Welcome to
my blog!
Feel free to comment, ask and criticise so I find new ways through the chaos of
thoughts, ideas and questions about media and culture, culture, media culture,
conversion culture, cultural convergence, multiculture, digital culture...
However,
there were some people that wanted more, wanted choice, wanted some control
over what they consumed. As well as the little girl. Hence, she set out to see
what lies beyond the one channels and the phone company and it took here like
20 years to find what she was looking for.
And it was
indeed worth her waiting:
She has
switched the phone company like 4 times already and loves the fact that she can
do it! And, she can watch movies and even tinker with them herself and publish
them and she can watch as many channels as she likes from all over the world.
And not only on Television. No! She can watch them on her PC, in her car, and
on her cell phone, which luckily cannot
only be used to call and receive calls wherever she is, she can also sms, mms,
serve the net, download tunes or do her banking...and so she lives happily ever
after?
No- because
there is always, better, more practical, multifunctional, user friendly,
portable, the latest, interactive new stuff...devices, integrations, technologies,
hardware...so there is no real THE END in sight...but I will make sure to upgrade
it if I get a better version (;
My name is Sophie Mukenge Kabongo. Well, actually in full it is: Katanda Sophie Esperance Mukenge Kabongo.I was born in
That is not to say that Namibians are not influenced by this development.
I try to keep in touch with my research supervisors Professor Kingo Mchombu and Robin Tyson as I believe that I can share some newly learned insights of new ideas, strategies and experiences I hope to gain from the MA in Media Culture in
I wrote them about the PBL approach as we also constantly integrated group work in the learning process.
I am explaining all that because I often compare situations described in the text to my experience in
Hate Speech in Germany
The main question discussed in this paper is:
Is
]]> Part I: Introduction
In Germany Volksverhetzung (agitation of the people) including "incitement to hatred, violence and arbitrary acts against segments of the population, attacking human dignity by insulting, maliciously degrading, or defaming segments of the population, as well as the dissemination of publications or broadcasts inciting to national, racial, religious or ethnic hatred"(Brems, 2002, p. 488) is forbidden. Even if this infringes the freedom of speech this law allegedly protects democracy and civility.
Consequently, the main question discussed in this paper is:
Is
There are contrasting points of view about the issue of whether restrictions to freedom of speech in the name of democracy still allow discussions and politically mature citizenship, necessary for a democratic society. These opposing positions can be seen in Europe and
Restricting hate speech in
It is essential to evaluate these contrasting views by firstly establishing prerequisites for democracy and debate or rational discourse as Habermas calls it. This means that a normative framework needs to be outlined and key terms need to be defined.
Secondly, it is useful to compare the justification for the German solution for the prohibition of hate speech with the
Thirdly, it has to be considered how the internet changes the discussion as it makes the propagation of neo-Nazi ideologies less controllable for authorities. It will be considered how hate speech on the internet is dealt with.
Lastly, the restriction to freedom of speech in
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
(A children's ditty)
Some words hurt more than swords.
(English proverb)
The word democracy derives from the ancient Greek and defines in its simplest the rule by the people instead of a tyrant or aristocracy. Ideally everybody can participate in decisions, while in modern democracies people vote representatives to act on their behalves (Bruce & Yealry, 2006, p.66).
As explained by Christiano (2006, "Democracy: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy") democracy is founded on equality and freedom as individuals preferably debate and participate as equals in the public sphere, which is why freedom of speech is regarded as essential in liberal states.
Freedom of speech is generally defined as the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship (McKean, 2005, "Freedom of speech: Oxford Online Reference").
Debate on the other hand is defined as a method to argument within a framework that allows people to discuss and come up with a consensus or vote (Soanes & Stevenson"debate noun : Oxford Reference online").
According to Habermas, who discusses the importance, rise and fall of the bourgeois public sphere of the 19th century, the public sphere refers to a spatial concept, where people can get together and discuss (Calhoun, 2002, "public sphere: Oxford Online dictionary"). Discussion or rational discourse, is hence a cornerstone of the public sphere and Habermas' concern is how to promote equal participation in rational discourse about important topics, while the public sphere was meant as a place, where politics and public issues were discussed (idem).
