Globalization or Americanization?

Last couple decades more and more people are trying to decide if they support or not globalization. Doesn`t matter what they will decide for themselves the world becomes more and more economically and culturally interdependent. My argument today is not about globalization being good or bad for the world society, but about globalization not having an American face. I know think that Americanization is only a part of the process of globalization.

What is globalization? The term usually describes economical interdependence of the countries. Globalization can also refer to the transnational circulation of ideas, languages, or popular culture through acculturation.

Although the US is at the forefront of the current information revolution, which is creating many similarities in social and cultural habits (such as television viewing or Internet use) that are attributed to Americanization, correlation is not causation. The reality of the world right now is that if the person needs to use Internet he or she has to know at least some English. People are getting access to American culture very easily, but…does it mean that the rest of the world has been Americanized? I don`t think so. Americanization is just a part of globalization. “Of course, because the US exists and is at the forefront of the information revolution, there is a degree of Americanization, but that is likely to diminish over the course of the twenty-first century as technology spreads and local cultures modernize in their own ways.” (J. Nye, TaipeiTimes,2004).

I don`t want to talk about economical part of globalization, but the cultural part is the one that I`m interested in. A lot of Americans think that USA is the one and only importer of movies to the entire world.(Movies means also American culture.)That is a very wrong opinion because there are some pretty competitive movie industries in the world.

Latin American soap operas have a huge market all over the world. Currently, the best-known telenovelas come from Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Argentina, Chile and Venezuela. The telenovela is a form of melodramatic serialized fiction. These programs have traditionally been compared to English language soap operas and even though the two genres share some characteristics and similar roots, the telenovela in the last three decades has evolved into a genre with its own unique characteristics. For example, telenovelas in most Latin American countries are aired in prime-time six days a week, attract a broad audience across age and gender lines, and command the highest advertising rates. They last about six months and come to a climactic close.  (LaPastina, A. 2008) Telenovelas are usually focused on the relations between romantic couples as the main motivator for plot development. Telenovelas market includes Hispanic America, Brazil, Spain, Portugal, and also have a wide following in Russia, Eastern Europe, France, Greece, Italy, the Philippines, Israel, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, China, South Korea, and Japan. In the Arab world, telenovelas are incredibly popular with families stopping their day from midday onward to watch these shows whose contents often reflect many of the moral and social questions faced in cultures like Morocco, Algeria, and Egypt.

A good example of America using a foreign concept in the movie industry is a famous TV show the “Ugly Betty”. This show was written and produced in Colombia between 1999 and 2001. The show was adapted in US and premiered in n 2006 on ABC. The show had been filmed also Portugal, Germany, Russia, Turkey, USA, Israel, India, Netherlands, Spain, Greece, China, Poland, and Brazil. This show was popular in every country it had been aired.

Another big movie industry that had already beat Hollywood in the number of movies produced is Bollywood, the Hollywood of India. When combined with other Indian film industries it is considered to be the largest in the world in terms of number of films produced, and also the number of tickets sold. According to bussinessweek.com in 2002 Bollywood produced 1,013 films vs. 739 that been made in Hollywood and sold 3.6 billion tickets compare to 2.6 billion that been sold by Hollywood. At the same time Hollywood made $51 billion while Bollywood only made $1.3 billion. The average production cost of the Bollywood film was $1.5 million when the production cost of the Hollywood movie was about $47.7 million. Obviously Hollywood makes a lot more money out of the movies, but Bollywood spends a lot less and it sells way more. It also seems like Bollywood`s market is still growing so this huge movie industry has a pretty good looking future.

For years Japan had been an innovator in horror movie industry. Japanese horror movies are famous for being psychological and very simple, and at the same time very scary. American producers did a few remakes of J-horror. I think the three of most famous of them are “The Ring”, “The Grudge” and “The Eye”. This example also supports the argument that globalization doesn`t mean Americanization, it`s just a transnational circulation of ideas.

There is another growing movie industry outside of the USA, and it is Russia. After USSR broke apart all fifteen Soviet countries got their independence, but still all of them speak Russian language. After years of struggling Russian economy is finally arising back, and so does the movie industry. Russians start making movies again, and there is a big market to sell them: all 15 former Soviet republics, some countries that are still influenced by Russia (like Mongolia or Bulgaria), and of course, Russia itself. The progress of Russian movie- making definitely exists: Russian director T. Bekmambetov was invited to make a famous Hollywood movie “Wanted” after he made a few Russian blockbusters.

So, does the US is the only one country that sells its culture through the movies? The answer is no. The world becomes more and more global, and cultures are collaborating with each other. Maybe somewhere in Egypt someone is probably watching an American remake of Japanese horror movie in Arabic right now, and somewhere in Ukraine someone is enjoying an Indian movie in Russian. That`s what globalization is, and Americanization is only a part of it.

Works Cited

LaPastina, Anthony.2008. Telenovela. The Museum of Broadcast Communication. Retrieved December 1, 2009 from http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=telenovela

Nye, Joseph. 2004, October 22. Globalization Is Not Americanization. TaipeiTimes http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/10/22/2003207970

America: The “King” of Popular Culture

Coinciding with many other spheres of contemporary life, the process of globalization, has immensely affected the mass media. Globalization is a relatively new concept, having emerged primarily in the last few decades. Largely due to the deregulation and privatization of broadcasting and telecommunications, which occurred in the 1990’s, the global media landscape has enabled the production and distribution of media products across continents at a rapid speed (Thussu, 2008). Whether watching sports, news, or simply listening to music, globalization of the media has made possible the creation of an international market.

Particularly, the globalization of the media allowed for the vast American media industry to increase their global influence. In possession of transnational media companies such as CNN and MTV, which reaches 418 million households and is thus the world’s biggest television network, America has undoubtedly emerged as the global giant (Thussu, 2008). Perceived as the key player, the assumptions of American dominance and its cultural implications on a global scale is therefore crucial in our understanding of the increased globalized media industry.

Defending their role as a world power, there is no doubt that America has had a large cultural influence on the rest of the world during the last centuries. However, perhaps more than reflecting military superiority, America has justified their position as a dominant world leader through what can best be described as cultural imperialism. Cultural imperialism is, according to Nancy Morris, defined as how a powerful country uses cultural means to achieve support for a political and economical ideology (Morris, 2009). Exposing people to lifestyles, products and other cultural elements, which is perceived as superior, further manifests cultural domination of America.

