not reflect goals and needs of the nation-stats. Political cooperation is something that has constantly been urged upon the Community since its creation. Insofar as the EC has involved a continuing relationship between several national governments, it has achieved a not insignificant degree of political cooperation. The global media relationships with local media agencies or groups of countries had not progressed much during the last decade.

Osterhammel and Petersson (2005) new media and policy institutes are often viewed as vehicles to encourage social sphere development – often in cooperation with the corporate sector and third-sector groups. New media institutions attract funding and support from foundations and aid agencies as organizations to build social capital, to generate human capital and bolster the political infrastructure of ‘free’ societies. In weak states or fractured societies they can sometimes have a pivotal role in rebuilding social and political institutions and helping to build dialogue and debate between conflicting groups.

New researches are made on the issue of digital media and its impact on social sphere. Pavlik (2008) and Polastron (2009) suppose that the global media label does not mean that all such bodies conform to Western preconceptions of an intellectually autonomous organization that exists independently of government. Many institutes in the developing world and in transition states were founded by the government, are part of the bureaucratic apparatus or are dependent on state funding. Many other institutes that may have been independently founded function in political cultures where censorship, conformity and control prevail, limiting engagement with social groups and the articulation of a broad range of interests. Such institutes have tenuous links to civil society, and reflect the inequities and power hierarchies in their societies and political systems.

Wong (2008), Stig Hjarvard (n.d.) and Picard (2002) underline that social sphere is in the service of the economy; families, associations, networks and cultural arrangements help create trust, credibility and literate consumers and workers. Political values of social life are lost from the equation, as is the central political concept that civil society is an autonomous sphere of social activity. Under such constraints, new digital media may help to build social capital, but they may not enhance or strengthen an autonomous civil society. In relation to the globalization, new digital media are implicitly placed in the role of ‘gate-keepers’ potentially becoming a barrier between NGOs seeking more direct access to personnel and procedures. Stig Hjarvard states “The aggregation of public opinion during this process takes place both nationally and transnationally, and the media representation of this transnational public opinion acquires its own momentum” (Habermas 1989).

Habermas (1989), Habermas and Lennox (1974) state that slobal networks may thus play two alternative civic roles. On the one hand, they may operate as a source of alternative policy advice, articulating diverse points of view and contributing to plurality of political thought, so acting as powerful instruments for democratization. There are often positive incentives (job security, career advancement, and access to centers of power) as well as negative incentives (legal controls, censorship) that channel individual and organizational behavior towards producing ideas and arguments that are supportive of prevailing power structures. New digital media institutions can operate as sophisticated propaganda machines to legitimize the ruling ideas and policy paradigms of incumbent governments.

Case Study

Digitalization of news media is caused by new technology and availability of technological innovations in all countries. The attractiveness or the presumed merits of digitalization activity is the assumption that a given technology will enhance the growth potential of the company. Preferably, the goal is to acquire digital technology a complementary business unit with related lines of markets and products that would fit nicely into the firm’s long-term strategic direction, improving the acquiring firm’s overall growth potential and marketability (Osterhammel and Petersson 2005). Habermas (1989) states: “The representative public sphere yielded to that new sphere of “public authority” which came into being with national and territorial states” (p. 51). Media gains sustainable competitive advantage by conceiving new ways of conducting activities, employing new procedures, technologies, inputs or channels of distribution. Managing the organization is therefore not just about managing functions, but managing linkages between those functions (Picard, 2002).

The adoption of a social perspective should not be interpreted to mean that media conflicts will be thereby eliminated. Conflicting desires, objectives, and priorities occur among the many publics. They are evidenced in the approaches adopted by various business executives. One of the reasons for conflict is the assumptions which vary among people depending upon the perspectives adopted. The assumptions of an economic man or a new media man might be different than those of a social man. In appraising the desirability and benefits of products innovations, promotions, policies, or decisions each might come to different conclusions. men will support activities that lead to economic growth, provide employment, and satisfy consumer wants and needs that are not deemed significant by social activists. A social man might consider the waste of resources over the long run, the resulting impact on environments, or the benefits to society as a whole, and arrive at different conclusions. New media has as one of its basic assumptions the fact that growth per se is desirable. Some of the more socially concerned might question this assumption. New media, however, might point to the fact that science and technology lead to new products, that these products will satisfy media consumers’ wants and needs, that productivity must continue to increase in order to raise the standard of living of all (Emling, 2002). The media man may choose not to make a moral judgment about whether the new media products are good or bad. He might leave that to the determination of individual consumers in the digital media marketplace as they exercise their freedom of choice. One result of such different perspectives, approaches, and values is the existence of a set of conflicting statements concerning how well new media has done in our society. From a social perspective, new media is criticized for many aspects such as wasting resources, adding to pollution, confusing and misleading consumers, and for additional negative impacts on the quality of life. But it could also be complimented for the high standard of living that it has created as compared with the rest of the world, and for the existence of the great opportunities that have been provided by our open society through the marketplace (Polastron, 2009).

