First, a disclaimer: I’ve never been interested in researching media effects myself. However, I’m fascinated by the way in which the media reports on effects research. Violent video games, for example, are one of the dangers that surrounds, and they are just as perilous as contaminants in our water supply. In fact, these games might even be more dangerous, since we bring the media into our homes.
Of course, video games are not the only dangers. Every media technology, and some of the most popular media genres, have been linked to to negative effects. Jane Addams, for example, wrote in outrage against the movies. How is it possible, she wondered, that so many people choose to attend the movies during the sabbath?
One Sunday evening last winter an investigation was made of four hundred and sixty six theaters in the city of Chicago, and it was discovered that in the majority of them the leading theme was revenge; the lover following his rival; the outraged husband seeking his wife’s paramour; or the wiping out by death of a blot on a hitherto unstained honor. It was estimated that one sixth of the entire population of the city had attended the theaters on that day. At that same moment the churches throughout the city were preaching the gospel of good will. Is not this a striking commentary upon the contradictory influences to which the city youth is constantly subjected? (From, The Spirit of Youth and the City Streets, p. 85)
Addams does not reveal who conducted this investigation. Rhetorically speaking, it is irrelevant. Her readers, back then, would take her word, as they would also take the word of an “eminent alienist of Chicago” who had found that “neurotic children” were becoming “victims of hallucination and mental disorder” as a result of watching movies.
When it comes to constructing arguments about media effects, news organization have the tendency to be just as simplistic as Jane Addams was. Does anyone remember Cooper Lawrence discussing Mass Effect on Fox News? If you don’t, or haven’t seen her appearance, here is the clip.
So, Cooper Lawrence tells us that she only goes by what the research says. She quotes a study from the University of Maryland, but unfortunately we don’t get to learn much more than that. It is enough to say that it came out of a university, without dwelling too much on pesky issues, such as study design, validity, reliability, or even authorship.
Who cares about that! It’s Cooper Lawrence. She’s an expert. She almost has a PhD, and she is quoting experts.
Society values expert opinion, which is why almost every news story that reports on effects research will bring in an expert. CBS, for instance, had Dr. Chris Lucas, a child psychiatrist. Unlike Cooper Lawrence, Dr. Lucas is more restrained in his opinion. He talks about likelihood, not certainty. Yet the message is clear: Parents have to be aware of the possibility of a negative effect.
Here’s another example, discussing the same video game. This story, from a CBS affiliate, quotes avid video gamers, who believe that Manhunt 2 crosses the line. The report also brings in an expert, Dr. Silvia Gearing. She links video games to the wave of school shootings, effectively invoking causation.
Causation and Correlation. Now, there’s two terms that get lost in the shuffle in most media reporting on effects. Causation happens when one event causes another. Correlation, on the other hand, indicates a relationship between two variables (events), but it does not suggest that one will cause the other. Here’s Jack Thompson arguing causation between video game violence and real world violence. Paul Levinson disagrees, and explains the difference.
Neither panelist broaches the issue of methodology, and it is an important question. Laboratory experiments, for example, are routinely used to establish causation. Field studies, on the other hand, focus on finding correlation. Both techniques are commonly used in research.
This is not to say, though, that research on media uses cannot show causation. Take texting while driving, for instance. In laboratory experiments, texting has been shown to increase the likelihood of accidents. However, if you think about it, that should be a no-brainer. Distraction increases the likelihood of accidents, and texting while driving is a distraction. This report discusses the findings of a laboratory study conducted at Clemson University. The study is significant because of its policy implications. Indeed, we should expect this study, and others like it, to be used as ammunition for bans on texting while driving.