For Habermas (1984) a situation for critical and reasonable debate, indispensable for democracy, ideally meets four basic requirements:
Firstly, all participants must equally have the chance to start, interfere and participate in the discussion on a topic (Habermas, 1984, p.177).
Secondly, participants must have equal voice and hence be able to explain their reason and question arguments of others. According to Habermas this will detect preconceived opinions and make them accessible to debate and criticism (p.177).
Thirdly, mutual exchange of personal opinions, attitudes and feelings must be provided to guarantee that all participants are truthfully partaking in the discussion without containing themselves or deceiving others (p.178).
Fourthly, the discourse mechanisms must be free from inner or outer coercion, which would distort the course of discussion. Such coercion could for instance lead to one person being privileged and entitled to demand explanation from another participant while the other one would not have that right (p.178).
Even if this ideal speech situation might be impossible to obtain in a real debate it should be the principal and standard to measure the quality of reasonable debates (Habermas 1984, pp. 178- 182).
Even if the requirements for ideal speech might be difficult to meet, liberal governments make constitutional provisions for freedom of speech in order to ensure that citizens have the right to express their opinions equally.
In
Furthermore, freedom of expression is a basic right included in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has since its first adoption in 1948 attained international authority (Coliver, 1993, pp. 8-10).
However, human rights are not absolute and freedom of expression can be restricted under certain circumstances (Coliver, 1993, p.109 & Brems, 2002, p.483).
Freedom of speech is in conflict with the freedom from discrimination, which is also a fundamental human right protected in most democratic societies. The freedom from discrimination, equally essential for the participation in the public sphere is also expressed in Article 19 and article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 4 (a) and Article 5 of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) (Iganski, 1999, pp.133, 140).
Nevertheless, not all countries have hate speech restrictions to ensure the freedom from discrimination. The American model prioritizes freedom of speech while in
Under article 20 § 2 ICCPR and article 4 of CERD, the
Speech qualifies as hate speech when it "insults, intimidates, molests or incites violence hatred and discrimination" (translated) , mostly based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation (Zimmer in Brugger, 2003.p 373).
The justifications and background of the two approaches will be examined further in the discussion in order to asses the German model.
The strongest argument against restrictions to freedom of speech can be based on the liberal approach.
Freedom in the liberal approach is understood as the consequence of negative liberty: freedom from state and market intervention.
In other words, freedom, including freedom of speech as an essential personal freedom, can only exist without intervention or coercion by the state.
According to John Stuart Mill (in West, 2004, "Pornography and Censorship: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"), an influential liberal thinker of the 19th century, the state should have no right to interfere with the freedom of competent adults as this could lead to the "tyranny of the majority", a threat to diversity and progress and paternalistic in nature.
Furthermore according to John Stuart Mill (in Brink, 2007, "Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy") a censored opinion might firstly be true. Secondly if it was not true entirely it might still be partly true or contain some true elements. Thirdly, even if it were completely false it challenges other opinions and beliefs. Thus through deliberation it prevents true opinions from turning into dogma, seeing that fourthly, dogmatic opinions and believes, remaining unchallenged loose its meaning (Brink, 2007, "Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy").
For John Stuart Mill speech and all kind of discussions, no matter how offensive are necessary for a functioning democracy. Therefore, restrictions to freedom of speech are only justified if they cause harm (in Mill, 2002, "Freedom of speech: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" & West, 2004, "Pornography and Censorship: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy").
In 'freedom of speech', Mill (2002, "Freedom of speech: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy") applies the so-called harm principle, coined by John Start Mill to hate speech. He concludes that priority would be given to freedom of speech unless the speech would lead to immediate physical harm.
On the basis of the harm principle there would be no reason to forbid hate speech as everybody has the right to express and develop an opinion freely and state intervention would patronize the competence and maturity of citizens.