“The intensity of Africa’s contribution to the global public sphere, as well as the impacts and influences of these links on African media. However, today the situation on the ground has changed: Africa hosts multiple media channels and the internet is one such channel that challenges the one-way information flows that characterized uneven global media flows in the past decades” (Ndlela 2007, p. 325).

It is evident that the new media management actions and decisions intertwine with society. New media management depends upon the goodwill and resources of society including air, water, communication facilities, transportation, and so on. New media management must earn the approval of society for the use of these resources and evaluate the social opportunity costs. One way of doing this is through the development of its social dimensions (Polastron, 2009). Essentially, two streams of thought seem to be most relevant for the acceptance of social responsibilities of new media. The first is that it is in new media’s own self-interest that it pay attention to social problems. If it does not, the reactions of society may be rather severe. Legal and other restrictions may abound. Hence, the resolution of the conflict of increasing profits, sales, and productivity with social values, human concerns, and the host of other social problems must receive increasing attention. it can be cogently argued that many aspects of social problems such as those concerned with pollution, consumer discontent, the quality of life, environmental degradation, unemployment, better products, and so on are problems that rightly fall in the area of new media. New media management created some of them, and new media concepts and approaches should be used to solve them. Thus, new media does have a stake in the welfare of this nation and it should accept its responsibilities in society and become more intimately involved with societal concerns. As a result, it is necessary to develop further new media theory, facts, concepts, models, and ideas that interface with such problems. This is grist for social new media. Unless new media develops its social awareness and implements social actions that are acceptable, government will be forced to do that which new media has not been willing to do voluntarily, thereby circumscribing the boundaries of new media management (Polastron, 2009).

A different perception of new media and its responsibilities has currently emerged. The justification of new media is now sought in a social context as well as a corporate one. Pluralistic new media objectives are evolving and becoming more explicit. Executives are being asked to act at least with partial disregard for the single criterion of profit in arriving at new media decisions (Peters, 1993). New media’s responsibilities in such areas as urban development, education and training, health and welfare, quality of life, reduction of pollution, and civil rights are being investigated. The fundamental reason for this emphasis is not altruistic or noneconomic. Rather it is based on long-run enlightened self-interest of new media with direct, long-run economic consequences. Currently there are many questions being raised about the impact of new media approaches and activities on the quality of life. How does a corporation determine the impact of its products, new media policies, and decisions and strategies. Critics are just beginning to raise such questions and seek answers. Currently in new media people are involved in defining social indicators, trying to change them and obtain measurements, prioritize them for use in individual businesses and planning models. The fact that American business must now factor social impact into plans and decisions will have a great influence on the discipline which will require a reconsideration of current new media constructs and theories. It could result in a new way of assessing new media performance (Wong 2008).

There has been a change in the new media-governmental interfaces. A noticeable shift is occurring from government in new media being inherently labeled undesirable, to the recognition of the necessity of government and its significant roles in new media as a regulator, arbitrator, stimulator, customer, and even as a partner in modern society. In fact, there seems to be a feeling today among many young people that government and not new media is where the action is. It is curious to note, however, that some governmental actions and laws may not foster the acceptance of social obligation by new media (Wong 2008). For example, socially responsible action often requires concerted cooperation by several competing companies. This can result in a violation of antitrust laws. Thus, what may be in the social interest, may in reality prove to be illegal.

Today, governmental impact on new digital media is evident by the sheer weight of governmental regulations at federal, state, and local levels if by nothing else. In the last few years, for example, there have been governmental decisions about safety standards, devices for controlling air pollution, implied product warranties, packaging rules and regulations, of national and private bands, pricing practices, advertising and promotional tactics, credit arrangements, and the formation of mergers and conglomerates. It is evident that new challenges are being presented to our discipline in these developments (Wong 2008).

