wk 4 - globalization and media

8/2/2019 Wk 4 - Globalization and Media

1/10

12Globalization and Media

"Globalization" is now a frequently used term, yet it came into commonusage only in the 1990s, when, with the end of the Col d War, the rela-tionship between the United States and the Soviet Union no longerdominated international affairs. It refers to changes in internationalrelationships, particularly in economics and international trade, butalso social and cultural changes, for which media and internationalcommunications are especially important. This chapter outlines themain features of globalization and then focuses on changes in globalcommunications networks and the media. It analyzes the evolution andimportance of global media institutions, the apparently ever-expanding"mega-media corporations", and the problems they pose in relation totraditional conceptions of the role of media in society. It extends thedebate about media or cultural imperialism to the conte mporary con-text of globalization. Finally, it summarizes the nature of media in theearly twenty-first century and highlights contemporary expectationsan d assumptions about their role in society.

Definitions of GlobalizationDefinitions of "globalization" abound - some are general, others spe-cific; some attempt to capture the history, others the contemporarysituation; some focus on processes, others on outcomes. At a generallevel "globalization" can be seen as "an inexact expression for a widearray of worldwide changes in politics, communications, business andtrade, life styles, and culture," or it can be understood as "a multidimen-sional set of social processes that create, multiply, stret ch, and intensify

Globalization and Media 265worldwide social interdependencies and exchanges while at the sametime fostering in people a growing awareness of deepening connectionsbetween the local and the distant." A number of writers have empha-sized that, as the constraints of geography decline, social processes areespecially importan t. That is, if globalization is tobe meaningful, peopleneed not only to be aware of change bu t also to act accordingly.1

Terry Flew has provided a comprehensive list of components of theprocess of "globalization", various "interrelated tre nds ... which haveaccelerated in scale, impact and significance since the 1980s." Theyinclude ( among others):

the internationalization of production, trade, and finance, the rise ofmultinational corporations, reductions in cross-border tariffs uponflows of goods and services, the deregulation of financial markets,and the rise of Internet-based electronic commerce;

the international movements of people ... the development ofdiasporic and emigrant communities, and the increasingly multicul-tural nat ure of national societies;

international communications flows, delivered through telecommu-nications, information an d media technologies such as broadband,cable, satellite and the Internet, which facilitate transnational circulationof cultural commodities, texts, images, and artifacts;

the global circulation of ideas, ideologies, and 'keywords', such as theso-called export of 'Western values', democracy, the 'War on Terror','fundamentalism', feminism, environmentalism;

the establishment of international regimes in intellectual property ... the development of international organizations, including regional

trading blocs ... the globalization of war an d conflict ... the use of overt programmes of public relations or 'spin' by govern-

ments, corporations an d NGOs [non-government organizations]aimed at shaping opinion at international, national and locallevels 2In the "globalized world" of the twenty-first century, information isof crucial importance, as are vast computer networks; and Englishremains the dominant language of business and popular culture (butsee Chapter 11 on language shares on the Internet).3

Insofar as media are concerned, the developments in communi-cations technologies and infrastructure (including satellite broadcast-ing and the Internet) have been fundamental to globalization, as theyhave made previous "boundaries" irrelevant. Developments in media

Media and society into the 21st century : a historical introduction / Lyn Gorman and David McLean.

Chichester, UK ; Malden, MA : Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

ISBN: 9781405149358 (pbk. : alk. paper) Pages: 264-283


2/10

266 Globalization and Media

organizations, particularly the growth of global corporations, have alsobeen crucial, rendering national borders increasingly less important. 4With respect to the content transmitted by media, the key questionsrelate to the impact of globalization on diversity and cultural distinc-tiveness.

In considering the nature of a "globalized world," it is also impor-tant to note the debate about the relative importance of the nation state.It has been suggested tha t, as national economies and societies b ecomeintegrated into a more unified political, economic, and cultural order,the power of nation states is diminished, especially relative to globalcorporations and international agencies such as the United Nations, theWorld Bank, and the European Community. However, the converseargument also has supporters: that is, that the nation state remainssignificant.5 Furthermore, globalization itself has both supporters andopponents. There is debate no t only about the extent to which processesdescribed as "globalization" are having an impact bu t also about thedesirability of such changes.

Global Communications and the MediaTechnological developmen ts and the rise of new media (see Chapter 11)have been fundamental to changes in global communications. Theextension of fiber-optic cable systems, of satellite links, of Internet com-munications networks, as well as the deregulation of telecommunica-tions systems, have made it possible to bypass the borders of nationstates that traditionally exercised regulatory powers over mediainstitutions.

