Obama! I choose you!

For the last blog post, I am going to end off with the upcoming and much talked about US Presidential Election 2008! Check this out!

Barack Obama- A 2008 presidential candidate hopeful.

Looks like 3 big US newspapers support Barack Obama (you do know who he is right?) for the next President of the United States!

Los Angeles Times

Washington Post

Chicago Tribune

Other influential people such as the former Secretary of State Colin Powell has also endorsed Obama. Meanwhile, other US newspapers have also endorsed John McCain, Obama's rival in the presidential bid.

Behold the printing press-the source of power for newspapers!

We are all familiar with the concept of endorsement. We have Olympics athletes endorsing certain products. Many soccer teams endorse various other companies which in turn, provide funding and other forms of financial support. Endorsement itself is similar to advertising. The difference is that in endorsement, you have an influential entity supporting the use or purchase of a product. In fact, endorsement is actually a type of advertising, if you look at it in that sense. Tiger Woods endorsing a watch is an advertisement too.

Now, we have newspapers endorsing presidential candidates. This time the subject which is being endorsed is not a product but a person. A presidential candidate to be precise. The endorser is none other than a newspaper, which is a source of media. I find this extremely odd and this brings into mind some of the media theories in communications.

John McCain, another 2008 presidential candidate, also has his share of newspaper endorsers.

According to Charles Wright, the media has 4 purposes. Namely to inform (surveillance), provide analysis (correlation), educate (cultural transmission), and lastly, to provide entertainment. If this is the case, what is the media trying to do when they endorse a presidential candidate? Ideally, the media is supposed to report unbiased news and the truth. Of course, this is unlikely in reality. The act of endorsing Obama means that the newspaper is biased against McCain and in support of Obama.

In the agenda setting function of media theories of communication, we learn that media content has many influences. These include political groups. Many political groups will benefit if they have the endorsement of a prominent media source. This is because the media is a powerful tool in influencing the minds of the audience. This is emphasized especially in the powerful effects theory. In this case, the pro-Obama newspapers will tend to convince its readers that Obama is a better choice for president than McCain. Assuming all the readers follow their newspapers' line, Obama would have gained millions of supporters.

Many Muslims consider graphical depictions of Prophet Muhammad as extremely offensive.

There are many issues concerning the media in the world today. Apart from this endorsing of presedential candidates, the issue of the freedom of speech is still another major one. Remember the uproar caused when a Danish newspaper published comics depicting Prophet Muhammad? Many Muslims (including myself) find that those depictions of the Prophet as something offensive. In this case, should we support censorship or freedom of speech? What do you think the media should be like? Should the media stick to reporting unbiased truth? Or should it be free to report whatever it likes? Is there a place for the government in the media process or should censorship be a thing of the past? Your views, your world!

As this may be the last post for this blog, I bid you guys farewell from the blogging world. I sincerely thank you wonderful people for commenting on my blog. If you have anything else you would like to discuss with me, please feel free to contact me! My email is somewhere around here...look for it yourself!

Don't worry kids, it is kosher!

Alright for today, let us talk about handphones!

Ok, so it is not entirely about handphones...

To sum things up in that article, the traditional ultra-Orthodox Jewish community has come up with various ways to counter the problems brought around by new technologies and advances in communication. Some of the ways include automatic filtering of Internet websites and phone numbers.

Some Haredi Jews. Note their hats and beards.

The ultra-Orthodox community, or Haredi, differs from mainstream Israeli society through their beliefs and practices. Many Haredi homes have no TV or radio. They wear traditional clothes and spend their time studying Jewish scriptures. Previously, they felt that technologies such as phones and TVs are not kosher (you do know what is the meaning of kosher right?) because it may have unsuitable content, such as pornography and gambling. Since photos of women are forbidden, it is not surprising that many Internet websites are avoided by the Haredi people.

One of the most common symbols of kosher in the USA is that of the Union of Orthodox Congregations.

I feel that this is a good example of how culture affects communication. You can see how the Haredi willingly avoid various communication technologies such as handphones and the Internet. Culture affects perception or interpretation of reality here. They view SMSing and taking photos as activities that promote "immodest" behavior, such as illicit communication between male and female youth. To many other cultures like our own, such views are considered unusual. This is because in our culture, mingling between the sexes is the norm.

Culture also affects behavior, as seen by their practices. As Edward T. Hall states, culture influences our behavior. If you were a Haredi male, much of your time will probably be spent learning the Torah. In contrast, what do you spend your time on? Since our culture is not based off the Jewish religion, it is highly likely that you do not pass your free time reading the Torah.