America is currently among the nations who produces the most media content in the entire world and the ramifications are immense. People worldwide are either directly or indirectly influenced by American popular culture, and an inevitable outcome has been a somewhat Americanization of other cultures. However, I believe it is important to recognize that there have been several key events, which have occurred in the last decades, which have led to the global influences of American media.

While discussing American culture as an export commodity to the rest of the world, it is both ignorant and impossible to ignore the role of globalization. Especially significant to address is the rise of English as an official language for politics and trade. The rising of English as a language of international value has enabled American popular culture to more easily transcend geographical and linguistic barriers, thus penetrating other cultures.

When examining the cultural influence of American media throughout the world, it is also crucial to more closely study the recent history of global media, particularly the outcome of the World War II. Largely a result of the economical and political devastations after WWII, European film and media industry were shattered, which eventually led to easier access for American dominance. Most European nations were in the aftermath of the war, resulting in a weak movie industry and relying on the import of U.S media production (McQuail, 2008). This provided an opportunity that America grasped with both hands.

In addition to the weak European media industry, the great extension of American media power in the aftermath of WWII was also closely linked to the global ideological struggle between communism and the “free” world, in which the media became a prominent feature (McQuail, 2008). The occurrence of the “Americanization” was perceived as democratic and liberal, emphasizing economic development, and was as a result embraced by the democratic (mainly European) audiences (McQuail, 2008). Seeing the American influence on global media in context of history is crucial in order to better understand the presence of America as a cultural imperialistic nation.

As in the aftermath of the war, the USA is currently dominant in its exportation of movies. Hollywood films according to Thussu are, “Shown in more than 150 countries worldwide and they dominate market share in most countries” (Thussu, 2008). Moreover, more than half of the U.S film industries revenues came from foreign markets in 2005, with a worldwide box office worth of $25,24 billion (Thussu, 2008). Being in possession of the largest TV audience ever recorded for a TV series, it is also impossible to ignore the cultural effects American TV shows have on the rest of the world. Tested at the peak of its popularity, in 1996, Baywatch was the most widely viewed TV series ever recorded worldwide. The show had an estimated weekly audience of more than 1.1 billion people, divided upon viewers from 142 countries (Guinness book of world records, 2008).

Although the American media production has proven to dominate foreign media market shares, I also thinks its significant to more closely examine as well as question, the assumptions of the perceived American cultural imperialism.  Particularly, the assumption that American media content directly influences foreign cultures when exported something, needs further clarification. Born and raised in Norway, I can say first hand that the American media content, although immense in quantity, appears in Europe and seems to have distinct features from its original form.  It is especially important to note how other non-American countries and cultures, “interpret, shape, and use them [American media] in ways that make sense within their own milieus” (Carroll, 2001). The way in which other culture’s import American media and reshape it to fit their segmented audience helps one comprehend and understand the role of the perceived American hegemony.

In Norway for instance, a country that relies on foreign media due to its low media production capacity, the import of American media content is overwhelming. As a matter of fact, I can only name a couple of channels that do not somewhat or entirely rely on globalized media from the U.S. However, to claim that the American media content appearing on Norwegian TV channels is directly influencing and shaping the Norwegian TV audiences and its cultural identity, would be both misleading and a severe miscalculation of the power of the American media industry. A lot of the American media content imported into Norway is often redesigned and adjusted to fit a Norwegian audience, whose values and beliefs are quite distinct from its American counterparts. A great example is Survivor, an American based reality TV show, which has been imported and embraced by the Norwegian audience. However, in Norway the show is named “Robinson”, and the contestants are Norwegians, rather than Americans. If not entirely formatted, the American media content, which appear on prime time Norwegian TV- channels, are also often dubbed or presented with subtitles, to better accommodate the Norwegian audience. The translation or overdubbing reflects the Norwegian kind of interpretations, humor, expressions, and thus the meaning of the translation could be quite different from its original form (Carroll, 2001).

Although being, as far as media production goes, the world most dominant key player, the American media imperia is not the worlds largest. With a $3.5 billion film industry, and perpetually growing, the Hindi film industry is the worlds largest in terms of production and viewership (Thussu, 2008). Despite selling a billion more movie tickets for Indian movies than for Hollywood films, it is crucial to recognize that the influence of Indian films are largely restricted to the Indian subcontinent and among the South Asian diasporas (Thussu, 2008). However, with the emerging globalization of media content, Hindi film, as have several other non-western media industries, have increased their range to a more international audience. Currently, Hindi films, particularly those being a part of the Bollywood production, are shown in more than 70 countries (Thussu, 2008).

This trend towards contra flow of media content is not only present in India. Other non-western media industries are reaping the benefits of globalization, with Japanese animation as one of the most prominent players. In 2003, Japanese anime films and merchandising products brought in an excess of $26 billion (Thussu, 2008).  Another key example of transnational media flow, which has enjoyed great global success, is the Latin American soap opera, “Telenova” (Thussu, 2008). By 2005, Telenova had developed into a $2 billion industry, broadcasted in 50 languages with a reach of 100 countries (Thussus, 2008).

Examining the expanion of transnational media broadcasting, it is also important to acknowledge the correlation of a huge movement of people through migration. “According to a report of the UN global commission on international migration, the world had nearly 200 million migrants in 2005” (Thussu, 2006). The increase in migration, partially due to the globalization of commerce and communication (Thussu, 2006), has undoubtedly amplified the demand for transnational media. The increase in migration, as well as the simultaneous improvement of satellite distribution, has enabled large transnational media corporations to better satisfy the public demand for transnational broadcasting. A key example of successful transnational media broadcasting is the Asian satellite broadcasted STAR, which is launched in eight languages, with a reach of more than 300 million viewers in 53 countries (Thussu, 2006).

The same is also the case for the Arabic news organization Al Jazera, which is distributed throughout the world for the major cable subscribers, including those in Norway. What is particularly intriguing about Al Jazera is how it was utilized as a transnational broadcast in English, to give the western audience another perspective on the Iraq war. The tailoring of a specific broadcast such as the Al Jazera to a non- Islamic audience in English, is a feature that has became to known as glocalization (Thussu, 2006). The strategy of glocalization can exemplify how the global can co- opt the local in order to maintain its dominance, and it has been particularly utilized by the American media industry in its attempt to expand their global reach (Thussu, 2006).

Major Hollywood studios, among others, are increasingly using local production facilities in Europe, Asia and Latin America, to create more suitable interactions with the local audiences. Global media companies are, according to Thussu (2006), particularly keen to consolidate their position in the Chinese and Indian markets, which are emerging as the two largest, but not yet fully explored markets (Thussu, 2006). The American based media company Cartoon Network, has for instance produced a series in India, which is based on the Hindu religious epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharat (Thussu, 2006).