Recent developments have not occurred in isolation, and latenineteenth- and early twentieth-century innovations were importantfor the emergence of global communications networks. One such devel-opment was the extension of underwatercable systems by the Europeangreat powers beginning in the 1850s. A global system of communica-tions emerged, capable of transmitting messages separately from slowermeans of physical transportation. Another was the establishment ofinternational news agencies. Charles Havas established the first in Parisin 1835; this was followed by Paul Julius Reuter's agency in Londonand by the Berlin agency of Bernard Wolff in the 1840s. International

Globalization and Media 267news agencies, particularly Reuters, Associated Press and United PressInternational (both American), and Agence France-Presse (which suc-ceeded Havas as the French international news agency), retained animportant global role in collecting and distributing news. At the inter-national level the formation of organizations (such as the InternationalTelecommunication Union in 1865) to introduce order into the alloca-tion of the electromagnetic spectrum (and later radio spectrum) wasimportant for global communications.6

Twentieth-century technological developments facilitated globalcommunications and the global spread of media. Telecommunicationssatellites provided greater geographical reach and distribution, enablingvirtually instantaneous global communications without microwaverelays and coaxial cable, and serving as distribution points for bothtraditional network systems and cable television systems nationallyand internationally. Satellites in tum became integrated into wider tele-communications network s (for telephone, fax, electronic mail, and so on).The global spread of media services has also been driven by the largecorporations (such as General Electric or Time Warner - see below) thatemerged as key players in the global system of communications andinformation diffusion. The reduction or elimination of traditionalinstitutional and legal barriers - or the capability simply to bypassthem - facilitated the spread of global media. In the late twentiethcentury, support, among Western governments in particular, for freemarket policies resulted in minimal government intervention in manyareas, the reduction or elimination of barriers to free trade, deregula-tion, and the privatization of previously public services. New technolo-gies and laissez-faire policies opened up media markets to highlyintegrated global corporations.

As an example of deregulation, policy changes in the United Statesin the 1980s and 1990s stimulated greater competition in telecommuni-cations, produced a less-regulated broadcasting environment, andenabled greater consolidation in media industries, and greater integra-tion into global media markets. AT&T lost its monopoly over telephoneservices bu t diversified into other areas, buying a cable television com-pany and an Internet company, extending its international operations,contributing to greater convergence and global expansion. There wasalso lighter regulation in American broadcasting with the relaxationof limits on advertising time. Rules that ha d restricted cross-media


3/10

268 Globalization and Mediaownership were eased, opening the way to greater concentration.It was possible for a single global corporation (such as News Corpora-tion - see below) to accumulate extensive interests in newspapers, thefilm industry, and network and cable television. In the United Kingdomsimilarly the privatization of British Telecom and the deregulation oftelecommunications industries led British Telecom to seek new globalpartners and to enter other markets such as cable television?While changes in national policies have contributed to globalization,international organizations, too, have encouraged commercial media atthe global level. In a world where information exchange is vital, themedia are central to the world economy. Organizations such as theInternational Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization(WTO) have supported global media in the service of the market econ-omy. One implication is that national governments face difficulties inretaining control over vital areas of communication. Furthermore,global media operate increasingly in a world where commercializationhas triumphed (see Chapters 8 and 9).

Some analysts consider that such changes in global communica-tions have profoundly altered international interaction. Hachten andScotton, for example, propose that history is "speeded up " as nationsan d people react more quickly to important events because of thewide and rapid disseminati on of information; diplomacy has changed,given the impact of public opinion (influenced by global commu-nications) on foreign relations. Gilboa claims that the "video-clippace" of global television has accelerated the pace of diplomatic com-munications, creating pressures on foreign-affairs bureaucracie s andpolicymakers.8While it is true that changes in global communications mean thataudiences have rapid access to international news - the term "CNNeffect" was used in the 1990s to describe the supposedly simple cause-and-effect relationship of media coverage, public opinion, and policy-making - other factors (geopolitical, economic, national interest)cannot be ignored. Gowing concludes categorically that "real-timetelevision coverage ... will create emotions bu t ultimately make no dif-ference to the fundamental calculations in foreign policy-making." Inrelation to the impact of new media such as the Internet, cauti on is alsoadvisable, as the relationship between media and decision-making isalways complex, and foreign-policy decisions are affected by manyvariables.9

Globalization and Media 269

Giant Media CorporationsIn the 1990s giant media corporations expanded, exploiting thepossibilities of multiple media ownership and unconstrained bynational boundaries. Media companies, responding to the market situ-ation, moved toward being larger, global, and vertically integrated, sothat they could achieve cost savings and take ad vanta ge of cross-sellingand cross-promotion opportunities. Many media businesses becamepart of global conglomerates producing entertainment and media prod-ucts, and computing software, with global distribution networks. Somelarge media concerns in tu m became part of even larger corporationswhose interests extended far beyond media. In the twenty-first centurynew terms were used to capture the scale of these global players:Hachten and Scotton, for example, refer to "media behemoths."l0By 2004 the top ten media and entertainment corporations (in descendingmarket value) were General Electric (with extensive non-media interestsbut also a major stake in NBC Universal), Microsoft (primarily computingand software but also digital media and games), Time Warner, Comcast,News Corporation, Walt Disney (these first six all US-based), Sony(electronic goods and media/entertainment, based in Japan), VivendiUniversal (France), Viacom (USA), and Thomson Corporation(Canada)Y Bertelsmann was also important as a very large, European-based corporation with interests in television, radio, newspapers , booksand magazines, music, and Intern et websites. The reach of such corpo-rations can be illustrated by data for News Corporation, which, by thelate 1990s, reached approximately 75 percent of the world's population;Time Warner (AOL-Time Warner between 2000 and 2003), which was i n212 countries through its CN N subsidiary alone in 2002; and Disney,which estimated that at least 1.2 billion people in the world's primarymarkets used at least one of its products in 2002.12