As the harm principle might be criticized for being too broad Joel Feinberg, another liberal thinker modified it and added 'offense to others' as another criteria on which restrictions of freedom can be justified (Brink, 2007, "Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy").
With the offense principle, freedom of speech should also be restricted if it is offensive. Offensiveness depends on various factors such as the degree, if it can be avoided, social value of the speech and others. (Mill, 2002, "Freedom of speech: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" & Brink, 2007, "Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy").
I would not have to go to a meeting of the right -wing party NPD (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands) for example. If there was a Neo-Nazi march right through the city center on the other hand, I would not be able to avoid it, hence it could be forbidden.
It would yet be difficult to develop a maxim to measure and qualify offense as I might just be offended by the mere existence of Neo-Nazi ideas.
Moreover, it might not be in line with liberal principals to forbid hate speech based on the assumption that people get offended, because this would mean that the state would decide which opinions and way of life are more worthy and that would obstruct freedom and democracy and would patronize the maturity of competent adults (West, 2004, "Pornography and Censorship: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy").
It seems that this approach is implied in the justification for allowing hate speech in the
Carter (2007) explains that the republican idea of freedom sees freedom as a consequence of positive liberty and as a kind of status. Positive liberty is the freedom to act. This would include the freedom to participate in the public sphere and to take control of one's life (Carter, 2007, "Positive and Negative Liberty: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy").
The law in democratic societies generally protects interests (even with interventions) that are considered important for the well-being of the community (Nemes, 2002, p.197).
This could be seen as an evidence for an underlying republican logic.
According to Nemes (2002), who is not arguing with regards to a republican point of view but about hate speech in cyberspace, states that hate speech can be harmful in many respects. It causes harm to individuals as they might feel humiliated, threatened and hurt but it can also harm groups, usually to the minorities that are addressed by the hate speech. Individuals belonging to the affected group might feel inhibited to express their opinion and participate in the community and hate speech would therefore lead to inequality (Nemes, 2002, p.196).
This unequal debate would also be harmful, by potentially creating violent conflict, which affects the well-being of society (p.196).
In the republican approach the government should encourage political life and facilitate freedom by education and subvention for instance and therefore this model leaves room for government intervention, as long as it does not threaten political debate (Carter, 2007, "Positive and Negative Liberty: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy").
Hate speech restrictions might hence be justified, like in
Democracy has been outlined above, as the rule by the people ( Bruce & Yearley, 2006, p.66), who participate as equals in the public sphere (Christiano, 2006, "Democracy: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy").
According to Brems throughout
Racist views and actions are seen as undemocratic, as they deny a section of the population access to the public sphere and hence restrict fundamental human rights of affected people (Brems, 2002, p.482).
Brems (2002) further explains that
These principals are protected in
Firstly, one has to consider the different cultural and historical background of US and German (and European) society.
In the eighteenth and nineteenth century, rights and respect were reserved for aristocrats and only later generalized (Brems, 2002, p.495). In
In the
civility or respect to another." (Brems, 2002, p.495).
The main drive behind the prohibition of hate speech in
Brugger (2003) compares German to American law as regards hate speech and validates that US constitutional law classifies hate speech primarliy as speech, protected under the First Ammendment, while German constitutional law as well as the Council of Europe, Canada and international law focuses on the hate (Brugger, 2003, pp.373-374).
Freedom of speech then looses its priority as protection of dignity, honour, equlity, civility and public freedom are considered more important (p. 374).
In
Furthermore, the denial of the Holocaust is forbidden (see for instnance Brugger, 2003, p.396 & Nemes, 2000, p.203). Firstly on the grounds that it is a false factual statement, it is defamatory (Brugger, 2003, p.397) and it denies respect to the victims and their relatives (Brugger, 2003, pp.397-399 & Nemes, 2000, p.203 ).
Iganski (1999) further argues that it might become more dangerous in coming years, when there are no more suvivors that can account for the truth depsite the visual and factual evidence (p.137). Deniers let those that listen to them doubt historical facts and in the future they might even be more effective if the law does not stop them (Lipstadt in Iganski, 1999, p.137).
