the interview with Karen hughes was very interesting especially hearing her point of view about the American public diplomacy. first she provided an unofficial definition of Public Diplomacy which is very important for understanding public deplomacy acoording to an individual level. actually she brought a good points that explains US public Diplomacy such as the US try to have Dialogue with the word. here one can say that the US try to regain its credibility that have lost it after the Iraq war. another point is that the US try to marginalize terrorists and try to promote the common culture of the word to enhace the free trade. Karen huges argued that Public Diplomacy is every body's job, i think that she is right at this point because if every one act as a good citizen of the world not only citizen of a country he/she will promote the image of their countries and also there will be less conflicts in the world. if we relate this topic to the Moroccan context, one can say that the moroccan Public Diplomacy is far away to be compared to the American one because in my point of view Morocco lack of two fundamental requirements to reach a good level of Public Diplomacy which are Lack of Education and economy. Morocco can not afford to pay specialist inDiplomacy to educate people to know how to react and also it cannot afford to launch copaign of advertizing of the western Sahara.
to conclude, Public Diplomacy is a huge concept that cannot be afordable wiothout money and education. even culture plays a cricial roll in the way people see Diplomacy. to a response to the communication efforts of Karen, i think that the US really lost credibility and it will be very hard and need much more compaigns to regain it againe but not before solving Iraq problem.
mercredi 9 juillet 2008
mardi 8 juillet 2008
Telediplomacy and American foreign policy: Al Hurra and Morocco
Sophia Yousfi
Telediplomacy and American foreign policy: Al Hurra, Morocco
There is a strong relationship between diplomacy and communication; in addition, diplomacy determines the kind of relationship between different states in politics. Therefore, one can link communication with politics and television with diplomacy, to come up at the end with one single word that has a wide meaning which is Telediplomacy.
Diplomatic scholars argued that the diplomatic practices change with the change of methods of communication which proof that the change of the way of communication determines the reaction of the receiver. Let’s take the example of the western diplomacy which has been marked by two paradigms: “old diplomacy” which relied upon secrecy and privacy, and “new diplomacy” which rely upon openness and wide access. The shift that occurred to the western diplomacy from the old one to the new one has to do with the shift that occurred to communication that transformed from hand written documents ( secrecy) to printing press (openness).
The rise of television in 1980’s added a new paradigm to the western diplomacy which is “Telediplomacy”, the third paradigm that rely upon real time global television. As a result of the telediplomacy, communication becomes able to establish diplomatic outcomes. In other words, diplomatic practices between states becomes dependent on telediplomacy; according to Hans Morgenthau one of the most respected diplomatic scholars of the twentieth century “ Today diplomacy no longer performs the role, often spectacular and brilliant and always important, that it performed from the end of the thirty years’ Wars to the beginning of the World War… Diplomacy has lost its vitality and its functions have withered away to such an extent as is without precedent in history of the modern state system. Five factors account for that decline…the most obvious of these factors is the development of modern communication.”(Morgenthau, 06). Morgenthau stated these arguments in 1949, which means that he predicted what is going to happen few years later with the creation of some dominant news channels like CNN. “UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali charged that CNN the cable news network is the unofficial sixteenth member of the fifteen member United State Security Council.”(Ammon, 07). Therefore, television became the most dominant form of communication and the easiest way to inform people around the world of what is happening. More than that, telediplomacy is able to drive policies and the best example of that is the 1991 gulf war where the television coverage influenced the United States foreign policy toward the Kurdish refugees.
Let’s examine how television can influence politics? First, I will start by giving a definition of communication. According to Webster’s Dictionary, communication is the act of transmitting, giving or exchanging information. Therefore, television is a form of communication since it consists of sending and receiving information from the reporter to the audience through the screen of the TV. As we all know, people cannot have access to information’s about what is happening in the world only by reading the printing press or listening to the radio or watching the news in the TV. And according to some reliable statistics, the common and frequent way of getting information is by watching the news on TV; as a result, TV has a great influence on people from different perspectives.