Giant media corporations enjoyed advantages of scale andintegration; and they exploited opportunities for cross-promotion (seeChapter 9). For example, a Disney film could be shown on pay cableand commercial network television, with the company creating spin-offtelevision series, establishing related am usement-pa rk events, produc-ing CD-ROMs and DVDs, books, comics, and merchandise to be sold inDisney retail stores, and promoting the film and related material acrossits media properties. With increasing media convergence, opportunities


4/10

270 Globalization and Mediafor broader distribution via the Internet and personalized deviceshave expanded.

The development of giant media corporations has raised questionsabout the role and responsibilities of media in contemporary societies.The Italian media magnate and politician Silvio Berlusconi, and hiscompany, Fininvest, provide a case study of the concentration of mediaovvnership, the intersecti on of media power and politics, and the poten-tial conflict of interest. In the Ita lian election of 1994 Berlusconi, havin gestablished a new political party, Forza Italia, exploited the control heexercised over Italian media through his company, Fininvest, won theelection and became prime minister for a brief period (until December1994). Berlusconi was criticized at the time for having turned the Italianpolitical system into a "videocracy."13He was again successful in the 2001elections and was prime minister for two terms until he lost the May2006 elections and resigned. In 2008 he staged a comeback, being electedfor a third term.

Berlusconi was both political leader an d media magnate. He and hisfamily owned 96 percent of Fininvest, with extensive media an d otherinterests, including a large stake in three television networks in Italy -Canale 5, Italia 1, Retequattro - through the company Mediaset. Thesenetworks carried 60 percent of Italian television advertising. Berlusconiha d a stake in Mondadore, Italy's largest publishing group and pub-lisher of the leading newspaper, II giornale, and of the influential weeklymagazine, Panorama, Pubitalia, the leading Italian advertizing agency,Medusa Video, a film production and distribution company, and thevideo rental chain Blockbuster Italia (as well as owning the footballclub A. C. Milan, and having business interests in other sectors such asinsurance and banking). Berlusconi's dominant role in Italy's commu-nications industries provided the means to exercise considerable influ-ence over public opinion. While prime minister, he also extended hisinfluence over the state television network, RAI, bringing the totalaudience share of enterprises in which he ha d an interest (state televi-sion and his private commercial channels) to more than 90 percent. Thisperiod in Italy saw "unparalleled concentration of the political andmedia power in a single person's hands.//14 In such a situation it is likelythat media independence and opportunities for free expression via thepress and broadcasting will be severely curtailed. By 2006 Berlusconi,Italy's richest person and named thirty-seventh by Forbes magazine inits list of the world's richest people, was facing legal inquiries into his

Globalization and Media 271business dealings, following allegations of financial irregularitiesand corruption; nonetheless, as indicated above, in elections in 2008Berlusconi was returned to power.

While this Italian example focuses on a nationa l context,at the globallevel a giant media corporation that has attracted constant attention inrelation to the power and influence of transnational media - and of amedia magnate, Rupert Murdoch - is News Corporation. This is theexample par excellence of a global media enterprise: its investments spanfive continents, and its interests include newspapers, magazines, film,broadcast, cable and satellite television, music, publishing, Internetsites, and sports.1S

Murdoch had been a dominant figure in News Corporation since the1950s, as it expanded from a local Austral ian company involved only innewspaperpublication to a giant global corporation with diverse mediaand other interests. Murdoch inherited an Australian newspaper, theAdelaide News, from his father in 1954. In the 1960s he acquired papersin other Australian state capital cities, and he established a nationalnewspaper, the Australian, in 1964. He bought into the British press inthe late 1960s with News of the World and the Sun, and then in the 1980sthe prestigious broadsheets, The Times and the Sunday Times. He mod-ernized British newspaper publishing practices, in the process takingon the powerful print unions and breaking with tradition by movinghis newspaper offices away from Fleet Street.

In the 1980s Murdoch expanded his media interests in the UnitedStates. He had acquired newspapers there in the 1970s, including theNew York Post in 1976. In 1985 he renounced his Australian nationalityand became an American citizen so that he could purchase US televi-sion stations, avoiding laws that restricted foreign ownership of televisionassets. News Corporation acquired the Metromedia chain of televisionstations, and in 1985 purchased a 50 percent share of 20th CenturyFox and launched Fox Broadcasting Company as a fourth network,competing against the three longstanding national networks, CBS,NBC, and ABC. In 1996 Fox News, a twenty-four-hour cable televisionservice, was established. Fox News provided direct competition forCNN, and over the following years (when it was noted for its strongsupport of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq) it seriouslyeroded CNN's market share.

