The Transnational Flow of Media

"Only some of the media texts produced around the world are able to find audiences in the United States." Jenkins, Henry; Ford, Sam; Green, Joshua (2013-01-21). Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture (p. 260). NYU Press. Kindle Edition.

What makes an international piece of media popular in the United States? It seems as though it is the continual mixing and remixing of our culture with others that allows content produced internationally to resonate culturally with us. For instance, Selena Gomez's song "Come and Get It" shown above features Bollywood beats. The term Bollywood, though, is derived from Hollywood when India was setting up their own film industry in imitation of the then popular musicals in Hollywood. 

So, we have an American artist of Mexican and Italian ancestry incorporating into her style Bollywood music and costumes while Bollywood itself was originally a mixture of traditional Indian theater and Hollywood. Mind Boggling!

Though Hollywood eventually moved away from movies like "Singing in the Rain," Bollywood is still largely characterized by its unique musicals for which it is known internationally. The 2007 movie "Partner" from India, however, shows how Indian movies have continued to incorporate exported American culture. Even the chorus is in English while the rest of the song is in Hindi. So, while we have artists like Selena Gomez using traditional Bollywood beats, Indian artists like those shown above are now using styles from a mix of American rap and music videos in an endless cycle of cultural appropriation.

India is not the only nation that has made cultural inroads into the United States. China's Martial Arts films have been hugely popular since the 1970's arrival of Bruce Lee on the screen. More recently, media from South Korea has also become hugely popular here. For instance, the "Gagnam Style" video has become the most watched video on the American site YouTube with around 1.5 billion views. This is just one of the wave of K-Pop song phenomenons from that country, and there are even Korean dramas on Netflix such as "Protect the Boss" and "Miss Ripley" that have become quite popular with American audiences (my best friend is obsessed with them).

As Jenkins points out, however, "there are also many countries (especially in the Global South — much of Africa, parts of Latin America and Asia) not yet able to actively participate in such exchanges" (260). Such countries are still bombarded with American culture, but their own culture has not circulated quite as successfully outside of their borders as others have. The Makmende myth, for instance, reflects some of American culture in that it is similar to our Chuck Norris and "The Most Interesting Man in the World" legends. Yet, as funny and similar as Makmende is to our own icons, he has not really spread throughout the world.

This is because media is rooted in culture and requires a minimum level of knowledge for comprehension and interpretation. So, jokes like “Makmende hangs his clothes on a Safaricom line to dry” are lost on us because we don't have enough knowledge about the area to understand that "Safaricom, Kenya’s leading mobile phone network, doesn’t maintain any wired telephone lines" (262). To take a phrase from Malcolm Gladwell, there is a "tipping point" of cultural awareness that has to be reached before media can cross cultural and national boundaries in significant amounts as American culture does; "However . . . the informal spread of media content through networked communications may circumnavigate if not circumvent some of the factors (political, legal, economic, cultural) which have allowed U.S. mass media to maintain its dominance throughout much of the twentieth century" (261). So, in many ways, the grassroots spreading of media has greatly increased intercultural awareness. In the end, though, it is an uneven spreading most notably because of the lack in developing countries of tools such as the internet, computers, and iphones that we take for granted.

Humor in Online Activism

Online activism is all around us these days. In fact, Tuesday saw the start of a viral Facebook and Twitter sign of support for marriage equality in the current Supreme Court hearings. In this particular online activism trend, supporters of marriage equality replace their profile pictures with the alteration of The Human Rights Campaign logo shown above. There are also several other unique alterations on this picture in true internet style--no need to be all serious even when making radical social changes, after all.

The Oatmeal, a popular web comic, made sure to get in on the trend with the "equal marriage rights and bacon for all" spin on the logo. Such casual, albeit quite amusing, antics on the internet does lead people  to see online activism as rather juvenile and not reflective of people's true feelings. After all, the thought is that it just takes enough followers and a catchy logo to make enough noise to get noticed.

In fact, as an article covering the response from the White House to the Death Star petition points out:

Anyone with an agenda and 25,000 signatures can elicit an official response from the White House's "We the People" website. This being the internet and all, requests naturally tilt toward the edges: A petition for President Obama's impeachment, federally legalized marijuana, secession appeals, and a nationalized Twinkie industry. 