In the
He further explaines that restrictions based on view points distort political discussions and are hence unconstitutional and suicidal for democracy (Sunstein, 1995, p.170-173).
Nonetheless, content-based restrictions to freedom of speech can be considered on a case- to case basis in terms of libel, obscenity and fighting words (Brems, 2002, p.484).
Most relevant to hate speech is the fighting- words doctrine as defined in the Supreme Court case Chaplinsky vs
However, as specified in another case (Cohen v.California) in 1971 the speech needs to be "reasonably expected to provoke a violent reaction if addressed toward an
ordinary citizen" and it needs to be directly addressed to someone ("Find Law"& Nemes, 2002, p.208-209). Hence the speech would have to provoke an 'average citizen' to fight (Sunstein 1995, p.187).
According to Nemes (2002) this interpretation of restrictions to freedom of speech is ignoring psychological harm and assumes that the insult needs to go against a physically present group of individuals that would find it so insulting that they would resort to violence (p.209).
Nemes claims though that discriminative speech usually causes the victims to withdraw and the law would hence miss the point (p.209).
Advocates for the prohibition of hate speech in the
Brems concludes that while US advocates against hate speech second the idea that hate speech harms individuals and society, the European idea of racist speech being undemocratic is not dominant (p. 486). Instead the idea of a favored discussion and paternalism of the state is considered more harmful for democracy.
Subsequently, an often quoted argument for the priority of the first amendment is the slippery-slope argument (Mill, 2002, "Freedom of speech: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"), claiming that by supporting A , the state slides down a slippery slope that could eventually lead to permitting B.
In other words, if today a demonstration of Neo- Nazis is forbidden, then tomorrow the government might forbid a march against a political party decision (Nemes, 2002, p.195). This view implies that regulation hinders a successful democracy (p.195).
Moreover, Iganski (1999), though agreeing with hate speech prohibition, admits that it can produce martyrs especially when the offenders claim that their freedom of speech is infringed (p.138). It also gives them publicity and media attention, indicating an exaggerated significance of the offenders in the public eye ( Iganski, 1999, p.138).
It is nevertheless understandable that German constitutional law is giving special protection to human dignity as a consequence of the human failure and atrocities under the 3rd Reich, which is why it is not only considered important to uphold civility and human dignity but it should be punished and enforced if disregarded (Brugger, 2003, p. 387).
The German constitution from 1949 was drafted to prevent a second Hitler from coming into power and deconstructing democracy. It was supposed to protect citizens from antidemocratic tendencies in the state and vice versa (Brems, 2002, pp. 486- 487).
Goebbels was alledgedly quoted saying that it is "one of the best jokes of democracy, that it gave its deadly enemies the means by which it was destroyed" (Bracher in Brems, 2002, p.483) .
The German and European approach to hate speech implies that racist speech and actions are undemocratic. Therefore, tendencies and climate of hate are being prevented out of democratic self-defence before the majority is supporting these kind of ideas, which would make it difficult to justify their prohibition with democratic legitimacy (Brems 2002, p.482-483).
Even if it is disputable how direct the relation between hate speech and hate crimes is, Jews in Germany and the indegenous poluation in many parts of the world have experienced that hate speech and racial hatred can develop into a climate in which discrimination and crimes against humanity become acceptable (Nemes, 2002, p.197). One might also argue this way with regards to Native Americans.
Consequently, hate speech in
Nonetheless, this is exactly the viewpoint based restriction, which is unconstitutional in the
A planned neo-Nazi march, with uniforms and the display of swastikas through Skokie, Illinois a town with 70 000 inhabitant, 40 000 of whom were Jewish and 5000 survivors of Nazi concentration camps was therefore not blocked by the Illinois Supreme Court, because this would have violated the first ammendment (Mill, 2002, "Freedom of speech: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" & Brems, 2002, p.485). This argument would have not counted in
The notion of forbidding racist and xenophobic speech due to its "elemental wrongness" goes against the first ammendment principle, as there are no false ideas (Nemes, 2002, p.207).