In addition to substantial media holdings in the United Statesand the United Kingdom, News Corporation retained ownership of
http:///reader/full/sports.1Shttp:///reader/full/sports.1Shttp:///reader/full/sports.1S


5/10

272 Globalization and Medianewspapers in Australia and New Zealand. It also expanded in theUnited Kingdom, launching Sky Television in 1989. Sky merged withBritish Satellite Broadcasting to form BSkyB in 1990, providi ng involve-ment in digital television services via satellite. I n Asia News Corporationgained a controlling interest in Star Television, based in Hong Kong, in1993, and in 2000 it gained limited broadcasting rights in China throughthe Phoenix television service. News Corporation took advantage oftechnological change and media convergence, exploiting the opportu-nities of the digital age. In 2005 it moved into the online environmentwith the purchase of Intermix Media, which included the social net-working website MySpace.com. This provided a means of engaging ayounger generation of media users (see Chapter 11). News Corporationinterests continued to expand: in 2006 a Turkish television ch annel wasadded; in late 2007 Dow Jones and Company, owners of the prestigiousWall Street Journal (which dat es back to 1889),was acquired after lengthynegotiations. This provided an opportunity for News Corporation torevitalize the Journal's editions in Europe and Asia, where globalizationwas seen as offering important opportunities (in India and China inparticular).

News Corporation's diversified global operations include the pro-duction and distribution of motion pictures and television programs;television, satellite, cable, and digital broadcasting; the publication ofnewspapers, magazines, and books; the production and distribution ofpromotional and advertising products and services; the creation anddistribution of online programming; and the facilitation of online socialnetworking.

As a large global media corporation, News Corporation has con-tinued to attract attention, particularly because of Rupert Murdoch'sinterventionist style (see Chapter 9). Critics mainta in that it representsan enormous concentration of power in the hands of one man. Thisundermines the capacity for media within this giant corporation to ful-fill traditional expectations about objectivity in news and informationdelivery, and for untrammeledjournalistic independence. Furthermore,the extent of News Corporation control over certain media marketshas reduced diversity and limited the variety of information availableto the public. Policy decisions about media content have been basedon commercial or political considerations (as in the case of NewsCorporation activities in China), raising questions about the extent towhich traditional expectations of media retain relevance in the face of

Globalization and Media 273strong commercial, profit-making considerations or of pressure frompolitical authorities.

News Corporation is only one example of traditional media movinginto new media environments. Such convergence of old and new mediahas expanded the power and influence of global corporations. At thesame time traditional media functions have been absorbed into verylarge corporations with multiple interests and driven primarily by theprofit motive. In these circumstances questions arise about the extent towhich media can exercise any real independence. In relation to theirinformation-providing function, as news becomes just another productsold by big media companies, it is regarded simply as a commodity. Ittends to be more entertainment-based, and traditional values such asobjectivity and regard for accuracy are lost. Another problem for tradi-tional media, facing pressures to make cont ent available via the Internetin order to retain audiences - and to appeal to younger audiences -is that viable business models for traditional media operating in the"virtual environment" have remained elusive. Finally, another set ofconcerns focuses on the impac t on culture of the decline of nationallybased media. This calls for re-examination of earlier debates aboutmedia or cultural imperialism.

Global Media and ImperialismThe impact of globalization on the media has revived interest in thenotion of culhlral or media imperialism. The expansion of corporateownership of media and related industries and the strong global influ-ence of American programming suggest that globalized media are sub-ject to predominantly American influences in the same way that nationalfilm and television industries in earlier periods were subject to USascendancy in international markets. However, some analysts also seethe need to couch discussions about media within a more current frame-work, informed by recent theoretical analysis of the phenomenon ofglobalization.

Resentment and concern at US domination of media content wererecurring themes in the twentieth century, provoked initially by thepowerful international position of the US film industry in the 1920s. Inthe post-colonial era such concern was expressed in ideas of cultural ormedia imperialism. Theories of dependence emerged in the 1960s,
http:///reader/full/MySpace.comhttp:///reader/full/MySpace.com


6/10

274 Globalization and Mediaespecially in Latin America; these were a pplied not only to political andeconomic relations between the former colonial powers and the newlyindependent, developing nations bu t also to culture. Newly indepen-dent countries saw themselves as victims of cultural colonialism, withthe media playing an important role in transmitting and imposing ideasand values.

In 1973 representatives of non-aligned countries at a summit inAlgiers called for a "new international economic order." This wasendorsed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1974, and at ameeting in Tunis in 1976 a similar resolution called specifically for a"new information and communication order," with a free and balancedflow of information among all countries. In 1976 UNESCO appointedan International Commission for the Study of CommunicationsProblems. The commission iss ued an influential report entitled ManyVoices, One World, referred to as the MacBride Report (Sean MacBridechaired the commission).16

The MacBride report - and other critics of media imperialism -criticized Western news agencies for their monopoly of news and theone-way news flow between industrialized and developing countries.Agencies such as Associated Press, Reuters, United Press International,and Agence France-Presse tended to transmit information to develop-ing countries while bringing back relatively little. Moreover, much ofwhat little Western coverage there was of events in developing coun-tries presented stereotyped views and emphasized dramatic eventssuch as war, natural disasters, and political instability.