Examining the localization process of globalized media it’s also intriguing to see the changes in distribution of the print media. Newsweek for instance has according to Thussu (2008), “a network of local-language publications in Japanese, Korean, Spanish, Arabic and Polish”. Major US business publications such as Wall Street Journal have also expanded their market by introducing regional editions, such as the Asian Wall Street Journal (Thussu, 2008). The localization of print media is just one of the many features which has enabled American popular culture to more easily penetrate a globalized audience.

Although the contra flow of media content from non-western media industries has experienced a significant increase over the last few decades, it is crucial to realize that the flow is still considered small in terms of revenues and transnational impact. With the exception of Japanese anime, the global impact of non-western media is largely restricted and confined to geocultural markets or at best to small pockets of regional transnational consumers (Thussus, 2008).

Despite having to some extent increased the reach of non-western media, the globalization process has mainly been a promotion of the already well-established American media industry. With “an fourfold increase in television exports between 1992 and 2004, from $2.5 billion to $10.4 billion”, according to Thussu (2008), the circulation of US media products still seems to define the “global”. What has yet to be examined is how much the perceived American media dominance is really influencing the cultures in which it is exposed.

References

Carroll, M. (2001, October). American television in Europe: problematizing the notion of pop cultural hegemony. Bad subjects, (57), Retrieved from http://online.und.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_12415_1%26url%3d.

Thussu, Daya Kishan. “Globalization of the Media.” The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Donsbach, Wolfgang (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Blackwell Reference Online. 06 November 2009 <http://www.communicationencyclopedia.com/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9781405131995_chunk_g978140513199512_ss20-1>

McQuail, Denis. “Americanization of the Media.” The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Donsbach, Wolfgang (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Blackwell Reference Online. 06 November 2009 <http://www.communicationencyclopedia.com/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9781405131995_chunk_g97814051319956_ss42-1>

(2008, February 28). Ratings winners. Retrieved from http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2008/02/080228.aspx

Globalization Overview

Globalization of media has been occurring very rapidly over the past 10 years. Not only has the internet created a world where everyone is your neighbor, but television, films, and music have also become similar in countries miles apart. So how has the media industry been able to share their information so quickly? Before the 1980’s, most national media companies were domestically owned radio stations, television stations, and newspapers.  Now combining forces, or creating mergers, has given small businesses the ability to grow not only vertically but horizontally (The Nation, 2002). Many companies you will see own many aspects of both production and distribution of the product, which will make it easier to spread their message around the world.

In the first half of 2000, the deals in global media, Internet, and telecommunications totaled around 300 billion dollars, which is triple the figure for the first half of 1999 (Leary, 2005). These media conglomerations are out sourcing to other countries in hopes of finding additional revenue. Why else are they choosing to branch into the global market? There are three basic reasons for using this strategy. First, domestic markets are saturated with media products and see the international markets as the key to their growth. Second, media giants are often in a position to effectively compete with and even dominate the local media in smaller countries. And lastly, by distributing media products to foreign markets, media companies are able to tap a lucrative source of revenue at virtually no additional cost (Croteau & Hoynes, 2006).

Let’s explore each of these categories a little further. First we stated that domestic markets have become saturated with media products. In the US alone there are 520 feature films created a year. Nigeria and India are the only two countries that are ahead of the US. Nigeria produces 872, and India produces 1,325 feature films bringing them in at number one (Charts Bin, 2009). Also, while the numbers of magazines in the US have been going down, they are still drastically higher than many countries overseas. In 1999 there were 31,076 magazines in the US, today that number has dropped to a low 22,652 (American Society of Magazine Editors, 2009). In the UK the number of magazine titles has increased by 24% in the last ten years with a total of only 8,466 magazines (PPA Marketing, 2006). This very easily brings us to the second reason that US companies are seeking globalization.

Many companies feel that they are in a position to effectively compete with and even dominate the local media in smaller countries. They often can draw upon their capital resources to produce Hollywood blockbusters, which would be beyond the capability of local media. Also, big media giants can adapt their already successful practices for new markets (Croteau & Hoynes, 2006). The highest average production budgets are found in USA ($14.53m), followed by UK($9.48m), Germany ($5.68m), France ($5.53m) and Ireland ($5.08m). Three out of these five countries are English-speaking. This shows impact of language on a film’s potential revenues and its production costs (Hancock, 1998).

Finally, by distributing existing media products to foreign markets, media companies are able to tap a lucrative source of revenue at virtually no cost (Croteau & Hoynes, 2006). This is allowing the big media companies to produce films in the US and gain additional revenue by releasing the films to other companies. CEO of the new Time Warner, Gerald Levin, noted that in 1993, the company’s publishing, music, and studio divisions generated about 40% of their income from outside the United States (Croteau & Hoynes, 2006). By opening up the products you have made to these other countries you are increasing your company’s audience as well. The more people that recognize your television station or distributing house, they will become familiar with which companies are producing high quality materials.

These three strategies have allowed the United States to branch into the global market, broaden their horizons, and reap the benefits from it. But what about the rest of the world? Are they reaping the same benefits that the United States is? Much of Europe has seen a rise in profit from their feature film industry. The UK, France, and Germany have especially seen their investment pay off. All three counties have been investing more in the production of the film and in turn have seen an increase in the number of films produced and the amount of viewership (Hancock, 1998).

While a majority of the world’s media seems to be coming from the Unites States, many of the newspapers, magazines, or television shows you are watching have be based off global influences. From Americas Next Top Model to The Office, the world has been inspired by what everyone has to offer. By increasing the amount of production and companies utilizing horizontal integration, distribution of media is easier than it has ever been, creating a world where everyone a neighbor.

References

(2002, January 14). Retrieved from The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html

(2006). Retrieved from PPA Marketing: http://www.ppamarketing.net/cgi-bin/wms.pl/219

(2009, October 1). Retrieved from Charts Bin: http://chartsbin.com/view/pu4

(2009, November 30). Retrieved from American Society of Magazine Editors: http://www.magazine.org/ASME/EDITORIAL_TRENDS/1145.aspx

Croteau, D., & Hoynes, W. (2006). The Business of Media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

Hancock, D. (1998, August 29-30). Global Film Production. Retrieved from http://www.obs.coe.int/oea_publ/eurocine/global_filmproduction.pdf.en

Leary, C. (2005, December 15). Retrieved from Associated Content: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/14523/globalization_in_the_media_pg2_pg2.html?cat=27

“Because media companies are businesses, they should be allowed to operate without interference from the government”

As time goes by, it is clearer that media companies’ operations should not be limited by the United States government. The economic potential of a company, struggle among types of media, and the approval of the public are all important factors that shape the ways in which media companies function. The American capitalist system combined with all these factors shaped the media industry into a business that the government decided to regulate in a special unusual manner than any other business. Therefore, since media companies are regulated by all these nongovernmental factors, there is no need for the government to limit the operations of media companies.