What happens when 2 different cultures meet? Well, you may experience culture shock. I am sure that news of many Haredi Jews not owning a TV or radio willingly may come as a surprise or shock to you. It was certainly a surprise for me. (yeah blame me for being ignorant) Likewise, they will also be shocked at how the different sexes mingle and communicate freely in public. This is because we are so used to what we see as the norm, which is actually dictated by what culture we have.

Beware of culture shocks!

Another thing that may happen is the formation of stereotypes. After reading this, some of you may have the assumption that the Haredi Jews are a backward and unmodernised people. This is an example of plain old stereotyping. First off, we interpret their rejection of communications technology negatively. We come to that conclusion without thinking about their side of the story. In any case, the article shows that they are finding ways to integrate these new technologies without compromising their beliefs. Secondly, we tend to exaggerate and polarise whenever we experience something different. Thus, in our minds, we exaggerate this issue and end up thinking that all Haredi Jews avoid handphones like the plague. This is again not true as many of them already use handphones for business and such.

As you can see, culture clearly influences us in many ways. Not only does our own culture affect us, other cultures do as well. For example, I am certain many of you respect your Muslim friends and eat at Halal places when you are chilling out with them. Sometimes, we may accidently end up offending those from another culture. Talking about Israel, Jewish-Arab riots have rocked the coastal town of Acre for the past few days. The incident was sparked off when an Arab driver drove his car into a Jewish neighbourhood during the Jewish Yom Kippur festival. Since religious Jews consider driving during the festival offensive, the driver was attacked by some Jewish extremists. This is a sad example of how we must respect other cultures, lest we offend them.

Some cars were smashed during the Jewish-Arab riots in Acre.

Last of all, I am going to end of by touching upon ethnocentrism. To those of you thinking that our culture is superior to others, a few words of warning. In my opinion, ethnocentrism is not far from racism. The Nazis were incredibly racist and looked what happened. You do not want something like that to happen now, would you?

All Hail Big Brother!

Ok, I am going to take a break from all those complicated stuff in my previous posts.
Instead, I am going to talk about one of my favourite books! Allow me to introduce 1984 by George Orwell!

For those who have not read it, the book is about life under a totalitarian regime. If you are looking for a good read to pass the time (as if you do not have enough school work already), I seriously suggest picking up a copy of the book. It was also made into a movie.

More information on the book can be conveniently found on Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_new_world

Big Brother is watching you...

In essence, this story is about conforming to the beliefs of the dominant group, which would be The Party in this case. The Party is a large political group which is in control of Oceania which includes the former United Kingdom, which the book is set in. Its leader is a mysterious man known only as Big Brother who is never seen in person. Winston, the main character, constantly questions life under the rule of The Party and his role in the running of The Party. He resists falling prey to groupthink or rather blind patriotism to the The Party. The more he questions The Party, the more he starts to disassociate himself from the group.

As mentioned, Winston constantly ponders about the consequences of his wavering loyalty to the The Party. For example, he debates whether it is beneficial for him to keep a diary when Party doctrine discourages this. This can come under the problem of individual vs. group needs. He measures the rewards gained from being true to the Party and this evaluation determines his loyalty to the group. I believe this is one reason why some people may not be committed to their social or work groups. There is an imbalance between effort and reward.

Winston also has to cope with group pressure throughout the entire book. From time to time, he would try to acquire idiosyncrasy points by conforming. (if anything this puts his mind at ease, I doubt the Party even cares) For instance, he sometimes takes pride in producing a good piece of work ( he is an editor/writer) for the Party. He also takes note of the written and unwritten rules of the Party. As such, he knows that visiting Proletariat pubs are discouraged, even though there is no rule explicitly stated. He even goes as far as gain the support of a fellow rebel, Julia, and together they secretly defy the Party even more. These are some of the ways to overcome group pressure in the study of communications.

One of the most important topics of the book is groupthink. Well, the group is more like a party with millions of members but in essence it is still the same. The Party governing Oceania displays many of the symptoms of groupthink. For example, the Party members believe that The Party is indestructible and eternal. The thought of The Party's fall is inconceivable to many. They also believe that The Party is always right and that all Party propaganda is the truth. ( In fact, their Ministry of Truth is the exact opposite) Lastly, they clamp down hard on dissenters. The Thought Police constantly arrests dissenters who even THINK about disagreeing with The Party. The Ministry of Love is where those thought rebels are sent to. The Party is not lying when they say that "Big Brother is Watching You". There are other signs of groupthink but they are simply too numerous to list.