In the Death Star petition--a petition I proudly signed, by the way--34,435 people expressed their support for our government to fund the creation of a Death Star. While it was clearly a spoof petition that wasn't intended to pass--one of the top reasons being that it would take "$850 quadrillion" to build--it was clearly geared towards and succeeded in garnering attention. Many people would write it off as the typical comical farce of the internet. However, the internet has often proven that humor can carry very serious messages far and wide. Though no one expected the petition to pass, it did show many people's concern with extremely decreased funding for United States space programs, the poor state of the economy, the extreme amount of money we put into the defense budget, and the connection between these things. The actual text of the petition says:

By focusing our defense resources into a space-superiority platform and weapon system such as a Death Star, the government can spur job creation in the fields of construction, engineering, space exploration, and more, and strengthen our national defense.

The Death Star petition was created November 14, 2012, a particularly relevant time considering this August 6, 2012 article on a portion of the public's shortsighted and negative reaction to the funding spent on the Mars rover Curiosity. Most of the comments on Facebook amounted to people saying that the $2.5 Billion budget for Curiosity was wasted when it should have gone to providing shelter for the homeless. This sentiment actually became pretty popular because it was turned into a spreadable media format in the form of a shareable picture on Facebook. I know I commented vociferously on such posts pointing out how employing people using $2.5 Billion dollars does a lot more to stimulate the economy and improve living conditions than does giving it away to treat the symptoms of the problem. However, somehow my singular comments didn't become quite as popular as the photo being shared--shocking, I know.

What better way to combat this mode of thinking, though, than to create an attention grabbing Death Star petition that the White House actually responds to? There really isn't one.

So, before people write off the power of online activism because of its seemingly childish appearance, you really have to look at the underlying and powerful messages that the humor is carrying across boundaries in leaps and bounds that serious, straight laced activism just can't. After all, it's not a new phenomenon that the packaging of the message has to attract people before it can't fully soak into their brains. Internet humor in spreadable media format just happens to be the new transporting agent.

Working Together to Make the Future

How Free is the Internet?

"if you think you're free,

try walking into a deli"

At the most basic of levels, no, the internet is decidedly not free, just as it's not free to walk into a deli if you expect to get a sandwich; "The most widespread myth about cyberspace is that it is truly free and ungovernable" (154, An Introduction to New Media and Cybercultures). I don't know about you, but I pay about $60 a month for the internet. It's $7.99 a month for Netflix, and $100 or so a year to rent a URL and server space for my website. Even before that, it's around $100 or so a month to just keep the electricity on to run my devices. There are more miscellaneous charges if I want to get a movie or an e-book from Amazon. There are other less tangible costs even for the free websites, as well. Facebook has access to all of your information which they sell in packages to advertisers. Instagram feels free to sell the pictures you provide.

I know that for a full-time college student with more than a couple of jobs, the monetary cost represents a great expense, and the intangible cost is troubling. I'm also aware that, even in our own country, the minimum monetary threshold necessary to have access to the internet represents an impossible expense to a great many people: 

In itself, the availability of a medium of communication does not guarantee a truly public 'public sphere.' Racial, economic, gender, and regional inequalities in access mean that the public sphere in cyberspace is once more constructed by the (techno-) elite, while the marginal (often racial/ethnic minorities or women) remain at the periphery. ICTs have helped the already empowered to acquire greater power while the disadvantaged remain on the margins. (151, An Introduction to New Media and Cybercultures)

 So, even though we may not think of ourselves this way, we are the techno-elite in our own country and especially the rest of the world. In the article "The Internet Is Still a Man's World in Developing Countries" which Nathan shared as a trend on our Digital Culture and Social Media page, it states that "In the U.S., the gap between the number of men and women who use the internet is about 4 percent." So, even in our own country we can see the marginalization of women on the web. In developing countries, however, the gap is even more apparent with a "global gender gap of 23%" where even the internet access for men doesn't break above 50%. These statistics reflecting the connection between the gender/socioeconomic status and the internet access disparity show how:

Cyber-public space is the augmentation of existing public spaces and an extension into another realm of the communities, sites of political action and agency that exist in the real public sphere. This also means . . . that cyberspace is a fiercely contested zone, where ideological battles are played out between commercial interests and justice movements, neo-cons and radicals, businesses and environmentalists, the state and civil society. Even with radical and subversive movements in cyberspace, control is exerted by commercial interests. Even as the latter push for state governance of the Internet, alternative media escape legislation and hackers disrupt the profiteering narrative of mainstream technocapitalism. (137, An Introduction to New Media and Cybercultures)

