The Olympics as a globalising force and global event (positive/negative)

I am gonna be quite candid and cliché if I may. To me, one could see the Olympics as quite negative, promoting country non-discrimination and what not. But to me i feel that the Olympics is something quite positive. It makes the world seem quite unified in the sense that we all come together to compete in good sport at this event. It breaks down the boundaries of the rich dominant countries to the less fortunate ones. I say this for the soul example that you cannot buy talent, it is something you are born with and something we all possess in a billion different areas. Those athletes were not bought to be that good, they were trained and born that way. Any country can train just as hard as another, it is not the case of the money spent into the training, it is the time. Ogden D.C and Rosen J N (2008) describe globalization in sport as something that is creating more of an awareness of things such as racism and discrimination in sport. With the connection of all these entities we are becoming more and more aware of what is going on in the world. With all this in mind, the Olympics hold no prejudice, no matter what is going on in the world everyone forgets it for the time period and focuses on good sportsmanship and competition.
Another good point to add is that it is also a major boost for the global economy, with businesses all over the world getting involved, even it is so people can avoid the games by seeing a movie or going out for the night whilst its aired.

References

Ogden, David C. Rosen, Joel Nathan Lule, Jack (2008). Reconstructing Fame : Sport, Race, and Evolving Reputations . Jackson: University Press of Mississippi . 128.

My Media Empire - what would your global media empire look like, how would it function?

Steven P (2003) spoke of a mass media where your film, television, news, technology, social media are all connected. This is true and something of what exactly is the mass media today. But the thing is one must be careful when enjoying/using this media is who owns them. Unfortunately is someone owned all sources of media we would really only hear one voice. It sounds a little silly but if i were to own a media empire I would cover as many bases as I could but without controlling the bulk of it. Although one might not be able to control all forms of media, as much as Rupert Murdoch might try.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWjCDLkGDX4

The following YouTube video explores how media giants who own a large percentage of a mass media are able to push personal agendas and such. It sounds extreme but it would then lead the paraphernalia, personal political agendas, etc.With all these voices ultimately being the same voice, are you able to limit freedom of thought? Simply yes. Would someone like to control the entire mass media, of course, but it would just be unethical. To me, simply covering an area from each forms of media would be enough, my voice is being heard, and I'm not corrupting the voices of another.



Sources:

Steven, P 2003, The no-nonsense guide to the global media, New Internationalist, Oxford, pp. 37–59.

Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWjCDLkGDX4

image: http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/media-corruption.jpg

What is missing from current definitions of Globalisation?

You see, its come under my attention that there are are so many definitions of this topic that everyone could have an opinion of something that was missing. We get so caught up in the idea of this interconnectedness of everything that embodies globalisation and that everything is wrapped in a neat little bow but there is something I feel is missing. Ranatanen (2005:8) saw Globalisation as a mediation or common understanding, a fair agreement between ideas of trade, technology, finance etc. This argument was spoken about in my last blog. Alternatively, Albrow (1990:45) saw globalisation as a single world society. That is an excellent opening for this blog entry because realistically, its one of the most common definitions, what's often left out is something that goes along with this definition and that is something that some people may find to be somewhat out there but I feel its not really a capitalization of life (to which you could argue) but really creating a mainstream of this globalisation. Look at what technology has done for our daily lives in regards to globalisation. I can communicate, bank, order food, order a taxi, turn off a light in my house all from my palm on my phone. I say main-streaming because this is essentially becoming the norm, to which other countries yet to experience globalisation would miss out on.

What Is Globalisation

You'll have to forgive me, this is my first blog I have ever written and in so you'll have to forgive my way of writing it. Its funny writing a blog about something so wide and expansive
Gee, first task and your expected to define something so broad. Globalisation falls under many catagories and comes in many forms. Nederveen Pieterse, J (2004) speaks of globalisation not being simply corporation driven and that its not just a simple entity. Globalisation is hard to define, often you'll actually see that everyone who knows the term would give you a different definition. My interpretation is that it is something of an interconnection of finance, media, trade, technology etc, that is simplified to a connection of these entities. Basically an interwoven of these  things to create basically an idea that is globalisation. Connecting areas that been desolate before, farmers who couldnt create business etc., for example. Coupland, N (2010) agrees there be an inter connectedness within globalisation but the fact of the matter is he denies it being as vast growing as it has been made out to be. He states that developing countries are left behind the times. As mentioned before it is hard to pinpoint an exact reasoning to what is Globalisation. My simple answer is a could mean at this point, a difference of opinion.

References: 

Coupland, Nikolas (2010). The Handbook of Language and Globalization. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell . 32. Nederveen Pieterse, J 2004, ‘Globalization: consensus and controversies’, Globalization and culture: global mélange 2004, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Md, pp. 7