Price’s book, Media and Sovereignty, provides us with a thorough analysis of national responses to media globalization. All nations, no matter what political forms they adopt, all involved in this revolution process. Through examples from different countries and areas Price argues that the process of remodeling global communication systems, negotiation of information boundaries, and reinforcement of national identities are influenced and controlled by many parties, including governments, religions, corporations, human right organizations and individuals. Among all these forces, according to Price’s description and argument, nations take the major power of controlling the new technologies and influencing the media by means of laws and regulations. Consequently, the governments can control the information and influence the public opinion both inside the country boundary and outside. On the other hand, the impact and influential power of nations vary depending on the different context. The reformation process is the results of interaction, negotiation and conflict of international forces. The policies adopted may be very different for different forms of nations, such as democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian, which results in different foreign policies and media systems. According to Price, nations are also influenced by other factors when response to the globalization trend, such as national security concerns, sensitivity to international speech norms, isolation versus vulnerability to power realignments, etc. The influence of technology is only one of them. For me, this book didn’t put the emphasis on discussing the deterministic power of technologies, but on reactions and policy shifts of nations facing information globalization in different conditions.

My Response:
When thinking of Innis and Internet together, the first question hit my mind is how Innis would label Internet. That is, is Internet time-biased or space-biased? It seems that Internet belongs to neither category, but the Internet has the advantages of both at the same time. For service providers, the operation of the Internet requires heavy media and devices, such as cables, computers, routers and etc. All of them are not very portable to provide stable services. The Internet for the users, however, is independent of specific devices. Individual users can always access the Internet no matter where they are and what receivers they are using, which could be laptops, desktops, or even PDAs and cell phones. So, the Internet is both portable and unportable. On the other hand, while the information on the Internet is constantly changing, it is usually convenient to find archived information with the help of search engines. So, it could be said that the Internet is both changing and stable. Innis may conclude that the Internet breaks the limitation of time and space and thus doesn’t fit into the “time-biased and space-biased” classification.
Actually, the Internet integrated almost all communication methods and media adopted by human beings. On the Internet, people can exchange information using oral method with the help of audio or video communication tools. Written characters and texts are also widely used on the Internet in all kinds of websites. Radio and TV services are provided online as well.
Another important characteristic of the Internet is that individuals are no longer silent information receivers. They can easily become information providers. Consequently, this new technology has the potential of breaking the information and knowledge monopoly, and can eventually change the social relations and the society structures.

My Response:
In his second essay, “The Bias of Communication” Innis stated his unique observation of communication medium. Innis suggested that to study communication medium’s “important influence on the dissemination of knowledge over space and over time” in “its cultural setting”, it is “necessary to study its characteristics”. Two characteristics of communication medium were identified, time bias and space bias. The former is heavy and durable medium, such as clay and stone. This kind of medium is not suitable for transportation but has the characteristic of time bias. In contrast, the latter is light and easily transported, such as papyrus and paper. Its characteristic makes this kind of medium transportable but not long lasting, i.e. space bias.
According to Innis, the history of human civilization is the evolution of communication medium. The progress of human society and dissemination of knowledge is closely related to the medium adopted. The communication medium can reflect the cultural characteristics of the civilization. As general trend, the communication media adopted by people are from heavy to light, and from time bias ones to space bias.
Innis pointed out that time bias medium is religionary, commercial and monopolistic. Time bias medium emphasizes the authority, hierarchy and inviolability. It is difficult to utilize time bias medium to control a very large area. Power can be only confined in a relatively small area when using clay and/or stone as the communication medium. The dissemination of knowledge through space is also difficult. On the other hand, space bias medium is political, democratic and for the masses. This kind of medium can help the emperors to expand their territory and assist dissemination of science and knowledge. As a result, people can easily access knowledge and development the ability of “thinking”. With the rise of printing medium, the monopoly of papacy and church was broken. In Innis’s eye, the human history is the history of communication medium development and competition. The secret of a long lasting authority is balancing of time bias and space bias medium.
Unlike other readings from this course, Innis's essay is looking at "macro-history". Instead of focusing on any specific communication medium, Innis studied and generalized the trend of medium evolution and its impact on human society development. This method is very interesting and unique. But, Innis’s opinion is obviously technology determinism, which is criticized explicitly or implicitly in our previous readings. Communication medium is considered to be almost the only driven power of human society development. Human and/or society passively accept any available communication medium and can only follow the trend of technology development. Innis also seems to be very pessimistic about the medium evolving processes. In Innis’s description, existing authority usually neglects or even confines the power of advanced medium and thus turned out to be replaced by others. The continuity of knowledge and eternity are thus hurt in this process.