The first perspective is that people will know only information that the news channel they used to watch decides to present. In other words, some important news that the consumer may judge really significant may be denied from the news channel and the consumer will never be aware it existed.
Another perspective is that in general, when people don’t know anything about a specific subject, they have tendencies to evaluate it according to the way it was presented to them. In other words, the way the reporter presents any new event affects and influences the way the audience receive it.
Now that we become aware that television influences the way the audience receives the news, meaning that if a certain channel is promoting some ideas about some political cases, people who watch that channel will start to think favorably about that particular political case. Therefore, this encourages a unified point of view of the citizens of a particular state about a particular political case that concerns that particular state. Since citizens are involved in the government of most countries of the world whether authoritarian regimes that include some citizens in the general assembly, or democratic countries where citizens are involved in the decision making process; their point of view about any political case will certainly affect the decision making process of the country. As a result, television can really affect the decision making of a country by influencing its people. That’s how television influences politics.
Another form by which television influences politics is enhancing or damaging the image of a country. In International relations each country has its own power potential by which it can be evaluated according to the international system. These power potentials consist of three elements:
1) Natural resources: population, geographic location…
2) Political system: kind of political system that governs the state
3) International image: nongovernmental organization, and how other states perceive a particular state.
The third element of the power potential of states demonstrate that the international image of a country is very important and even count from power potential of the state. Therefore, if a certain channel that is watched by many people oppose a certain state and try to present the state and its politics in an awful way. Certainly the international image of that particular state will be much damaged and other states will perceive it very badly and even take actions that are against it. A good example of this is the Iraq-Kuwait gulf war; in that war the media presented Iraq as the invader and Kuwait as the victim. However, that plays a big roll in the Security Council decision to stop immediately the war; and give to Iraq serious sanctions in order to punish it for its unexplained attacks against Kuwait.
The gulf war is the best example that symbolizes “Media War”, it is no longer possible to talk about the results of the Gulf war without referring to media that played a vital role in drowning its ending destiny.
“Us Ambassador John W.Tuthill conducted a seminar ten years ago entitled “American Diplomacy in the Information Age” for senior level diplomatic and media personnel. Tuthill concluded that a rapid breaking down of the limitations posed by time and space marks our age. Bosah Ebo argues that the current information revolution has dramatically changed international relations. Walter R Roberts, a retired US foreign service officer, argues that the changes wrought by the recent communication revolution have had their most profound impact in the world of American Diplomacy. And former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, while reflection upon the effects of instantaneous communications, contends that if foreign ministries and embassies did not already exist, they surely would not have to be invented.”(Ammon; 68). All these witnesses make no doubt about the importance of telediplomacy as a communication tool in the information age. Some witness like Zbigniew Brezinski, the former US National Security Advisor goes further on the importance of telediplomacy to argue that with telediplomacy there is no need for foreign ministries and embassies. That best demonstrate that telediplomacy nowadays can replace foreign ministries and embassies regarding the great influence that has on people.
With the emergence of telediplomacy, the dominant idea in international system that aimed that the state is a unitary actor and responsible for its acts is no longer valid. Few years ago, states were acting in certain privacy and it was easy for them to convince people and hide the bad sides of their actions. Contrary to now, states are no longer able to hide some actions that may have bad impact on people and other states. The revolution of communication and specifically of media took off any attempt for the states to hide important truth from people.
Television immediacy and impact are the forces that permit communication to influence foreign policy. As the former US white house Lloyd N.Cutler argued, “television news had a much greater effect on national policy decisions, especially foreign policy decisions- than print journalism has ever been able to and more than most experienced observers realize.”(Ammon, 89). One can understand from Lloyd arguments that television has a greater impact on people than news papers have. Therefore, television reporting is the key power on impact. Nowadays, government’s spokesmen respond to most of political issues through live satellite coverage instead of the traditional diplomatic processes. The best example that illustrate the ability of global communication to derive policy is the tragedy of Tiananmen square (China and USA). Another good example of the ability of communication to derive foreign policy is again Persian Gulf war in 1991 where the United States launched a massive humanitarian intervention on behalf the Kurdish refugees. Television had covered what happened to those Kurdish; as a result, it affects the US foreign policy decision. However, the humanitarian catastrophe in southern Iraq received no global television coverage; therefore, no international assistance. Thus, television has the potential to function as an independent actor in foreign policy.
