“¿Dónde habré metido aquel certificado?”, “¿Cómo traduzco “grado”?”, “¡A ver cuántos “me gusta” llevo!”, “¡¿Este vídeo tiene un millón de visitas?!”, “No sé cómo he terminado viendo el nacimiento de un elefante en YouTube “. Estas preguntas, aunque no lo creas, están totalmente conectadas. ¿Quieres saber por qué? Sigue leyendo.
Brexit, the 2016 decision by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, came as shock or at least a surprise to many politicians and citizens alike, in the UK and outside of the country. The decision has been attributed to the polarized tabloid and online coverage surrounding the Referendum, or the general demise of quality journalism.
The situation is likely to be more complex than that, involving socio-economic and political factors; yet the role of the media seem undeniably central to the process and outcome. Hence, it is no wonder that the topic has elicited plenty of academic analysis. The topic is also intriguing and important at the moment, the so called Brexit deal being negotiated between the UK and the EU.
This collaborative essay by the undergraduate online course team of International Communication – Europe (COM3101) condenses the work of over 80 political scientists and media and communication researchers, on the EU Referendum of the UK. It focuses on the interplay of politics and political communication, journalism, news, and social media.
The story is, by now, a familiar one: some person ― whether a celebrity or a relative unknown ― says something racist, misogynistic, or just plain stupid online. We see it, we’re angry, we tell them so. Within hours, they’ve received thousands of replies, ranging from the politely critical to the clearly abusive. The perpetrator then either lashes out defiantly, issues an apology (whether sincere or not) or simply withdraws from the social media space altogether. This is what’s called a “pile-on.”
¿Alguna vez ha hecho una dieta digital? Yo sí. Forzosa, para ser más exacta, ya que pasé casi dos semanas en un país catalogado como “no libre” en el informe de “Libertad de la red” (2017) elaborado por Freedom House. Dicho informe se basa en tres factores: los posibles obstáculos para acceder a internet, las limitaciones de contenido y las violaciones de los derechos de los usuarios. De hecho, aunque parezca chocante, solamente 15 países están catalogados como “libres” en estos momentos. Aún nos queda, pues, mucho camino por recorrer, y a mí, la esperanza de volver a aquel país y poder navegar por internet con esa libertad a la que estoy acostumbrada.
Si no ha visto este vídeo, se lo recomiendo. En marzo de 2017, el profesor Robert E. Kelly estaba dando una entrevista para la BBC a través de Skype cuando, de pronto, su hija primero y su hijo después, irrumpieron divertidos en escena. Finalmente, una mujer asiática se los llevó con evidente apuro. Muchas de las personas que vieron este divertido vídeo, dieron por sentado que esta mujer era la niñera, cuando en realidad se trataba de la esposa del presentador. Pero, ¿por qué? ¿Significa esto que, en el fondo, todos tenemos estereotipos y que estos son inevitables? ¿Existen, quizás, estereotipos positivos? ¿Puede un estereotipo positivo ser injusto y, además, dañino? Y lo más importante: ¿pueden ser los estereotipos una cuestión de derechos humanos? Veámoslo.
What is Gender Lens Investing? What potential investment advantages can it offer? And does it really make a difference to integrate financial returns with social impact.
Investing with a gender focus continues to grow among the impact investing community but there is no single one-size-fits all approach. This was one of the key takeaways in the event “Demystifying Gender Lens Investing – how to integrate financial returns with social impact” by the organization Impact Capital Forum. Helene Diyabanza Peterson, of the Master’s program in International Communication, reports:
Democracy is in crisis. The values it embodies – particularly the right to choose leaders in free and fair elections, freedom of the press, and the rule of law – are under assault and in retreat globally – The Freedom House Freedom in the World Report 2018
This was the motto of the Conference Speak Out! Rebuilding Trust in Media and Democracy in Kingston, Jamaica on 13 August 2018, organized by the Public Media Alliance. The conference brought together thought leaders from around the world to discuss journalism and policy solutions to current information disorder of fake news, polarization, and distrust.
While many reports from around the world painted a picture of political turmoils and constant challenges to independent journalism, keynote experts presented an array of innovative strategies and tactics for rebuilding trust in media and democracy.
Minna Aslama Horowitz, a Fellow at the Institute and a chair of the conference, recounts some key takeaways:
What constitutes “public service media” (PSM) – its remit, its independence, its funding, its organizational configurations – is never set and self-evident. It constantly faces opposition from commercial competitors as well as political actors that seem to manifest in different reiterations year after year. At the same time, its core values of universal service, public interest, and preservation of national culture can be found also outside of the Western PSM models.
This week, a team of St. John’s students is participating in the ICSB Academy Pitch Competition in Taiwan. As they compete and learn, we reflect back on how last year’s competition in Argentina affected students’ who went on this special trip. Helene Diyabanza Peterson, who recently graduated from the College of Professional Studies, as Master of Science in International Communication, looks back at her experience in Buenos Aires:
The Institute Fellow Minna Aslama Horowitz, with the assistance of the Master’s students Helene Diyabanza Peterson and Julia Theilen, authored an Expert Report for the Council of Europe on the possibilities for public service media to counter disinformation and propaganda.
The report was presented to the Council in Paris, France, on 25 May 2018. Below is the transcript of the presentation.
The Institute for International Communication invited distinguished Soviet dissident and journalist, Prof. Leonid Goldin to speak at IICM on Monday April 9th. The purpose of the seminar, ostensibly about Russian propaganda, was to contextualize for students the methods and underlying models of power practiced by contemporary Russian media. Continue reading “Graduate Symposium: New Russia and the not so new propaganda”→