The concept of social responsibility is one of those which, no matter how ill-defined, is embraced by all sectors of the economy, at least at first glance. Certainly businesses and other capable institutions should play some role in solving problems common to all, but social responsibility on the part of large corporations has quite different implications depending on the precise nature of the problem-solving role they assume. In any attempt to cope with social problems several distinct functions can be identified (Wong 2008). The most important of these include: (1) deciding which problem is most significant; (2) determining who is to pay for the solution, and how much money is to be allocated for this purpose; (3) administration of the social action; and (4) evaluation of the resulting impact on the problem. Socially responsible behavior by corporations could conceivably encompass any or all of these elements of the problem-solving process. Those who analyze the social responsibility of business rarely indicate precisely which of these possible meanings of socially responsible behavior they have in mind. As a result, the controversy concerning social responsibility continues, while the real nature of the disagreement remains obscure. For example, if corporations are demonstrating their social responsibility when they solicit government contracts, then social responsibility is hardly revolutionary. The fundamental purpose of any business firm is the profitable production of some good or service for a customer. Social responsibility in this sense of the word would be a euphemism for normal business activity in which some level of government plays the role of consumer. Surely, few would question the propriety or urgency of business assuming this responsibility. The actual administration of many solutions to social problems must be handled by large corporations because only they possess the organizational and technical capacities to provide large quantities of a required good or service (Wong 2008). Therefore, the remainder of this article assumes that social responsibility is not being used in this noncontroversial sense. When the social responsibility of business refers to either identification of social priorities, acquisition and allocation of funds to pay for the social action, or evaluation of program results, its implications become more complex, and its democratic legitimacy is called into question. For example, what right does a large corporation have to accumulate revenue from the sale of its products and appropriate these funds for social actions which its management selects? Consequently, the prime issue of this article is whether social responsibility as just defined is a proper criterion for evaluation of industry performance (Habermas. 1989).

Far-reaching changes are occurring in the social, economic, and political environments, affecting the strategies, structure, and management of media business. The notion of strategic alliances in media incorporates the need for considering the current economic context affecting the firm. Media companies use strategic alliances as one of the main tactics to compete on the global media market. Need to collaborate caused by changes occurring in the social, economic, and political environments (Habermas. 1989). Strategic alliances allow media companies like AOL to meet new economic and legal challenges (MacGillivray 2005). Increased use of public transportation systems may reduce the audiences of in-car radio and outdoor advertising. Media companies are interested in reaching the large percentage of the population that is English and Spanish speaking will need to develop new strategies (Emling 2002). This factor could be interpreted as strength but globalization process and changing international relations show that cultural and social values become opportunities rather strategies for global steel companies. A solid understanding of cultural preferences is important for any company that markets such products internationally. Media companies leverage superior cultural understanding to compete effectively with large media companies. It is possible to say that it has an advantage drawing from tradition. Recent years many people are concern about their health and quality of water they use. Industry structure and market position of media companies suggests that threat of entry is low (Osterhammel and Petersson 2005).

The international spread of globalization and development of global networks is symptomatic of globalization and regionalization. While many global networks arise from civil society interactions and play what many regard as positive advocacy roles in promoting political debates (improving the quantity and quality of information and analysis in policy-making as well as championing alternative views),. They cater primarily to the economically and politically literate (Habermas. 1989). Their elite status and distance from the rest of society is particularly pronounced in poorer developing countries. The people who found these institutes and who work in them are highly educated, middle-class professionals, usually from privileged backgrounds. Moreover, their patrons are usually based in politically and economically prominent organizations in society. Global networks personnel interact with senior international and national civil servants, members of legislatures (and sometimes ministers and secretaries of state). Questions also arise about funding dependence, and how that connects to intellectual autonomy and institutional viability. Many eastern and central European global networks are dependent upon Western donors for their future, with foundations and international organizations crucial in building these organizations now withdrawing or scaling down support (Habermas. 1989). However, a broader question concerns whether Western research agendas come with Western funding, reflecting the primary concerns of powerful international organizations and donor countries. While there are many global networks that produce counter-hegemonic knowledge, those sponsored and funded by international organizations and donor groups tend to be well-institutionalized, mainstream institutes whose research agendas concord in considerable degree with the policy preferences and values of their funding source. For example, the social institutions are mostly economic global networks, and it has been criticized for inadequate representation of other practitioner perspectives and disciplinary insights. Despite their reputation for inclusiveness and informality, networks do not always represent an even playing field for all global networks (Pavlik 2005).