Now that we discussed all aspects of the impact of telediplomacy and foreign policy let’s recapitulate. “Under Telediplomacy communications has acquired the potential to influence outcomes, as well. Under certain conditions, communications can now drive policy. However, global television’s ability to influence diplomatic outcomes is limited to certain specific issues, such as global political crises; events that are unfolding rapidly and events where there is an absence of political leadership; and situations where the media have both the access and autonomy to provide the required visibility. Telediplomacy is characterized by its immediacy and impact. However, telediplomacy’s primary difference from its predecessors is the unique potential for global communications to derive policy.”(Ammon, 152).
From the previous recapitulation, one can come up with the conclusion that telediplomacy becomes the infallible tool to derive foreign policy. In addition, another important conclusion is that telediplomacy with its great impact on influencing people can also control over their minds and enhance other countries image. This is another way to use telediplomacy in the favor of other countries.
Powerful countries such as the United States, France and Britain use Global television to enhance their image in order to serve their own goals. For this purpose many TV channels were created to enhance the image of such powerful countries.
Let’s take a relevant example of our topic which is Telediplomacy and American foreign policy: Al Hurra and Morocco.
Al Hurra is an American TV channel in Arabic that was created in the Iraq war period financed by the American congress in order to “win the hearts and minds of Arab people”. “Alhurra (or Al Hurra), "the free one," is an Arabic-language American satellite TV channel based in Springfield, Virigina, financed by the U.S. government, and "beamed across the Arab world" and "aimed at viewers in the Middle East." As with other forms of U.S. public diplomacy, it is not allowed to broadcast inside the U.S. because of the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act.[1]. The channel is owned by the Middle East Television Network Inc., a holding company, and overseen by the U.S.-funded Broadcasting Board of Governors” (www.sourcewatch.org).
Al Hurra channel was created as a response to Al Jazeera (the pro Arab channel that is known for being anti-American channel) in order to win the hearts and minds of Arab people. From its slogan, one can well understand that the purpose behind the creation of al Hurra is to improve the image of the United States of America in the eyes of Arab people especially after the attacks of Al Jazeera during Iraq war.
Knowing that Al Jazeera is one of the most famous Arab news channel that is watched from most of Arab people according to a reliable statistics, the US decided to create Al Hurra in order to stop Al Jazeera’s propaganda and launched another concurrent propaganda which is the Hurra’s one.
In order to see the impact of al Hurra on Moroccan people, I have conducted some surveys to measure the influence of Al Hurra on Moroccans. The results were as follows: I have found two categories of people. First, those who don’t know Al Hurra channel. Second, those who know Al Hurra. However, I found two categories in those who know Al Hurra: 1) those who know Al Hurra and watch it because they think it is a credible channel.
2) those who knows Al Hurra but don’t watch it because they think that it is only a pro American channel that try to launch the American propaganda, so it is not a credible channel at all.
From these categories, the one that is going to be influenced by Al Hurra are those who watch it and think it is credible. After, I conducted another survey with this later category; I found that all of them think that the United States went to rescue Iraqi people from an extremely authoritarian regime and at the top of it a dictator leader (Saddam Hussein). In addition, I conducted an interview with an ex journalist in Radio sawa which is the same company of Al Hurra and I came up with a good conclusion from his saying which is, for most journalist of al Hurra, the United states of America does not interferes with the choice of the broadcast subjects. However, US government suggest that all the broadcast of Al Hurra should appear in a way to repair the US image in the eyes of Arab people.
From the results of my primary research I can certify that the US achieved its goal by creating Radio Sawa and Al Hurra. However, the inconvenient is that Al Jazeera is still the number one channel in the Arab word, and people who watch Al Hurra are still minorities.
