Dynamics of uneasy relationship
- Hueiyen Lanpao Editorial :: June 09 2015 -
There have been serious scholarships conducted on the dynamics of globalisation that helped shape the new order and its subsequent impact on cultures.
With emergence of new communication technologies like the internet as potent medium of communication, media discourse have now focussed on examining earlier models of communication dealing with questions like:
Who is an audience? What is a communication medium? How are messages mediated? The print media, voice-only (radio), audio-visual (television) and the new technology medium like the internet and their “simultaneity of operation” have led to “multiplied and fractured” impact quite contrary to the simple “sample” impact experienced earlier.
Media critics and scholars have even argued that national boundaries mapped in the minds become even fuzzier and nation states are increasingly finding it difficult to control the flow of cultural/political/social imageries.
The origin for this phenomenon has been invariably traced to the visual media’s characteristics in influencing and to some extent determining cross-border movement of ideas, goods, capital and people.
There may be other stories to back the proposition that transnational media order challenges boundaries, questioning the principle of “territoriality” and “cartographic nationalism”.
Are we then supposed to conclude that it is very well the end of modern nation states’ attempts to use print and electronic media as means to reinforce the idea of a territorially or nationally “established order”.
Certainly not, if one closely monitors and identifies who actually holds monopoly over the “new market place of ideas” and allow their ideas to shape people’s perception of socio-political reality.
To make sense of such a situation, one has to understand the logic that sets modern spin-doctors and propagandists into motion.
If one scrutinizes the emerging patterns, control over the resources and media’s relation with the state, one can comfortably conclude that the media in the age of globalization is driven not only by profit motive but also complex banal nationalism.
No wonder that it has been dubbed an industry, an industry that not only makes profit but also has the power over ‘texts and images’. And to sustain the status quo, the state in all probability will try to develop ‘intimate’ relations while foregrounding an ‘uneasy’ relationship.
* Comments posted by users in this discussion thread and other parts of this site are opinions of the individuals posting them (whose user ID is displayed alongside) and not the views of e-pao.net. We strongly recommend that users exercise responsibility, sensitivity and caution over language while writing your opinions which will be seen and read by other users. Please read a complete Guideline on using comments on this website.