You don’t find much reporting that looks at subtleties, such as research design, causation, correlation, or authorship. What we do find is the trends I noted previously: the use of expert opinion, lack of specificity when it comes to research sources, and the conflation of causation and correlation. All of these are rhetorical moves, seeking to steer public opinion in one direction or another. They are not, however, honest representations of the complexity and variety of media research on effects.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This week, as I prepared to discuss the first amendment of the US Constitution with my students, I found myself pondering the meaning of the statement “Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” especially in light of the Qur’an burning controversy in Gainesville. The Reverend Terry Jones, of the Dove World Outreach Center, had planned to burn as many copies of the Qur’an as he could gather on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
Now, here is a case that definitely touches upon the heart of the first amendment. It involves the rights of a religious congregation to assemble and reduce another religion’s holy book to cinder. How could this be possible?
In simple terms, it could be possible because, as symbolic speech, this act is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. That congress shall make no law applies here. However, it is not that simple. Abridgment of the First Amendment, though prior restraint, is possible in situations involving national security as well as clear and present danger to public safety. The Gainsville case brings up both issues. Nevertheless, the handling of the controversy purposefully avoided any mention of either stipulation, at least not on the part of the federal government.
Indeed, the Federal government, from starting with the president, deplored the situation. General Petreus denounced it as a potential danger to American troops, and Secretary Clinton hoped that the press would stop covering it. On the local level, though, the City of Gainesville did act. It denied Jones and his flock a burning permit, on the grounds of “public safety and environmental protection“. In other words, this is a local application of the Clear and Present Danger doctrine. The thing is, though, that Jones would merely risk a fine, and until just a few hours, he intended to go ahead with the plan.
He apparently decided to back down. He will now travel to New York to convince Imam Feisal Rauf to relocate a planned Muslim Community Center away from ground zero. For Reverend Jones, this is a done deal, or at least that is how he represented it to the media. Imam Feisal and the developers of the Park51 deny that such a deal has even been discussed, according to CNN.
I wonder what the pastor plans to do about that.
The situation, aside from touching upon the first amendment, also sheds light on the nature of today’s press. In the past week, coverage has been relentless. He was on Rick’s List, and on Fox, and on ABC, etc, etc, ad nauseum. It reached absurd proportions, considering that this is a really small church group.Probably Brian Stelter, of The New York Times, put it best. He merely asked if there was a way of keeping track of Terry Jones’ media appearances.
With all the scrutiny, did the media make matters worse? According to at Chris Coumo, from ABC news, the answer is yes.
Naturally, not everyone will agree. The press is there to report on matters of public interest. That is the Jeffersonian ideal. Nevertheless, shouldn’t we expect the press to show some sense of proportion?
In hindsight, not only members of the press, like Cuomo and Stelter, pondered this question. The AP, Fox, ABC, NBC, and CBS all issued statements about how they would cover the event. The AP, furthermore, explicitly said that it would not publish any pictures depicting the Qur’an set ablaze.
Self-censorship is still the most effective way to abridge the First Amendment, at least in this case. The press strategized, but did not get to act on its strategy, and Pastor Jones decided to pull the plug on his own plans. His stated reason is, again, the relocation of Park51. Unstated, though, is all the pressure he must have received over the past week, and by that I don’t just mean the death threats, or even to public uproar. I’m referring to getting calls from the Secretary of Defense, visits from the FBI, and pressure from Gainsville city officials, who warned people to “stay away” from the site of the Dove World Outreach Center, and to remain vigilant because “the Gainsville police department is depending on you to be their eyes and ears in the community.“ That is a pretty ominous statement.
I began this post thinking about the first amendment, and pondering whether or not it should be abridged in situations like Gainsville. I don’t really have a conclusive answer. Based on the actions of government officials, it is clear that Reverend Jones’ actions would be protected under the first amendment. However, the rights of the immediate community, and concerns about national interest should also be taken into account. In the end, the Reverend may have found a crafty way out of his conundrum, one that places the ball on Park51′s court.
I had heard about this assignment in the past, this idea of having students go without any media for 24 hours. I’m not sure who originated it, but it is definitely one of those assignments that has picked up steam among media literacy instructors. I decided to try it out as well, and the results were eye opening.
First of all, it is clear that all my students are very plugged in. Many of them have smartphones, and they use them extensively. Communication, entertainment, information… it all comes intertwined through our pocket-sized devices.
