dreaming global new media

When considering the presence of an economic bias in global new media, it is important we understand what the term ‘Global new media’ means. So let me begin by explaining that global new media is not hard copy newspapers and magazines. Nor is it national television or radio networks that fail to transcend temporal and spatial boundaries within a global context. For example, while a reader might struggle to find a printed edition of Melbourne’s ‘Age’ newspaper in the Australian city of Darwin, the internet, and its various incarnations in the form of news and entertainment owned by media alliances such as ninemsm, mean global new media is characterised by a capacity to transcend traditional understandings of national sovereignty, resulting in previously impermeable and clearly defined temporal-spatial borders becoming porous.

Prior to the development of the internet, if a publisher wanted to send copies of The Age newspaper to Bangkok, he or she relied on air freight. Now, these barriers of time and space have dissolved. In Bangkok, a reader of The Age simply logs on at the newspaper’s website and reads from its electronic edition. In this sense, Appadurai’s ‘Mediascape’, minus his emphasis on pre electronic forms, and the ways in which this simulacra of images drawn from advertising, cinema, and the internet create within the minds of individuals “Imagined worlds”, (Appadurai, 1997, 33-36), or a global new media dream, means that the presence of an economic bias embedded within global new media requires it be articulated and specifically understood. For as Singer points out in his plea for a reflective consideration of the disparate attitudes toward global poverty, (Singer, 2002, 179), globalisation has an ethical dimension. As communication theorists, we would be derelict if we did not recognise and abide by these, our ethical responsibilities.

It is one thing to claim that an economic bias exists within global new media, but it is a more difficult task to examine the three areas within which this bias resides. The World Trade Organisation, although not explicitly a media outlet, employs the internet as a powerful tool for expressing its views on a global scale. (www.wto.org/ May 07) Despite the W.T.O.’s claim that it does not favour commercial interests and free trade over environmental, human, and animal rights, Singer shows the opposite to be the case. He also concludes that not only does the W.T.O. erode national sovereignty by “good discipline” such as “Friedman’s golden straitjacket”, it is also undemocratic in theory and practice. (Singer, 2002, 101) Clearly, the W.T.O., as an organisation that evolved from G.A.T.T. for the purpose of promoting free and unprotected trade on a global scale, contains within its charter, and its actions, a bias favouring economic imperatives. A specific example of this bias occurred when the W.T.O. forced the U.S. to lift its embargo on the importation of Mexican tuna caught in nets that also trapped and killed dolphins; thereby emphasising the importance of free trade over environmental and animal rights. (Singer, 2002, 65) Once this view is expressed via the internet, it then becomes a prime example of the bias present within the debate surrounding global new media.

The second area that contains a bias toward economic imperatives, is the discourse. Here, I am referring to the ten schools of thought within the academic discipline known as Communications. Of course, schools such as the Technological Determinists and Economic Rationalists have an explicit profit motive. But claiming that an economic bias is implicit within each individual school, and the combined universal system of thought that is Communications theory, requires a subtle distinction.

By discussing the term discourse, I am referring to the mode of communication and its linguistic expression; its letters, words, sentences and paragraphs, their origin and social values, their prejudices and connotations, theorists from all schools use when expressing ideas about Communications. So when Barr uses terms such as “information rich and information poor”, we know that as a theorist residing at Left of the political spectrum, he is advocating social justice and the interests of people over the accumulation of profit. (Barr, 2000, 145-165) But sometimes, we fail to recognise that the terms used by Barr and others not only contain an economic connotation, their concerns also reside within a framework of statistics, percentages, and numbers that is indicative of economic thinking. So when Barr justly points out that more mobile phones exist in Tokyo than do in the entire continent of Africa, we are disturbed by this statistic. (Barr, 2000, 145-165) But if we accept McLuhan's maxim that ‘the medium is the message’, then Barr’s statistic can also be interpreted as one emphasising that mobile phones, their quantity, are of equal importance as the many human beings in Africa who do not own a mobile phone. Considered this way, the message is mixed; which also means that the discourse is biased in favour of the accumulation of property, and economic interests. This objectification of human beings, no matter how altruistic, contains assumptions of order, unity, and the existence of universal truths that are not just consistent across the ten schools of thought, they are also integral within the capitalist project of Modernity. (Ang, 1990, 366-380)