Since businesses provide goods or services to those who want them and media companies provide the service of communication and goods through its commercials, the media companies are businesses. As a business, media companies must have enough resources to operate and compete against other media companies. Those media companies with limited resources will be more incompetent than larger well-financed companies; thus, they are more vulnerable to failure than those big companies that can afford changes on the working environment due to its financial stability. Since money is the principal means through which a business functions, the lack of it would be damaging to smaller corporations. As Benjamin Compaine described,

…mass media cannot be sustained only by meaning well… No newspaper ever folded because of lack of something to write about, but only for a lack of circulation and therefore advertising. Writers, artists, graphics designers, producers and editors want and need profitable employers to provide livable wages, appropriate equipment, sufficient travel and similar resources (Compaine, 2001)

in the American capitalist economic system it is very important the productiveness of a business because its success and profit will be traduced into growth. As in the “newspaper” that Compaine talks about, small media companies that lack resources are more likely to fail than those huge companies that can afford the failure of a program but will create new ones to recover.

In any business, including the media of course, financial flexibility plays an important role. It defines a company’s boundaries and its magnitude in the market. This means that small media companies are limited by its financial limitations and not big media companies. At the same time big healthy media companies are growing and increasing their size. In fact, we can see how in 1983, 50 companies owned approximately 50% of the total media outlets in the U. S.; then by 2000 it narrowed to 6 companies: General Electric, Viacom, Time Warner, Bertelsmann, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation and Disney (Newman, 2008, p. 66). Taking this into consideration, the limitations that the government puts on media ownership is due to the success of some companies. This seems as if the government would be punishing those media companies that are doing well just because other media companies are not as successful as these.

The type of media a company focuses on is another factor that contributes to the expansion of media companies and thus the greater ability to compete against other companies. A company that specializes on a single type of media such as print, radio, television, or internet might be significant among companies that specialize on the same type of media. However, a newspaper company is insignificant compared to a company that owns internet and television outlets. In addition to the fact that media companies that own several outlets of different types of media are more progressive that those focused on a single type, we have to acknowledge that popularity and relevance of a type of media are also important. In the early 1900s, newspaper and radio where the primary form of media. By the mid-twentieth century with the emergence of television, the popularity of newspaper and radio had to be redistributed now into three subdivisions. Within time, the improvement of television easily surpassed newspaper and radio. Then, late in the 1990s the introduction of the internet revolutionized the media industry leaving all the other types of media behind do to its singularity of being able to include all of them in one.

As we see, the introduction of a new type of media, once it is established, outdates older forms of media. Basically this means that media types compete among themselves and those new innovative forms of media attract the audience of the other types of media. In an openDemocracy Article, Benjamin Compaine wrote,

There are fewer newspaper publishers in the US, but then again the newspaper industry has been contracting in size for decades, and faces far more competition from other media than in its heyday early in the twentieth century. Circulation has fallen steadily, as has its share of advertising. One can’t expect a dying industry to do anything but consolidate (Compaine, 2001),

pointing out the effect that media completion has had on newspaper. In other words, what happens is that media compete against other types of media, not media companies against other media companies. Government regulations on media ownership is not the right solution to fix the problem, since the problem is that older media companies are falling apart due to its irrelevance as compared to more innovative types of media.

While talking about media regulation on ownership, it is very important to take into account media customers. In the media industry, viewers are customers who want to see what they want. Those media companies that satisfy their viewers’ needs are the ones that will succeed in the industry. By choosing what they want to see, viewers regulate what they like and what they don’t, thus what media offers. Since the public chooses who gets its money or in other words who makes profit, they are regulating the media; therefore, there is no need for the government to regulate media ownership since the public regulating it by demanding it.

These are just a few of the many factors that indicate how media ownership needs no interference from the government, since it is regulated by many other factors more efficiently.

Bibliography

Compaine, B. (2001, November 8). The myths of encroaching global media ownership. openDemocracy: free thinking for the world. Retrieved November 05, 2009 from http://online.und.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_12415_1%26url%3d.

Conway, K. (2009). Technology /form. Grand Forks, ND: University of North Dakota.

Henderson, D. (1993). The fortune encyclopedia of economics. New York: Warner Books.

McEachern, W. A. (2009). MICRO ECON. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

McEachern, W. A. (2009). MACRO ECON. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Newman, D. M. (2008). Sociology: Exploring the architecture of everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

In 1996, Congress amended the media ownership law known as The Telecommunications Act of 1996. This legislation lessened the limitations on how many media outlets one company can own. The cause and effect of this change caused massive media mergers and less local news coverage. We need the government to impose limits on how many outlets one company can own because local news coverage is in jeopardy.  (FCC 2009)

1. What types of limits have been imposed on media Companies in the past?
2. When have people proposed changing those limits?
3. Why have people proposed changing those limits?
4. Are there specific event that demonstrate the value of limits?

What types of limits have been imposed on media Companies in the past?

Since 1912, the government has been involved in enforcing regulations on media outlets.  These regulations were to protect and serve the American people.  The best way to serve the American people is through localism, competition, diversity and providing opportunities for independent owners. (FCC 2009)

In 1941, ownership restrictions were enforced on radio and television license holders by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  A broadcaster couldn’t own a station that reached more than 25 % of the nation’s homes.  The purpose behind this law was to keep localism intact and prevent cookie cutter stories.

When have people proposed changing those limits?

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 signed by President Clinton changed these regulations and increased the size from 25 % to 35%.  (Moyer 2004)

Clear Channel, a company based in San Antonio, Texas took advantage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and purchased 49 radio stations in 20 different markets. Today, Clear Channel reaches 125 million users. (Clear Channel)

Why have people proposed changing those limits?