Next, most of my students spoke of the anxiety that resulted from not having their usual media available. Many of them described it in terms of addiction, or in terms of uncertainty about what was going on. Others spoke of media in terms of convenience and scheduling. It is simply easier to organize one’s day when text messaging is an option.
As for myself, I tried doing the media fast. I realized that I missed the background noises from my TV. The apartment was eerily silent, and chores, though they were performed diligently, were just a drag without that background companion. By 8 PM, I broke down and treated myself to Deadwood marathon.
Now that Tony Plana no longer plays an illegal immigrant, he’s becoming more active in the immigration reform movement. Plana has put his celebrity to use as a campaigner for Reform Immigration for America, and Cuentame. He is by no means alone, as other celebrities and prominent Latinos(as) have joined the fray. Here’s Plana’s Reform Immigration for America ad:
Cuentame,is a Brave New Foundation project. Its organizers describe themselves as “the Latino instigators.” Unlike the Reform Immigration for America campaign, Cuentame is using Facebook exclusively. I think they have a some things re-think about their strategy. Slick as it is, it has problems.
Now, the use of facebook as a tool for social activism is not new. Nick Judd, in an article posted on tech president, notes as much. He also states that the results of FB activism haven’t been exactly spectacular for Cuentame. Fund raising and national exposure are still relatively low. The campaigns celebrity videos, featuring Tony Plana and Hector Elizondo, can catch the attention of supporters, but without data on sharing and re-posting, all we have to go by is the likes.
Can we judge the effectiveness of a campaign based on likes? if so, is the fact that the Tony Plana video has only garnered 159 likes (as of 5/18/2010) evidence of failure? Cuentame has almost 30 thousand followers. So, 159 likes is less than 0.5%.
Here’s three additional issues I find odd about this particular campaign:
1) The petition drive doesn’t provide any stats about how many people have signed. Even the Tea Party patriots have stats on their petition. When Nick Judd checked for his piece, they had 43,500 signatures. When I checked back today, they had a little over 58,000. How come Cuentame doesn’t have anything like that?
2) I totally agree with Judd. A FB-only campaign has the disadvantage of closing off your video linking ability. I can’t embed it on this blog, like I can with youtube videos. I actually tried to embed the Tony Plana video, after googling how to do it. Guess what: It didn’t work. For me, this begs the question of why on earth would you want to cut yourself off from youtube, the most popular video sharing sites, when you’re producing video?? That just baffles me.
3) The fact that Kobe Bryant’s wife was wearing a “Do I look Illegal” T-shirt could have been significant, but the t-shirt in question looks nothing like the ones that Cuentame is selling (even they admit it). Take a look:
Worse part of it is that Vannessa Bryant’s former housekeeper, a Latina immigrant from Peru, sued her boss for verbal abuse. The Bryants decided to settle out of court, which is just icing on the controversy cake. I suppose neither of these things should matter, in terms of exposure. But they do. The character issue casts doubts on the legitimacy of the claim. Cuentame, by so joyously jumping on the celebrity bandwagon, might end up doing itself more harm than good, although I seriously doubt that it would go too far anyway. Only one person mentioned the lawsuit on Cuentame’s page. Ergo, it’s not part of the conversation (at least not yet).
The Reform Immigration for America campaign is, in my opinion, much better organized, and obviously better funded. Their use of social media doesn’t ghettoize the campaign to FB. It provides content through all of the most popular sites available, and they’re also taking their message to mainstream media. Indeed, campaigning with new media should complement, not replace mainstream media. It can be effective, as Judd’s article suggests, to build up contacts for future mobilization, but we should acknowledge its limits as well. I don’t think Cuentame does that yet, and until it does, I’m skeptical about its mobilizing ability.
I just watched the trailer for Robert Rodriguez’ upcoming movie, Machete. Talk about being topical. Right now, with Arizona passing that mess of a law (jeez… how many constitutional amendments does Arizona to break?) regarding illegal immigration. Now, here’s Robert Rodriguez, and his Mexicanized tribute to blaxploitation. The new, re-cut trailer, starts off with actor Danny Trejo, who plays machete, sending a very special message to Arizona, on Cinco de Mayo.