The third and most surreptitious area that contains a bias toward economic imperatives, is the structure of the information used in the debate and discourse surrounding global new media. By structure, I mean digitised information comprised of algorithmic code; that is, mathematical equations consisting of patterns of numbers used in the construction of computer files. So when Scharmen notes that the “component parts of the online soul are small pieces of marketing data”, (www.sevensixfive.net May, 07) this view is consistent with Posters revisiting of Foucalt’s postructuralist interpretation of the surveilling power of Bentham’s panopticon.

In The Mode of Information: poststructuralism and social context, Poster extends Foucalt’s linguistic analysis of the surveilling power of language to include digitised information. In doing so, he develops the idea of the ‘Superpanopticon’. According to Poster, digitised information is fundamentally different from its older analogue counterpart. Where analogue information was a mode constructed of natural materials such as metal shavings, digitised information, in the shape of computer files, is purely mathematical: patterns of numbers within the mainframe and nothing more. Consequently, analogue information’s capacity to accurately represent the ambiguities of human beings - via the inclusion of phenomena such as external noise - is eliminated by the decidedly unambiguous representation ushered in by the digital revolution. Further, Poster connects this inaccurate representation, or ‘Bodies corporate’, with a marketing database where each individual’s personal details are collated for the purpose of ascertaining their potential for increasing profits. (Poster, 1990, 85-98)The innocuous use of a credit card results in the corporatising of a user’s identity; his or her age, marital status, shopping habits etc..., and the inclusion of these personal details in a database profiling each individual’s susceptibility to marketing strategies. Not simply an issue of privacy, the structure of information used in the debate and discourse of global new media contains an inescapable bias toward economic imperatives.

So unless an individual becomes a Zarathustrian monk, little can be achieved by attempting to overcome this omnipotent bias toward the economic. Conversely, passive acceptance of this bias might have positive results for the world’s population; that is, if it wasn’t for the knowledge that in the year 2000, three of the world’s richest people had more assets than the combined G.N.P. of forty nine of the poorest countries on earth, and one fifth of the world’s 6.3 billion people survived on US $ 1 a day, (Purchasing Power Parity adjusted). (Singer, 2000, 89) And even though by citing such statistics I can also be criticised for doing that which I have just criticised others, namely, using an economic framework of percentages and numbers in support of a point of view, then this paradox highlights the dilemma faced by the Communications theorist in the 21 st century; or what some might concur is the Postmodern period.

But here is the difference: being a devotee of the Postmodern school, I subscribe to contingent rather than universal truths; to disorder and chaos rather than order and unity; to a system of belief that accepts Capitalism as a precondition of existence - repugnant it may at times be, and who attempts to resist its formidable influence via irony and the furthering of community interest. Unlike the Social Justice, Liberal Pessimist, and Neo Marxist schools who seem content within their undying belief in the certainty of their argument and each argument’s subscription to the irrevocable presence of a universal truth. But this discussion of global new media should not be one during which binary opposites attempt to politely refute the arguments of its co-accused. (Flew, 2005, 20-39) For consistent with Postmodern thinking there are too many uncertainties to consider when attempting to unravel and articulate the deft intricacies of what Appadurai has termed: “the image, the imagined, and the imaginary”, (Appadurai, 1997, 31), or this global new media dream.