In the 1980s US domination of the film and television industriescontinued to provoke dismay at the lack of balance in distribution andprogramming flow, bu t not only with respect to Third World countries.In Europe, too, there was concern about the harmful effect on national,regional, and local cultures of US media exports and American massculture (see Chapter 8). The power of the US film industry and broad-casting networks was such that it was difficult for others to compete.The result was that production elsewhere was limited, and importedvalues dominated what local cultural product there was.

Advertising exemplified striking inequities, particularly with respectto developing countries. There was a predominantly one-way flow inadvertising that emphasized Western consumer culture, and encour-aged people elsewhere to respond to, and conform with, the require-ments of predominantly US-based transnational consumer-goods

Globalization and Media 275manufacturers. The success of global brands such as Coca-Cola, Levi,and McDonald's seemed to confirm the power and influence of trans-national corporations and of capitalist values. The advent of new tech-nologies that enabled transborder, global data flows created challengesto states attempting to regulate or control media and content.

New terms for inequalities supplemented older approaches to mediaimperialism. "Nor th-Sout h" relations described the relationship betweenthe predominantly highly industrialized and developed countries ofthe northern hemisphere an d the less developed countries of the south.The "core" /"periphery" thesis depicted industrialized countries as thecore or center of the global system, with less developed countriesmarginalized in the "periphery." This idea of "peripheral players" wasapplied to non-US media industries in the 1990s.17

In the 1980s UNESCO continued to support the idea of a new infor-mation and communication order, bu t unity among the non-alignednations declined, and attent ion shifted to the increasing trends to dereg-ulation of media and privatization of public-sector enterprises. Problemsabout international information flows remained, particularly given thesignificance of information and communication in contemporary soci-eties, bu t there was little prospect that these would be priority concernsof Western governments supportive of free-market ideologies or ofgiant media corporations operating globally.

Yet, while global corporations expanded and inequalities persisted,the real impact of cultural or media imperidism at national and locallevels was questioned in the 1990s. It was suggested that there werelimits to US dominance and that the spread of American influences hadbeen uneven. Nor could it be assumed that all American programssimply conveyed the values of Western capitalism; not all exported USmedia content supported capitalist society or consumer culture.Audiences interpreted American content in their bwn contexts, andthey understood film and television programs in diverse ways.Moreover, various non-American media industries were flourishing,confirming that it was unwise to overemphasize American influence orthe importance of imported products.

In the complex "international medi ascapes" of the 1990s new con-ceptions of media relationships suggested that any simple model ofmedia imperialism was inadequate to capture the many factors thatinfluenced cultural exchange. These included leisure traditions andviewers' attitudes and perceptions, decisions by "gatekeepers" about
http:///reader/full/commission).16http:///reader/full/1990s.17http:///reader/full/commission).16http:///reader/full/1990s.17


7/10

276 Globalization and Mediawhat should or should not be imported, when programs should bescheduled, and what the balance between local and imported pro-gramming should be; the regulatory frameworks of particular coun-tries; and perceptions of difference between national and importedprograms. Audiences received global media products and interpretedthem in many an d varied ways; and different cultures were resilientin transforming and absorbing foreign influences and putting "massculture" to local use (terms such as "hybridization" and "indigeniza-tion" were used to describe the appropriation of Western culturalimports). Rather than global mass c ulture being seen as replacing localculture, it was more appropriate to consider the two as coexisting.Work on globalization accepted cultural and political differences,seeing global culture as embracing people's or nations' particularity ordistinctiveness. IS

Successful film and television industries in countries such asAustralia, Canada, India, Mexico, Brazil, and Egypt demonstrated thatthe concept of US media imperialism was inadequate to describe rela-tionships in regional and global markets in the 1990s. In the Indiansubcontinent, for instance, Bombay became a center of media produc-tion and trade for the Hindi film industry, exporting film on video tothe UK, Singapore, Hong Kong, the United Arab Emirates, and else-where where large Indian minority populations ensured strong demandfor Hindi films. Hong Kong and Taiwan exported film and televisionprograms to Chinese-speaking populations in other Asian countries, asdid Egypt to other Arabic speakers. In Mexico and Brazil local mediaentrepreneurs reversed earlier trends. Using videotapes, Mexican pro-ducers developed programs for export, and, with the advent of satel-lite, Mexican Televisa broadcast Spanish-language programs to somefifteen million Hispanic households in the United States from the late1980s. Brazil's TV Globo built up a thriving export industry, marketingits telenovelas or soap operas in Portugal and in more than 100 othercountries. Other examples of "contra-flow," reversing the directions inwhich media content had historically moved, were the successful filmand television exports from Australia and Canada to the United Statesand the United Kingdom. In the European Union there was a shift inpolicy from support for free trade in film and television programs toa culturally led approach designed to stimulate production, affordadequate protection against US imports, and foster an industry thatcould compete with the United States. The 1991 and 1996 MEDIA I