From what I can see in the trailer, this movie will play up some familiar themes. There’s a scene with Jessica Alba shouting “we didn’t cross the border; the border crossed us.” I wish I knew who said it originally. What I do know is that, by now, this quote is part of the national lexicon, an unacknowledged, and frankly scary part of the American experience. Yes, the border was re-drawn over a century ago, and thousands of people were left on this side. Legally, they were granted citizenship, but in praxis, the Mexican-American population of the Southwest did not have the same rights as the Anglo population. With illegal immigration, the matter just becomes more complex. Geographical proximity has shaped immigration from Latin America into a phenomenon that is obviously different from the European migration of yesteryear.
And the Arizona law is not going to fix that. Do you really think that passing a law that violates the fourteenth amendment, the fifth amendment, and the fourth amendment is a solution to illegal immigration?
This is why I’m not surprised when someone like Robert Rodriguez lashes out in anger. I’ve never been a big fan of his work (too gory for me), but this time I would like to see his take on illegal immigration. Imagine, I can just see how this plays off nativist anxieties. An illegal immigrant with weapons? wow… that’s a far cry from Ignacio Suarez in Ugly Betty.
I couldn’t help myself after watching Bing’s latest commercial. It’s a play on telenovelas.
Or is it? in terms of audience appeal, I’ve spent the last three years looking at the appeal of Latinos(as) as a demographic. This argument is one of the cornerstones of my dissertation. However, Ugly Betty is now off the air, and it is a loss in terms of representations of Latinos(as). The one leading character we had is now gone (and I don’t count Sofia Vergara’s character in Modern Family because she’s part of an ensemble show). But I digress. This is more about Bing.
According to Sharon Chan, of the Seattle Sun Times, telenovela spoofs are not new. Ugly Betty, and 30 Rock have done it before. In Ugly Betty, though, the spoofs were always depicted to the public as part of the Latino(a) appeal of the show. The logic for it was that Latinos(as) watch telenovelas, they love them, and they’ll relate to them. Since Ugly Betty was based on a telenovela, the mini-episodes merely accentuated the marketing of the show.
As for 30 Rock, there was no overarching strategy that required the spoof. At least, not in the same way as Ugly Betty. However, 30 Rock is a show within a show, a commentary on the television industry that often uses its NBC-Universal, its parent company, for plot points. NBC-U is also the parent company of Telemundo. The Generalissimo explicitly refers to Telemundo in the episode, and there’s a glimpse of the Telemundo logo at the beginning of the scene. However, Generalissimo also talks about what appeals to Latino(a) women. He is sure that he can “become everything that every Hispanic woman desires.” Apparently it’s an over-the-top guy in a fake military uniform.
Bing has crafted its new advertising campaign out of spoofing popular culture. It has already done the Shining, and now we move on to Latino(a) culture. It’s a funny parody, I’ll admit, but not very original, and not just because two other shows did it. Telenovelas, along with tacos, have become shorthand in attempts to reach out to Latinos(as). Here’s something that Voto Latino did to get the Latino(a) vote out:
So, now we have a Latino non-profit, two television shows, and a major corporation using the same themes? Don’t tell me this isn’t about the Latino(a) audience, at least up to a certain extent. Besides, spoofing telenovelas is fairly safe. Even Latinos(as) do it, so we’re not exactly talking Frito Bandito here.
Or are we? Bing’s parody brings forth three common stereotypes about Latinos(as). The Bandit is this really violent guy, that will erupt without provocation. Alongside this stereotype, theres the Latin Lover, and the Dark Lady, both of which speak to the hypersexuality of Latino(a) culture (Berg, 2002). These images are recurrent, and have become so familiar as to go unnoticed. Should we expect a fall-out?