In
Troughout the debate two fundamentally opposing assessments of the role of the state and its citizens become apparent.
In the United States the public is given responsiblity and the idea that civility will prevail, hence that the public will be able to make the right decision by way of critical and controversial debate predominates (Brugger, 2003, pp.387-388). "From the differing voices, the truth will emerge"(Nemes, 2002, p.207).
The basic idea is that the government needs to be neutral and not favour certain values (Brems, 2002, p.485). This implies less trust in the state and more trust in the people and the public sphere (Brugger, 2003, p.394) .
In
Finally, as deduced by Brems (2002), in the
Main
Claim:
Despite the
fact that the issue is often framed as entirely new file sharing is not a newly
invented practice but it shows how consumers make use of technology to fulfil
existing needs and hence influence technology.
Interviews
conducted so far:
- Corina
(heavy user from
- Mark (heavy user,
Dutch, who lived in South Africa, pro file-sharing)
- Marius
(German, moderate downloader)
- Mieke
(Belgian, downloads rarely)
- Marc
(Dutch, store manager of music shop Van Leest in
- Hans (shop owner of Music Plus in
We have one more interview scheduled this week with Raoul,
who is against file-sharing. These findings will definitely also be included in
our documentary.
Main
findings:
Arguments
and attitudes of pro file-sharers:
- easy and
handy way to obtain and discover the latest music for free
- in most
cases no fear of legal consequences (common statement: “There are people who
download way more than I do, so why should they go after a small fish such as
me?”)
- no guilty
conscience because CDs are overpriced, and the claim of the record industry
that downloading damages young artists is not fully believed; quite on the contrary,
downloaders see a lot of potential in downloading as means of promoting the
music of unknown bands
- most
downloaders still buy music on CDs which they really like, e.g. of their
favourite artists; none of our interviewees claimed to not purchase music in
record shops anymore
- ideology
of the common good as described by Corina as remnant of Communism (music should
not be owned but should belong and be available to everyone)
-
file-sharing provides a possibility for people in economically disadvantaged
countries to participate in popular culture; this is especially valid for young
people (example of Corina of her home-country
-Before the
possibility of file sharing online users used tape recorders to get music
without paying for it.
Observations
of record shop employees:
- the
average customer who buys CDs is male and between 25 and 35 years old
- record
shops have lost teenagers as customers since downloading became popular; a shift to an “older” customer base
(average age: 25-35) has occurred
- personal experiences with downloading create
understanding for file-sharers; conflict between private life and work (store
manager of Van Leest)
- the record shop owner on the other hand is
strictly against downloading and perceives it as “the death of music” because
it directly affects his own financial situation
(Unlike the
store manager of Van Leest, the record store owner of Music Plus had no
experiences with file sharing)
Further
points to be mentioned in our documentary or alternatively in our accompanying
presentation:
-
historical parallels: music piracy already in the 1920s (based on Pop music
pirate hunters by Adrian Johns), so not an entirely new phenomenon
- different
perspectives on downloading: open source movement, principle of common goods
(music as cultural good should not be “owned”)…
-
information on legal consequences: copyright infringement laws
Progress summary:
We have
collected most of our interviews and are now busy with the literature as well
as the script for the final product.
Here are some ideas for the interviews we will conduct in the next two weeks:
Interview with record store owner
We have an interview appointment with Hans, the owner of the local record store “Music Plus” (St. Amorsplein 5) in Maastricht. We also tried to arrange an interview with employees of the “Free Record Shop”, a chain, but they have a company policy which forbids them to give interviews, so unfortunately we only have one record salesperson and record store owner as interview source at the moment.
He asked us to give him the questions beforehand, so he can think about them a bit. We will give him the general questions without the sub questions, which we will use if they do not come up in the answers.
( 0)Since when does your shop exist?)
1)What kind of music do you sell?
2)How would you describe your average customer?
3) What is your personal experience with file-sharing (if applicable)?
4) What is your opinion about file-sharing?
5) What are the consequences of file-sharing for you as a record store owner?