To date issues of access, representation and accountability in global networks and global policy dialogues – often assumed to be private activity of non-state actors in global civil society – have not been subject to much scrutiny. New digital media influence is manifest in at least three ways. Firstly, the extent to which individual institutes position themselves favorably with more powerful actors can sometimes bestow power by association to global networks. They are perceived to be influential in that they gain some access to decision-makers (Pavlik 2005). Indeed, the transnational character of many policy problems establishes a dynamic for research collaboration, sharing of information and cooperation on other activities that pull global networks into the global domain. Not only do they meet the demands of governments and international organizations for information, analysis and other knowledge services, they also produce a public good. Secondly, networks of globalization potentially enhance this power, by creating a critical mass of shared policy ideas cultivated through meetings and conferences, collaborative research and common advocacy. As suggested above, it is possible to map the roles and occasional impact of individual institutes, as well as of networks of global players, throughout the policy process. These organizations do have direct influence sufficiently often for international organizations to recognize their research relevance for policy, and utility in service delivery and implementation. Consequently, an increasing number of institutes form a key organizational component of transnational intellectual elites connected with political, bureaucratic and corporate figures. Thirdly, knowledge is power. It is clear that many policy institutes help provide the conceptual language, the ruling paradigms, the empirical examples that then become the accepted assumptions for those making policy. If knowledge and policy are seen as symbiotic and interdependent, it is possible to come to a broader conception of the power and influence of global networks (Picard, 2002).

Power is discontinuous so it does not emanate from a single sovereign source. If knowledge and power are conceived as continuous there can be no knowledge without power. From this perspective, policy institutes are part of a grid-like network of power in which our sense of reality is shaped, managed and modulated by knowledge. Policy research institutes engage in political and ideological practices that help determine the knowledge(s) that become dominant as well as those that are disrupted. Furthermore, their dependence on other power holders for funding and organizational support places limits on what is acceptable or legitimate policy analysis. Their research is used by them or by others to promote particular agendas. Far from lacking influence, global processes in nation-states are a manifestation of the knowledge/power dynamic, and can be argued to be pervasive in their impact in helping to define our social practices and political struggles (Picard, 2002).

A liberal world-polity understanding of such processes may argue that in this way political strategies and activities are shaped, as appropriate global (Western liberal) norms of democracy and human rights via their interaction with national and international institutions. However, two main points of caution are necessary. First, one has to leave more room for the agency in the analysis. Liberal states generally seek to find leverage in the media policy of their host country in order to take aim with their demands for accountability and change. They may reformulate their interests to match those of their host state (Picard, 2002). An issue of digital media using internationally institutionalized human rights rhetoric has a better chance of host state attentiveness to their homeland political lobbying in the post-Cold War era, where host states, at least in principle, stress their commitment to promoting democracy and human rights abroad. Thus, human rights provide the language for negotiation between media viewers and states, and international organizations the site where such negotiation may take place. Second, one has to leave more room for the agency of host states. A political agenda’s compliance with human rights norms does not guarantee its success. States rarely follow the claim of global digital media if it goes against national interests. Thus policy-makers will balance the degree of international institutionalization (such as human rights) with a national interest (such as trade relations with the homeland and voter support) when considering the claim of a political movement (MacGillivray, 2005).

The future of Time Warner Inc lies in its ability to stand fast against media competition and to develop the goods and services that will be in demand in the twenty-first century). Emerging from great difficulties and embarking on an ambitious program to create products that will revolutionize entire industries, Time Warner Inc wastes no time in taking steps necessary to seize its future. The strategy at Time Warner Inc was to develop known technologies into viable commercial products that could deliver value to customers. Thus Time Warner Inc was prepared to commence work on a project that would enhance its competitive advantage by establishing it as an industry leader in an emerging field. To be successful given this new set of ground rules, a new way of thinking must be instilled among all levels of managemen this is no longer a luxury, but a necessity born out of a historically dismal track record (Habermas. 1989). With each failure, UK media sector becomes increasingly indebted and unable to compete against foreign media companies. The executive must be able to create a dynamic management structure with an equal distribution of authority capable of responding to the unique requirements of combined business cultures. A shift from short- to long-term thinking when developing and implementing acquisition strategies is necessary to ensure that strategies are properly implemented before they are abandoned. This requires calculated risk-taking and, most importantly, streamlined channels of communication. The underlying argument presented is that there are significant opportunity costs associated with restructuring (Habermas. 1989).