Honestly, I don’t think so. The focus of the commercial works in two levels. The first is the obvious references to the telenovela, which, as I said before, even Latinos(as) have mocked. The second is the stereotypes, and I think that will go under the radar, especially in the current climate. Subtly disguised under the telenovela, it can go unnoticed. We’re not talking South Park and Prophet Mohammed here, folks.
As for me… I’m not upset. I may point out the things I noticed in the commercial, but I still got a good laugh out of it. I think this new campaign is working a lot better for me than the “information overload” theme of last year. What I’m really interested in seeing, though, is whether or not they’ll do a part two of this telenovela. If they do so, then I think we would have a better argument for Bing targeting Latinos(as). Plus, since the spot is in Spanish with subtitles, you can use it over at Univision and Telemundo.
How very cost effective indeed. (Microsoft… you sneaky bastard!)
Last week, I visited Trinity University and had the opportunity to share some of my dissertation findings with their Media Audiences class. I talked about Ugly Betty, and how illegal immigration was handled during the first and second seasons of the show. Sadly, ABC will be airing the very last episode on Wednesday.
Here are the slides for the presentation.
I had planned to say a few words on the art and craft of the literature review, but ended up not doing so. Instead, I unearthed a short lit review that I wrote in 2006, when I first began my doctoral program at Ohio University. I did a few minor revisions, and added some lessons I’ve learned in the past four years. Here’s the full document.
Since I started this blog, I’ve been mostly focused on writing as class preparation. Hence, if I was teaching about global media, all posts shifted to that subject. Now, I’m stoked about what lies ahead for Pop Matters. I will not be teaching this quarter, so I’m basically free to write about anything I want.
Still, there should be a point. In the next few weeks, there will be more about my research on Ugly Betty. For example, what’s up with Justin? now that the show is coming to an end, will Silvio Horta be able to develop the character as he said he wanted? Horta, the show runner, has always been ambiguous about Justin’s sexuality. During the first season of the show, every interview he gave regarding Justin was an opportunity to state that the character was too young to come out. Horta himself didn’t until he was 18, so it was fairly obvious to anyone that followed the behind the scenes working of Ugly Betty, that Justin is like a miniature Silvio Horta.
As a fan, I’m stoked about Justin, and I can’t help feeling sad because the show, which finally started to get interesting again, is heading to its end. As a media critic, on the other hand, I see characters like Justin, and Glee’s Kurt as complex departures from typical gay representations. I’m actually reminded of a course I took, a couple of years, ago, and of a classmate who tried to argue that Will & Grace had done wonders for the representation of gays on television. Beg to differ! just because GLBT characters are there, it doesn’t mean an improvement. And don’t get me started on the L-Word! The alternate lesbo-only universe never satisfied me. Quite the opposite. It told me that you couldn’t have gay characters that could live in the real world like normal people. Instead, they happily thrived in these “separate but equal” spaces, and had lots and lots of sex and drama.
You can’t do that with teenagers, though. Not on network television. If you were to plunge Kurt and Justin into homoland, you’d have to deal directly with their sexual experiences. It’s fine when you have someone like 13, on House, in a steamy scene. Jack McPhee? no way! characters like him get to go out on dates, and to kiss boys very awkwardly. Justin, btw, just got kissed by a boy, but his suitor freaked out and ran away. If Ugly Betty doesn’t bring him back, it will be a huge disappointment.
I was reading Anthony Fung’s piece on Viacom’s strategy in China, and I started thinking: What does Chinese content mean for Viacom? The political barriers are not insurmountable, and it is abundantly clear why global media corporations want to enter the Chinese market. But when they do, what do they have to offer?I found this video from the 2006 CCTV MTV Music Awards. The artist, Tata Young, is a highly successful Thai-American singer, actress, and model.
My succinct description of Tata actually doesn’t do her much justice. She’s not just a singer; she’s a brand, a new type of celebrity that fits into the global model of media making. The key is to understand her in the grand scheme of glocalization. What I mean by this is that she is interchangeable. If we replace her with Jennifer Lopez, would anyone tell the difference?