6) In how far did consumer expectations change towards the quality of music?
7) Do you think file-sharing influences the value of music?
We are planning on having consumer interviews before the interview with Hans so we can already discuss some of our findings with him since he was very much interested in the consumer side of file-sharing.
Interviews with consumers/ file-sharers:
We drafted a different set of questions for the consumers.
We already have a scheduled interview on Wednesday 10.30 with Mark, a 21-year old Econometrics Bachelor student at the University of Maastricht who has his PC full of music files.
We are also hoping on convincing him of having a group discussion about the topic with some of his friends or fellow students.
We would moreover like to record the pre- and post discussion of assignment 5, which deals with our topic, if that is possible and the group agrees in order to collect sound bites, quotes and interesting ideas (question to Ruth whether she agrees with this).
We also want to conduct individual interviews with at least three of our class members.
We prepared the following set of guiding questions for the interviews with the group of people mentioned above:
1) What are your experiences with file sharing?
· When did you start?
· Why do you (don’t you) do it?
· What do you download?
· Where do you download?
· Do you use legal sites?
· Are you worried about legal implications?
2) What is your opinion about file sharing?
3) In your music collection, what is the ratio between downloaded and purchased music?
4) What is the difference for you between your downloaded and purchased music?
5) Do you still buy CDs?
6) What makes music valuable for you? How does it differ from other things you buy and enjoy?
7) How important is sound quality to you?
Lastly, we are going to do spontaneous and short interviews with people coming out of one of the record stores in Maastricht.
We want to ask them the following questions:
1) What did you buy? (In case it was a CD.)
2) Why did you buy it and not download it?
Sound sources:
Here is a list of diverse and interesting videos we found on You Tube regarding our topic. We have yet to select them, so presumably only a small number will eventually be included in our sound documentary:
1) Interview with member of band “Run Kid Run”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-VWS46O5fc
2) Musicvideo on downloading (could be included as an entertaining music jingle in the documentary):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0iHGsEZTSE
3) Interview with independent artist Ian Martin :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-oiK8SpPtE
4) Michael Moore’s views on file-sharing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlAB0v8wHdc
5) Comedian Weird Al Yankovic’s humurous take on the topic (a song we would maybe like to include partially as an entertaining feature of the documentary):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz-grdpKVqg
6) CBC News on court case regarding file-sharing (legal aspect of copyright):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS9MeoiqA7M&feature=related
7) interesting student video on P2P file-sharing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doMD-ORPPZA
8) snippets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv0zxkws4VQ
Possible further sources/literature:
Boorstin, Eric S. (2004). Music Sales in the Age of File Sharing. Retrieved from http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~felten/boorstin-thesis.pdf
Schwartz, John (April 5, 2004). A Heretical View of File Sharing. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/05/technology/05music.html?ex=1396497600&en=71b2898a5d0c0b03&ei=5007
1) Problem definition and key questions
File-sharing
- a phenomenon that surfaced in the advent of the internet and
digitalization - and music sharing in particular have become a pertinent
issue mainly mentioned in relation to ownership, intellectual property rights
and the music industry loosing revenue. Henry Jenkins (2006) extends the
discussion and discusses file-sharing as one example or characteristic of new
popular culture: convergence culture in which the boundaries between consumers
and producers are blurred and content reaches audience via different channels
and media systems (Jenkins, 2006, pp.2-3).
This
question includes both the monetary value that the music industry is mostly
referring to and the emotional value the consumer attaches to music, while we
focus on the latter.
Is
downloaded music worth less than the music bought in a shop? Are people less
attached to their mp3s on their computer than to their CD-collection?
What
makes people want to buy a CD instead of downloading it or vice verse?
On
the other hand in the line with Jenkins and file-sharing as part of
participatory culture, we are also interested in finding out how young people
use file sharing as a form of cultural expression.
Is
it ‘cool’ to download? Are there cases in which it is considered preferable to
buy a CD? What does file sharing mean for people? Is there are a difference
between illegal and legal downloading?
