Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Media systems: Japan, Canada, United Kingdom
In this post, I will discuss what I believe to be the primary and secondary media systems in Japan, Canada and the United Kingdom.
Japan ...
I see Japan as an authoritarian system with a secondary Communist system. Japan's authoritarian system may not be as extreme as it has been in the past or as extreme as other countries may be, but it still has multiple values of an authoritarian system. The government is very controlling, with cross-media ownership restricted by law. Also, Japan's political system has paved the way for Liberal Democratic Party to take away many of the journalistic freedoms that media in other countries have. The Ministry of Public Management has rules and regulations that it imposes with respect to political impartiality. The needs and interests of the individual media forms are sacrificed for the needs of society, which is a clear Communist ideal.
Canada ...
I would describe Canada as a social responsibility system with a libertarian philosophy as its secondary system. Media are relatively free from the government, but television broadcasting and publication sectors need a certain degree of intervention from the government in order to make a profit. Because Canada is such a small market, the film industry needs help as well.
United Kingdom ...
I see the media systems in U.K. media very similar to those of Canada. I think that the United Kingdom has many values of a social responsibility system with splashes of libertarianism. There is public accountability with laws and regulations in the U.K. A large portion of legislation relates directly in some way to media. But freedom of expression is protected, and no form really has a monopoly on truth. This system could change with the future of the BBC in doubt. There is discussion that the BBC distorts the market, even though it is the largest public service broadcaster in the U.K.
Japan ...
I see Japan as an authoritarian system with a secondary Communist system. Japan's authoritarian system may not be as extreme as it has been in the past or as extreme as other countries may be, but it still has multiple values of an authoritarian system. The government is very controlling, with cross-media ownership restricted by law. Also, Japan's political system has paved the way for Liberal Democratic Party to take away many of the journalistic freedoms that media in other countries have. The Ministry of Public Management has rules and regulations that it imposes with respect to political impartiality. The needs and interests of the individual media forms are sacrificed for the needs of society, which is a clear Communist ideal.
Canada ...
I would describe Canada as a social responsibility system with a libertarian philosophy as its secondary system. Media are relatively free from the government, but television broadcasting and publication sectors need a certain degree of intervention from the government in order to make a profit. Because Canada is such a small market, the film industry needs help as well.
United Kingdom ...
I see the media systems in U.K. media very similar to those of Canada. I think that the United Kingdom has many values of a social responsibility system with splashes of libertarianism. There is public accountability with laws and regulations in the U.K. A large portion of legislation relates directly in some way to media. But freedom of expression is protected, and no form really has a monopoly on truth. This system could change with the future of the BBC in doubt. There is discussion that the BBC distorts the market, even though it is the largest public service broadcaster in the U.K.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Teach for America vs. Peace Corps
I would teach. Plain and simple. I've always enjoyed working with kids, and I could see myself becoming a college professor or teaching in some form at some point in my career. I think I would get a lot out of either one. The Peace Corps would probably be a great experience. After spending a semester in Spain, I would relish the opportunity to travel more and develop an even better understanding of other peoples, in addition to spreading American culture to others. After spending time abroad, I realized that many foreigners don't really understand American culture and I would love to be able to share the American life with others.
But Teach for America stresses educational equality and impacting kids. That to me is far more valuable. In low-income communities throughout the U.S., there are schools that can't afford the means to provide a solid education for students. Every child has the right to a good education, and if I can help just a few more children receive the education they deserve, I would be satisfied. Granted, I wouldn't be a certified teacher and wouldn't be as experienced as other might be, but I really think I could make a difference and provide something special to these kids.
But Teach for America stresses educational equality and impacting kids. That to me is far more valuable. In low-income communities throughout the U.S., there are schools that can't afford the means to provide a solid education for students. Every child has the right to a good education, and if I can help just a few more children receive the education they deserve, I would be satisfied. Granted, I wouldn't be a certified teacher and wouldn't be as experienced as other might be, but I really think I could make a difference and provide something special to these kids.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Robert D. Kaplan
We need to be more aware of the future. In Robert Kaplan's article, he brings to light several points that people need to understand. Too often, Americans think inside of a bubble, rarely worrying about life outside of their little town, let alone their country. But the fact of the matter is that the future of global relations is in jeopardy. People who have never been to Africa have no idea of how the world really is. I've been to Morocco and rode a camel through the Sahara Desert. I saw young kids walking through the desert trying to sell me things. These kids never had a chance at a childhood. I can easily relate to Kaplan's personal thoughts. I've been there too. I've seen it. The conflicts that countries in Africa and in Asia face every day are ones that us snug Americans could never even begin to fathom.
There are also the environmental concerns, which Americans are starting to get a glimpse of through global warming. But sustainability isn't stressed enough, and even the people who know a problem exists still leave their computers on all night, leave the bathroom light on during the day, and take 30-minute showers.
It's scary to think of what our world could be like in 20 years. We need to better take care of the environment, ourselves, and each other.
There are also the environmental concerns, which Americans are starting to get a glimpse of through global warming. But sustainability isn't stressed enough, and even the people who know a problem exists still leave their computers on all night, leave the bathroom light on during the day, and take 30-minute showers.
It's scary to think of what our world could be like in 20 years. We need to better take care of the environment, ourselves, and each other.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington
Francis Fukuyama is an American philosopher, a political economist and an author. Samuel Huntington is an American political scientist. In 1989, Fukuyama published "The end of history?" in The National Interest. In 1993, Huntington published "The Clash of Civilizations" in Foreign Affairs.
Both pieces spoke of things to come as seen by Fukuyama and Huntington. The works outlined their views on history and its future. Both provoked heavy debate and discussion and influenced not only the thoughts of others, but the way they thought as well. Still, the authors' perspectives were more contrasting with Huntington gearing more toward describing post-Cold War geopolitics. It speaks of cultural tensions tearing civilizations apart, which is only true to an extent.
Their theories are absolutist, and the reality is that you cannot predict history and make broad generalizations. Both make valid points, but the thought of history or art or philosophy ending is simply extreme. One hundred years from now the world may be completely different. Democracy may be dead, and there is just no way of knowing.
Both pieces spoke of things to come as seen by Fukuyama and Huntington. The works outlined their views on history and its future. Both provoked heavy debate and discussion and influenced not only the thoughts of others, but the way they thought as well. Still, the authors' perspectives were more contrasting with Huntington gearing more toward describing post-Cold War geopolitics. It speaks of cultural tensions tearing civilizations apart, which is only true to an extent.
Their theories are absolutist, and the reality is that you cannot predict history and make broad generalizations. Both make valid points, but the thought of history or art or philosophy ending is simply extreme. One hundred years from now the world may be completely different. Democracy may be dead, and there is just no way of knowing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)