From: Vincent Campbell (VCampbell@dmu.ac.uk)
Date: Tue 09 Sep 2003 - 12:40:49 GMT
<Have you read Robert Wright's _Nonzero_? If so what do you think of
his take
> on narrowcasting as a divergence trend across different media? This was
> one
> of the places in his book where I thought he might be onto something
> substantial, but I'm not the media studies guru you are, so I'd hope you
> had
> a view on Wright's argument, especially as he treats McLuhan's slogan 'the
>
> medium is the message' in the same breath.
>
> If you have Wright's book look up narrowcasting in the index.
>
> How's that for a segue to a better topic?>
>
Very neat.
I haven't seen this book (is it the robert wright who wrote 'the
moral animal' a while back?).
Narrowcasting is a major issue in television and radio, particular
in Europe where traditions of public service broadcasting are being
fundamentally challenged by the potentials of digitial multichannel
television.
The central debate remains about quality and true diversity of
programme content. Whilst in principle with narrowcasting, as with
publishing, a much wider range of viewpoints and perspectives can be
represented, there are economic limits on the actual range of views that are
possible. The costs of programme production in relation to audience return
(whether through subscriptions or ad revenue) mean that niche channels still
need millions of viewers to function effectively. Add in to that the
general dominance of licences and multi-channel networks by the major
players in the global broadcasting industry (news corp, time warner etc.),
and what you end up with is much more of the same, rather than more more
diversity. Moreover, for those brought up in public broadcasting systems,
where news is governed by requirements for political impartiality (the
current BBC/UK government spat over the Iraq dossier notwithstanding), a
concern is that diversified news content leads to partisan news, and thus
audiences have no sources of news that are very trustworthy (in the UK the
press is rabidly partisan). The only solution for viewers is to keep tabs
on a range of different TV news outlets, but people are no more likely to do
that than they are to read several different papers each day. Indeed, in
one interesting report on Newsnight about viewing habits during the Iraq
war, it seems that many British asians with satellite TV regularly watched
Al-Jazeera rather than British or American news networks believing it to
more truthful, and given a perspective which they identified with more
fully. Remember this is in a country where the BBC's coverage- praised in
the US for being more critical than, say, Fox news- has been attacked by the
government as being anti-war, but for British asian audiences even the BBC
was too pro-war, and too western-oriented.
To look at what might happen in broadcasting as it becomes
narrowcasting, you only have to look at the press in most countries, where
commercial pressures (e.g. production costs, advertising pressures) have
narrowed the choice and diversity of viewpoints. In parts of Europe,
subsidy systems are used to try and maintain a plurality of viewpoints,
although there are obviously issues of state interference that arise.
I think the only site where narrowcasting is really viable (although
multi-channel TV is better in lots of less fundamental ways than limited,
state-run broadcasting), so far, is the internet, where the costs of
production- i.e. setting up and running a website- is really within the
reach of most people (in the developed world at least). And the relative
impact of these can far outstrip their origins, e.g. the Baghdad Blog of
Salam Pax, just released in book form in the UK.
Actually Scott, you've unwittingly given me the opportunity to plug
my forthcoming book, which I have been writing pretty much all the time I've
been on this list, and finally finished a couple of months ago (only 18
months or so late!). It should be out in January next year, and is called
'Information Age Journalism'. It's essentially an attempt to offer an
overview of journalism theory in an international context, and has quite a
lot on issues such as state and market pressures on journalism, and things
like ethics and objectivity and so on. It's not a book about memetics, and
in the end I didn't manage to put something in about memes, so I guess it's
not entirely relevant to this list- but what the hell, it's an opportunity
for a bit of viral marketing.
As I posted a while back, I'm still playing around with ideas in
terms of writing about memetics and the media, but I'm discovering that as a
producer of work I'm more like Ralph Ellison than Mozart, so it may be some
time (although I hope it's not a forty-year wait!).