Another good remark about Radio Sawa is that the music it broadcast are Hip Hop music style or other styles that are definitely anti-revolutionary style of music. This is a good example that best demonstrate other ways of controlling the minds of people without direct broadcast of news that are clearly pro American.
In conclusion, Al Hurra is definitely an American channel that aims to win the hearts and the minds of Arab people and it is also the best example to show the impact of telediplomacy in deriving foreign policy. Al hurra channel is a consequence of a decision of an American foreign policy to repair its image in the eyes of Arab people.
References
Royce J.Ammon, “Global Television and the Shaping of World Politics” (North Carolina, 2001)
fletcher.tufts.edu/research/2005/Tiedeman.pdf - Pages similaires
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Al_Hurra - 57k
Yahya R.Kamalipour, “Global Communication” (Canada, 2006)
www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/feb/16/broadcasting.usnews - 63k - En cache - Pages similaires
digitalcommons.unl.edu/dissertations/AAI9917818/ - 10k
library.plymouth.edu/read/188903 - 30k - En cache - Pages similaires
Telediplomacy and American foreign policy: Al Hurra, Morocco
There is a strong relationship between diplomacy and communication; in addition, diplomacy determines the kind of relationship between different states in politics. Therefore, one can link communication with politics and television with diplomacy, to come up at the end with one single word that has a wide meaning which is Telediplomacy.
Diplomatic scholars argued that the diplomatic practices change with the change of methods of communication which proof that the change of the way of communication determines the reaction of the receiver. Let’s take the example of the western diplomacy which has been marked by two paradigms: “old diplomacy” which relied upon secrecy and privacy, and “new diplomacy” which rely upon openness and wide access. The shift that occurred to the western diplomacy from the old one to the new one has to do with the shift that occurred to communication that transformed from hand written documents ( secrecy) to printing press (openness).
The rise of television in 1980’s added a new paradigm to the western diplomacy which is “Telediplomacy”, the third paradigm that rely upon real time global television. As a result of the telediplomacy, communication becomes able to establish diplomatic outcomes. In other words, diplomatic practices between states becomes dependent on telediplomacy; according to Hans Morgenthau one of the most respected diplomatic scholars of the twentieth century “ Today diplomacy no longer performs the role, often spectacular and brilliant and always important, that it performed from the end of the thirty years’ Wars to the beginning of the World War… Diplomacy has lost its vitality and its functions have withered away to such an extent as is without precedent in history of the modern state system. Five factors account for that decline…the most obvious of these factors is the development of modern communication.”(Morgenthau, 06). Morgenthau stated these arguments in 1949, which means that he predicted what is going to happen few years later with the creation of some dominant news channels like CNN. “UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali charged that CNN the cable news network is the unofficial sixteenth member of the fifteen member United State Security Council.”(Ammon, 07). Therefore, television became the most dominant form of communication and the easiest way to inform people around the world of what is happening. More than that, telediplomacy is able to drive policies and the best example of that is the 1991 gulf war where the television coverage influenced the United States foreign policy toward the Kurdish refugees.
Let’s examine how television can influence politics? First, I will start by giving a definition of communication. According to Webster’s Dictionary, communication is the act of transmitting, giving or exchanging information. Therefore, television is a form of communication since it consists of sending and receiving information from the reporter to the audience through the screen of the TV. As we all know, people cannot have access to information’s about what is happening in the world only by reading the printing press or listening to the radio or watching the news in the TV. And according to some reliable statistics, the common and frequent way of getting information is by watching the news on TV; as a result, TV has a great influence on people from different perspectives.
The first perspective is that people will know only information that the news channel they used to watch decides to present. In other words, some important news that the consumer may judge really significant may be denied from the news channel and the consumer will never be aware it existed.
Another perspective is that in general, when people don’t know anything about a specific subject, they have tendencies to evaluate it according to the way it was presented to them. In other words, the way the reporter presents any new event affects and influences the way the audience receive it.
