Communicating Globalisation: Media eye on the great debate
@ The Core:
Consider my initial case.
The organized presence of the anti-globalisation activists at international moots most noted in the media since the third 1999 WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle raises an interesting question about the nature of response the corporate sector has devised to the political opposition mounting against it.
With the release of Naomi Klein’s No Logo (www.nologo.org), the conflicting viewpoint of the pro and anti-globalisation camps appear to have transcended to the printed word. Klein claims global corporations are not answerable for their exploits to the broader public and that a global movement has thus surfaced opposing ‘corporate rule’. In a direct response to No Logo, leading industry publication The Economist ran a coverstory in September 2001 (www.economist.com) countering Klein’s hypothesis.
The lead article in The Economist is a very visible attempt to counter globalisation’s ‘enemies’ by a media institution. It is one of many attempts to corner and analyse globalisation today by the news media. In essence, this is a concentrated attempt by a media organ to address the conflict issues about globalisation and its characteristic features, which in this case was brands. This study investigates similar attempts by the press to educate its audience about the pros and cons of globalisation in the light of the media coverage of the anti-globalisation movement and the corporate sector’s response to it. By doing so, it will prove or disprove the hypothesis that the media are not focusing on the conflict issues surrounding globalisation or are not doing enough to address the problem areas which could facilitate the process.
The study is primarily concerned with the media’s role in conveying the globalisation message, how it has managed to identify and cover its ‘enemies’, and whether this has led to a better understanding of the message that INGOS and corporations need to devise to gain support for implementing an international framework for trade. In this context, the study will work around the following research question:
“What are the media's perceptions about globalisation’s 'enemies'; and what role is it playing to bridge the 'great divide'?”
The proposal started out with the following subsets:
The question raises subset questions that the study tentatively looked to answer.
o What is the media’s own understanding of the term globalisation?
o What are the key controversies and conflict issues surrounding the globalisation debate?
o What are the key controversies and conflict issues surrounding the globalisation debate in the media today?
o How is the press presenting the conflict issues, or what are termed as globalisation’s ‘enemies’ to its audience particularly
in the aftermath of the WTO ministerial meeting held in Seattle in 1999?
o Are the INGOs and MNCs targeted by globalisation’s ‘enemies’ countering the negative perceptions being created about globalisation in the press? If so, how and what message are they sending to promote globalisation in the face of confronting opposition?
o What kind of a balance is the press striking in educating the audience about the pros and cons of globalisation in the light of this study?
Until December 2001, my proposal remained dormant. Since then, my post-graduate study of International Communications at the University of Leeds has led me to a number of interesting concepts in contemporary media theory. I am now refurbishing my proposal to a more mediacentric point of view as the next few days entries will show.
Briefly, I attempt to study news items from leading daily publications in the US, UK, India and Pakistan in order to indentify news values across different cultures. My hypothesis so far is that news values remain constant across different cultures. To argue my case I will focus on the coverage of globalisation in the press in these four countries. I am hoping this study would allow me to broach concepts such as News Frames (Media Framing of Reality; See Inventing Reality by Michael Parenti and works by Todd Gitlin).
Some other authors whose work I will be deriving from include Kaarl Nordenstreng and Shoemaker & Reese. Too tired right now to link you to resources on the web for these fellows but promise to deliver later.
@ The Core:
Consider my initial case.
The organized presence of the anti-globalisation activists at international moots most noted in the media since the third 1999 WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle raises an interesting question about the nature of response the corporate sector has devised to the political opposition mounting against it.
With the release of Naomi Klein’s No Logo (www.nologo.org), the conflicting viewpoint of the pro and anti-globalisation camps appear to have transcended to the printed word. Klein claims global corporations are not answerable for their exploits to the broader public and that a global movement has thus surfaced opposing ‘corporate rule’. In a direct response to No Logo, leading industry publication The Economist ran a coverstory in September 2001 (www.economist.com) countering Klein’s hypothesis.
The lead article in The Economist is a very visible attempt to counter globalisation’s ‘enemies’ by a media institution. It is one of many attempts to corner and analyse globalisation today by the news media. In essence, this is a concentrated attempt by a media organ to address the conflict issues about globalisation and its characteristic features, which in this case was brands. This study investigates similar attempts by the press to educate its audience about the pros and cons of globalisation in the light of the media coverage of the anti-globalisation movement and the corporate sector’s response to it. By doing so, it will prove or disprove the hypothesis that the media are not focusing on the conflict issues surrounding globalisation or are not doing enough to address the problem areas which could facilitate the process.
The study is primarily concerned with the media’s role in conveying the globalisation message, how it has managed to identify and cover its ‘enemies’, and whether this has led to a better understanding of the message that INGOS and corporations need to devise to gain support for implementing an international framework for trade. In this context, the study will work around the following research question:
“What are the media's perceptions about globalisation’s 'enemies'; and what role is it playing to bridge the 'great divide'?”
The proposal started out with the following subsets:
The question raises subset questions that the study tentatively looked to answer.
o What is the media’s own understanding of the term globalisation?
o What are the key controversies and conflict issues surrounding the globalisation debate?
o What are the key controversies and conflict issues surrounding the globalisation debate in the media today?
o How is the press presenting the conflict issues, or what are termed as globalisation’s ‘enemies’ to its audience particularly
in the aftermath of the WTO ministerial meeting held in Seattle in 1999?
o Are the INGOs and MNCs targeted by globalisation’s ‘enemies’ countering the negative perceptions being created about globalisation in the press? If so, how and what message are they sending to promote globalisation in the face of confronting opposition?
o What kind of a balance is the press striking in educating the audience about the pros and cons of globalisation in the light of this study?
Until December 2001, my proposal remained dormant. Since then, my post-graduate study of International Communications at the University of Leeds has led me to a number of interesting concepts in contemporary media theory. I am now refurbishing my proposal to a more mediacentric point of view as the next few days entries will show.
Briefly, I attempt to study news items from leading daily publications in the US, UK, India and Pakistan in order to indentify news values across different cultures. My hypothesis so far is that news values remain constant across different cultures. To argue my case I will focus on the coverage of globalisation in the press in these four countries. I am hoping this study would allow me to broach concepts such as News Frames (Media Framing of Reality; See Inventing Reality by Michael Parenti and works by Todd Gitlin).
Some other authors whose work I will be deriving from include Kaarl Nordenstreng and Shoemaker & Reese. Too tired right now to link you to resources on the web for these fellows but promise to deliver later.
posted by Zunaira at 5/27/2002 03:57:00 PM