 So, while there is a marked disadvantage in cyberculture for those who cannot afford access to all of the goodies that are offered on the internet, "hackers" as Nayar calls them—though the correct term in this sense is pirate—work to free the internet for public use. Pirates do this by cracking the copyright protection codes on software, music, movies, games, and e-books and distributing them freely and on a large scale using Peer-to-Peer transfer networks via torrents on sites such as Kick Ass Torrents. Technocapitalist corporations are fighting back, though:

Issues of copyright have exercised legal thinkers in the digital era. When the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was enacted in 1998, it was an attempt to ensure copyright protection for software and digital products. The controversies over NAPSTER and music-copying technologies have been cultural debates: who can own copyright, the freeing of knowledge and technology from monopolistic control, and the government's right to monitor usage, among others. (154, An Introduction to New Media and Cybercultures)

Technocapitalists are using new laws to impose severe repercussions for pirates. However, this seems counterproductive in that laws are made by the government which is supposed to represent the interests of the public. Pirates are freeing up media on the internet for public use; yet, the laws made by the government are advancing the interests of the technocapitalists, instead. Indeed, even the premise that preventing piracy protects the profits of the entertainment industry is faulty. In one of many articles expounding upon this point, "Why Most Artists Profit from Piracy" sheds light upon how piracy actually helps promote the music industry.

In conclusion, a free internet—whether in terms of cost or access—is not a thing that is naturally occurring. Lots and lots of people and organizations, however, are in constant battle to create that freedom—including everyone from pirates liberating media products to public libraries which offer free access to the internet. They are in constant confrontation with technocapitalists and the governmental laws they force through which begs the question "whether the task of ensuring security, safety, privacy, and equality (of access) is now the prerogative of private conglomerates and corporations rather than the state" (155, An Introduction to New Media and Cybercultures).

How much truth is on the internet?

Clients From Hell is what Chapter 12 of Turkle's book Alone Together terms a "confessional site" (230). As a web designer, it also happens to be my favorite. On Clients From Hell, I can read the anonymous stories from other design professionals and commiserate with them over things that have happened to all of us, such as your boss REALLY liking that terrible font...but has that really happened to all of us?


As Turkle points out, "market incentives are, after all, at work; each story competes with others. Exaggeration might increase readership. And since all confessions are anonymous, who will ever know?" (230). I had always just accepted these stories at face value as truths because logically, they seem like they could have happened. However, many people take a similar stance to the forty-year-old college professor that Turkle interviewed: "he takes on the persona of 'everyman.' For him, anonymity means universality. What he says on the Web does not necessarily follow from his actual experience" (240). So, just because it's not true for him doesn't mean it's not true at all. After all, the people who visit Clients From Hell are mostly designers like myself who can relate to the statements, and they ring true whether or not they are 100% truthful. Like the quote from Alan Moore states, "Artists use lies to tell the truth. Yes, I created a lie. But because you believed it, you found something true about yourself."

Anonymous confession groups like this became a way to deal with the emotional friction that pops up in our lives. No matter how great your boss, eventually you will disagree with her/him about something. So, instead of registering that complaint where it will only do harm, you can go online and move on by sharing your experience. It seems much different than the scenario in the chapter where a woman confessed to using her parents' retirement fund to go on vacation--twice. That is a workaround to get all of the feel-good of confessing without having to own up to your actions. Clients From Hell is a way to get rid of emotional grist that would only harm a working relationship or remain bottled up until all of the little things finally made you explode. Even that use could sour if you used it as an excuse not to confront your boss or client about reoccurring problems, though.

So, like in all things, prudent use is the key...and often the very thing we're missing in the technological onslaught of our new age.

Indeed, in chapter 11, Turkle discusses how we are reducing our interpersonal communication to resemble our communication with bots or completely replacing them all together. Where games like Second Life could be a method for "working through" problems rather than "acting out" (214). Working through problems is a positive way of using virtual reality to impact our corporeal lives:

A young woman who had lost a leg in a car crash and now wore a prosthetic limb felt ready to resume a sexual life after the accident but was still awkward and anxious. She created an online avatar with a prosthetic leg and had virtual relationships. Online, she practiced talking about her prosthetic limb and taking it off before being intimate with her virtual lovers. She grew more comfortable with her physical body through the experience of her virtual body. (214)

However, many more people resemble the story of Adam who "disappears [into his game worlds] for up to fifteen-hour stretches. Adam gets little sleep, but he does not consider cutting back on his games. They are essential to his self-esteem, for it is inside these worlds that he feels most relaxed and happy" (219). In fact, "to make ends meet, he provides technical support for an insurance company and takes care of an elderly man on the weekends. Neither of these “real jobs” engages him. He is barely holding on to them" (219). Adam moved away from other people by degrees. Having first started gaming as a social event in his work place, he now prefers to play with the in-game intelligences of Civilization. So, instead of gaming being a tool to help him socialize, he's now acting out his problems every day by reinforcing his antisocial tendencies. In other words, he's stuck in a developmental moratorium and is making no progress.