Globalization and Media 277and II programs, for example, promoted co-production, distribution,and financing of projects within the Europea n Union.19

However, as McChesney pointed out, "second-tier media firms"(Televisa in Mexico, Globo in Brazil, Clarin in Argentina, the CisnerosGroup in Venezuela, for instance) did not retain an oppositional stancewithin the global system. They joined the world's sixty or seventy larg-est media corporations; they came to dominate their own national andregional media ma rkets; an d they developed ties to, and joint ventureswith, the largest media transnational corporations and US investmentbanks. 20 Such instances illustrate a process whereby countervailingtrends to globalization were absorbed into it.

The broad impact of globalization led to new conceptualizations.The media imperialism thesis was considered deficient as a means ofdescribing global media and providing a more nuanced view of USinfluence. One approach was to see globalization as a process trans-forming both developing an d developed countries alike, heighteningfeelings of interconnectedness or cosmopolitanism, and refocusingattention on Marshal l McLuhan' s idea of a "global village." Terms suchas "disembedding" (lifting social relations out of local contexts) and"deterritorialization" (weakening links between identity and place)were used, linked to optimistic predictions about new cultural energyand a new kind of international politics (especially on environmentalissues and peace movements). John Tomlinson, rather than seeing cul-tural imperialism as a negative force, argued that "globalization hasbeen perhaps the most significant force in creating and proliferatingcultural identity. "21

A theory from the 1990s that Flew labeled "strong globalization" isrelevant to media. This maintained that there had been a qualitativeshift in economic, social, political, and cultural relations within andbetween states and societies, rendering older analytical tools inade-quate to explain the resulting social processes. Manuel Castells's workhas been influential, proposing the emergence of a new economy that isglobal, networked, and informational. Castells claimed that the globalproliferation of new forms of entertainment and information throughdigitally networked information and communications technologiesmeant the end of mass media and the association of nationally basedmedia with the developmen of na ional culture. However, this approachwas controversial. Flew, for example, noted that "arguments that weare at the end of the age of mass media may both overstate the success
http:///reader/full/Union.19http:///reader/full/Union.19http:///reader/full/banks.20http:///reader/full/banks.20http:///reader/full/Union.19http:///reader/full/banks.20


8/10

278 Globalization and Mediaof broadcast television in aggregating populations around particularmedia consumption patterns, and ... underestimate the continuedpull of media that can reach large segments of the population simul-taneously an d therefore act as a magnet for associated advertisingrevenues."22

By the end of the 1990s views of globalization could be categorizedbroadly into optimistic and pessimistic. The positive view, particularlyinfluenced by cultural theorists, was that globalization was promotingglobal consciousness, increasing international dialogue, em poweringminorities, and creating new alliances and solidarities that supporteda progressive politics. The negative, especially from a radical political-economic perspective, was that globalization represented a victory ofundesirable features of capitalism, dispossessing democracy, imposingpro-market policies, weakening organized labor, and undermining thepolitical Left. With respect to media, it was argued that there was grow-ing concentration of media ownership and ever more homogeneousmedia content, with a small number of mostly US-based conglomeratesglobally dominanf.23From a twenty-first-century perspective, elements of these debatesremain current. There is not agreement on the impact of globalizationon the nation state (and its importance with respect to culture); nor isthere consensus about the relative importance of US culture and, byimplication, the legacies of the twentieth-century argument aboutmedialcultural imperialism.

With respect to the nation state, Curran's conclusion is persuasive:we should not overstate the decline of the nation state, as "nationalgovernments are still key sites of power." They can determine commu-nications policy (licensing broadcasters, defining media laws, regulat-ing media content), and they can subsidize media and stimulate localfilm and television production through quotas and other means. AsCurran notes, different languages, political systems, power structures,cultural traditions, economies, international links, and histories "findcontinuing expression in the media of different nation states." Steger,also cautious about "pronouncements of the impending demise" of thenation state, nonetheless draws attention to the growing difficultiesstates face in performing some traditional functions. 24

On the'continuing relevance of US cultural imperialism, while thisremains a concern in many parts of the world, the idea that corporatemedia firms are no more than purveyors of us culture "is ever less

Globalization and Media 279plausible as the media system becomes increasingly concentrated,commercialized and globalized. The global media system is betterunderstood as one that advances corporate and commercial interestsand values and denigrates or ignores that which cannot be incorpo-rated into its mission."2s The extent to which such commercialism hasparticular implications for political activity or civic values is a n impor-tant matter for consideration.

