Discuss the positive and negative effects of globalisation of the media.

Discuss the positive and negative effects of globalisation of the media. Globalisation of the media has become a major issues over the past twenty years, with technological advances – such as the rise of the internet as platform - making it possible to produce and consume media from all around the globe. However, this advance can be argued to have come at a price as this ‘global media’ could only be inclusive of first world countries having influence as a study of the BBC – who presents itself to be a global corporation would demonstrate. McLuhan argues that society has become “increasingly mediated” and that we all now live in “global village”. In regards to our news provision, this is true. The BBC consider themselves to have global provision in that they employ more correspondents, reporters, and international bureaus than any other news channel. They also have approximately 51 million unique visits to their news website each week with a significant amount of this from other countries. This suggests a positive effect as the internet has enabled the BBC to bring their products to other countries.

However, it could be argued that the BBC has only responded to what Robertson calls the “compression of world and the intensification of the consciousness as a whole”. For example is it through our demand for world news – as we now have a far greater interest in international events – that the BBC has needed to provide it. For example the recent news stories on the Pope’s resignation were first reported within 15 minutes onto the BBC, which then provided 24 hour access to news through twitter feeds, video reporters and live access to the Vatican. This requirement for reporting is easily traceable back to the fact that Britain has significant number of Catholics and therefore would have a connection to the news and the BBC could provide this, which suggests a positive effect of Globalisation.

A particularly positive effect for corporations of global media is – as Plunkett argues – that many media producers are now “bypassing traditional gatekeepers” in response to the rise of the individual audience member. This means corporations like the BBC are needing to engage with their audience as a local level, however this is now happening across the globe. For example the BBC makes regular requests on its websites for audiences to contact them with their own experiences for example on a local level with the recent Stansted airport developments to across the world with the recent Brazilian night club fire where the BBC contacted a local blogger who could give them an eyewitness account, which suggests a more positive move towards a global media where everyone can take part.

 However, as Leadbetter points out “only 4% of the Arab world has internet access”, which also highlights the issue of access to media in general. Despite the BBC’s claim that it is a global corporation – only 33% of the world can actually access the internet (and with filtering policies in countries like China and Iraq we can assume this percentage is even less) therefore which suggests a negative effect is actually a move towards a ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’, for example, the BBC devoted far more screen time towards the Syrian uprisings, the success Psy’s Gangnam Style and the Pope’s Resignation rather than the estimated 500m that have been killed in the ongoing Darfuri conflict . Although this could be partly explained by Hacup’s news values deeming a long term conflict not newsworthy, it is also worth considering that much of Darfur does not have access to any form of media – therefore the avenue for consumption is not there, whereas the Syrian uprisings have been heavily influenced by social networking demonstrating the already existing audience for news provision companies like Al Jazeera and BBC to engage with and take advantage of.

 This then also raises the issue of the devolution of culture, particularly in the provision of the phenomenon of “global tv” and the rise Hybrid Programming –especially within the BBC. Currently the BBC markets many of programmes and programme concepts to countries worldwide, for example its most successful programme -‘Strictly Come Dancing’ marketed as ‘Dancing with the Stars’ (in various languages) – is the most successfully marketed programme around the world. The concept is the same, the narrative structure of the series is the same and very often the mise-en-scene and sound is strikingly similar. Although it could be argued that as the show is such a generic format, easily identifiable in any language with the standard trope of the ‘competition’, that it global success would come naturally, however it just as easily be argued that it is only due to the BBC’s money and influence that shows like this can be shown and – ultimately – this will lead to a rapid decline in local programming from local cultures and the imposition of the BBC’s own ideologies over cultures – the classic Hegemony. Or, Irvine argues, that we are “putting all our cultural eggs in one basket”. 

However, a counter-argument to this is Moores theory that we have not lost our interest in “localization”. This is true for the BBC’s provision of media as very few of its programmes actually travel as a complete product: only Doctor Who is a well-known brand that is only subtitles and dubbed into different languages, not other changes are made, possibly due to its science fiction non-culture specific routes. Most of the BBC’s “global” programmes are sold as formats only, allowed local culture changes to take place. For example, the programme “What not to Wear” was recently launched in India but with less of a focus on up to date fashion and criticism and more about “building Indian’s women’s confidence and style”, with the addition inclusion of very well-known Bollywood stylists and actresses as presenters to create a more “Indian” appeal. This suggests more of a “glocalisation” effect, as Waters argues that our ideas are instantly “pluralized”. He also argues that that we can “virtually visit” areas instead and evidence for this is substantially positive with the BBC as not only can we consume the “original” UK version of programmes but we can also see others countries – primarily America – versions which can provide cultural comparison. Also, the BBC are bringing in more global programming with great success such as Wallander and The Killing which indicates a positive effect of global media as demand is rising for non home-grown programmes. This suggests that a positive effect of Global Media is actually the rise in the power of the audience.

Within this new world of global provision, Gilmor argues that we now have the rise of the “citizen journalist” that bypasses the “big media” control and uses the tools of technology and convergence to produce their own news and opinions, some of which become powerful in their own right, for example the social networkers in the Arab Spring orchestrating a revolution. Judging by the move of AL Jazeera and BBC News to engages in social media websites like facebook pages and Al Jazeera had a twitter database to monitor patterns within the Arab countries, this indicates a more positive force from the audience towards have a say in their own media. In television too, audiences are beginning of use their diversity of choice to search out media that is out of their own country’s production and format, which then forces companies such as the BBC to provide each-more-global online provision and VOD programming to seek to avoid the even more evitable rise of piracy online.

 Global Media can be argued to have had a generally positive affect of both audiences and producers in that both are being forced to diversify, without seeming to lose their cultural identity and current trends dictate that this pattern will keep on rising. However, with the media becoming utilized by the audience to provoke political and social change and the rising move of governments towards filtering and monitoring, it has to be argued that ultimately Global media could lead people to – what Bauman argues is “a crueler fate.”