Stories such as this seem to affirm Turkle's fearful question "does loving your Second Life resign you to your disappointments in the real?" (219). Adam is getting just enough reliable and predictable gratification from his game life that he doesn't put the monumental effort in that is needed for more substantial rewards in his real life, such as pursuing the singer/songwriter and screenwriter careers in which he expressed interest. Instead, he's holding down unfulfilling jobs just to keep the electricity on for his games:

Success in simulation tempers Adam’s sense of disappointment with himself . . . it is not creation but the feeling of creation. This is the sweet spot of simulation: the exhilaration of creativity without its pressures, the excitement of exploration without its risks. And so Adam plays on, escaping to a place where he does not have to think beyond the game. (223-4)

So, truth online seems to inhabit its own sphere of meaning separate from what we think of as truth in the corporeal world. Confession site entries don't necessarily have to reflect the subjective truth of one's corporeal life so long as it hits upon an objective truth. In fact, this is a healthy way to work through slight problems at work where confrontation is not useful. The trouble online comes from acting out our problems, fooling ourselves into believing we have accomplished something when what we've really done is replace human interactions with computer ones. Instead of the woman confessing to her parents that she had used their retirement money, she anonymously told the internet so that she could continue living her lie with her parents. Adam also used online games to lie to himself. He started gaming as a way to socialize and then abandoned real people for the illusion of friends the game provided. Thus, the most pervasive and harmful form of lying on the internet is our own self-deception.

Introverts and Communication

"electronic media “levels the playing field” between people like her—outgoing, on the soccer team, and in drama club—and the shy: “It’s only on the screen that shy people open up.”

Turkle, Sherry (2011-01-11). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other (p. 187). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition. 

We Are All Cyborgs Now

"In this new regime, a train station (like an airport, a café, or a park) is no longer a communal space but a place of social collection: people come together but do not speak to each other. Each is tethered to a mobile device and to the people and places to which that device serves as a portal. I grew up in Brooklyn..."

Wait a minute.

Steve Rogers, did you write my digital media textbook? O_o

The above photo is a still of the Captain America deleted scenes from The Avengers (2012). Just a kid from 1920s Brooklyn, Steve has been transported into a future where nobody really talks to anybody. Everyone is plugged into a device of some sort designed to take them out of their immediate surroundings. From left to right we have an MP3 player, an eReader, and two smartphones. Steve Rogers, the man out of time, is the only one actually on the train.

Earlier in the clip, when Steve is walking through New York, a cellphone street vendor barks out "Buy some time! Buy some time!"



Is that what we're all doing now? Trying to "make more time by multitasking, our twenty-first-century alchemy" at the expense of living in the moment? I know of one person in particular that is notorious for this type of behavior. I'll have her over at my house, and she will interact with her cellphone every five seconds while we're eating. Trying to have a conversation with her feels like I'm intruding upon the world she really wants to be in. Even my best friend is slipping into this habit now that she has a smartphone. I have to cover up the screen to get her to answer a simple yes or no question. My dog even feels the immediate social disconnect caused by technology; just while I was writing this, he pawed at my leg until I picked him up so he could sit in my lap while I type.

With the immediacy of all of our technology, we are not "existing in the moment" as my yoga teacher likes to say. Recently, however, I've made a concerted effort to stop this, to become a better cyborg by knowing when to turn off the display flickering at the edge of my vision so I can fully experience one event. After all, is all of this connectivity really enhancing our lives when we're sort of--but not really--paying attention to five different things? Well, yes and no. Sometimes, like in class, I use technology to look up supplemental information. That's the beautiful side of technology when online you and real life you is working together towards the same goal. Most times, however...

We're doing five disparate things that detract from each other. I'm not saying this is always a bad thing. Entertainment in itself is not an unworthy pursuit. However, this type of technology is not so shiny new anymore, and we need to learn how to put it down in the right situations. After all, that smartphone is not literally sewn to your hand. Part of the obligation of being a consumer is knowing when to cut yourself off so it does not become an addiction. So, just like the liquor ads always tell you, please