I would like to choose to comment on the conclusion about virtual vs. real on the online business in Trinidad. From the descriptions in the book, we found that the applications of “ecommerce” and advertising on Internet was not well supported by the advertising agencies and not understood by the business holders. The value of Internet was very “dubious” and the web designers in Trinidad encountered the paradoxical situation. It seems that in the development of Internet in Trinidad the virtual support or tools were not well combined and utilized in reality. It was a different case for the development of telephone for example. In Fischer’s book, we read that with the development of telephone technology, the business people were willing to pay to include telephone into their daily business. People seemed to have no trouble to combine the virtual world created by using telephone with reality. But for Internet, its value was either neglected or exaggerated. For me, there are three reasons for the differences. Firstly, different technologies were considered. Internet is a more complex technology with the combination of many different media and channels, which can not be easily manipulated and utilized very quickly. Secondly, if we look back now, we will say that the analysis and description in the book was based on early history of Internet. It may be very different now. The Fischer book, again as an example, was written after the technology became mature. It is possible that when writing about a technology with longer history some details and early frustrations would be omitted. Thirdly, the description in the Miller & Slater book is only about Trinidad. So, the conclusions may not be generalized to the development of the technology Internet to some other areas.

My Response:
I have to say I was one of the people who were ignorant about Trinidad as a country. When I first read this word in this book as well as when I heard it mentioned in class, I had thought it was some kind of rhetorical place and not a real place… :-(
In the first chapter of the book, authors gave the conclusion of the whole book, which is good and helps me to better understand what they planned to do and what they got. In this short comment, I would like to focus on Objectification, one of the four dynamics they introduced in Chapter 1. As explained in Page 9, “dynamics” direct us to “look for both the driving forces as well as the emergent patterns of change”. And the problem of “Dynamics of objectification” was defined in the book as “how do people engage with the Internet as an instance of material culture through which they are caught up in processes of identification”. So, Objectification is actually the Trinidadian’s self-identification process during using of Internet. This identification can be either realization of what they really are (expansive realization) or what they could be (expansive potential).
In Chapter 3 dynamics of objectification were used to understand the Internet’s impact on Trinidadian’s everyday life. One of the examples was the kinships in families. As Trinidad is a country with vast amount of international or distant relationships, many families in Trinidad have relatives who live abroad or far away. Emails, e-cards and other Internet-based communication methods enabled the family members to keep in touch with each other on a frequent basis or even daily basis. As an example mentioned in the book that impressed me most, there was an old widow, who relied on Internet to communicate with other relatives after her husband’s death. These communications were described as “a new lease of life”. In my understanding, through the Internet communication applications, those Trinidad recreated their identity as members of their families, sent their cars and felt been cared by other family members, which became very important and part of their “real” life. Authors also mentioned the use of online chat and ICQ in Chapter 3. This communication method was considered by the author more like “expansive potential” than “expansive realization” (Page 62). Unlike the use of emails, the online chatting happened mostly between non-relatives. Many Trinidadian considered it a new method to know more friends or even develop new relationships. Research results showed that some marriages did begin with the random online chatting. As mentioned in the book, most conversations happened between opposite sexes to flirt with each other. But we also need to notice the case described in Page 65 about online chatting that realized sharing of mundane life. Some Trinidadians considered it as part of their everyday life and create serious friendship with other chatters. The chatting group or online community was also identified as part of “real” life instead of “virtual” chats. I agree with the authors that studying the dynamics of identification is very important for researchers to understand the development of Internet in that area.

