CHAPTER 8: GLOBAL MEDIA CULTURES

The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation.

The basic decisions in order to forge a better future for men and women in communities
everywhere, in developing as well as in developed nations, do not lie principally in the field of
technological development: they lie essentially in the answers each society gives to the conceptual
and political foundations of development.

- "The MacBride Report” of UNESCO (1980, p. 13)

Intended Learning Outcomes

At the end of this chapter, learners must be able to:
1. Understand how scholars have approached the relationship between media and globalization;
2. Differentiate the paradigms that developed in international communications development;
3. Explain the strengths and the weaknesses of the paradigm which led to its loss of appeal;
4. Moreover, apply the theoretical tools in real-world contexts; and
5. Equip students with 21" century learning and develop higher order thinking skills that will lead
towards a deeper understanding of Global media cultures as well correlate the said concept to the Philippines
in general and to oneself in particular.

International mass media has played a vital role in enhancing globalization as a linked society closer,
with the exchange of ideas, culture, and multiple information has managed to do so with the help of
capitalism. However, the process of globalization of culture constitutes a debate on whether mass media has
been pluralistic and neutral in facilitating the flow of ideas, or has it been an instrument for the domination of
Western culture.
This section will focus on the three major analytical perspectives of media globalization that developed
in the field of international communications. Srebem (1996, as cited in Rantanen, 2005) defined three models
that emerged in three subsequent phases: 1) communications and development, 2) cultural imperialism, and
3) cultural pluralism. The communications and development model views media as instruments of change in
developing countries with its capacity to alter values and attitudes towards modernization. On the other hand,
cultural imperialism asserts an uneven relationship in the flow of 'hardware" transfer of technology and media
alongside the software transfer of cultural products that contribute to the dependency on the par of the
developing countries to developed countries (Rantanen, 2005). Finally, the third model of cultural pluralism
asserts a more optimistic view on the diversity of global media relations, constitute by a variety of producers
and locales (Rantanen, 2005).
Free Flow of Information: The Road to Modernization?
The post-World War II period would mark the prominence of the models of development through mass
media and the free flow of information, particularly under the leadership of the United States. Several scholars
term the models of communications and development (Rantanen, 2005) as the modernization paradigm (Bah,
2008; Boyd-Barrett, 1977; Fejes, 1981) which views that the reason for the absence of modernization in the
developing world is not due to the lack natural resources. The primary hindrance to a country's development
is the lack of human resources, and education and mass media would have the fundamental tasks of building
human capital (Melkote & Steeves, 2001).
Mass media were viewed to play critical roles in development in the modernization paradigm. Wilbur
Schramm (1964 as cited in Melkote & Steeves 2001), one of the pioneering scholars of this paradigm,
observed a positive association between communication components to that of the social, political and
economic components in national growth. According to him, "the task of the mass media of information and
the "new media" of education is to speed and ease the long, slow. social transformation required for economic
development and, in particular, to a speed and smooth the task of mobilizing human resources behind the
national effort" (p. 2 27 as cited in Melkote & Steeves, 2001).
Another key proponent of modernization is David Lemer (1958) who proposed that developing
societies must follow the Western concept of modernity in order to achieve development. He emphasized the
importance of empathy, stating that "as people are more exposed to media, the greater is their capability to
imagine themselves as strange persons in strange situations, places and time than did people in any previous
historical epoch" (p. 52). The psychological mechanism of empathy, he argued, enables people to mobilize
efficiently in a modern society that is participant, literate and urban, contrary to that of the traditional society
which is non-participant. Lerner (1958 as cited in Boadu, 1981) posited that mass media has the power to
foster the learning of empathic skills. The interactive and integrative capabilities of media that prevent societal
disintegration are critical to the success of efforts to modernize (Boadu, 1981). This view resonates with
Benedict Anderson's (1983) thesis on nations as imagined communities. He emphasized the role of printed
communication and capitalism in instilling nationalism and the sense of belongingness among people who do
not know each other, by creating imagined communities.
Everett Rogers (1965-1966), whose ideas were influenced by Lerner, espoused the same paradigm
but forwards a nuanced relationship by treating mass media as a factor that intervenes between antecedents
and consequences of modernization. In his theoretical model, the socioeconomic antecedents would
determine the capacity of mass media exposure to result to the indicators of modernization as illustrated in
Figure 6.1.
Figure 6.1 Roger's Model of Mass Media Exposure and Modernization

ANTECEDENTS PROCESS CONSEQUENCES

Functional literacy Mass media exposure Empathy

Education Agricultural and home
innovativeness
Social status Political knowledge
Age Achievement and motivation
Educational and occupational
Cosmopoliteness aspirations