You may be asking yourself why it is wrong that one company can own numerous media outlets.  On January 18, 2002, a train derailed in Minot, North Dakota.  This accident released 210, 000 gallons of anhydrous ammonia into the air, killing one and hospitalizing 300. Local emergency procedures needed to be activated immediately. When authorities attempted to contact their local radio stations to inform the public on the accident and how to respond, no one answered the phone.  (Moyer 2004)

At the time of this incident, Minot had seven radio stations and six of them were owned by Clear Channel.   When Clear Channel purchases local stations they reduce staff and implement a computerized satellite feed system. Therefore, when the local community has an emergency, no one is at the station to respond. (Moyer 2004)

Senator Byron Dorgan, a Democrat from North Dakota gave testimony on January 14, 2003 citing the Minot incident and highlighting the dangers of big media.  He emphasized that local news coverage is adversely affected when you have a media monopoly. (Moyer 2004)

With the consolidation of media outlets, local news coverage is destined to decline. The Project of Excellence in Journalism  analyzed 23,000 stories on 172 new programs over five years and found that big media news organizations  relied more on syndicated feeds and were more likely to air national stories with no local connection.  (Turner 2004)

Local coverage is expensive to produce, and therefore it is the first to be cut to improve the profit margin. When you eliminate local coverage, the mission of providing a public service to the people is hampered.

Mergers have also meant more news-sharing and less independent reporting. Fewer independent reporting means more media concentration.

The role of government is to enforce regulations to serve the best interest of all the people. Who is the government? The government is you and me. You and I elect the president of the United States.  The President of the United States appoints the five commissioners which make up the FCC.   We need to select our president wisely and we need to make our voices heard.

Is there a specific event that demonstrate the value of limits?

Presently, Comcast and NBC are considering merging. This would be a mega merger because Comcast it the largest cable and internet company in the United States and  NBC is a huge television and movie producer. What would the merger mean for you and me?  There would be less local and independent voices and programs. If we don’t make a stand now big media will stifle local news stories.

Big media needs to be broken up. We need to support independent media owners, insist on local news coverage, and demand unbiased news reporting.  How do we do this? We need to be involved in our local and national elections.  We can also join groups like Free Press and New Public Media. We need the government to impose limits on how many outlets one company can own because local and diverse news coverage is in jeopardy!

References

Clear Channel Communications Inc. http://www.clearchannel.com/

Federal Communication Commission. (2009). Telecommunications Act of 1996 . http://www.fcc.gov/. retrieved 11/12/2009,  http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html

(2007, October, 17) Senator Dorgan Taking on Big Media. Retrieved November 16, 2009 from  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1whqOAC6fgk

Bill Moyers. (2004). Media Regulation Timeline. http://www.pbs.org. retrieved 11/02/2009,  http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediatimeline.html

Turner, Ted. (2004, July/August) My Beef with Big Media. The Washington Monthly,  pp.1-9 starting page-ending page.

Introduction

When I first reviewed this assignment, I knew right away that I wanted to be Presenter 1because I had the perfect idea of what media artifact that I wanted to choose.  I also thought that having a lot of information about the media artifact and a great interest in it would also help spark the fire to write this essay.  The media artifact that I chose was a television program that has taken ABC’s comedies to a new level, Modern Family.  This hilarious new comedy was created by Steve Levitan and Christopher Lloyd.  This comedy according to IMDB.com is, “One big (straight,gay,multi-cultural, traditional) happy family.(Modern Family, 2009).”  This comedy airs every Wednesday night at 8p.m central time.  Throughout the whole show you are constantly laughing and realizing how “normal” this family truly is.  It is able to portray so many issues that families face, but not always publically.  Also, at the end of every episode they have a more of a serious life lesson on how important family is, no matter how crazy or unconventional it may seem.

Thesis Statement

Throughout every form of media there many other forms of media that has sculpted and developed that form of media to what it is today.  Whether it is through the production company, the clothes designer who designed the wardrobe for the cast in the show, or the local store that sells the DVD series, everything we consume is touched by many larger companies.  Regulating or not regulating who can have an impact on a product is still a tough question up for debate; but it will always be certain that every aspect of media will always be controlled to a certain degree.

What Companies are Involved?

When thinking about every company that comes into contact with every aspect of a television show it is almost hard to fathom.  There are the distributing companies, production companies, and also the casting companies that more than often go unknown to the everyday viewer.  The first large corporation that you would associate Modern Family would be ABC, also known as the American Broadcasting Company.  ABC is known as the distributing company for Modern Family.  This means that this is the medium through which this television show is distributed to viewers.  ABC was formed through the Federal Communications Commission.  The FCC was fearful that NBC would create a monopoly, due to the fact that NBC owned NBC-Blue and NBC-Red.  The Blue Network Company was forced to sell their company for roughly eight million dollars to ABC, which was then formed on October 12^th, 1943.  The owner of ABC was Edward J. Noble, who was made famous by the candy Lifesavers.

Production companies involved in the Modern Family television show are 20^th Century Fox Television and Picture Day Productions.  Twentieth Century Fox Television has also helped in the production of other popular programs such as the 2001 Victoria’s Secret Fashion show, and the hit television series M*A*S*H.  On the other spectrum Picture Day Productions is fairly new and has just started producing with Modern Family, as one of its hit television shows.

Other companies that may not seem as apparent to the common viewer still have a great deal of importance to the success of a television show.  CBS Digital serves as Modern Family’s visual effects creator.  Also, some other companies are Central Casting which aides in the casting selection for the show; Movie Movers, which helps move the trailers for the cast members, Chapman/Leonard Studio equipment, which supplies the camera dollies and not last but least is Paws for Effect, which helps provide the show with trained animals.  These last companies are companies that would not normally be thought of while watching the show but they all make a difference and help produce the show in their own aspects.

Are those companies owned by one large parent company?  If so, which one?

These companies that are associated with Modern Family are not all owned by one large company.  Twentieth Century Fox Television is owned by News Corporation which was founded by Rupert Murdoch.  Murdoch owns the 3^rd largest media company which is News Corporation.  The other companies involved with the show are not as large and therefore are not owned by one large parent company.

How do the different companies cooperate to cross-promote the artifact you have chosen?

All of these companies have to work together to help promote the show, but they also want to promote their particular company while doing so.  This can cause certain problems when it comes to promoting a television show.  Though 20^th Century Fox is and Picture Day Productions are the producing aspects of the show, they tend to not have as much advertising that goes along with the television show.

Conclusion

Throughout every form of media there will always be many companies that are prominent in its development and ones that go under the radar.  Though this can be a good thing, it can also lead to problems in the end.  The trouble is finding the balance between the over publicized companies and the ones that are much more subtle but make do.