My Response
In his book, Fischer described the development of telephone as both technology and business. One thing makes his work unique is his description of the decline of telephone services in rural area during 1930s. In Chapter 4 of the book, the author gave evidence that the percentage of rural area’s adoption of telephone service experienced decreasing in that period of time, which was the Depression of America. But Fischer argued that the Depression was not the reason of usage decline in rural area. Because, for example, farmers still spent many money on automobiles and the tendency was increasing. So, Fischer concluded that the farmers should have the ability to pay for telephone and they just chose not to do so or just didn’t have that service. As for the reasons, Fischer attributed it to two major ones. First, the available substitute technology. As pointed out by Fischer, there were many other communication technologies available for people from rural area, including automobile, telegraph and more. These new technology made telephone not such a must-have equipment in people’s home. Farmers then evaluated several choices and some abandoned telephone. And second, the changing political economy of the industry. The government was no longer forced the service providers to serve rural areas. Consequently, many rural areas didn’t have reliable services, which led the decline of usage.
I personally found both his evidence and explanation not very strong, though the analysis process seemed to be rational. In the book, Fischer used statistical numbers to indicate the decline of telephone services in rural areas. In his description, we also had the information that many rural areas were not served directly by the service providers and some of them were operated through private and small-scale companies. It was not clear if this portion of services were included in the number of not. As stated by the author, the big companies were not willing to invest in rural area, which was even so when there was no pressure from government. But, at the same time, the farmers might find their own way to be connected. The usage of telephone is not easily traceable as the using of automobile. As for Fischer’s explanations, I’m not satisfied with his claim that the Depression was not the reason why some farmers abandoned telephone service. His evidence was the amount of money farmers spent on automobile and other technology was not declining severely as telephone. For me, it is the Depression that forced the farmers to choose between several options. And telephone is different from either automobile or radio. Users only have to pay for automobile and radio once for the equipment and the further usage is totally under the owner’s control. For example, during the Depression, the farmers may still have automobile but didn’t drive it very often. For telephone, it was different. If it was the flat-rate service, users had to pay monthly fee for the service, which might make some gave this service up. The second explanation of telephone usage decline sounds reasonable for me. The decrease of service quality would definitely lead to decline of users.
Overall, I think Fischer’s finding is strength of his study, though flawed. The reason why other researchers didn’t notice or didn’t focus on this phenomenon might be that they often look at the long-range development of certain technology on a broader view. And at the same time, it is very easy for researchers to focus on brighter side of things. The “diffusion” of telephone is ultimately successful, which may obscure the fact that it experienced some decline in certain areas during this increasing tendency.

My Response:
In Douglas' description about the American broadcasting history, there were different kinds of powers that shaped the process. To picture an alternative history, the story should also begin with Marconi and his invention. As described in the book, Marconi’s success in the beginning of his career and later expansions was, at least partly, subject to his awareness of importance of management of the corporation and the strategy of standing in the focus of press. Marconi combined the research and marketing very well and thus made his company developed better than that of Fessenden’s, De Forest’s, Stone’s and others. If these companies were all successful or even sought cooperation or merging with each other, the development of radio technology could be accelerated. They each developed different ideas and adopted different orientations of the development of radio. If the progresses on receivers, emitters and different paradigm of radio applications could be combined together, the world would have seen the emergence of radio broadcasting network several years earlier than the history.
As for the role of amateur wireless operators, if in the disaster of Titanic they played a positive role, such as helping with broadcasting survivor lists or warning about the sunk of Titanic, the amateurs can be further encouraged by the public. A few talented men among them may also invent some new devices and made radio popular for ordinary people. When the power of amateur and companies were developing at the same time, the government agencies, such as the navy, would also fostered radio technology through cooperation with companies and researchers in universities. The government then made regulations and rules for radio frequencies used for different purposes and all operators followed the same rules. In my imagination, the other alternative is more harmonious and efficient. Powers from different sources can enhance each other. It is more like a Utopian picture and common people were more powerful and thus were given more freedom.
Another thing I want to mention is that, it seems that in the history, sometimes the imagination of scientists was confined by their knowledge and their confidence about the calculation results. In the case of radio, in 1899, scientists believed the transmission of radio waves to remote areas required extra high towers, which was proved not true. Others who ignored or had no access of this result finally made some progress, such as Marconi. A similar case is the invention of atom bomb during WWII. The major Germany scientist made a mistake in calculation and concluded that the amount of uranium needed to make an atom bomb was larger than the total amount Germany can access. This conclusion resulted in the abandon of the whole project. If Germany was the first country that made the first atom bomb, the history would be totally different. There were always many alternatives in the history. Somehow, we are living in the distinct one due to some unknown reasons…

