MEDIA AND GLOBALIZATION Why the State MAtters


KİTAP NO:    75         

İSMİ:             MEDIA AND GLOBALIZATION Why the State MAtters

YAZARIN ADI: Edited by Nancy Morris, Silvio Waisbord

TARİH, YER    :

OKUNDUĞU TARİH: 23-11-2001

YAYINEVİ: Rowman& Littlefield Publishers Inc.

 

KONU:

            Sovereignity ile medya ilişkilerini yazıyor. G.Kore ile Afrika ilişkilerini anlatıyor.

            Sovereignity tanımı—} A sovereign state or country is independent and not under the authority of any other country.

2. A sovereign is used to describe the person or institution that has the biggest power in a particular country.

3. A sovereign is a king, queen, or other royal ruler of a country.

 İs the power that a country has to govern itself or another country or state.

 

  • The idea that globalization erodes the power of the state has become conventional wisdom in globalization studies.
  • The rise of transnational organizations the unprecendented worldwide expansion of corporations and market economies the global capacity of military superpowers,  the ability of technology to eliminate spatial barriers, and the consolidation of an international legal system, to mention a few dimensions of globalization, render obsolete the basis of stateness, the existence and protection of a sovereign territory. (Wriston 1992)
  • A several authors have argued, the coming of digital technologies and systems that transcend geographical limitations, coupled with the unfettered worldwide expansion  of media and tele communications companies, represents the latest assault on state sovereignty- that is, on the capacity of states to rule within a ceratin territory without intrusion from other states. The premise of sovereignty is that states have undivided power. (1989 Held) to make decisions wihin their borders without interference from other states or organizations. Communication sovereignty refers to states exercise of authority over flows of ideas and info inside their territories. The gap between the ideal of sovereignty and contemporary reality, a concern of globalization scholars in several fields, has been particularly evident in regard to communication, and information. Although states have been endowed with the task of cordoning off communicative spaces, the control of the intagible borders is seen as a sisyphean task in the face of media globalization.
  • Studies of media policies continue to demonstrate that, not with standing the strong combined pressures from external actors. ( global corporations, financial in stituations and international bodies), states ultimately hold the power to pass legistation that affexts domestic media industries.
  • Hükümetler medyanın yerel gruplarda kalmasına dikkat ediyorlar. Destekliyorlar. Almanya ( Parro), İran, Çin (BBC) durdurmaya çalıştı, Afganistan, Malezya, Pakistan kültür empozisyonu. But in the information realm, govern are finding it increasingly difficult to restrict access to external sources.

Irish hükümeti Gaetic medya’yı destekiyor.

Ecuador 2 dil eğitim programlarını destekliyor.

UK Avrupa filmleri için tax write-off of production cost yapıyor.

Fransa subsidizes its film-maker.

  • It would be premature to announce that states have become irrelevant either as sites for political activity or as hubs for cultural solidarity. Collective identity is still fundementally tied to the state as both a power container and an identity container. State control over citizenship not only as the organization of persons within and crossing borders but also as a primary category of self-definition remains a powerful tool that has not succumbed to globalization ( Waisbord 1998)
  • Yazara göre hükümetler asla medya ilişkilerinden çıkmayacak ve her zaman globalizasyonun tartışma konusu olacaklardır.

 

  • Unilateral efforts to control Internet communications can “invade” the sovereignty of other states in at least two ways. On the one hand, if state A attempts to control the communicative activities of people residing in State B, it arguably encroaches on State B’s sovereignty. On the other hand, if State A’s laws permit individuals residins within its borders to disseminate messages into State B’s laws, this too may be seen as an encroachment on State B’s sovereignty. While such “spillover” effects from a nation-state’s internal regulatory decisions are not uncommon ( GoldSmith 2000) the very nature of the Internet increases the frequency of these effects.

 

  • 1996’da Communication Decency Act ( CDA) Amerika’da kabul edildi.

 

  • Law of Cyberspace meydana getirilmesi önerildi tarafından ama Amerikan etkisi çok olur diye diğer uluslar çekildiler.

 

  • Ortak bir kurul ile oluşturulabileceğini söylediler.

 

  • Sovereigntly is a mechanism through which elites within one territory maintain their power( internal) and negotiate with mutually recognized elites in other territories. (external).

 

  • Realists assume that states are the primary actors in the international system, that they act to maximize their power, and that te state’s boundaries serve to confine state power.”

 

  • A variation of this view is that favored position internally and pursue their interest externally.

 

  • Bir Alman firması server tüm dünya’da erişimi yasaklarsa o nu alıp kullanan diğer ülkedekilere de aynısı olur ( Sovereignty problem.

 

  • “ USA, Algeria, Syria ve Tanzania’nın konuşma özgürlüğünü ifadesi ( Anayasalarında ) aynı.

 

  • Kuzey Kore, Irak ve Libya internet erişimini yasaklamış. Sudan ve Belarus’ta serverlar devlet tekelinde. Çin’de internete girmek için izin alınmak zorunda.

 

  • European observer noted, “ international internet Governance – multilateralism- is the only way for Europeans to effectively reduce the indirect unilateral US dominance of Internet regulation” (Mayer, 2000)

 

  • ABD’de ki konuşma özgürlüğü kimseyi bağlamaz. Herkesin kendi soveireignty tisi var.

 

  • Peter White 2. Yazı

 

Australia’nın sansür politikası var internet için. Sivil özgürlükler birliği 1999’da ( Amerika)  Avusturya’yı internet idiot’u olarak tanımladı. Çocuklara pornonun yasak olması için herkese yasak olmalı.

 

5. yazı:

      Kore’de 65.000 kişili ( Shareholder’li)

      One nation The-Han-Gyoreh ( Tek Millet) gazetesi.

      En yüksek share holder %1 ile civil hareketin ?

 

      Kore’de Globalleşme devletin medya’ya etkisini arttırıyor. KOBECO reklam kurumlarına %8 pay veriliyor, reklam gelirinden.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s