Many see Brave New World as a counterpart to 1984.

All in all, 1984 is a good book which challenges the mind, or at least my mind. If you are interested in books about dystopian societies, this is definately a must-have. You may also want to check out other books like Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.

Check this out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8

Apple made an advertisement for their Mac which was inspired by 1984.

Hi there, let's make friends!

So it seems that Russia and Venezuela are getting closer together.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7636989.stm

Sure, you here all sorts of different countries boosting their ties with each other. However, what are their reasons for doing so? Their reasons are surprisingly enough, not much different from why we establish relationships and make new friends. We can use communication theories to better understand why people, from individuals to whole nations, choose to establish or dissolve a relationship.

Venezuela has a huge reserve of oil.

In my opinion, this deal is a good example of the exchange theory in relational formation and development. The article states that one of the aims of the deal is for better cooperation between the 2 countries in the energy sector. Venezuela has large reserves of of natural resources such as oil and gas. But it is the Russian oil firms who have the technical know-how and resources to abstract the oil for maximum efficiency. Thus, strengthening the relationship between these 2 countries in the energy sector will provide economical benefits for both sides. Venezuela will definitely give Russia a discount on its oil extracted or some other perks.

A Russian strategic bomber - a show of force!

Another example of the exchange theory is the fact that Venezuela is an important customer of the Russian defence industry. By boosting ties, Venezuela may be able to purchase more high-tech military hardware from Russia at greater discounts. Russia on the other hand, is able to receive more money from its sale of military hardware. Both countries will benefit from this sale of military equipment. The competence theory may also be relevant here. Venezuela chooses to purchase military equipment from Russia because Russia is one of the best producers in the world when it comes to military products.

The last part of the article mentions the similarities between Igor Sechin, the Russian deputy prime minister, and Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela. Interestingly enough, they are both anti-American. This brings into mind the similarity concept in relational formation and development. Having the same attitude against the United States would no doubt, be beneficial to both parties. This is because each country would be able to understand each other better and thus, easier to come to an agreement on policies and related matters.

All in all, each country has its own reasons on boosting their relationships. We can see how communication models stay relevant from the individual scale to the global scale. In this case, one of the more subtle reason is to limit the power and influence of the United States in the South American region and to re-establish Russian presence in South America after the Cold War ended. What do you people think? Is the world gearing up for a second Cold War?

Hey look, I can see the Great Wall from here!

It looks like China is going to do the spacewalk....if you can actually call it "walking".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7602968.stm

The gist of it is that China will launch its 3rd manned space flight soon. This time is special because the astronauts will be doing the spacewalk. In other words, they will be leaving the relative safety of their spacecraft and going to into cold space. The event will be televised and broadcast live throughout the entire country.

In 2003, China launched its 1st manned space flight, making it the 3rd country in the world to send humans to space. At this period of time, the world was witnessing the power of the growing Chinese economy. The West started to see China as a potential candidate for the next superpower to challenge the United States. To top it off, China successfully completed its 1st manned space flight. In this case, China is flexing its muscles, ready to prove that it is rising superpower not to be reckoned with.

I feel this is an example of how countries can engage in non-verbal communication. The fact that China is able to send a man into space tells a lot about the country. Having a successful space program requires a lot of investment. First of all, you need the money to fund the space program. Secondly, you will need the technology required to build the spacecraft. Lastly, you will require the manpower and technical know-how to actually build the spacecraft. Not to mention, train the required workforce such as the astronauts and engineers.

More than just a rocket, the Shenzhou is the pride of a nation.

All in all, this is no easy feat. The fact that China can pull this off shows that China has the money, technology and expertise to match those of the West. Remember that the only 2 other countries who have their own successful manned space flights are the United States and Russia. For countries, outer space is one of the few privileged frontiers. The ability to go to space is seen as a status symbol. It is similar to how people use flashy cars like Porsche and Ferrari to flaunt their status, which comes under the Artifacts type of non-verbal communication. In this case, they are showing off their Shenzhou spacecraft.

Thus, this is an example of non-verbal communication on China's part. They cannot declare to the world that they are an upcoming superpower, they have to show it through their actions. Thus, they chose to go into space. Note in the last part of the article that China sent a probe into space in response to the Japanese launching their own probe. This shows that China sees Japan as a rival to be the leading nation in space exploration for the Asia-Pacific region. This kind of response action and muscle flexing can be considered as the Kinesics type of non-verbal communication.