Another Version (just for fun):

At the first beginning, Marconi's company also went bankruptcy, as well as the other several ones, because of the slow progress and reliability of wireless communication. At the same time, this new technology was suppressed by other powers, such as telephone companies and telegraph companies. People were skeptical about this new technology due to its complex equipment and unknown of related knowledge. Consequently, in the Titanic disaster, no one would think about it and its benefits. There was no large amount of funding from investors nor government. Only several armatures were studying and testing it as their own hobby. Soon, with the coming of WWI and WWII, the governments of different countries soon found the importance of wireless communication and then investigated a large amount of money in the researches. Pushed by the need of war, wireless technology developed very quickly. The country that mastered the technology of wireless communication gained the key of victory. After the wars, radio technology was used for ordinary people and gradually shaped as what we see today. In this different setting, the development of radio broadcasting was delayed but still emerged in the history.

Today's question: Many consider Williams's Television to be the definitive book on television in modern society. However, in a negative review of Television written for the American Journal of Sociology in the late 1970s, W. Russell Neuman wrote that "scholars...will be forced to continue their search for a definite review of...television in modern society" because Williams's "critique lacks the sophistication and focus necessary to have a constructive influence on the design and execution of research on television." Neuman attributes this to, "Williams's uneasiness with...the whole notion of gathering data to test ideas." What is your opinion of this critique? Explain.

My Response

I agree with Newman's argument that the book Television by Williams is lack of empirical evidence and field studies. In the book, there are mainly illustrations, narratives, and examples instead of huge amount of data. The opinions of the author were expressed through the means of argument without empirical tests. A large part of the book was focusing on description of development of television, its forms and its impact on individuals’ lives. But I don’t think this is a bad thing. As for me, the book Television is not a comprehensive collection of telling researchers how to study Television as a technology. The most important thing I learned from this book is the deeply embedded idea of the author, the anti-technological-determinism. As argued by Williams, technology is not the deterministic power of the society. The society is not changed by a certain technology. Instead, the emergence of new technologies is because of the requirements or at least some pushing power from the society. After new technology is adopted by the society, it will in turn affect the way people live and even the way people think. With the aid of a certain new technology, people will then have new requirements and new expectations from the development of technology. Thus human society behaves as a power to push the development of technology. The description of television in this book is only an example of this philosophical idea. To make the book complete and the opinions in the book reasonable, authors described the development history of television. He also made comparisons of different forms of television. In the book, the advantages of television over other medium were also illustrated. In my mind, these provide background for author’s arguments and help readers to better understand the object being discussed in this book. So, if we consider this book from this aspect, we will no longer blame this book for lack of empirical evidence. Again, I don’t think this book is a guide on television for the researchers in the field of communication studies. It just expressed author’s view on technology development.

Besides these, I think it is the absence of huge amount of data that makes this book a classic. What we found in this book are description and arguments, as well as expectations of future development. If the book was mainly supported by data instead of thoughtful arguments, it will soon be outdated. The book will be considered as a description of television on 1970’s, for instance. The data available to the author is confined by his own age, and at the same time technology is rapidly developing. For example, some of the features described by Williams in the book about the features of American TV channels are no longer valid. So, in my opinion, Williams smartly expressed his ideas using the technology of television as a great example.