What is glocalization? We know globalization has to accelerated cultural exchanges. Glocalization the interaction of global and local. It produces hybrids by incorporating elements of local culture and global culture into a new mix (Robertson, 1995). The results are not always generic; they can be transgressive and innovative:
That was MC Yan. He is an underground hero in Hong Kong, and one of his claims to fame is the fact that he was one of the first graffiti artists to tag the Great Wall of China. He also tagged Hong Kong’s City Hall, using laser technology. He is, however, a man of contrasts. In 2004, he teamed up with Clot Inc to create a new shoe for Nike. The result was the Nike Air Max 1 NL Premium, a shoe that “pays homage to Chinese culture, the spirit of modern Hong Kong and the Air Max evolution” (Yu-Ming, 2006). What a perfect combination of subculture and global business! It reminds me of what Dick Hebdige had to say about mods. Eventually, transgression gets absorbed into the mainstream. The result can be a shoe.
Try as you may, no successful artist lives their life entirely on the fringes, and glocalization creates new opportunities. Seems to me, though, that you either end up with the commercialization of transgressive youth culture, like MC Yan’s case, or with generic pop celebrities like Tata Young. She can become the face and the voice for just about anything.
MC Yan, on the other hand, can lend street cred even to Viacom. No, you probably won’t see him get an award from CCTV-MTV, but you will find him on MTV Iggy, Viacom’s latest foray into youth culture. If you miss the good ‘ol days, in which MTV wasn’t full of pseudo celebrities like The Situation and Snookie, Viacom has got you covered. For example, here is a clip where Bollywood stars Shah Rukh Khan & Kajol explain Islam, and the true meaning of Jihad.
So what happens when Viacom comes to China? First of all, Viacom and the Chinese government have settled into a comfortable partnership. Viacom gets access to the market, and it gets to play cultural gatekeeper. The Chinese government, on the other hand, retains its influence, by establishing acceptable limits for popular culture, and it gets a seat at the global table. The result is “a kind of apolitical popular culture concomitant of capitalist consumption” that does not threaten prevailing ideology (Fung, 2006, p. 79).
As I was reading Fung’s article, I could not help but feel his sense of disappointment. He writes that “the state allows these foreign corporations to operate because they produce a predictable and acceptable popular Chinese culture” (p. 82). Did he expect Viacom to behave differently? I mean, I can’t even remember the last time I felt that MTV was being transgressive. He writes about the ability of the state to “flexibly accommodate global capital”, but gives Viacom too much credit. He ambivalently concludes that “either the state counters the global capital, or the liberating force democratizes the state.” I don’t think this is an either/or scenario. This is strategic thinking on Viacom’s part, and if the company was behaving differently in China, I would be more willing to concede the point. They are not; they are a global company that is hungry for content that they can market though their multiple outlets. Viacom is reaching as wide an audience as it possibly can, and some of us can still feel a little rebellious when we listen to MC Yan.
—-
References
Fung, A. (2006). Think globally, act locally: China’s rendezvous with MTV. Global Media and Communication, 2(1), 71-88
In 1971, Ariel Dorfmann and Armand Mattelart published a short book called How to Read Donald Duck. Their analysis of Disney comics worked wonders to popularize the idea of cultural imperialism. Disney, according to the authors, actively disseminated hegemonic ideology. Donald Duck and company “colonized” the world, propounding capitalist values. Even worse, Disney treated the Third World and its inhabitants as uncivilized savages, as inferior beings that needed to be put in their place:
According to Disney, underdeveloped peoples are like children, to be treated as such, and if they don’t accept this definition of themselves, they should have their pants taken down and be given a good spanking. That’ll teach them! When something is said about the child/noble savage, it is really the Third World one is thinking about. The hegemony which we have detected between the child-adults who arrive with their civilization and technology, and the child-noble savages who accept this alien authority and surrender their riches, stands revealed as an exact replica of the relations between metropolis and satellite, between empire and colony, between master and slave. Thus we find the metropolitans not only searching for treasures, but also selling the natives comics (like those of Disney), to teach them the role assigned to them by the dominant urban press. Under the suggestive title “Better Guile Than Force,” Donald departs for a Pacific atoll in order to try to survive for a month, and returns loaded with dollars, like a modern business tycoon. The entrepreneur can do better than the missionary or the army. The world of the Disney comic is self-publicizing, ensuring a process of enthusiastic buying and selling even within its very pages (Dorfmann & Mattelart, 1971).
