Perhaps some of the easiest visual culture that can be compared in modern times is media coverage in China. In 1989, after months of peaceful protesting by civilians in Beijing, the Chinese government ordered the protesters moved out of Tiananmen Square. Hundreds, and perhaps thousands of protesters were killed by the Chinese army. During this time, China imposed a media blackout, including foreign news stations. Word was eventually leaked out, and several hours later news stations around the world began reporting what was happening, although the details were murky, and pictures were blurry and scarce. It took weeks for full details to leak, and the full story of why the violence escalated and number of casualties may never be fully disclosed.
20 years later, riots once again rocked parts of China. However, with the advent of the internet, social media sites, and cell phones, eyewitness accounts were available almost immediately. Any attempt at a media blackout by the government was circumvented by people's ability to access the internet, and post their footage. The following footage is of riot police confronting protestors. This footage was taken with a camera phone, and posted to the internet.
In the modern world of immediate global communication it will probably be impossible to attempt to cover up any kind of large scale incident anymore. This leads to new issues though, as more people than ever have the ability to manipulate footage, and therefore global opinions. This could easily be used to spread misinformation, which in turn could have dire consequences.
It will be fascinating to see how this instant media plays out and affects our "global village".
Fame has truly become a two-edged sword in the 21st Century. For most of the last century the only time you heard about celebrities private lives was if something truly sensational happened, otherwise they got to live highly private lives out of the public spotlight. In our era of global communication however, there is no hiding from the spotlight, and the glare of the bright lights will be on you 24 hours a day. This is the cost of fame, and while some embrace it, others find it difficult to deal with. On top of this, there are those who try to take advantage of any potentially offensive action by a celebrity.
Two recent examples that come to mind are from relatively young celebrities. In one case I think the criticism was entirely valid, and the other incident appears to be more of a case of someone trying to profit off of a celebrity's fame and fortune. In 2010 Kristen Stewart made a comment to British Elle magazine, comparing the constant attention of paparazzi to "being raped". This was clearly an ignorant statement, and one that many found highly offensive. After all rape victims have no choice, Kristen Stewart made the decision to pursue a career that lead to her private life being on display. Stewart later apologized for the comments.
In February of 2009 a picture surfaced of Miley Cyrus posing for a photograph with several friends. She appears to be making her eyes slant upwards, a gesture usually associated with imitating an Asian person. This caused an uproar among some Asian communities, and a 4 billion dollar class action lawsuit was brought against Cyrus for 'discrimination'. In this case I think you would have to make a much more compelling argument than a picture of a 16-year old girl posing for a private photo with a group of friends, one of whom appears to be Asian, as a basis for being offended. Cyrus of course apologized if she offended anyone, and a judge later dismissed the law suit.
So while the price of fame means a loss of privacy, if you are choosing to profit from this fame, then I don't think you have a forum for complaining about your lack of privacy. However, I think that there should be more respect for people's private lives. I don't think that will happen anytime soon without drastic changes in our society.
A challenge facing all companies, and even individuals, in the world of instant worldwide communication is how to respond to rumors or slander. Where one person sending out an email to a small circle of friends can become a firestorm of misunderstanding and false information, it is important to know what the appropriate response should be to try and quell rumors. In the example listed in our Mass Communication text book, a Marine Sergeant sent out an email to ten of his friends, asking them to join him in a boycott of Starbucks because he had heard they "did not support the war in Iraq". This e-mail quickly spread, and it became a big enough issue that Starbucks was compelled to make a public statement on the matter. In this case I think it was an appropriate response, and if they had not taken these steps Starbucks could have unfairly lost customers.
Of course as evidence that bad news travels fast, the original author of the Starbucks rumor later sent out a new email apologizing for the misinformation, but that did not get nearly the amount of circulation that the false rumor did.
This kind of rumor has been going on for years, and often times it can actually be tied back to competing companies. In the early 1980's a rumor began circulating that the company Proctor and Gamble were being managed by avowed Satan worshippers, and the President of P&G even went on the Donahue show and confirmed that this was true. Of course this outraged many people in the United States as many of them were appalled at the idea that they could be contributing to the Church of Satan by buying Proctor and Gamble products. As proof, people were quick to point out the 666, the sign of the devil, in the P&G logo.
While one would think that something so absurd would be laughed off, instead the rumor gained traction. In the 1990's the talk show changed from Donahue to the Sally show, but the basic rumor stayed the same, that the board members of Proctor and Gamble were members of the Church of Satan, and every time you bought their products, you were contributing directly to them. Interestingly enough Proctor and Gamble later sued Amway, a company that made competing products, for defamation, and a jury rewarded P&G 19.7 million dollars for damages, due to recorded evidence given that Amway was helping to at least perpetuate the rumors.
While Proctor and Gamble never made a direct statement to the public regarding the rumors, I think in this case that was also the prudent course. The time period it first occurred in did not have the immediate global communication we have now, and it would have probably done more harm than good to possibly legitimize these accusations by feeling the need to defend yourself against them.
I had to think about this for a while, as I have tried to make an active move away from being 'brand loyal' for quite some time now. As I thought about it however, I recalled one brand that does stand out in particular for me. Toris a book publisher, that specialized in science-fiction and fantasy novels. While I would not say that I am brand loyal in that I never read anything other than Tor books, if something catches my eye and I discover it was published by Tor then I am more than willing to take a chance on purchasing the book without waiting to find reviews on the book to see if it's actually worth reading or not. Over the last 20 years, I would guess my satisfaction level with purchasing a variety of books simply because they carried the Tor logo to easily be around 90%, so I would consider myself to be content with that facet of brand loyalty.
If I'm feeling overwhelmed by choices...
this logo will definitely influence my purchasing decision.
This contrasts with my attitude towards pretty much any other 'brand' name, such as clothes, shoes, electronics, etc. My parents were very much brand loyalists, and there was not a single electronic item in our house that was not a Sony. After getting some real world experience I quickly found out that while Sony is an almost overwhelming brand name, they are usually not overwhelmingly superior products, and are often times much more expensive that competing brands, simply because they know people will pay the 'loyalty' tax. In fairness Sony products are usually good quality, and there's nothing wrong with them, but the 'bang for the buck' factor is what could be viewed as a shortcoming.
