Global Media and New Technologies
Free speech concentrates on the legal constraints on expression and other issues of state censorship. The concept also entails constructive obligations on the state to create the conditions for miscellaneous public communications. This paper will explore free speech, global regulations, and new media technologies. Tree speech entails the campaign for diversity in modes of address, audience, topics, and speakers. To acquire the industry dynamics and media regulations, there is a need to have free speech.
McChesney (2009, p.11) says that the realm of media is on the brink of profound transformation. In the past, media levels were on a primary national level while in this decade we have the emergence global commercial media market. LAzAroiu (2012, p. 205) note that the transformation of media leads to the creation of global oligopoly. Early in the century, the transformation has taken place in the oil and automotive industries while now it happens in the entertainment industry. The deregulation of media ownership, privatization of television in upcoming markets and the use of novel communications technologies make it possible for media giants to establish powerful production networks within and among the nations. Some of the transnational corporations that rule the global media include General Electric, Disney, Time Warner, Viacom, Liberty Media, News Corporation, Bertelsmann, and other conglomerates. A number of emerging firms and various political and ideological factors enter global system as they struggle for dominance.
Mariategui et al. (2009, p. 217) informs that major media companies move aggressively to become global players to enable them yield high revenues as well as capitalize on the potential for growth overseas. In the eighties and nineties, the national media systems were mainly domestic in the owned radio, television, and newspaper industries. During that time, newspaper was a large national phenomenon. With the introduction of television in media, a lot has changed beyond recognition. Neoliberal free-market policies began as well as cable and digital transmitters in the transnational interests.
Fisher et al. (2014, p. 639) says that that global media system is noncompetitive in the economic sense of the term. Many of the largest media firms that have major shareholders interlock each other. The primary characteristic of global media firms is merger mania and cross-ownership results in a complex web of interrelationships. The world market significantly encourages business concerns to establish equity joint ventures where media agents own a part of the enterprise. Firms reduce competition and risk and increase profit-making ability. According to Baraviciute (2010, p.186) the media market resembles a cartel than a competitive marketplace. Global conglomerates have at times have a progressive impact on the culture especially when they enter a tight controlled of corrupt crony media systems. The global commercial media system is radical since it does not respect custom, tradition, or anything standing in the way of profits.
Every major new media technology revolutionizes states and societies in warfare, satellite communications, ideology, television, phone, communications, radio, and internet. The internet has the greatest influence in all the world cultures. Fisher et al. (2014, p.635) asserts that we posit that cultural diversity as a priority, biodiversity, human rights, and most importantly the freedom of expression. In future global regulatory system for media can minimize legislation to maximize self-regulation. The legislation should balance World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and World Trade Organization (WTO) and world competition authority on the global antitrust regime for the media.
Global corporations in media integrate themselves to control a significant slice of the media sectors. A rapid vertical integration of the global market has similar firms that gain ownership on the content to distribute it. What singles out the dominant corporations is their ability to exploit synergetic effects in companies. The future global regulatory system is twofold that includes the redistribution of media resources to provide aid to the poor and developing nations and to globally publicize the service media. The initiative of New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) leads to the exit of the United States and United Kingdom to enforce all the nation-states governments. The future vision of NWICO is to administer and enforce a global structure. A global system instead of a domestic one can provide cable television to the remote areas in rich countries. Noktehdan (2008, p.3) cite that global public service media is a prerequisite countervailing force to commercial media dominance. The global public service media help in global redistribution of media resources in the world competition authority. The main role of the agency is to ensure fair competition and equal access. Nations will benefit with the emergence of more equitable conditions in terms of media ownership and production. A world competition authority can assure a fair opportunity for nascent information and entertainment providers for the thriving of all the states.
The protection of cultural diversity and proliferation of new communication technologies lead to conflicting processes. The authoritarian regimes place a restriction of free speech where there is no flow of the political ideas in the name of protecting cultural heritage. The central enforcement of global policy in media should base on anti-monopoly and anti-oligopoly laws so as to promote freedom of expression. In the sense of freedom from state, corporate, and commercial control the punishment for transgressions include fines instead of jail sentences.
The relative implement ability of world media across the nations is an evident usage of radio, television, and internet access as the metric of development. Media laws are diverse in comparison to trading laws. To ensure media organization for the success of reaching a wider audience one has to consider political alliances and tertiary interests curtailed in fair market competition and access. The authority has to have democratic legitimacy and a degree in supra nationality to implement laws and regulations. A vote by the legislative authority can have a direct effect on the member countries and their transnational electorates. Baraviciute (2010, p.185) believes that media outlets are sectors that link national security with social stability especially in dictatorial regimes. According to the evidence of Fisher et al. (2014, p.636) states are most likely to grant media-regulation competence to the supranational regulatory agency for the media market. Ardently, the pro-democratic states and diverse media have robust and pro-competition laws. The argument that the states with strong media independence and competition laws need the least competition authority will subvert the aim of the global institution.