References

(2009). “modern family”. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1442437/

Noyes, G. (2008). American broadcasting company.  Retrieved from http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=americanbroa

(2009). Picture day productions. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/company/co0274299/

(2008, August). Resources; who owns what. Retrieved from http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=newscorp

The process of convergence has been happening in the world around us on a daily basis. Media convergence has been changing in a way that shapes how and where people get information, whether it is news, music, or television (Jenkins, 2006). Convergence has occurred not just on a technological level, but also between industries where merging is taking place and new business models are taking form in order to keep up with the consumers’ desires and expectations (Flaw, 2009). With this process occurring day after day, media convergence has exposed people to media forms, which they would not otherwise have consumed.

It is first important to understand how people find and choose the media they consume. Now days, television is everywhere. You can barely walk into a fast food restaurant without finding a television somewhere inside. In this respect, many times people are not choosing the media they consume, but rather it is forced upon them. Say a person never watches the news, but when they sit down to have a meal at McDonalds, Fox News is on every TV in the building. Even if they try to ignore it, it is likely that they will end up consuming, even subconsciously perhaps, this media, purely because of the convergence that has occurred through the placement of these TVs in this restaurant. Without this convergence, it is likely this person may not have seen or consumed this type of media.

But the media in which people consume is no longer purely based on what is given to them. Through convergence, and the rise of digital publishing, it is much easier for the public to become active and involved in creating their own content due to the ease in digital publishing over the internet now days (Flaw, 2009). Almost anyone can just upload a video on YouTube, and there are so many different types of videos, that one could sit for hours viewing countless of different topics covered. In this way, convergence has increased the media we consume. This media is shared through social networking cites, such as Facebook. Through this ability to readily make such media available, and share it through a social networking site like Facebook, people are introduced to new media that they may not have seen had it not just appeared on a friend’s Facebook page, or on their news feed. With so many people interacting in one place, it not only makes communication easier, but provides an easy way to transmit forms of media. Maybe someone wouldn’t go searching for a particular type of media, but through a site like Facebook, it may just present itself without them having to dig for it, and they would then consume a new type of media they would not otherwise have ever seen.

Even Myspace is introducing people to new Media. Just by featuring a “Music” section they are introducing an already prominent online community to music that one would not normally hear on the radio. It features underground bands and even new types of music. In 2005, an international media entrepreneur by the name of Rupert Murdoch bought Myspace, in order to incorporate his news corporation (Flaw, 2009). By doing so, he introduced forms of media to a community of younger kids who may not have searched for news on a daily basis, but by seeing it through their Myspace, it was consumed. Industrial convergence has occurred in this way and in others, causing businesses to come together in hopes of distributing new media across to the public. In 1996, NBC Universal teamed up with the Microsoft Corporation in order to form MSNBC, a cable and internet news service (Flaw, 2009). Industries such as these are teaming up in order to create a wider variety of media and make it more readily available to public consumers.

Today’s world is all about the here and now. The rate at which our technologies are converging is alarming. It is rare now days to find a cell-phone that only makes phone calls. And Jenkins in his blog, refers to the camera-phone as the “digital equivalent of the Swiss Army Knife” (Jenkins, 2006). The point being, with so many phones decked out with the latest in “3G technology” as those phone commercials claim, with the convenience of access to so much media at your fingertips, it is enticing for people to try it out. People who don’t want to sit down and watch their ten o clock news, can now take five minutes out of their day to check a news website, right on their cell. Many devices, not just phones, are converging. The Amazon Kindle is a device made primarily to store hundreds of books on, with the convenience of just one book sized device. But what a shame it would be if this was all the device could do. It can handle audio files, so you can listen to music while reading and it even can store black and white photos (Taylor, 2009). With the media presented so conveniently through convergence, more and more people are likely to gain access to these new media forms. Everyday media is presented through new forms, and different technologies, and through media convergence, people have been exposed to media forms in which they might not otherwise have consumed.

Bibliography

Flaw, Terry. (2009). Media Convergence. Encyclopædia britannica. Retrieved (2009, October 30) from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1425043/media-convergence#

Jenkins, Henry. (2006, June 29). Convergence and Divergence. Confessions of an Aca-Fan: The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins. Retrieved October 30, 2009 from http://www.henryjenkins.org/2006/06/convergence_and_divergence_two.html

Jenkins, Henry. (2006, June 19). Welcome To Culture Convergence. Confessions of an Aca-Fan: The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins. Retrieved October 30, 2009 from http://www.henryjenkins.org/2006/06/welcome_to_convergence_culture.html

Taylor, Robert. (2009, August 20). Media Convergence. Build and Break. Retrieved October 30, 2009 from http://bandb.blogspot.com/2009/08/media-convergence.html

The wildly popular video-sharing website YouTube has changed the way people interact with popular media and has further closed the gap separating multiple media forms in the process.  YouTube is a hybrid website based on video users can both stream and upload from any capable computer with an internet connection.  YouTube’s role in shaping convergence of media has been both unique and interesting – the site now serves 1 billion video plays per day (a fact which gained plenty of publicity in the traditional media when YouTube hit the milestone in late October).

YouTube merges the worlds of television, movies, video, theater, the internet, and newscasts.  YouTube is considered new media.  The video on YouTube is viewed exclusively on the internet and there is no direct fee paid by consumers to YouTube.  YouTube is like television in the sense that it allows its producers to generate content intended solely for use on the internet.  YouTube resembles movies and theater since it allows actors to express themselves freely, whether that expression is through scripted material or improvisational works.  YouTube also has an element of the news worked into it; users can deliver content in only a few minutes which allows both non-professional and professional (BBC, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc.) users to deliver news content to the general public.

Google made a big gamble on YouTube when they bought the website out in 2006 for $1.65 billion.  The purchase of YouTube said loud and clear what Google thought about the future of video-delivery, video delivery in the future will be via the internet (not broadcast).  The $1.65 billion price tag also showed that Google considered YouTube to be a serious contender on the internet in terms of advertising revenue (Sorkin, 2006).  YouTube’s only revenue comes from three advertising revenue sources: on-site ads, in-video ads, and pre-roll ads.  Pre-roll ads are similar to broadcast commercials, in fact, many are the same commercials used by companies advertising via broadcast television.