Global Media and PoliticsAs indicated above, one of the optimistic claims made for global media -especially television and the Internet - is that they have the potential tospread democratic values, empower and encourage participation bymarginalized groups, and challenge governments whose power andauthority have depended on the control of information. This is relatedto the view that globalization and developments in global media havelessened the power of nation states.The People's Republic of China provides an interesting case study.Coverage of the Chinese government clampdown on the pro-democracymovement in Tiananmen Square in 1989 appeared to exemplify thepotential of global media. International satellite television showedChinese authorities' us e of force against pro-democracy demonstratorsto a global audience, stimulating widespread condemnation of Chinesegovernment and military actions. Chinese students successfully usedWestern media to further their cause, bearing banners with Americansymbols and written in English for the wider television audience. Thescope of global television seemed to have been redefined, showing itspower to affect political events within national boundaries and to influ-ence world diplomacy and international public opinion.26However, relations between Chinese governments and Westernmedia have not been one-sided. Tension between News Corporationand the Chinese government four years after the Tiananmen Squareincidents led to a backdown by the media corporation. In 1993 RupertMurdoch, in a widely publicized speech, claimed: "Advances in thetechnology of telecommunications have proved an unambiguous threatto totalitarian regimes everywhere ... Satellite broadcasting makes itpossible for information-hungry residents of many closed societies tobypass state-controlled television." Chinese authorities had earlier
http:///reader/full/dominanf.23http:///reader/full/functions.24http:///reader/full/functions.24http:///reader/full/opinion.26http:///reader/full/opinion.26http:///reader/full/dominanf.23http:///reader/full/functions.24http:///reader/full/opinion.26


9/10


objected to foreign coverage of the events of 1989, and, reacting to thisstatement, threatened to block access to the Chinese market for NewsCorporation, in particular its StarTV service. Murdoch took steps toplacate China, and News Corporation removed the BBC WorldTelevision Service from its Asian satellite service. In another incident in1997 Murdoch appeared to take heed of pressure from China when theNews Corporation publishing company, HarperCollins, repudiated anagreement to publish a controversial book by the former governor ofHong Kong, Chris Patten, to whom the Chinese government was hos-tile.27 More recently, MySpace, owned by News Corporation, hasobserved locally imposed restrictions on its operations in China.

Growth of new media, an d particularly the expansion of Internettake-up in China, created a dilemma for Chinese authorities. ChineseInternet use had surged from just over two million households inDecember 1998 to twenty-six million by mid-2001; by 2007 there wereapproximately 48.5 million broadband subscribers in China. Whileaccess to information and participation in the commercial opportuni-ties offered by the Internet were considered important to China'seconomic development, freedom of information threatened ChineseCommunist Party authority and posed a challenge in a society wheretight political control over information had been the norm.

Unwilling to allow free access to global information and entertain-ment sources, Chinese auth orities developed complex legislation, regu-lations, and sophisticated Internetfiltering systems. Contenttransmittedvia email, web pages, blogs, online discussion forums, and social net-working sites was censored; access to materials includingpornography,political dissent, and religious matters was subject to bloc king (specificexamples included content on the Tiananmen Square events of 1989,Taiwanese and Tibetan independence, the Dalai Lama, and the FalunGong movement).28Internet sites of Western news sources (includingBBC News) were blocked. Despite efforts to regulate access, it ha sbeen difficult for Chinese authorities to enforce restrictions. SomeInternet users in China have been able to use secure connections tocomputers outside the mainland an d use proxy servers, circumventingfirewalls on Internet content; in addition, other media have been usedto disseminate content, with text messaging via mobile phones beingespecially difficult to regulate.

Assuming that popular pressure to have unrestricted access toInternet content will continue, it remains to be seen what will be more

Globalization and Media 281

influential in effecting change in China - possibly politicalliberaliza-tion, possibly increasing difficulty of "policing" communications tech-nologies. Both in China and elsewhere, the Internet challenges efforts atpolitical censorship, bu t even more noteworthy has been its capacityglobally to subvert moral censorship, providing easy access to porno-graphic and similar websites. The very nature of the medium continuesto make censorship or regulatory measures difficult to implement (seeChapter 11).

These examples illustrate difficulties for nation states in regulatingor controlling media, given technological and institutional change.Globalization and the communications revolution have posed newchallenges, because interest groups can ignore earlier constraints oftime and place. Emerging transnational "communities," unsympatheticto globalization or other issues, see global media as providing newavenues to exert pressure. Groups organized around human rights,environmental, consumer, and other issues have used the Internet tocoordinate rapid responses to international events and to bring pres-sure to bear on governments, corporations, and international organi-zations. Actions by these new coalitions have been labeled "netwars","smart mobbing," or "virtual demonstrations." Their targets haveincluded world trade talks and issues such as world debt and geneti-cally modifiedfoods. 29 It has been suggested that such actions may posea threat to capitalism and neoliberal economies, bu t such claims shouldnot be accepted at face value. As argued above, there is insufficientevidence to support a move from discussion of the potential of newcommunications technologies and global media to the assertion thatglobalization has "killed the nation state" and supplanted it with "virtualcommunities. "

In relation to global media and politics, it is important to rememberthat, even in the twenty-first century, access to communications tech-nologies remains unequal. The continuing discrepancies between richand poor countries are a reminder of the limitations on argumentsabout the democratizing potential of global media (see Chapter 11).