McChesney (2009, p.12) argues that the core unit of the states willing to commit to a supranational media endeavor will form a base on other states with strong influence on the government. The synchronization of laws with the states that have significant international media influence out of indisputable public interest on media independence in the economic, military, and political power.
Public media undergo a substantial change. Some of the uncertainties that surround media include different technology platforms, funding bases, production practices, and audience engagements that continue transforming in this decade. The development of global media in the twentieth century appears unsustainable. According to the evidence of Lowestedt and Al-Wahid(2013, p.195) and Kaempf (2013, p.586)different articles that examine public service broadcasting face regulatory challenges that associate public media with multi-stakeholder negotiations to define its mission and activities. The collected articles display the role of free speech to justify the underplaying of public media. Kaempf (2013, p.587) questions the approach of global media in terms of policy choices available to regulators that unconstrained requirements of free speech. Free speech requires the public media to drive its role in commercial freedoms to deny the reason of valuing free speech. To focus less on free speech is a common approach in the contemporary analysis. Implications of free speech explore newspaper coverage of the negotiations. Diverse media include comprehensive public media as a crucial prerequisite for individual and public opinion formation. Public media are a central element in broadcasting freedom and most countries; it is enshrined in the constitution protection of free speech.
The idea of free speech has constructive obligations for a diverse media environment and arguments that support public media. The significance of free speech is that it is a predominant factor in the policy debates facing governments, regulators, and media. The legal, executive, and regulatory choices constrain the requirements of free speech to influence political, commercial, and technological factors.
The failure for people to comprehend public media in terms of free speech it is due to the fact of negative aspects that simplify the idea of free speech in state censorship. Free speech is a bare liberty that requires direct government action such as legislative or executive action in censor speech.
Both historical and modern accounts as provided by Kaempf (2013, p.588) and Mariategui et al. (2009, p. 217) depict innumerable examples of value of aspects of free speech. The constructs of free speech include a diverse speech environment that can support public media. Free speech commentary explores three rationales that underlie free speech that can support an extensive search of knowledge, practices of politics in a democratic regime to enable self-development. Negative terms associated with free speech include the assumption that the government control is absent. In reality, the public cannot experience free speech without the government vouching for the idea. Farnsworth and Austin(2010, p.1120) disagrees with the fact that government action is a prerequisite for public speech is false. Many factors shape public speech. For instance Lowestedt and Al-Wahid (2013, p.196) assumes rationality in speakers and audiences to overcome inequalities in public speech. The practice of public speech can yield influence with rational effects. In terms of public speech practice, the assumption does not have a warranty. Noktehdan (2008, p.5) says that a government action can make things difficult to pursue of free speech goals that include knowledge, self-government, and autonomy.
The assumption on the harmfulness of government action has relevance to public media. The extensive research in the public broadcast media has different settings. The focus of media freedom other than free speech is subject to substantial analysis.
Legislation that protects diversity of expression in the perspective, content, and opinion has no appeal to governments to exert a strong degree of social control. Market liberalization welcomes the efforts that protect the diversity of ownership and employment in the sector that serves as a yardstick to the financial superior foreign corporations. A global media competition authority begins with the established geographical states. Liberal democracies have the norm of protecting media freedoms and for that reason; it is prudent to start harmonization laws in such states. Liberal democracies can tap the strength of organizations such as European Union that will lead to eventual linking. The non-European state actors tend to maintain a neutral public image and balance in power that would lead to an eventual globe organization for media competition. Some of the states that score high for press freedom include Canada, Cape Verde, Austria, Finland, New Zealand, Iceland, and Jamaica. The harmonization of media competition laws between any of the above states is not trivial. One major obstacle in global governance system is in differences in the legal systems in individual states.
Transnational media regulation that commences regulation now focuses on new media technologies especially to the low entrenched local laws due to the novelty. The world media competition authority can push for laws that will ensure free marketplace of ideas to support nonprofit or long-term goals. The transnational policy directions serve in the interest of freedom of expression. Legislation for media focuses on the access of internet free from censorship to provide a forum for the free exchange of ideas and citizen journalism. It is crucial to implement net neutrality to ensure that carriers of information are agnostic as possible within the limits of extant laws. Internet provides diversity of content that does not subject to undue pressure by commercial interests beyond limits of fair competition. The media structure can allow Internet mono-and oligopolies to neutralize competition authority through antitrust regulations to discourage new media oligopolies on the member states.