YouTube provides both an interesting and eclectic mix.  Unlike the conventional forms of video-based media presented within YouTube, the content on YouTube casts a wide net.  One can find the most popular news clips of the day from major broadcasters like CNN or videos of “stupid human tricks” and fluffy dogs with a somewhat cute case of narcolepsy on the website.  Virtually anything one could think up which could be created in a video format can be found on YouTube.  The only exceptions to YouTube’s wide range of video content are the obvious exceptions of content which is hateful, pornographic, illegal, or extremely offensive (as decided by the employees of YouTube) in nature (Terms of Service).

YouTube’s mission statement, found on their website’s fact sheet, offers the following description of YouTube:

“Founded in February 2005, YouTube is the world’s most popular online video community, allowing millions of people to discover, watch and share originally-created videos. YouTube provides a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others across the globe and acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small” (YouTube Fact Sheet).  This mission statement is accurate in terms of the website’s current popularity.  However, YouTube is still striving to become the go-to place for advertisers and whether or not content on YouTube should be considered informative, connective, and inspiring makes basis for a seemingly unwinnable argument.

YouTube’s design and function has changed little since its inception in 2005.  The design of YouTube has been changed once; and that design change was minor (mostly a new menu and sidebar).  Although I could not find any article or book that spoke to the topic, YouTube’s flash-based video player is ever-evolving – having grown sleeker throughout the years.  YouTube has more recently added channels and shows to their site’s menu, another sign of YouTube’s attempt to further blur the lines between internet television and conventional television.

A field that I personally have expertise in is something known as user interface design.  Simply put, user interface design is the optimum arrangement of both the textual and graphical elements of a website.  Much like ergonomically designed chairs are intended to make a sitter more comfortable, proper user interface design is intended to make a website more comfortable for a user to look at.  YouTube has been looking at improved user interface design as a way to improve their website, especially as of late.

YouTube has held focus group sessions to further improve their design in which they gave users magnets with elements of their design and asked them to arrange the magnets to match their preference.  These focus groups produced two distinct sets of results – a group of video users and a group of social users.  Social users were more concerned with “extras” like rating and commenting on videos while video users tried to maximize the space in which video was displayed while eliminating some of the other elements.  Personal preference is an arena where a website like YouTube has the advantage to outperform traditional media.  Many web developers (including myself) and an article from TechCrunch, which first unveiled these focus groups, predict YouTube will eventually offer personal viewing preferences to individual users on their website (Kincaid, 2009).

YouTube has been able to effectively combine media forms to create a new genre of sorts.  YouTube has had unprecedented success when compared with other websites offering user communities built around the sharing of videos.  The site has been around for a long enough period of time to establish that it will not replace broadcast television.  YouTube isn’t the future of television, but rather the present gold standard for online video delivery – and as such we should expect the site to evolve and adapt to user demands in the future.

YouTube Fact Sheet.  YouTube. Retrieved November 8, 2009 from http://www.youtube.com/t/fact_sheet.

Terms of Service. YouTube. Retrieved November 8, 2009 from http://www.youtube.com/t/terms.

Kincaid, Jason. (2009, October 5). A Look Behind The Curtain At YouTube’s User Experience Research. TechCrunch. Retrieved November 8, 2009 from http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/05/a-look-behind-the-curtain-at-youtubes-design-process/.

Sorkin, Andrew. (2006, October 10). Dot-Com Boom Echoed in Deal to Buy YouTube. New York Times. Retrieved November 8, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/technology/10deal.html

On his blog, Henry Jenkins describes convergence as: “the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences” (Jenkins). While thinking about this definition, and looking at the assignment for this paper, what immediately comes to my mind isn’t only a website, but an advertising concept. Jenkins addresses it on his blog, he calls it “transmedia storytelling” (Jenkins); basically, it’s the idea of releasing content on multiple platforms in order to get the most attention possible.

As an example of transmedia storytelling, I’d like to use the current (hard to miss) ad campaign for the latest installment in the Twilight movie franchise New Moon. The campaign is widespread, and has been going strong almost since the dvd release of the first movie. The website offers sneak peeks of trailers, and the usual promotional fare, but also has a slew of other offerings.

The Twilight website has a link to its own YouTube channel – featuring 940 videos ranging from clips from the first movie, the trailers for New Moon, and various promotional clips for cast appearances. The YouTube channel currently has 10,467,088 views and over 184,672 subscribers – making it the 79^th most subscribed to channel on YouTube (Twilight) . Movie clips have also been released on MySpace and Facebook, there are links to the ‘official’ Twilight groups on both of these social networking monsters, as well as a link to ‘follow’ Twilight on twitter, covering the “Big 3” (in my opinion) of social sites.

Aside from social networking websites, Twilight also has an iphone application available that will keep you up to date on any and all updates. There are also ringtones, wallpaper for your computer or cell phone – all kinds of mobile advertising, which is a relatively new concept.

I think it’s obvious without quoting anyone directly that the goal of the Twilight website and ad campaign is to get as many people as possible to see the movie, and to sell as much Twilight related merchandise as possible. By using transmedia storytelling, flooding every possible market with little tastes of the Twilight story and universe, they are both ensuring that fans of the series remain excited and also enticing new viewers. By advertising on television, the internet, cell phones, and even through music – I guarantee every time that Death Cab For Cutie’s new hit Meet Me At The Equinox is played on the radio or MTV, Twilight is mentioned – the people behind the campaign are keeping the upcoming release of New Moon fresh on people’s minds.

Some might argue that this ‘spamming’ of Twilight into the mainstream media is only appealing to existing fans; or that only true “Twi-hards”, as the hardcore fans are known, would bother to seek out the website, read the blogs, subscribe to the YouTube channel, etc. etc. I would argue, however that the constant media frenzy would drive many people to watch the movie, just to see what the hype is about. By having a strong presence on many different platforms, by selling the actors, not just their roles (perhaps you’ve heard how “dreamy” Robert Pattinson is?), they are generating interest beyond just the type of people that may find a teenage vampire love story enticing.

Conversely, there are many people that don’t really venture outside their comfort zone. They watch the same three channels, listen to the same radio station, and only visit one or two websites regularly. Transmedia storytelling just can’t have much of an effect on someone that isn’t browsing the internet daily, or only listens to NPR (you won’t be hearing commercials for hot new pop groups on Talk of the Nation). There are also people that still don’t have access to any of the platforms that are being utilized – as hard as it is to believe living in America, there are people without Blackberries and a TV in every room (or any room).

Convergence is a multifaceted idea. It affects many aspects of media in many different ways, making some flourish and others die out. While it is not easy to simplify it down to just one website or idea, I hope that through my examples I have given a clear picture of one way convergence is operating in media today.