Now that we become aware that television influences the way the audience receives the news, meaning that if a certain channel is promoting some ideas about some political cases, people who watch that channel will start to think favorably about that particular political case. Therefore, this encourages a unified point of view of the citizens of a particular state about a particular political case that concerns that particular state. Since citizens are involved in the government of most countries of the world whether authoritarian regimes that include some citizens in the general assembly, or democratic countries where citizens are involved in the decision making process; their point of view about any political case will certainly affect the decision making process of the country. As a result, television can really affect the decision making of a country by influencing its people. That’s how television influences politics.
Another form by which television influences politics is enhancing or damaging the image of a country. In International relations each country has its own power potential by which it can be evaluated according to the international system. These power potentials consist of three elements:
1) Natural resources: population, geographic location…
2) Political system: kind of political system that governs the state
3) International image: nongovernmental organization, and how other states perceive a particular state.
The third element of the power potential of states demonstrate that the international image of a country is very important and even count from power potential of the state. Therefore, if a certain channel that is watched by many people oppose a certain state and try to present the state and its politics in an awful way. Certainly the international image of that particular state will be much damaged and other states will perceive it very badly and even take actions that are against it. A good example of this is the Iraq-Kuwait gulf war; in that war the media presented Iraq as the invader and Kuwait as the victim. However, that plays a big roll in the Security Council decision to stop immediately the war; and give to Iraq serious sanctions in order to punish it for its unexplained attacks against Kuwait.
The gulf war is the best example that symbolizes “Media War”, it is no longer possible to talk about the results of the Gulf war without referring to media that played a vital role in drowning its ending destiny.
“Us Ambassador John W.Tuthill conducted a seminar ten years ago entitled “American Diplomacy in the Information Age” for senior level diplomatic and media personnel. Tuthill concluded that a rapid breaking down of the limitations posed by time and space marks our age. Bosah Ebo argues that the current information revolution has dramatically changed international relations. Walter R Roberts, a retired US foreign service officer, argues that the changes wrought by the recent communication revolution have had their most profound impact in the world of American Diplomacy. And former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, while reflection upon the effects of instantaneous communications, contends that if foreign ministries and embassies did not already exist, they surely would not have to be invented.”(Ammon; 68). All these witnesses make no doubt about the importance of telediplomacy as a communication tool in the information age. Some witness like Zbigniew Brezinski, the former US National Security Advisor goes further on the importance of telediplomacy to argue that with telediplomacy there is no need for foreign ministries and embassies. That best demonstrate that telediplomacy nowadays can replace foreign ministries and embassies regarding the great influence that has on people.
With the emergence of telediplomacy, the dominant idea in international system that aimed that the state is a unitary actor and responsible for its acts is no longer valid. Few years ago, states were acting in certain privacy and it was easy for them to convince people and hide the bad sides of their actions. Contrary to now, states are no longer able to hide some actions that may have bad impact on people and other states. The revolution of communication and specifically of media took off any attempt for the states to hide important truth from people.
Television immediacy and impact are the forces that permit communication to influence foreign policy. As the former US white house Lloyd N.Cutler argued, “television news had a much greater effect on national policy decisions, especially foreign policy decisions- than print journalism has ever been able to and more than most experienced observers realize.”(Ammon, 89). One can understand from Lloyd arguments that television has a greater impact on people than news papers have. Therefore, television reporting is the key power on impact. Nowadays, government’s spokesmen respond to most of political issues through live satellite coverage instead of the traditional diplomatic processes. The best example that illustrate the ability of global communication to derive policy is the tragedy of Tiananmen square (China and USA). Another good example of the ability of communication to derive foreign policy is again Persian Gulf war in 1991 where the United States launched a massive humanitarian intervention on behalf the Kurdish refugees. Television had covered what happened to those Kurdish; as a result, it affects the US foreign policy decision. However, the humanitarian catastrophe in southern Iraq received no global television coverage; therefore, no international assistance. Thus, television has the potential to function as an independent actor in foreign policy.
