Global media is over loading the world today with news, facts and stories to unite the world as one. But is national news and local news suffering from such a high increase from this world wide broadcasting? Are online sites just causing the world to collapse and become smaller, or expanding new horizons for the population of today? I’m going to be examining the status of global and national media including television programmes and networking sites to determine the effects and benefits we are gaining and losing from both.
Television (TV) is the most widely used telecommunication medium for transmitting and receiving moving images this century. The two main BBC TV channels are watched by almost 90 percent of the population each week of total viewing; this is no wonder why BBC news is such a high scale news programme that is watched by thousands every day. The service maintains 44 foreign news bureaux and has correspondents in almost all the world's 240 countries. This global media could be seen to help countries to connect and become at one with each other, and to inform people of the world’s news. However is this drowning out local news? And the importance of knowing what’s happening in an area near to where you live? News programs such as ‘Watchdog’, a BBC television series that investigates viewers' reports of problematic experiences with traders, retailers, and other companies around the UK, are classed local news. Hybrid programs such as ‘The Weakest Link’ are also broadcasted all over the world and are adapted to each country, just changing the presenters and adapting to what the countries boundaries are, for example the humour and language used. However the problems with hybrid programmes are the erosion of natural culture across the world. In terms of television some of the problems of global media are: Erosion of national culture, Cultural dominance of the USA, Market forces funding, and Less choice? As numerous cultures nowadays can access televisions, they have a wide access to other countries culture, therefore they can learn about other countries identity. However as the USA is such a large percentage of the world, the US culture has said to have become the 'norm' across the world. As a result of this other cultural ways of life are becoming threatened. It has been said that the more globalisation there is, the less people will care about local or national culture, and rather than follow a religion, follow a more attractive, persuasive way of living which they have adapted through the world of media and television. Television in America is one of the major mass media with 90% percent of American households having at least one television set and the majority owning over two. Over all America is one of the most syndicated in the world, making it one of the most influential in the media industries. Benjamin Woolley a presenter and journalist said ‘Television has become our eyes, the phone our mouths and ears: our brains are the inter – change for a nervous system that stretches’ across the world.’ I think this could be seen from two points of view’s. Either that the world has become enveloped totally in communication through internet and phones, instead of being proactive. However it could be seen that the world has become a larger place and everything is more accessible to more people. In my own opinion I think he raises a great point, especially when he says ‘Television has become our eyes’. I’ve interpreted this as that in today’s society rather than getting out into the world to actually see for ourselves what is happening we depend on today’s media, like television to see for us, and guide us and tell us what is happening, although this can be good to retrieve information from far away countries, it seems lazy and unproductive. Furthermore hybrid programmes such as ‘The Weakest Link’ are easy to export from one country and import into another as it requires little adaptation, which can be described as 'Culturally Transparent'. As long as the programme, especially in the context of Soap Operas, makes the audience comfortable with the verisimilitude.
29,000,000 people worldwide have access to the Internet, with only 20% of the world not having Broadband in 2008. The rich and powerful countries, for example the UK and USA have an easier access to the world around them, over poorer countries, for example Gambia, who struggle with the amount of money in their country therefore their culture is kept very local with limited internet access. This globalization will cause a 'Winners and losers' effect on the trading world for places like Gambia. Because of the limited connection with the rest of the world through internet access and global resource, they find it hard to trade with the larger countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. Whereas the rich and powerful countries like the United States and the United Kingdom have broadband and mobile networks, allowing them to trade globally around the world with ease. Places like Gambia where culture is very local, and very poor, will struggle to contact their providers and buyers, so will lose profit and money from lost communication. Some people like waters (1995) thinks that the more globalisation there is the less people will care about local or national culture, and rather than follow religion, and follow a more attractive, persuasive way of living, regardless of where they come from. Not every person agrees with this theory Moore's argues that the idea we can go onto a website and be able to see what another country is doing is like walking down the street on your phone to someone on the other side of the world, it’s like being in two places at once, and making the way we see the world more convenient. So we end up living in two places at once, both locally and globally. However is this making people travel less? And making the world smaller?
Networking sites like ‘Facebook’ can be seen as a great way to communicate all across the world. The website launched in February 2004 and has been expanding ever since, to this day there over 600 million active people on this particular social networking site. Another huge and still expanding networking site is ‘Twitter’. These are both very much a global networking sites that expand horizons on contacting and talking to people. Furthermore it has been seen on Twitter news being spread quicker than the actual news. For example when the boat was upturned and people needed saving, a passing by boat helped. A person on the boat tweeted about this and before long the news crews had arrived and safety applications were put in place. This also could have helped local people to determine what had happened near their area and what is happening near them. This shows that networking sites such as twitter can help to get the word out about things perhaps National news doesn’t. Furthermore ‘Facebook’ could allow people to relate to each other. The ‘Like’ button on Facebook shows a certain unity of opinions on certain things such as ‘Barack Obama’ and ‘Texas Hold’em’. This shows collective identity in what people like it also allows them to debate on the matter. The theorist Emile Durkheim said collective identity/consciousness is where a society/group with shared beliefs and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within the society/group.
My overall opinion on the media industry and whether it has affected national and local media. After reading into facts and case studies, I feel that local media, such as the news and television programmes that are created for our county, such as the weakest link, but being adapted to other countries, are suffering. And this is all because of the vast growing industry, called Globalisation.