But before we unravel Appadurai’s conception of global new media in the Postmodern world, it will help to ascertain exactly what is meant by the term ‘Universal truth’. Here, I am specifically referring to the ten schools of thought comprising the discipline known as Communications, and the closed system or universe within which the ten schools reside. Each school of thought and the predetermined truth underpinning its existence, combine to create a discipline that is itself predetermined. For example, the Technological Utopians are telling us everything is fine in Communications, while the Liberal Pessimists are telling us everything is not. Similarly, the Economic Rationalists attempt to sell us the benefits of market fundamentalism, while the Neo-Marxists are out to convince us that it’s the revolution that counts. Of course, similarities and differences occur both within and between the ten schools. But as Mark Finn pointed out in a recent lecture, and I paraphrase, the further a theorist moves away from the centre, the more each of the schools begin to resemble one another.

One important feature of this resemblance is certainty, even if each school is only certain in opposition toward the view of its direct opponent. Of course, the Postmodern school is also defined by a clear commitment to principles of community activism and the possibilities for individual liberty present in global new media. However, what differentiates the Postmodern school from its nine counterparts is an explicit commitment to uncertainty. By allowing for the possibility of an indeterminate rather than a predetermined truth, the postmodern school subverts the fundamental principles upon which the system of thought it resides within are founded upon. Open rather than closed, it challenges assumptions of unity, order, rationality, and objectivity that are characteristics of Modernism and its erroneous presumption that Communications can be explained by systemic thought that will eventually arrive at a universal truth. Further, as Ang notes, this predetermined system we know as Communications contains an unnerving resemblance to the strategies of market segmentation. (Ang, 1990, 375) Students, (Buyers), are sold a particular school of thought by teachers, (Sellers), in the knowledge that this acquisition will result in successful graduation and improved career opportunities. In this sense, Wark’s description of Education as a means for creating “Wage slaves”, (Wark, 2004, 062), is not only apt, it is consistent with the capitalist mode of production that is, once again, implicit within the project of Modernity.

Whether in the debate, the discourse, or the structure of the debate and discourse, we cannot escape this bias toward economic imperatives. This is not to say that global new media should deny its economic dimension. Clearly, economics is as important an element within the area of Communications as water is to life. But like any ecology, or a living system within which there also resides political, social, cultural and technological concerns, (Flew, 2005, 177-199), when one dimension such as economics dominates and begins to consume all others, it becomes a voracious tyrant.

As Singer repeatedly shows throughout his appraisal of globalisation, devotion to economic imperatives for the purpose of increasing profit does not necessarily result in an improved standard of living and therefore, a better life. Rather, national sovereignties are eroded, ending in cultural disintegration. Government alliances with powerful multinationals spawn tyrannical regimes; where the democratic right to protest is dealt with via political assassination. The social hiatus between western affluence and third world poverty becomes an irrevocable and intractable source of deep despair. And, of course, this is not to mention the long list of environmental, animal welfare, intellectual property, privacy and human rights issues that arise when the thirst for profit becomes insatiable. (Singer, 2002, 58-117) Given that global new media is not just complicit within the globalisation process, it is an inextricable part of economic expansion on a global scale, what then are the rights and responsibilities of the Communications theorist when confronted by globalisation, and its sometimes sordid consequences ?

Let us begin by ascertaining exactly what is meant by the phrase ‘Rights and responsibilities’. Here, ‘Rights’, refers to the Communications theorist and his or her right to receive an unbiased appreciation of Communications theory. If we accept that Communications studies is biased in favour of economic imperatives, (and this is difficult to refute), then at very least this bias infringes upon the moral right of a student to receive an education free of prejudice.

Now it may be that valid reasons exist for this prejudice; reductions in government funding, university business models, and an emphasis on vocation, rather than the acquisition of knowledge, are several. But this does not eliminate the fact that a prejudiced education remains a prejudiced education, regardless of why it is implemented. Instilling an economic bias within students of Communications, who may well perpetuate this bias within a global new media environment, might, for example, increase the ‘Digital Divide’, or contribute to the capacity of tyrannical regimes to breach human rights. It follows then that the Communications theorist has a ‘Responsibility’ not to misrepresent him or her self, as well as others whom he or she may be representing. By ‘Responsibility’, I mean an ethical obligation to discuss global new media in such a way that it not only corrects the current imbalance favouring economic interests, but actively seeks to establish a discourse that dismantles the present false and misleading doctrine promoting systemic thought and universal truth. In doing so, the Communications theorist remains true to what should be his or her first impulse for attending university: an understanding that while knowledge will always be a pursuit, education forever remains a commodity. Taking practical steps to instill an open and indeterminate discourse within the discipline of Communications means the student upholds his or her responsibility to discuss global new media is such a way that it opens, rather than closes, a variety of possibilities in Communications theory.