Cultural imperialism showed a concern over the dominance of Western Culture (American, actually) over the rest of the world. Such dominance threatens the integrity of local cultures, which are mired by the influx of foreign products. The key assumption herein is that media transmits values, and that exposure to foreign media would necessarily lead to support and adoption of negative traits. Communitarian values like solidarity, for example, would be dismissed as inferior, and would be replaced by a capitalist ethos of individualism and cutthroat competition. Cultural imperialism is just another example of the hegemony of big corporations, of Western companies that use their resources to quash the developing world (Schiller, 1976). At its best, criticism makes us aware of the influence of corporations over cultural production, and the meanings that circulate throughout the world. At its worse, cultural imperialism becomes the machiavellian arm of American interests abroad:
It has been 39 years since Donald Duck, and much has changed. Cultural imperialism still retains its appeal, but media critics have toned down their outrage. There is more awareness of how people consume media, how we are not just passive dupes with empty brains, waiting to be filled. Furthermore, evidence suggests that US media is not the only game in town. In fact, with new theses, like cultural proximity and asymmetrical interdependence (Straubhaar) media critics have sought to explain media flows, and to bring in a more nuanced view of how the international media industries operate. This, however, does not minimize the importance of the United States media industries. It merely recognizes that the situation is far more complex. Television flows are not one sided; they are multi-polar.
McTV?
In the cultural imperialism view, a local broadcaster imports canned shows. They do not alter them, or use them as the basis for indigenous production. However, commercial television is a business. Not every imported product is appropriate for the culture, and as Straubhaar suggests, audiences tend to prefer programs that are closely aligned to their culture. If the local industries can afford to produce their own shows, there will be an audience to watch them. The problem is, though, that not everyone can afford indigenous production. Sometimes it is just cheaper to import.
Since the 1980s, though, television systems have experienced dramatic changes. We have gone from discrete and isolated systems, sometimes protected by the state to ensure the development of local production, to an increasingly liberalized and deregulated arena. Globalization is the mantra of our time. Along with globalization, we have also witnessed unparalleled technological development. We’ve gone from broadcast systems with limited choice, to an overwhelming array of options. We now expect to be entertained, informed, and probably even enlightened at any time we choose.The issue is, however, who will be able to benefit from the demand?
Cultural imperialism critics would answer: America (duh!). Nevertheless, Waisbord (2004) counters “it’s not that simple.” Internationally, the television industries have not remained stagnant and dependent. Companies and corporations like Globo, Televisa, Dori Media, BBC, RTL , and Endemol are powerful contenders in the international television market. Part of their success can be explained through the trade in television formats.
A television format is not just an idea for a show. It is a formula, “a recipe for remaking” (Moran, 2008) a television program. Formats begin as local television shows. They usually garner high ratings during their original run, and then go on to be successful in other countries as well. Sometimes, as it happened with Yo Soy Betty, la Fea, shows are sold as is, and later sold as a format. In other cases, like Pop Idol, the format is the only thing that circulates. Formats allow local producers to take a bona fide hit, replicate its invariable elements (the basic story, the episodic structure, etc) and create a local adaptation of it, as long as they abide by strict rules set forth in the program bible (Coutas, 2006). Formats legitimize program cloning, by licensing rights. Formats also open up additional sources of revenue, through marketing and merchandising, as well as co-branding and co-sponsoring opportunities (Kretschmer & Singh, 2009). In the United States, for example, Coca Cola, AT&T, and Ford have all been co-sponsors of American Idol. Coca Cola, in particular, is very visible. We are used, by now, to the familiar Coca Cola glasses on the judges’ table, and this season, Coca Cola is using Idol to Vitaminwater Zero (Halperin, 2010).
