I didn’t have a chance to finish all the readings for this week, but I thought one idea that the author Odugbemi mentioned in Governance Reform was very interesting and provoking. In this book, he mentioned that public opinion being a key component of good governance and accountability, in which he further define the term “good governance” as “an excellent definition of the term in a development context is offered by the white paper published by the U.K Department for International Development (2006), the U.K government’s development ministry, titled Eliminating World Poverty: Making Governance Work for the Poor.” (Odugbemi, p.16) However, at this point, it makes me to realize that public opinion is not the only factor that matters, something more crucially to be fixed in most of the developing countries, especially in bureaucratic countries, is how the public opinion could be heard, and how the people oversees could respond to the public voice.
Later in this book, when talking about the democracy, the author indicates that “the democratic sphere is a force for capable, responsive, and accountable government, and it is a permanent, self-acting force. Second, it is a structural fundamental for any governance system keen on promoting accountability on a permanent basis. The only opponents of democratic public spheres are dictators and authoritarian regimes.” (Odugbemi, p.31) This I believe could be further discussed how do we define an “authoritarian regimes”, since from real time example, there were so many external factors may influence the ideology of democracy, social, racial, historical, political background could extremely influence the democratic process to the largest extent.
In Accountability Through Public Opinion, one question I was keep thinking was how do we make our government media more accountable?
In China in Africa, the workshop participants provoked the possible example that a nation’s soft power could affect overseas. China’s “non-ideological” no-strings-attached approach actually attached the strings of most of the African country needs, which being perceived as an opportunity to challenge some of the consumptions and prescriptions that have guided media development. Instead of “media assistance”, both China and African countries are preferring to use exchange and corporate to define their media activities. Therefore, the impact of media soft power can be positive in the ways of a globalized point of view, however; also detrimental to the local culture as well as western influence. Exactly as we discussed in class, as Nye indicates that soft power is “the ability to affect others through the co-optivemeans of framing the agenda, persuading, and eliciting positive attraction in order to obtain preferred outcomes.”, promoted China’s soft power both domestically and globally.
In Informatization-Dramatization: Communicating Health in East Asian Television Dramas, I found the role of media as an educational tool to be very insightful, which “aimed at cultivating what are deemed informed, socially responsible, sensitive ways of living healthily. Protagonists—no longer only lovers and heroes/heroines—become patients, medical professionals, caregivers, and educators as screen portrayals of health and illness grow to encompass not only dramatic critical life-and-death situations but also more ordinary physical and social challenges.”, as the author described. Apparently the audience’s role becomes more complex in switching from the perceiver to the conductor.
My question for this reading would be: Could drama be seen as another platform of soft power?
Hi Everyone, My group is presenting this week on the theme of “Internet, Media and Power: Infrastructure, Stakeholders, and Governance”. Here are a few questions we generated regarding to the topic.
- What would differentiate a controlled media and an uncontrolled media? And is the media in the U.S controlled?
- How do global activists successfully relay and promote their messages in communication networks against the established power-making influences?
- Some scholars claim that the Internet provides an open forum for free speech, while others argue that the Internet is dominated by elite groups. What role do activists play in this environment?
- How might activists use the Internet to overcome nation-based constraints such as the ones mentioned in the reading (e.g. surveillance, lack of access or time) and reach global audiences? Can you think of an example?