Media authority can empower efforts to preserve cultures of its members to protect them from political hegemony. Advocacy is vital to provide legal transparency of governments, corporations, online participation, and state agencies. New media technologies provide more experienced member states to set the path of legal harmonization that can aid in the eventual membership in the global community for the media outlets. A transnational regulatory mechanism cooperates imperatively to ensure freedom of speech prevails and that governments respect the privacy of citizens. Search engines and social networks have the capability of constructing profiles from data generated by users in jurisdictions where there is no legal presence.
Empirical surveys of market-based and public-domain media offer evidence against the assumption that government action brings harm to the goals of free speech. Some government action appears harmful in terms of democratic rationale for free speech. Noktehdan(2008, p. 12) conducts a study on the print and broadcast news content of different developed countries to understand the political and public matters in those countries. The study conducted is beneficial since it examines the aspects of public speech and public knowledge. The finding of the study reveals that media commercialization has a significant effect on news content. Commercial media have less serious news content and offer less content in relation to the content. Less contextualized news content correlate with low public knowledge. The study reveals that public media is informative the less knowledgeable people. The television news coverage appears to influence public perception and policy preferences concerning matters such as immigration. The comparison between news content of Northern European countries and American citizens is that citizens from America have less information concerning the public affairs. Americans tend to consume less news as most of the people especially the popular culture center on entertainment. United States protect public speech as enshrined in the First Amendment to allow the public to select whether or not to pursue economic, political or social goals. The democratic role in the country centers on free speech while neither news content nor the public knowledge supports the idea.
United States provides low funding to public media in comparison to community media in Australia. America is exceptional in terms of degree of formal law due to increasingly regulatory practices that follow negative approach to free speech. The negative approach to free speech links with wholly commercial institutional media. Negative free speech arguments reinforce the ideology that free speech restricts direct government action to limit public speech. Free speech appears to contain censorship policy and diversity of expression policy. The rationales of free speech are twofold they include no censorship principle and multiplicity of voices principle. The no censorship principle allows one to talking, thinking, writing, speaking and listening as one deems fit. The multiplicity principle of voices principle highlights purpose of freedom of speech realized when expression and diversity of expression flourish. Diverse multiple voices respect the interests of free speech in a democracy together with free speech rationales concerning knowledge and autonomy.
The issue of free speech-non censorship exhibits intense debate. The positive free speech requires the promotion of diversity in audiences, topics, speakers, and modes of speech. The questions of media diversity, independence, availability, and funding are highlighted in free speech. The extensive role of the German Federal Constitutional Court protects free speech for public broadcast media. Since 1960s, courts maintain positive analysis of free speech. Article 5 of the Basic Law protects free speech, a positive approach is necessary to guarantee diversity of existing opinion. Market forces cannot prevent accumulation and abuse of power in the broadcast sector.
In conclusion, a government that fails to promote a diverse, independent and resource media fails to uphold free speech. Free media have both positive and negative effects to a society. Media are not an issue of industry dynamics and regulatory policy; it is a matter of free speech.
Bibliography
Löwstedt, A, and Al-Wahid, S 2013, 'Cultural diversity and the global regulation of new media technologies', International Journal Of Media & Cultural Politics, 9(2), pp. 195-200.
Kaempf, S 2013, 'The mediatisation of war in a transforming global media landscape', Australian Journal Of International Affairs, 67(5), pp. 586-604.
Farnsworth, J, and Austrin, T 2010, 'The ethnography of new media worlds? Following the case of global poker', New Media & Society, 12(7), pp. 1120-1136.
Mariategui, J, Cubitt, S, and Nadarajan, G 2009, 'Social Formations of Global Media Art', Third Text, 23(3), pp. 217-228.
Barevičiūtė, J 2010, 'The Locality Of The "Global Village" In The Aspect Of Communication: Pro Et Contra M. Mcluhan', Limes, 3(2), pp. 184-194.
Fisher, R, McPhail, R, You, E, and Ash, M 2014, 'Using social media to recruit global supply chain managers', International Journal Of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 44(8/9), pp. 635-645.
McChesney, RW 2009, 'The new global media', Nation, 269(18, pp. 11-15.
LĂzĂroiu, G 2012, 'Media Knowledge and Journalism's Mission in Democratic Polity', Contemporary Readings In Law & Social Justice, 3(2), pp. 205-211.
Noktehdan, H 2008, 'New Media and Political Communications, Critical Perspective on Culture', Conference Papers -- Western Political Science Association, pp. 1-20.