Idols
Without a doubt, Idols is one of the most successful formats around. To date, this format has aired in 43 different countries. Freemantle Media, which is a division of RTL, owns and licenses the rights (Kretschmer & Singh, 2009). Of course, there are many unlicensed versions, like Afghan Star, but even the unlicensed versions retain a similar structure. They hold nationwide auditions, offer biographical segments, hold weekly elimination rounds, and end with a final showdown:
This is how Freemantle describes Idols:
“Idols is not a singing contest … the genius of Idols as a format is that it is about finding stories and following contestants on their journey. The sheer duration of an Idols series and the number of stages you go through means that you can follow the characters and get a lot of their life’s story. You can trace their development throughout the series and can see a rough diamond being honed towards the end of the journey into a pop star. In UK’s first series of Idols, Gareth Gates (name of a contestant) walks through the door to his audition. He stutters so badly that he can hardly get his name out – the panel who have been sitting through all the 200 very average editions before him are not amused. But when he opens his voice and sings like an angel, everyone’s jaws drop. Hence, it’s not about the singing – it’s about this incredible story and the production team spotsthose stories from the thousands of people that come for auditioning.” Senior Manager, Worldwide Distribution, Fremantlemedia (quoted in Kretschmer & Singh, 2009).
Indonesian Idol: New Celebrities
Every season, Idol manufactures new celebrities. New Kelly Clarksons, Clay Aikens, Fantasias, and Reubens, who are all shining examples of how to succeed in show business by being generic. Penelope Coutas, who analyzed the Idol phenomenon in Indonesia, describes how these celebrities are carefully crafted products, representatives of the Idol brand. The publicists, promoters, producers, and photographers have as much to say about how the idols will look, what they will sing, where they will perform, as the individual idols themselves. Soon enough, you see them every where, peddling just about anything, and becoming an extension of the brand, and of the sponsors. Hence, it is not surprising at all, as Coutas suggests, to see the Indonesian Idols “using Fren network cellular phones while eating Indomie instant noodles (Coutas, 2006, p. 377). Nevertheless, Coutas points out that merchandising specifically linked to Indonesian Idol is no where near the level of American Idol.
Coutas also asks an important question: Is Idol another example of cultural imperialism? Her analysis of Indonesian Idol suggests that it is. The Idola are, essentially, replicating Western pop and rock. Anything Indonesian about it is merely “tokenistic”: they wear Indonesian attire on special occasions, and the audience gets glimpses of their home culture through short biographical segments and visits to the Idolas’ home towns. These elements are part of the program bible, and they are exactly the same in every licensed version of the show. Critics in the local media tend to decry Idol, or suggest that it is a threat to local culture.
Why is this guy speaking and singing in English anyway?
This is, of course, an old argument. It suggests a static view of culture, or of the purity of local culture, which is constantly challenged by foreign influences. This begs the question: what is a pure culture anyway? Furthermore, it points out the inherent contradictions of globalization. We like it because it inserts us into a larger scheme of things, but we fear how it alters what we know. It also betrays a common misconception; many among us seem to think that globalization just started out of the blue, sometime in the 1990s. That is not the case; cross cultural contacts have been going on for centuries. Trade, conquest, colonization have always inserted foreign elements into local realities. The difference is that now we have more of it.
On the other hand, criticism of Indonesian Idol also suggests an entrenched belief in the power of the media, and on the vulnerability of the average citizen. If you like pop culture, in other words, you’re a heathen, you’re uncultured, and unable to appreciate the finer things in life. If you read books, however, you are cultured, you’re a better citizen, and perhaps even deserve to sit in the grown up table because you’re not going to spill anything, and you won’t try to eat steak with a salad fork.
———-
References
Kretschmer, M., Singh, S. (2009), Exploiting Idols: A case study in International Television Format Trading. Bournemouth University (http://tvformats.bournemouth.ac.uk)