Now that we discussed all aspects of the impact of telediplomacy and foreign policy let’s recapitulate. “Under Telediplomacy communications has acquired the potential to influence outcomes, as well. Under certain conditions, communications can now drive policy. However, global television’s ability to influence diplomatic outcomes is limited to certain specific issues, such as global political crises; events that are unfolding rapidly and events where there is an absence of political leadership; and situations where the media have both the access and autonomy to provide the required visibility. Telediplomacy is characterized by its immediacy and impact. However, telediplomacy’s primary difference from its predecessors is the unique potential for global communications to derive policy.”(Ammon, 152).
From the previous recapitulation, one can come up with the conclusion that telediplomacy becomes the infallible tool to derive foreign policy. In addition, another important conclusion is that telediplomacy with its great impact on influencing people can also control over their minds and enhance other countries image. This is another way to use telediplomacy in the favor of other countries.
Powerful countries such as the United States, France and Britain use Global television to enhance their image in order to serve their own goals. For this purpose many TV channels were created to enhance the image of such powerful countries.
Let’s take a relevant example of our topic which is Telediplomacy and American foreign policy: Al Hurra and Morocco.
Al Hurra is an American TV channel in Arabic that was created in the Iraq war period financed by the American congress in order to “win the hearts and minds of Arab people”. “Alhurra (or Al Hurra), "the free one," is an Arabic-language American satellite TV channel based in Springfield, Virigina, financed by the U.S. government, and "beamed across the Arab world" and "aimed at viewers in the Middle East." As with other forms of U.S. public diplomacy, it is not allowed to broadcast inside the U.S. because of the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act.[1]. The channel is owned by the Middle East Television Network Inc., a holding company, and overseen by the U.S.-funded Broadcasting Board of Governors” (www.sourcewatch.org).
Al Hurra channel was created as a response to Al Jazeera (the pro Arab channel that is known for being anti-American channel) in order to win the hearts and minds of Arab people. From its slogan, one can well understand that the purpose behind the creation of al Hurra is to improve the image of the United States of America in the eyes of Arab people especially after the attacks of Al Jazeera during Iraq war.
Knowing that Al Jazeera is one of the most famous Arab news channel that is watched from most of Arab people according to a reliable statistics, the US decided to create Al Hurra in order to stop Al Jazeera’s propaganda and launched another concurrent propaganda which is the Hurra’s one.
In order to see the impact of al Hurra on Moroccan people, I have conducted some surveys to measure the influence of Al Hurra on Moroccans. The results were as follows: I have found two categories of people. First, those who don’t know Al Hurra channel. Second, those who know Al Hurra. However, I found two categories in those who know Al Hurra: 1) those who know Al Hurra and watch it because they think it is a credible channel.
2) those who knows Al Hurra but don’t watch it because they think that it is only a pro American channel that try to launch the American propaganda, so it is not a credible channel at all.
From these categories, the one that is going to be influenced by Al Hurra are those who watch it and think it is credible. After, I conducted another survey with this later category; I found that all of them think that the United States went to rescue Iraqi people from an extremely authoritarian regime and at the top of it a dictator leader (Saddam Hussein). In addition, I conducted an interview with an ex journalist in Radio sawa which is the same company of Al Hurra and I came up with a good conclusion from his saying which is, for most journalist of al Hurra, the United states of America does not interferes with the choice of the broadcast subjects. However, US government suggest that all the broadcast of Al Hurra should appear in a way to repair the US image in the eyes of Arab people.
From the results of my primary research I can certify that the US achieved its goal by creating Radio Sawa and Al Hurra. However, the inconvenient is that Al Jazeera is still the number one channel in the Arab word, and people who watch Al Hurra are still minorities.
Another good remark about Radio Sawa is that the music it broadcast are Hip Hop music style or other styles that are definitely anti-revolutionary style of music. This is a good example that best demonstrate other ways of controlling the minds of people without direct broadcast of news that are clearly pro American.