Vincent
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: joedees@bellsouth.net
> > > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > Sent: Monday, September 8, 2003 4:49 AM
> > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > Subject: Re: The Text of Dubya's Terrorism Speech Tonight
> > >
> > > Date sent: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 12:43:40 +1000
> > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > From: Jeremy Bradley <jeremyb@nor.com.au>
> > > Subject: Re: The Text of Dubya's Terrorism Speech
> > > Tonight
> > > Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > >
> > > > At 08:47 PM 7/09/03 -0500, you wrote:
> > > > >Go to:
> > > > >
> > > > >http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030907-1.html
> > > > >
> > > > Joe
> > > > What has this propaganda got to do with memetics? Surely, if the USA
> > > > went to war against the advice of most Nations in the civilised
> world,
> > > > should they not now shoulder the burden of rectifying that rogue act
> > > > alone? Why expect the UN to pick up the pieces now when the US, has
> > > > killed up to 10,000 inocent Iraquis, destroyed infrastructure,
> > > > denigrated the UN's ability to detect WMD's, told lies and even
> > > > refused to pay their dues? When I wanted to discus the 'Might is
> > > > Right' meme that lies at the core of US arrogance, you inflamed the
> > > > topic so that the meme could not be rationally, and academically,
> > > > addressed. So why should you now want to insult our intelligence
> with
> > > > GW's latest BS Bulletin? Jeremy
> > > >
> > > Let's begin with your factual inaccuracies and go on from there.
> > > The so-called few countries in the 'civilized world', (and far
> less
> > > than half of even the European Union), France, Germany and Russia
> > > among them (plus the encircled Belgium), who used the UN as a cynical
> > > tool in order to block the liberation of twenty-plus million people,
> >were
> > > acting from selfish and not globally responsible motives, considering
> > > that they had surreptitiously circumvented UN resolutions to sell
> > > weapons and weapons-producing technology to Iraq and were upset at
> > > seeing their fat oil contracts, which they had received in payment
> from
> >a
> > > grateful mass-murdering dictator, lose their multibillion-dollar worth
> > > before their eyes with the despot's fall. I suppose that if these
> >nations
> > >
> > > decide to help with Iraq's democratic reconstruction, that they may
> get
> > > those Saddamic bribes revalidified; they certainly would not do so out
>
> >of
> > > principles such as democracy, personal freedom and self-
> > > determination.
> > > The US has killed far fewer than 10,000 civilian Iraqi
> > > noncombatants; in fact, the Iraq war was indeed the most
> > > civilian'conscious in history (followed closely by the Afghan war).
> >Most
> > > credible counts put the Afghan civilian casualties at around 3000, and
> > > the Iraqi casualties as much lower (this in comparison to a dictator
> who
> > > has caused the deaths of more than 2 MILLION Muslims during his rule,
> > > more than any other human being in history, and would have continued
> > > to do so ad nauseum had he not been stopped).
> > > The US pays about 20% of UN dues, even though there are
> > > 190 other member countries. It recently paid a large chunk of its
> > > arrears to the UN, in spite of the nakedly self-seving obstructionism
> of
> > > some of its more globally irresponsible and greedy members, and its
> > > bizarre policies of putting terrorist-harboring dictator-lead
> countries
> > > like
> > > Syria and Libya at the head of important disarmament and human rights
> > > committees.
> > > Infrastructure? The vast majority of it was left standing by the
> > > US action, which did NOT resort to heavy bombing, but rather utilized
> > > precision smart bomb strikes against command posts and troop
> > > concentrations as an adjunct to a ground war that should have forever
> > > dispelled the Al Quaeda myth that the US was a cowardly paper tiger
> > > that would turn tail and run in the face of casualties (although that
> >myth
> > >
> > > was already pretty much already destroyed in Afghanistan). The only
> > > reason that the infrastructure is not completely functional now (and
> it
> > > operated badly under Saddam, but no one dared complain THEN, did
> > > they?) is as a result of Baathist holdouts and Al Quaeda jihadists
> > > continuously attempting to sabotage it as a means to obstruct the
> > > democratic reconstruction of Iraq, a process that is making great
> >strides
> > > in the Kurdish north and the Shiite south and is only facing a degree
> of
> > > difficulty in the Sunni triangle which forms Saddam's power base.