Dreaming global new media is one of these possibilities. By contrast, Flew limits his discussion of global new media to an introductory analysis of the five dimensions of globalisation: the economic, technological, political, social and cultural; both within and between which there occurs an interplay of intersecting ideas. (Flew, 2005, 177-199) Communications plays a role in each of the five dimensions. It is first and foremost an economic, then a technological force. One capable of administering considerable political, social and cultural clout on a global scale. The alliance between Fox and Telstra, and its political, social and cultural presence both nationally and internationally, illustrate Flew’s rather cautious summation of corporate power in the space of flows. But New Media, an introduction is just that; a thorough introduction to the significance of global communications. But any introduction to any topic should also be a point of departure, even if this takes the Communications theorist on a trip back to the future. Although published in ‘97, Appadurai’s Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalisation, and its conception of global new media, as a strange, disjunctive dream,(Appadurai, 1997, 22-47), curiously resonates as an extension of Flew's analysis, even though Appadurai's book was published five years earlier. But perhaps this is indicative of the conservative discipline Communications has become in 2007.

In Appadurai’s conception of globalisation, we not only see a correction of the current bias favouring economic imperatives in global new media, we see what amounts to a successful attempt to hybridise the discussion. Unlike Flew, Appadurai segments globalisation into a conceptual tapestry of five landscapes: ethno, techno, media, finance, and ideoscapes; landscapes that less intersect, and more overlap. Rather than economics dominating the entire paradigm, each scape is an entity in its own right; one with its own idiosyncratic and peculiar trajectory. The financescape is the flow of inconceivable amounts of money on a global scale via mediated forms of communication in the shape of electronic transfer, and all five scapes participate in its successful completion. Ethnoscapes provide the labour - be it mechanical or informational - while the economic ideology of late capitalism is distributed globally via forms of communication dependent upon technological development for its continued success. Each thread in this global tapestry overlaps with another, perhaps many times. But rather than being consumed by the economic imperative, each scape continues along an indeterminate path that is responsive to other paths in a peripheral manner; one more consistent with the term ensemble, rather than tyranny.

Of course, Appadurai’s conception will not solve the gross, shameful, and seemingly intractable inequalities and deprivations that Singer illuminates. But underpinning his conception of globalisation is a spirit of cooperation, rather than conflict: a dream that respects the rights of the individual as he or she works to shape an ensemble: a system of thought within which greed and predetermined binary oppositions become secondary to that basic human desire of wanting to make a worthwhile contribution to the world we all inhabit, and to play a small yet significant role in this global new media dream.

Bibliography

Ang, I. In the Realm of Uncertainty: the Global Village & Capitalist Postmodernity, from The Media reader: continuity and transformation, Hugh Mackay & Tim Sullivan (Ed’s), London, Sage Publications, 1990.

Appadurai, A., Modernity at Large - Cultural Dimensions of Globalisation, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1997.

Barr, T. Newmedia.com.au, St. Leonards N.S.W., Allen & Unwin, 2000.

Flew, T. New Media: an introduction, 2nd. ed., Melbourne, Oxford University Press, 2005.

Poster, M. The Mode of Information: Post Structuralism & Social Context, Cambridge & Oxford, Polity & Blackwell, 1990.

Singer, P. One World: the ethics of globalisation, Text Publishing, Melbourne,, 2002.

Wark, M. A Hacker Manifesto, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2004.