Media Concentration and the Rupert Murdoch Scandal

      This blog post is a response to the article, "Murdoch Scandal Stirs U.S. Debate on Big Media", published online by the New York Times on July 19th, 2011.  The article refers to the U.S. reaction to a scandal that occurred within a British tabloid, "News of the World".  This tabloid allegedly hacked the voice mail accounts of individuals in order to gain news information. "News of the World" is owned by the News Corporation, which also controls Fox Broadcasting company, The Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post, as well as many other holdings. It is one of the massive media corporations that is criticized by those who are concerned with the negative effects of media concentration. It receives derision in particular because of the perceived conservative bias of Fox News Corporation.  The article talked about how groups and politicians were using the tabloid scandal incident as evidence of the dangers of media concentration.

      I felt that the way in which Rupert Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, is the primary target of criticism is interesting. Surely a corporation's operations as massive as The News Corporation's are a massive network that no one individual can be the sole cause of them. I would be more interested in learning from a comprehensive report of The News Corporation's operations globally and how its massiveness causes issues such as this scandal. However, Rupert Murdoch is still the representative and face of the corporation and it makes sense to look towards him for a response. I also understand that, for supporters of independent media, placing blame on Murdoch keeps visible the troubling absurdity of one individual being the head of so much. To expand on this topic, I would look for more information on Rupert Murdoch's actual role in operating The News Corporation as well as the way power is structured and distributed between it's various news firms.

Brian Stelter, “Murdoch Scandal Stirs U.S. Debate on Big Media,” The New York Times, July 19, 2011, sec. Business Day / Media & Advertising, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/business/media/murdoch-scandal-stirs-us-debate-on-big-media.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/business/media/murdoch-scandal-stirs-us-debate-on-big-media.html.

Another World is Possible Film

       Another World is Possible (Bullfrog Films) is a film that documents the World Social Forum of 2002.  Of special interest to me about the film is how the meeting of the World Social Forum overcomes barriers of a nationalism to create international dialogue. In particular, I wonder whether or not individuals were able to overcome language barriers during these conferences.  It seems many of the official speakers of the film presented in English. However, it seems likely there were varying degrees of ability in speaking English fluently within the forums attendees and speakers.  Because the film is recorded for an English speaking audience, it is difficult to know what the conference is like for an attendee for whom English is not their primary language.  Were translators in place to aid in communication?  How were differences in language overcome within the small group discussions that are featured in the film?  Did certain individuals feel excluded from participation because of language barriers?  How does the World Social Forum effectively criticize globalization without replicating its inequalities?  Surely, the event organizers employed complex planning in order to address these issues, and it would be valuable to explore their methods in order to better understand the proccess needed to generate a productive international forum.
        Obviously speech was not the only communicative practice utilized in the World Social Forum; the visual arts, music, dance, and theatre were all employed in voicing the participant’s concerns.  How did these nonverbal forms of communication help to cohere national differences between participants?  Were these artistic practices more easily internationally understood than speech, or did elements of these practices still exclude particular nationalities in comprehension?