Conclusion

Recent technological and economic changes have further strengthened existing patterns of transnational interaction, bringing non-state actors together across national and functional boundaries, providing them with new means of mobilization and action, giving their messages heightened visibility. In a context of budgetary austerity and neo-liberal reforms, trends towards privatization and outsourcing have opened up new opportunities for economic benefits and political influence, quickly seized by multinational corporations, citizens and private mercenaries. On a darker note, organized crime and terrorist groups now have the means to deploy their activities on an unprecedented scale, creating new threats for national security. Liberal states, with limited governments, expect to work in partnership with the organizations of civil society and the market economy, and often seek to use them as instruments in pursuing shared objectives. To an extent, they also tolerate the self-proclaimed radical social movements of global civil society, recognizing the expression of dissent as itself a positive attribute of an open society. The information mentioned above shows that globalization processes in media industry are crucial for success and a strong market position of the media companies. Globalization involves the transfer of resources from the colonized global South in exchange for European manufactures. Developed nations spread their new media system and cultural values across the globe. Like all social processes, globalization contains dimension filled with a range of norms, claims, beliefs, and narratives about the phenomenon itself. However, it is not just rational economics that drive this selection: it helps that media organizations tend to be staffed by highly trained people with an interest in new technologies, people who have been selected to embrace and develop new ideas. Of all the functions in a media organization, this is the one that should show the most natural inclination to embrace the new ideas of working within the media alliances can all be effective ways to improve the competitive position of an overall firm. However, any one of these processes must be an integral part of an ongoing corporate strategic plan. In addition, the evaluation process must shift its emphasis away from traditional f financial performance criteria toward overall competitive dynamics. The other possible communication forms have come into the picture almost exclusively from the perspective of their substitution, or as testimony of the past. This might be rather short-sighted. Even when digital communication will have pervaded all spaces and become vastly predominant, one can hardly imagine that there will be no room for analog communications, at least as long as the said spaces will be inhabited by natural, i.e. non-genetically manipulated, human beings and other living organisms. This information landscape can be further analyzed using criteria such as ease of handling and ease of interpretation. Thus hard data is easy to manage, to manipulate and to interpret but very difficult to collect, whilst library material is, when all is considered, easy to collect but very difficult to organize for effective exploitation. This process is defined as a social space in a given time and location, and operates through analog and digital communication fields.

One path to overcome charges of dual loyalty and narrow homeland political agendas is to turn to the language of human rights and democracy in order to legitimate political lobbying. Here the notion of international institutionalization is useful for understanding how international norms legitimize and hence aid the homeland political activities. The degree of international institutionalization is defined as the extent to which a specific issue-area, such as human rights, is regulated by international norms of cooperation, that is, bilateral agreements, multilateral regimes and/or international organizations. The more specific argument is that a high degree of international institutionalization tends to legitimize transnational activities and to increase access to national politics and the ability to influence policy-making (ibid.). Why some global citizens enjoy access to direct dialogue with central policy-makers while others are confined to fly-posting at night is, however, more than a question of their resources. It also relates to the second factor: the national interest of their host country and homeland. National interest is here generously defined as governments’ perception of economic, political and security-political priorities. Opportunities for new digital media influence on media policy differ between countries such as the US and states in Western Europe. The particular pattern of politics in the US means that political candidates cannot ignore the political claims of an ethnic group constituting a significant proportion of their customers. Less restrictive norms and rules for private funding of media campaigns in the US constitute yet another means for political influence.

List of References

Emling, S. 2002. AOL’s push to rev up Net service faces hurdles. AtlantaJournal-Constitution, 1F.

Habermas. Jurgen. 1989. ‘ The public sphere: An encyclopaedia article‘ pp. 136-144 in Critical Theory and Society: A Reader ed. S.E.Bronner and D.M.kellner London:Routledge.

Habermas; Jürgen Lennox; Sara Lennox, Frank. Autumn, 1974, The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article. New German Critique, No. 3. pp. 49-55.

MacGillivray, A. 2005. Globalization. Carroll & Graf.

Ndlela, Nkosi. 2007, “Reflections on the global public sphere: challenges to internationalizing media studies” Global Media and Communication3, 324.

Osterhammel, Jurrgen, and Nieles P. Petersson. 2005. Globalization: A Short History. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Pavlik, J. V. Media in the Digital Age. Columbia University Press, 2008.

Polastron, L. X. 2009. The Great Digitization and the Quest to Know Everything. Inner Traditions; 1st U.S. Ed edition.

Peters, John Durham. 1993 “Distrust of representation: Habermas on the public sphere” Media Culture Society 15, 541.

Picard, R. 2002. The Economics of Financing of Media Companies (Business, Economics & Legal Studies). Fordham University Press; 1 edition.

Stig Hjarvard. News media and the globalization of the public sphere. Web.

Wong Yue-Ling 2008. Digital Media Primer. Prentice Hall; United States ed edition.

Click Here To Order Now!