Sunday, 11 August 2013

Television & Globalization

Globalization of the world has resulted in the reshaping of the way scholars and observers alike study the social world and human culture. We now have globalization studies springing up across many disciplines, as globalization has resulted in a globalized economy and world, with new systems of production, finances and consumption (Robinson, 2007). With new transnational and/or global cultural patterns as well as the idea of global cultures emerging, it isn't surprising to note that the world these days are connected by global processes and practices, where local practices or habits can often be motivated or influenced by distant events (Goodman, 2007).

There have been many research agendas of globalization, focusing on many topics ranging from transnational sexualities to globalization and crime. However, much of the focus of globalization has been directed at media, and the role media plays in aiding or assisting the globalization process (Robinson, 2007).


Globalization is an extension of cross border economic ties, and with globalization comes greater integration of societies and world economies (Hartley, 2008, p. 61). The television is one of the clearest examples of media globalization, as it is a key site for debate, as well as used in the sharing and spreading of local news on a global scale (Hartley, 2008, pp. 61 - 72). 

In this day and age, people wouldn't think twice of waking up at 2AM in their own home to watch a football match being aired live from an entirely different country, where the match was being held in the afternoon. With globalization and television, the world can now be connected on the same platform, at the same time. You could be watching the exact same football broadcast in the middle of the night, as someone else who is probably watching it over lunch.


But television hasn't always been this globalized. Globalization has been around for almost as long as media has, but it took awhile before media was simultaneously available globally (Hartley, 2008, pp. 61 - 67). In its infancy, television was developed under each country's individual legislation and programming, and international traffic on television was restricted to filmed materials such as documentaries, movies, or pre-filmed series. Back then, the liveness of television could not be shared among nations, until Europe pioneered the international television exchange (Hartley, 2008, pp. 70 - 72).

These days, a single or global concept/format could be reproduced under the same format or name, but each country localizes the show. Examples could be seen from reality shows such as the Amazing Race or Who Wants to Be a Millionaire develops their own versions of the show with their own national characteristics. The local reproduction of global formats enables the production company to profit from global distribution, but at the same time also increases scope for multiplatform and interactive elements (Hartley, 2008, pp. 70 - 72).

Television plays a vital role in shaping social meanings. The content it airs and displays plays a large part in dictating the way in which people's social experiences are affected, as well as accepted cultural norms and social meanings (Waisbord, 2008, p. 367 - 369). Whatever we see on the screen, we take it as an accepted societal norm, and people tend to base their actions and behavior off what they see on the television. That is after all, where the debate on violence depicted on television affecting violence in children comes from. But it is perhaps this power the television has over cultural norms, which have critics fearing the homogenization of culture through the television, as it interlinks economic and cultural issues (Hartley, 2008, pp. 65 - 69).

With globalization, interconnectivity of television and its industries worldwide has intensified, resulting in an integrated global business, all connected by similar practices and goals (Waisbord, 2008, p. 359). Through television, there can now be a global dissemination of an idea or product, as audiences can watch the same show, albeit with localized variations.

Due to globalization, television is now used as the most convenient medium for cultural boundaries to be crossed in the most economic manner for countries, while at the same time transferring substantial amounts of information across borders.

Crystal Lim Wan Ying
22225765



Bibliography
1.      Goodman, D. J. (2007), Globalization and Consumer Culture. In The Blackwell Companion to Globalization (ed.) Ritzer, G., Malden M. A., Blackwell Publishing

2.      Hartley, J. (2008), Television Truths, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 61 - 72

3.      Waisbord, S. (2008), McTV: Understanding the Global Popularity of Television Formats, Television New Media, SAGE Publications, New York, p. 359 - 369


4.      Robinson, W.I. (2007), Theories of Globalization. In The Blackwell Companion to Globalization (ed.) Ritzer, G., Malden M. A., Blackwell Publishing

2 comments:

  1. The notion that TV shapes social meanings; hence, is translated as “accepted societal norms” is very much like the cultivation theory (Gerbner, 2002). He basically argues that heavy TV consumption constructs a viewer’s perception of reality, in other words- you are what you watch. And likewise, as mentioned, this often ties back to the source of influence for violent behavior – TV. Essentially this ties back to the drawing nature of TV and children tend to soak up things through “observational learning” that occurs as they watch TV.

    The key question here would be does TV really serve as proliferating resource for the construction of a person’s cultural identity… and define what’s acceptable and not?

    While, TV could indeed frame public opinion, as Iyengar (1991) argues that media can operate as “agenda setters”. But, would it be fair to argue that the idea of “accepted social norms” in relation to TV consumption is merely a perceived notion in today's landscape? Does TV have so much power?

    Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: The cultivation perspective. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 43-67. New Jersey: Routledge Communication Series.

    Iyengar,S. (1994). Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.



    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for this, I have sent you your evaluation.

    ReplyDelete