Do
file-sharers perceive themselves as criminals, who deliberately ‘commit a
crime’ to save money, or is it an act of overt protest against the music industry
and their claim over copyright of music?
Jenkins,
H. (2006). Convergence Culture.
2) Research strategy
We
intend to interview people on the street in order to collect random and diverse
opinions regarding the average person’s attitude towards file-sharing since it
has become a wide-spread phenomenon. We would like to know:
-
if they have ever downloaded music
-
if so, was is it on a legal platform (e.g. I-Tunes) or an illegal one (e.g.
Napster)
-
in how far is a download different from a CD, a tape or a record
-
what still makes them buy a CD (if applicable)
-
if they perceive themselves differently as consumers
-
in how far file-sharing has changed cultural practices according to their own
experiences
-
if there is a criminal notion attached to downloading illegally
In
order to obtain an even more well-rounded spectrum of opinion and collect
sufficient data, we would like to talk to people from different countries and
cultural backgrounds. This can be employed by interviewing international
students at the
Moreover
we are aiming at possibly interviewing (local) bands who are struggling to get
a recording contract and officials of record companies. They could give us an
insight into the other side of the coin by presenting us with the commercial
and financial downsides of the file-sharing boom. Since it is a common claim of
record companies that communities such as Napster or Kazaa have lead to
tremendous financial damage in the music industry, it would be interesting to
check with those associated with the business in how far this is true and valid.
However,
it might be problematic to arrange an interview with an executive of a record
company since they are not likely to talk to “just anyone”. We are positive
though that we might find sufficient material as replacement for an interview
on the internet, e.g. on a video platform such as You Tube.
Moreover,
it should also be possible to capture the industry side by interviewing record
store owners or employees.
Our
selection of literature so far includes J. Alderman’s Sonic Boom. Napster,
MP3, and the New Pioneers of Music (2001) and A. Johns’ Pop Music Pirate
Hunters (2002).
However,
we are just at the beginning of our research, so things still have to fall into
place and the relevant literature has yet to be reviewed. That is why we also
cannot present you yet with drafts of our script or actual research results.
Watch this space!
Lauwaert, M., Wachelder,
J.Van de Valle, J. (2007). Frustrating Desire: On
repens and reposito or the attraction and distractions of digital games. Theory, Culture and Society. Retrieved
from http://mcs.sagepub.com
This is the
idea behind the agenda setting theory claiming that the audience attaches
importance to issues due to their representation in the media (ibid).
Constistent
with Baudrillard (2002), however, I think we would have to modify the sentence
and say "Mass media does not only tell us what to think about but they also tell
us what we are suppose to consider real."
I did a study on two popular soap
operas in
It would be interesting to do a
larger scale content analyses of Namibian media to really assess the situation
on nation-building and integration. Bearing Baudrillard in mind, I would then
be able to make statements about how the media constitutes the reality on the
topic.
At the same time however it would be
helpful to do audience analyses in order to check whether there is really a
connection in the media construction of reality and the interpretation of it. I
would then explore the extend to which people's assessment of reality
correlates with the media assessment, they are exposed to irrespective whether
or not they are content with how they think the situation is or how tolerant
they are.
Since I am in
I could analyzes media content on
integration for instance and see how this correlates to how teachers assess the
situation, taking into account that they might be confronted with integration
and its problems in school. Otherwise I could interview the pupils instead or
both to contrast the different assessment on the situation of integration in
I could also talk about the
disappearance of racism from the media. I get the feeling that we cannot talk
about racism anymore, we are beyond that stage. It is like an old song no one
wants to sing unless it is remixed. This is in line with new racism. While
people claim there is no racism anymore, they tend to think that certain groups
threaten social values (Herbst in Mukenge Kabongo 2007). So actually the "
German with Turkish origin" (we are also insecure about the terms), who
does not get a job is lazy and does not want to work, does not want to
integrate.
Obviously here and there the media
brings shocking reports about extremists in villages in
Or I could look at specific cases as
it sometimes happens that the media is all over a topic, suddenly enflaming
intense public discussions (normally after a while the topic is gone).