> > > As far as lies go, the info. that Dubya's famous 'sixteen words'
> > > was based upon came from British intelligence, and he did not assert
> > > that Saddam had SUCCEEDED in obtaining fissionable uranium from
> > > some African countries; merely that Saddam had SOUGHT it there - a
> > > charge that is almost certainly true.
> > > WMD's? There is credible evidence that, following Russian
> > > advice, Saddam moved some of his WMD's to a burial location in the
> > > Lebanese bekaa valley and destroyed others. There is also the
> > > evidence of the gas centrifuge pieces found buried in an Iraqi
> nuclear
> > > scientist's rose garden, and his testimony that he had been told, by
> > > Qusay Hussein (one of Saddam's late sons) to hide them there until the
> > > heat was off, at which time they would be unearthed and used to purify
> > > fissionable uranium for use in building nuclear weapons. And what
> > > would the purpose of these weapons be? To allow Saddam to threaten
> > > any nation that dared to try to expel him once he completed his next
> > > planned move to take over the Saudi Peninsula (Kuwait was only his
> > > first objective in 1990), and then he could perpetrate global
> blackmail
> > > by strangulating the world's oil supply. And he would not need long-
> > > range missiles in order to effect such an attack, merely need to
> smuggle
> > > those weapons inside the borders of his target country and have them
> > > detonated onsite by either his own operatives or members of terror
> > > groups (the same thing he had been doing for years by paying 10K per
> > > suicide bomber to their families, only writ large).
> > > Now, the question is, why would you, with an obvious lack of
> > > knowledge and study of the relevant issues, make such egregious and
> > > demostrably false claims? I think that it is as a result of
> unreasoning
> > > hate. In other words, I believe that it is because you have been
> >infected
> > >
> > > with the "Dubya is the Antichrist" meme, and quite irrationally view
> him
> > > as worse than Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao combined, and even
> > > worse than the Al Quaedans, who OPENLY wish to destroy all
> > > freedoms of religion, thought, action and choice, and annihilate all
> > > traces of democracy from the entire world, replacing all these with a
> > > repressive global theocratic islamofascist Ummah run according to
> > > sharia law.
> > > Let me be clear about this; I am no Dubya-lover. I consider his
> > > borrow-and-spend fiscal policies to be as economically undermining as
> > > the democrats' borrow-and-spend policies (at leat Clinton realized
> that
> > > even the federal credit card would have to be eventually paid). I
> also
> > > am distressed by his undermining of church-state separation, as
> > > evinced by his support for religious school vouchers, federal support
> >for
> > > faith-based initiatives, and opposition to abortion (none of which
> have
> > > passed into law). However, I agree with his pursuing the terror
> >plotters
> > > to their bases so we have less of a chance of once again seeing them
> > > wreak their carnage on our streets. Iraq is serving as an Al Quaeda
> > > flypaper (although it couldn't function as such without their
> > > cooperation). Let the jihadists journey to Tikrit and fight armed and
> > > alert US troops, rather than journey to the US and massacre unarmed
> > > and clueless civilians on local streets. I do not see a single
> >Democratic
> > >
> > > candidate that 'gets' this, so, for the first time since I was 18 (I
> am
> > > 47), I
> > > may have to sit the next presidential election out (and no, I have
> > > NEVER voted for a Republican in a presidential election).
> > > Or perhaps it is because you are infected with the "David and
> > > Goliath" meme, and cannot wrap your mind around the concept that
> > > sometimes might and right can indeed occasionally coincide (as ended
> > > up happening in WW II).
> > > (Scratching my head and shaking it sadly all at the same
> > > time)...
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > Jeremy Bradley
> > > > 3200 Oxley Hwy Hartys Plains 2446
> > > > Phone:02 65856652 or 02 65856134
> > > > E-mail: jeremyb@nor.com.au
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ===============================================================
> > > > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > > > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information
> Transmission
> > > > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > > > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ===============================================================
> > > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> > > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> > >
> > >
> >
> >===============================================================
> >This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> >Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> >For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> >see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Need more e-mail storage? Get 10MB with Hotmail Extra Storage.
> http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue 09 Sep 2003 - 12:52:19 GMT