In conclusion, Al Hurra is definitely an American channel that aims to win the hearts and the minds of Arab people and it is also the best example to show the impact of telediplomacy in deriving foreign policy. Al hurra channel is a consequence of a decision of an American foreign policy to repair its image in the eyes of Arab people.
References
Royce J.Ammon, “Global Television and the Shaping of World Politics” (North Carolina, 2001)
fletcher.tufts.edu/research/2005/Tiedeman.pdf - Pages similaires
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Al_Hurra - 57k
Yahya R.Kamalipour, “Global Communication” (Canada, 2006)
www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/feb/16/broadcasting.usnews - 63k - En cache - Pages similaires
digitalcommons.unl.edu/dissertations/AAI9917818/ - 10k
library.plymouth.edu/read/188903 - 30k - En cache - Pages similaires
mercredi 2 juillet 2008
spreading peace over the net
the tennage boy who could manage to gather more than 5000 people in order to attend his event about peace through facebook is a clear form of intercultural convergence.
within 5000 people there are many cultural differences because these people come from different countries and have different religion and beliefs; however, the young boy could gather them all toghether and convince them to attend his famous peace day.
the most important think is that he gather them through internet which proof that it is the most reliable tool that could pass informations globaly.
the young boy could become in the guiness record for his ability to gather different people and convince them by his noble cause.
within 5000 people there are many cultural differences because these people come from different countries and have different religion and beliefs; however, the young boy could gather them all toghether and convince them to attend his famous peace day.
the most important think is that he gather them through internet which proof that it is the most reliable tool that could pass informations globaly.
the young boy could become in the guiness record for his ability to gather different people and convince them by his noble cause.
reflection on Digital visionary: Nicholas Negroponte
Professor Nicholas Negroponte the man of the grand visions has a project that will contribute in the world education which is to distribute innovative laptops to children across the developing world and cost about 100§
i think that Nicholas Negroponte's project is very significant in terms of globalization. this project is a concrete example of global education; a §100 laptop will solve the problem of lack of communication and educative tools in the developping world. however, like each innovative think, this project has its opposant. personally, i think that the opposant of that project are those who are concerned with the price of the laptops. such a project will put the light on a new laptop very chip and very easy to buy, and that will affect the laptop's companies that create all sorts of computers and sell it with high prices.
for me this case demonstrates the consequences of globalization on the countries of the center. in other words, the spread of knowledge will costs so much to the developed countries.
i think that Nicholas Negroponte's project is very significant in terms of globalization. this project is a concrete example of global education; a §100 laptop will solve the problem of lack of communication and educative tools in the developping world. however, like each innovative think, this project has its opposant. personally, i think that the opposant of that project are those who are concerned with the price of the laptops. such a project will put the light on a new laptop very chip and very easy to buy, and that will affect the laptop's companies that create all sorts of computers and sell it with high prices.
for me this case demonstrates the consequences of globalization on the countries of the center. in other words, the spread of knowledge will costs so much to the developed countries.
mercredi 18 juin 2008
summary of chapter 1
there are many factors that contributed in the developement of communication in the past such as geographycal space: the pread of communication had change the understanding of geography.
geography and the mythical: changes that are likely to result from the use of communication in terms of physical movement such as immigration.
Ancient encounters of societies: there was also some informal networks of communicvation such as travelers and traders; not only official communication between the states.
Mapemakers: helped to unlock the unknown worlds and a precise geographic situation of a particular state.
The printing press: helped to untroduce nationalism and to lay the basis for the reformation.
The growth of the Telegraph: rapid transmission of information.
geography and the mythical: changes that are likely to result from the use of communication in terms of physical movement such as immigration.
Ancient encounters of societies: there was also some informal networks of communicvation such as travelers and traders; not only official communication between the states.
Mapemakers: helped to unlock the unknown worlds and a precise geographic situation of a particular state.
The printing press: helped to untroduce nationalism and to lay the basis for the reformation.
The growth of the Telegraph: rapid transmission of information.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)