“Corporation between people with different backgrounds can cost trouble. The sharing can be misunderstood and you may insult a tradition due to the prospect of the coexisting borders by globalisation.”
(Robert Veilis, 2013)
“Due to this risk, people intent to find solutions, which
respects the traditions of cultures and the conviction of different topics in
nation states,” Robert told me. He whereas to the United Nations (UN) that relates to the
fifth of Merrill and Fischer’s (1970: 126) areas: 'intergovernmental and financial international communication'(elucidates Rantanen, 2005:2).
Robert is my farther. He has travelled around the World
when he was a kid, but also due to his job as a grownup in the UN.
The biggest change due to globalization in his life is the
cultural and physical flows. These flows costed a lot of lives in
the war of the Baltic; the Baltic population suddenly realized the cultural
difference between one another and got scared without a leader to unite them.
Rapidly the urge to patriotism and racism was dominant and UN went in, trying
to restore peace.
My father’s believe in the ideology of human rights, made
him a part of an intercultural communication (Asante and Gudykunst 1989: 9).
Due to globalization and therefore the regionalization, he made a difference in
many people’s lives, which is why the said flows are important to him. Today
the many refugees remind him of his history.
His life is clearly influenced by the relations between
national governments and international organisations, and how local happenings
influents many people miles away - which confirms Giddens’ definition of
globalization in 1990: ”… as the intensification of world-wide social
relations, which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings
are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice-versa” (1990: 64). I
was surprised my farther did not mention the media, as this is how the UN and
he were informed.
I guess globalization changes people’s lives
wile blurring the nation state. In this case UN acted as the
good example – though my farther is reminded of the bad ones every day.
ROBERT VEILIS
(Photo by S. Veilis)
Bib:
Giddens, A 1990, `The Consequences of Modernity´Stanford University Press, Stanford, California
Rantanen, T 2005, ‘Theorizing media
globalization’, The media and globalization, Sage, London
“Corporation between people with different backgrounds can cost trouble. The sharing can be misunderstood and you may insult a tradition due to the prospect of the coexisting borders by globalisation.”
(Robert Veilis, 2013)
“Due to this risk, people intent to find solutions, which
respects the traditions of cultures and the conviction of different topics in
nation states,” Robert told me. He whereas to the United Nations (UN) that relates to the
fifth of Merrill and Fischer’s (1970: 126) areas: 'intergovernmental and financial international communication'(elucidates Rantanen, 2005:2).
Robert is my farther. He has travelled around the World
when he was a kid, but also due to his job as a grownup in the UN.
The biggest change due to globalization in his life is the
cultural and physical flows. These flows costed a lot of lives in
the war of the Baltic; the Baltic population suddenly realized the cultural
difference between one another and got scared without a leader to unite them.
Rapidly the urge to patriotism and racism was dominant and UN went in, trying
to restore peace.
My father’s believe in the ideology of human rights, made
him a part of an intercultural communication (Asante and Gudykunst 1989: 9).
Due to globalization and therefore the regionalization, he made a difference in
many people’s lives, which is why the said flows are important to him. Today
the many refugees remind him of his history.
His life is clearly influenced by the relations between
national governments and international organisations, and how local happenings
influents many people miles away - which confirms Giddens’ definition of
globalization in 1990: ”… as the intensification of world-wide social
relations, which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings
are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice-versa” (1990: 64). I
was surprised my farther did not mention the media, as this is how the UN and
he were informed.
I guess globalization changes people’s lives
wile blurring the nation state. In this case UN acted as the
good example – though my farther is reminded of the bad ones every day.
 |
| ROBERT VEILIS (Photo by S. Veilis) |
Bib:
Giddens, A 1990, `The Consequences of Modernity´Stanford University Press, Stanford, California
Rantanen, T 2005, ‘Theorizing media globalization’, The media and globalization, Sage, London
"If risk is defined one way, then one option will rise to the top as the most cost-effective or the safest or the best. If it is defined another way, perhaps incorporating qualitative characteristics and other contextual factors, one will likely get a different ordering of action solutions. Defining risk
ReplyDeleteis thus an exercise in power." (Slovic 1999)
Media is often used to convey a definition of risk, and the powers that be influence the media - thus exercising the power of pushing certain solutions. As your father well know, imbalance in media coverage during the Balkan war helped to push for certain action - and the war developed accordingly. It was not the only factor though, but one of many. The role of media, however, is important to reflect upon. The current threat by the US republicans to boycott certain media providers is one recent example on the problem of remaining objective - if we at all have any truly objective media any more..........
Mattias Wengelin, PhD - (we've met, in Rendsburg)
In every country I believe media is somehow controlled or affected by a governmental or another big investor’s ideology. I do not know if you can call it corrupt, but they do have a strong effect.
DeleteAn example of this issue is the well-discussed whistleblowing. Du to E. Snowden’s personal disclosure, the media could concentrate on him as a person – despite of the real issue if we should accept surveillance (or überveillance) all the time of everything we do, which proves Slovic's opinion right..
Due to globalization nations are able to collect information over borders. But can you stop this flow of information? It is frightening how little attention the media has put to this – maybe due to the threat of boycott, as you mention. Which also is the case in the post “Power to the people”. Disturbing.