If we take the former talk show host
and former ARD- news reader Eva Herman for instance, who was once one of the
most popular talk show hosts in
In retrospect the media agrees that
she has made some weird comments and starting to take conservative and
anachronistic standpoints for a long time but now apparently she has lost it.
She was fired from 3Sat the German channel hosting her talk show, as she did
not want to take back the comments she made about the better structure and
family values in the 3rd Reich.
Then she was invited to another talk
show Johannes B. Kerner and she was kicked out for her controversial opinion
according to the boulevard press like the Bild Zeitung
Right extremist supporters and right
wing supporters of the DVU political party apparently announced that they would
want to support her and demonstrate for her right to freedom of speech.
Herman on the other hand says she would sue the DVU as she does not want to
be related to them although she allegedly already attended an event of another
right wing party. She feels she is the victim of media slandering and tries to neatly
comment on everything on her own homepage.
And I do not really know what her
opinion is and what she means but it has become a media discussion and she does
not have control over it nor do we, the public know anymore what really
happened and what she said. There are various interpretations on all sides
always coming to different conclusion depending on who is trying to make a
point. Did she just wake up and had these ideas one day or is the media only
now pointing our attention towards these ideas. This would also be an
interesting case study to apply Baudrillard.
References
Baudrillard,
J. (1994 [1981]). Simulacra and Simulations. Engl.transl. Sheila Faria
Glaser.
Mukenge
Kabongo, S.(2007). A Study of intercultural communication and integration
through the media in
One aspect, which really made me think was the situation in which he asks a Chechen woman how she feels and as an answer she points at the bombed building behind her.
I would have been satisfied with a bombed building as an explanation, but (fortunately) never having been confronted with such a reality, what does bombed building really tell me?
We are present in conflict areas in distant places and they are present in our environment at least for the 2 minutes that the report lasts. But how real is this presence?
How comes for instance that I can tell the difference between a report about Africa and the Caribbean even without them mentioning the name? And I have only been to few African countries and I have never been to the Caribbean. I have seen pictures of Africa and the Carribean and they always follow similar patterns making it recognizable even if they might not have much in common with the reality of being there. (Unless it is about Haiti that might look like Africa sometimes).
How much does the camera reality, which is selective concur with our assessment of reality?
Sometimes the media is (fortunately) the only channel though which we experience war, hunger, problems and situation assements in foreign countries, like a vicarious experience.
Does media reality in this case replace reality as it is our only source and hence it is hyperrealist, pure simulacrum?
I know this leads me back to Baudrillard again. I have been trying to think of the other theories but it seems that I always end up with Baudrillard, maybe because it fits well to our present situation.
In an interview Baudrillard (1988) explains that the moment an event exists as media content and is disseminated as such it looses its reality principle. It is impossible enquire about the original reality or unreality ( Baudrillard, 1988, p.146). That is surely true if we only know the place and the problem via the media. We cannot check if it is actually the way it is represented.
Media knows how to report on certain events even before they happen, which is why I recognize the report about Africa without the reporter telling me where it is. (It might be about wildlife or poverty and war.)
How much are we influenced by these visual stereotypes about war and certain regions and what does that really tell us about the impact?
This question could be explored by using a case such as the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as Renzo Martens is making an artwork about that and I expect it to be equally provoking as Episode 1. Then I could analyse coverage about DRC in contrast to the points the art work makes with critically looking at reality and hyperreality and its consequences.
References:
Baudrillard, J. (1988). The Work of Art in the Electronic Age (interview). In : Mike Gane (1993) (Ed.). Baudrillard Live. Selected Interviews. London: Routledge, pp.145-151)
Campanella, T.J.(2000). Eden by wire. Web cameras and the telepresent landscape. In Ken Goldberg (Ed.), The Robot in the Garden. Telerobotics and Telepistemiology in the Age of the Internet. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
Jenkin, H.
(2006). Convergence Culture. Where Old and New Media Collide, p.1-24. New York & London: New
York University Press.