What other examples of non-verbal communication among nations can you find? The Olympics? The Russian invasion of Georgia? The Iranian cruise missile tests?

Get out of my yard!

This is something which struck me as interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7609886.stm

I feel that this sentence from the article is worth mentioning.

"There's no doubt Pakistan is facing a huge problem of Islamic militancy. But many are convinced it can't tackle this if it's seen to be acting at America's behest."
By Barbara Plett
BBC News, Mardan, North West Frontier Province

This is where the issue of perception comes in. There are loads of problems if Pakistan is seen as acting as America's henchmen. First of all, it makes it look at though Pakistan is simply a servant of the United States. The view of the people is that the Pakistani government is simply being a pawn for the United States, mostly due to US president George Bush's rhetoric on his "War on Terror".

Thus, the battle against Islamic insurgency is not seen as being waged by Pakistan but instead, by the USA. Why should Pakistan waste resources and sacrifice Pakistani lives for a foreign country? This will undoubtedly undermine the government support from the public and the military.

Furthermore, it makes the Pakistani government look weak and pathetic. Many Pakistanis are unhappy with the continued US airstrikes on Pakistani soil. They perceive that their government is unable to assert its on sovereignty in its own territory. After all, it would not look good to have a foreign nation launching missiles into your country, would it?

Thus, the solution proposed by Pakistan's newly elected President, Asif Zardari, is to change the perception of both the public and the military. Their mindset has to be changed from "America's War" to "Pakistan's war". Only then, can the Pakistani government garner enough support for the war effort to make a lasting impression on the Islamic militancy.

The support of the military is important for any government in Pakistan.

There is a difference between Pakistan helping the United States in an American war and the United States helping Pakistan in a Pakistani war. In one, it looks like Pakistan is merely being cannon fodder. In the other, it seems like Islamabad is waging its own conflicts with assistance from Washington.

When it comes to governments running a country, communication plays an undoubtedly important role, even though it is not as explicit as talking face to face. The government regularly communicates with the public not only through verbal means like official announcements, but by also using non-verbal means like their military actions.

A failure in communication between the government and its people can result in misunderstandings and the government being seen in a negative light. This is when the public and government perception of certain issues start to differ.

In this case, Islamabad's silence against Washington's continued missile strikes have led to many Pakistanis seeing Islamabad's impotence against Washington's violation of Pakistani borders. Lack of proper communication has also led the public to believe that the war against Islamic militants is not their war.

This goes to show that the concept of perception is extremely important when running a country. How are you going to gain the support of your subjects if they perceive you as simply a puppet of a foreign power?

Communication, the Internet and....Trolls???

The advent of the Internet is without a doubt, one of the most significant milestones in human history, in my opinion. In terms of communication, one can consider the Internet to be the next stage in human evolution. Humanity has surely come a long way. From the early stages of the spoken language, to the development of writing and now, the ability for people to communicate with each other over vast distances at almost instantaneous speeds.

Despite recent trends like blogging and participation in online forums, the many theories of communication still hold true. In fact, it is even more relevant as the Internet is really just a new way of communicating. Communication through the Internet is of little difference to talking to another person in the physical realm. For example, one must still bear in mind how he wants to bring across his message to the other party, or lexis. He would still use the different types of persuasion, such as logos, which is the appeal to one’s logical reasoning. In fact, online communication such as forum posting may even be described as an example of an Interactive model of communication. After all, there is a message from the original poster, which may be replied to by another poster. As such, there are both senders and receivers of messages.

However, there are times when the failure of communication is apparent. I have seen forums where its participants do not seem to follow any rules of communication .They may have posts, which are made up of utter nonsense and gibberish, totally devoid of any of the Canons of Rhetoric. Many of these people do nothing but just spam the forums with nothing but…well…. spam. In certain forums, such abusers of the Internet are given the term of “Trolls”. The reasons behind them posting absolute nonsense are still unclear. They are usually characterized with using Internet slang or “1337 speak” in their posts, which only serve to confuse others and cause miscommunications in those who are polite enough to try and decipher their message, or lack of it. In the rare occasion that they utilize normal speech, it is apparent that they have the mentality of a young child.

I suspect that people do not behave like this in the physical world, as one would be too ashamed to do childish stuff like this. With the anonymity enjoyed by Internet users, I suppose one can throw all his inhibitions out of the window and act inappropriately, without any fear of consequence.