Finally, an important new feature of global media, with implicationsfor politics and international relations at a global level, has been theemergence of non-Western media with global reach. Al-Jazeera, nowwith English-language bureaux in Doha, Kuala Lumpur, London, andWashington, as well as its Arabic-broadcasting base in Qatar, has notonly transformed the media environment in the Arab world since its
http:///reader/full/movement).28http:///reader/full/foods.29http:///reader/full/foods.29http:///reader/full/foods.29http:///reader/full/movement).28http:///reader/full/foods.29


10/10


foundation bu t also established an Arab broadcaster as a viable alterna-tive to Western news organizations (see Chapter 10). The period of theIraq War marked the end of the monopoly of American/Western mediain global news. Just as the term "CNN effect" was used to describe theimpact of the American twenty-four-hour global news broadcaster inthe 1990s, so has the "Al-Jazeera effect" been used in relation to thetransformation of the media environment since 2003. The longer-terminfluence of Arab media such as AI-Jazeera in nurturing a pan-Arabconsciousness, helping to develop a sense of community among theArab diaspora, remains to be seen. However, during its relatively shortexistence it has already emerged as an alternative agenda-setter, chal-lenging the Western-media-dominated status quo and, importantly,providing an Arab perspective to global audiences. 3D

Media and Society in the Twenty-First CenturyThe rise of global media conglomerates has highlighted a central para-dox in the history of communications. The advocates of global com-munications forecast the breakdown of national and ethnic differencesand the growth of international understanding, all to be achievedthrough the influence of media operating on a global scale. The prom-ise is hard to reconcile with the realities of media development sincethe 1980s. Far from creating a unified world, commerci al media organi-zations have increasingly fostered a fragmentation of audiences andstronger social barriers. Where big-city newspapers and nationalradio and television programs once reached mass audiences, the tastesof specialized groups, distinguished by different "lifestyles" and per-ceived as niche markets for advertising revenue, shape media contentto an unprecedented degree. Far from fostering international under-standing, the same organizations have presided over a marked reduc-tion in serious coverage of public affairs in both broadcasting and printmedia, not least in treatme nt of international affairs. Analysis of majorUS network coverage of international affairs in their main evening tele-vision news broadcasts has revealed a persistent decline (apart fromperiods of crisis such as "9/11"), and the networks support fewer for-eign bureaux than in the past. This has been accompanied by decliningpublic interest in international news and a perceived loss of public trustin the news media. 31

Globalizat ion and Media 283

There are several other trends that support a pessimistic view ofcontemporary media in relatio n to tradit ional expectations of their rolein society. These include the general decline in news and public-affairsprogramming, with entertainment and "infotainment" far outweighingnews and current affairs, the decline of the public-service ethos, thetriumph of commercial/market-driven concerns, with much greateremphasis on lifestyle programs (and the rise and rise of "reality televi-sion"), with several of these fueling the tendency for media to giveexaggerated attention to certain events. Several writers refer to the"symbiotic link" between terrorism and media, to "mass-mediatedterrorism," and, indeed, to the pervasiveness and influence of media inconflict situations. Nacos accuses media organizati ons of seeming to beincreasingly inclined to exploit terrorism as infotainment for their ownimperatives (ratings, circulation).32 There is another paradox: the greatdiversity of media outlets contrasts with the reality of circumscribedcontent. Increasingly, productions seem to adhere to rigid formulas,calculated to maximize advertising revenue, supporting a global trendto rely on similar forms of entert ainment as the basis for profitability.

These trends highlight a central question about what it is reasonablefor citizens to expect of media. One argument, favored by media corpo-rations, is to point to the vast audiences commanded by modem mediaas a source of legitimacy. In this view the very popularity of programsand publications demonstrates that they serve the public interest. Thusmedia pro ducts are treated as commodities; t heir success or failure deter-mined by the market. This view is now so deeply ingrained that it hascorne to be regarded by many as common sense. It attributes no politicalor cultural importance to the media. Yet the study of the history of mediain a number of societies demons trates that the re are ot her possibilities formedia organization and content. Admittedly there are considerable chal-lenges; for news media, for example, there is "an international commu-nity that is more amorphous than i n the past ... evolving communitiesof interest, such as the European Union ... which make coverage oftransnational entities important ... giant corporations [that] transcendnationality and are governed through cyberspace ... [and] terrorists[who] compensate for their small numbers by being able to disregardborders and use media to enhance the impact of their actions."33Nonetheless, it is important not to lose sight of the cul tural and politicalimportance of media, or of the fact that there are models other thanthose that have come to dominate early twenty-first-century media.
http:///reader/full/audiences.3Dhttp:///reader/full/audiences.3Dhttp:///reader/full/media.31http:///reader/full/media.31http:///reader/full/circulation).32http:///reader/full/audiences.3Dhttp:///reader/full/media.31http:///reader/full/circulation).32

wk 4 - globalization and media

Documents