There was a great sense of anticipation expressed by many people and organizations from around the world before the 2009 Olympics. The Director of Media Services of the US Olympic Committee, Robert Condron, an American veteran attendee to the Olympic games, commented that he had never before witnessed this level of interest toward the Olympics. “The biggest interest in China is not in the competition. It is in the country. Many people around the globe do not know too much about this huge, beautiful country. This will give people the opportunity to see China first hand” (Condron qtd. in “International Briefing”). The Olympic games are about competition and are an enjoyable spectacle to watch, which is going to be the main focus of the American and Chinese news, despite the fact that many people will be interested in more than the contests between the athletes. Even though China has gone through a rapid development of commercialization within its various media outlets, “the Chinese Communist party still insists that the media are its mouthpiece and it continues to exercise blunt forms of media censorship”(Zhao 2). On the other hand, how fair will the U.S. media present coverage of the games? Capitalist societies have a tendency “towards producing culture as a commodity … it is essential, therefore, that the product is diluted to meet the lowest common denominator … (Thussu 69-71). In other words, the presentation of the Olympic games through American news outlets will be just another opportunity to promote the acceptance of “the soft compulsion of constant consumption training” (Habermas qtd. in Thussu 71). Another factor that will have a large impact in the American mindset toward the games involves Edward Said and his coining of the term “Orientalism.” According to Chin-Chua Lee, editor of the book Power, Money, and Media: Communication Patterns and Bureaucratic Control in Cultural China, Orientalism is used “to describe the historical processes by which Western scholars have constructed the mosaic of … the Orient, in light of the imperialist needs of their countries, a mosaic complete with preconceived notions, fantasies, and biases.” While these are only two aspects that have helped shaped how Americans view the rest of the world, specifically China, Lee points out that “this process is eminently applicable to the construction of Cultural China … that U.S. coverage of China has oscillated between romanticism and cynicism” and that these extremes in thought often involves more of what is going on in the U.S. rather than what is happening in China (Lee 7).
The United States, at the moment, is considered the only hyper-power in the world. America defines such abstract thoughts as freedom, democracy, and justice. How we define and translate these thoughts is through government policies, television, the Internet, and printed materials such as magazines and newspapers. Who controls these various forms of media and communication? Is it the American government, its people, a combination of the two, or someone or something else altogether?
While there is a range of interrelated theories on international communication, it is commonly argued that the U.S. dominates many non-U.S. markets through more advanced technology enabled by one of the highest per capita incomes. The spread of American culture and Western belief system is further facilitated by the largest, most pervasive and technologically advanced militaries in the world. Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Davies point out that “we are moving towards a world in which global markets in such basic things as healthcare, welfare, pensions, education, and food and water are supplied and controlled by American corporations”(196). Over the years, there have evolved basically two competing theories when it comes to international communication, those who support capitalism and those who do not support capitalism. Those who support capitalism “the primary function of international communication [is] to promote democracy, freedom of expression and markets.” The flipside are those who “argue for greater state regulation on communication and media outlets” (Thussu, 55).
In China, while there is still a highly organized and arbitrary authoritarian state, it has had to reconsider its position because of the overwhelming power of market forces. Authors Chan and Chen formulate that China’s media is similar to having “commercialization without independence” while taking some sort of satisfaction from “bird-caged press freedom”(qtd. in Lee 10). According to Fisher, in the West “news is meant to inform the public” while at the same time serving a “social purpose as a business enterprise for profit.” However, in China, the “government monopoly in news dissemination might be seen as a proper and necessary means not so much of informing but of educating the people and of managing public attitudes” (114).
Works Cited
“International Briefing.” The Washington Post 28 Nov. 2007: B.D05 LexisNexis Academic. 29 Nov. 2007.
Lee, Chin-Chuan, ed. Power, Money, and Media: Communication Patterns. Northwestern University Press, 2000.
Sardar, Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies. Why Do People Hate America?. New York: The Disinformation Company Ltd., 2002.
Thussu, Daya Kishan. International Communication. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2001.