Works cited

Jenkins, Henry. Confessions of an Aca-Fan. 19 June 2006. 4 November 2009 <http://www.henryjenkins.org/2006/06/welcome_to_convergence_culture.html>.

Twilight. YouTube Twilight Channel. 24 April 2008. 4 November 2009 <http://www.youtube.com/officialtwilightfilm>.

The Internet has revolutionized our lives in many ways. It has changed the concept of communication, education, and entertainment. Now we can text and video chat, send E-mails instead of letters instantly. Search engines provide us way to search any information worldwide and helps us in getting up to date information. We can watch live channels and play online games with others on the move with no need of TV and Gaming consoles. Internet provides us ways of online shopping and deliverers our things right at our doorstep. We can perform banking transactions with Internet. It is also a way of distant education. I believe that the internet has revolutionized the United States’ media system and will forever be continuing its growth and development. (Pakhare, 2007)

The internet has made this world a global village and we are getting plenty of endless benefits from it. The internet is now used for Education, business, manufacturing firms, scientific research etc. The communication is now so easy, fast and efficient with the help of internet. One can work from home with an internet connection and is connected to the whole world.

The internet has provided us with the freedom to access information from an incredibly diverse number of sources. The importance of the internet is that it remains free from endless surveillance so that it can be a pool of ideas and expression rather than becoming a means to constantly sell to, monitor or even oppress us. “Twenty-five years ago the Internet as we now know it was in the process of being birthed by the National Science Foundation. Since then it’s been an information explosion. From e-mail to eBay, communication and shopping have forever changed” (Jones, 2007).

There are very many different ways that proves how important the internet truly is to everyone it affects, even though one may not think it affects their life, it really does. I believe that the internet has proven to be revolutionized. According to Jones’s (2007) article in the USA Today, “You Tube is the video-sharing site, bought by Google in 2006 for $1.65 billion, which ignited a user-generated revolution online. Instant messaging created words like LOL! Web surfers began to “laugh out loud” and BRB (“be right back”) in the mid-‘90s, with the launch of ICQ and AOL Instant Messenger. Millions use it to swap messages and photos, even telephone pals. Google is so popular it’s a verb. The search powerhouse, with a market capitalization of nearly $149 billion, perfected how we find info on the Web. Google sites had nearly 500 million visitors in December. Emailing became the tech’s answer to the Pony Express. Programs such as 1988’s Eudora made it easy to use. In-boxes have been filling up ever since. Nearly 97 billion e-mails are sent each day. The World Wide Web created user-friendly “Web pages” that could travel over the Internet, a network built to shuttle research between universities. The world logged on: 747 million adults in January”.

Back then, most Americans still had to lick a stamp to send mail. For example, I just received a letter from my grandma for my birthday. She has a computer but has no clue in how to use it properly or even at all. The World Wide Web has transformed the way people live, work and play. People can play travel agent and book all the elements of a vacation online. They can arrange for their bills to be paid automatically while they are gone. They can put a hold on mail delivery; find directions to tourist attractions and get a long-term weather forecast before they pack their clothes.

“Even on vacation, they can log onto the Web to keep up with news from their hometown paper or TV station, and stay connected with friends and family. In its first decade, the Web altered the pace of popular culture. It made distance less daunting, rendered information instantly accessible and revolutionized communication. A decade from now, who knows what statistics and functions they’ll be measuring. After all, 10 years ago, few people imagined it wouldn’t be long before you’d be able get a satellite picture of a city a continent away or read the local news from three time zones away or even order pizza without talking to the folks a few blocks away” (Almasy, 2005). An example of this is Google earth. Anywhere on Google earth, can you find a satellite picture of your home or even your work? It is purely amazing that a satellite can zoom in that close that you can see your car parked in your driveway. This goes to prove that internet plays a large factor in how we run our lives and the accessibility of entertainment and its educational purposes.

The internet has made such a huge impact on society that people can’t remember how it was to work without it. Like cell phones, when people lose or break their cell phones, they honestly have no clue on how to communicate with their friends because everything bit of information is in their phone. No one can function without their phone, and it is hard to admit but I can say that I have thought hypothetically saying, life was over without my phone. The internet now is so popular it has touched every aspect of our lives, changing how we keep in touch, share information, conduct business and even earning an income. With the help of the internet we can now communicate with each other almost instantly anywhere in the world. We no longer have to depend on our letter mails and wait for days to communicate to our friends and relatives.  Now we don’t have to spend hours looking for information in our libraries, the information is available to us anytime with just one click of the mouse. Instant access to information has really empowered all of us.

Almost all businesses now use the internet to communicate to its customers. For example, if I am going to be late for work, I will text my manager and let them know right away. From the consumers point of view people can now easily compare prices and features of a product before deciding on to purchase it like on EBay or Craigslist. Banking transactions can be done at any time throughout the day like on Us Bank’s website. People no longer have to wait for the bank to open. The internet has also made it possible to earn one’s income from the comfort of his home. The number of small office and home office businesses has gone up significantly where it attracts many people that want to stay in their pajamas and do their work verses dressing in a suit or dress to show business success.

In contrary, the internet has created its own flaws where these problems can definitely drawback many people. For example, your personal information such as your name, address, etc. can be accessed by other people. If you use a credit card to shop online, then your credit card information can also be ‘stolen’ which could be then giving someone a blank check to put in their personal account. Also, spamming seems to be an issue that has yet to be resolved and completely cured because it is sending unsolicited e-mails in bulk, which serve no purpose and unnecessarily clog up the entire system. For example, in my Gmail I am able to set up an anti-spam awareness so that I can avoid problems like this from ever happening. Pornography is another example of problems with the internet because it attracts young adults that are curious, in which they can easily search the internet for these types of possessed websites. (Pakhare, 2007)

Whether or not we all agree upon the fact that the internet has revolutionized our world, we can all acknowledge that the internet has developed into a multi-media connection where people can use it for entertainment, success, and for educational reasons. The internet is here to stay and it is continuously growing and producing more and more different aspects of how we can take advantage of this wonderful creation.

References

Pakhare, Jayashree. (2007, March 3). “Advantages and disadvantages of the Internet”. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from Buzzle’s website: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/advantages-disadvantages-internet.html

Jones, Brent. (2007, April 30). “How the internet took over”. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from USA Today’s website: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/top25-internet.htm

Almasy, Steve.  (2005, October 10). “The internet transforms modern life”. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from CNN’s website: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/06/23/evolution.main/index.html