NOTE: The terms "antecedents" and "consequences" are used here in the sense of a probable time order,
but not necessarily in the sense of cause-result.
Source: Rogers (1965-1966, p. 616)
 The presence of mass media in societies have been observed by modernization scholars as
correlated to the social, economic, and political indices of development. The strength and power of mass
media to influence societies lies in its "one-way, top-down and simultaneous and wide dissemination" and its
capacity to shape social processes, create meanings, identities, and aspirations of a community (Melkote &
Steeves, 2001). These theories greatly influenced the development programs implemented by international
agencies such as the United Nation's Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), United
Nations, Development Program (UNDP), and the United States Aid for International Development (USAID)
(Fejes, 1981).
However, the role of media as an intervener and instrument in the modernization process has been
widely questioned and disputed. Curran and Park (2005) laid down the criticisms of the paradigm of how the
governments espousing the Western model of modernization used the media system in sustaining control
over the population rather than promoting education for democracy. They also stated how the national
development model was used to justify the arbitrary exercised of political power, political indoctrination and
the restriction over the freedom of expression.
By the end of the 1970s, criticisms against the modernization paradigm grew in strength and influence
questioning the assumptions and conceptualization of the paradigm especially in the context of non-Western
and developing societies. This period would mark the shift to the cultural imperialism paradigm, seen as a
reaction of resistance of the developing world towards the damaging effects of US hegemony and liberal
expansionism during the Cold War.
Demanding for the Balanced Flow of Information: A Fight against Cultural Imperialism
The cultural imperialism paradigm grew in influence from the 1960s to the 1980s in the context of the
Cold War and the period of decolonization and post colonialism. Third World countries formed the Non-
Aligned Movement with a united purpose stated in the Non-Aligned Countries Declaration of 1979, also known
as the Havana Declaration:
the common struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, expansionism, racism,
including Zionism, apartheid, exploitation, power politics and all forms and manifestations of
foreign occupation, domination, and hegemony. (as cited in Osmańczyk, 2003, p. 1599)
The movement was also against the uneven flows of information associated with uneven development
through the pretense of the free flow of information and the freedom of expression. In actuality, it "meant
"free-market" expression, meaning those who owned the media had the right to decide what was expressed in
it" (Buchanan, 2014, p. 392).
Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Havana, 1979
 (Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/88105025@N02/8067979708)
Cultural imperialism theory argues that global audiences are exposed to media messages dominantly
deriving from Western industrialized states (Kraidy, 2002). Herbert Schiller (1976), the clearest and most
influential theorists of the cultural imperialism tradition (Sparks, 2012) defines cultural imperialism as:
the concept of cultural imperialism today best describes the sum of the processes by which a
society is brought into the modern world system and how its dominating stratum is attracted,
pressured, forced and sometimes bribed into shaping social institutions to correspond to, or
even promote, the values and structures of the dominating centre of the system. (p. 9)
The theory takes on a macro-perspective of global power dynamics and struggles among state
economic relations, particularly the concentration of control and resources at the expense of the development
of the rest of the world.
The concepts "cultural imperialism" and "media imperialism" have minor differences but most of the
international communication literature considers the latter as a category of the former (Kraidy, 2002). Media
imperialism is defined by Boyd Barret (1977) as:
the process whereby the ownership, structure, distribution or content of the media in any one
country are singly or together are subject to substantial external pressures from the media
interests of any other country or countries without proportionate reciprocation of influence by the
country so affected. (p. 117)
Media imperialism model views modern communication media has having been designed to maintain and
expand dependence and domination over the world (Fejes, 1981). It is a stark contradiction to the
assumptions of the modernization paradigm that sees communications media as tools for development.
Culture and media imperialism approaches, together with its variant concepts of "cultura dependency and
electronic colonialism" (Hesmondhalgh, 2005), view media as an instrument of major powers that serve as an
obstacle to steady progress between developed and developing world (Fejes, 1981).
Media Imperialism and American Way of Life
 Source: İzmir Ekonomi Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi (https://9gag.com/gag/a9p5bq6?
fbclid=IwAR2YFV2wBI2EJ9HovpgL5f_B3qwfEfzE2aByrP5USQvXPryiIrxrOvVMd5A; Cartoon by Andy Singer)

According to Hesmondhalgh (2005), the concept of imperialism means "building of empires" however
the use of the term cultural imperialism implies that with the end of the age of direct political and economic
control by colonial states, a new form of indirect power and concern has emerged. Cultural domination over
less-developed countries that would foster desires for Western lifestyles and products among post-colonial
societies that would pave the way for the entry of Western based transnational corporations that would then
dominate non-Western economies (Hesmondhalgh, 2005). He employs a political economy perspective in
viewing media as cultural industries- those who own the capital and infrastructure and exert political control
determine the messages produced and the cultural products exported, which in turn dictates the western
socio-cultural norms and values of liberalism and capitalist consumerism to weaker and poorer states.
The Western dominance in news broadcasting, specifically of international news agencies such as
Reuters, AFP, UPI, and AP, have been viewed by scholars as contributory to the spreading of biased images
and prejudices of colonialism towards the South and reducing nations as places of "corruption, coup and
disaster" (Matos, 2012, p. 3). The limited agencies that serve as limited sources for international news have
been accused of contributing to the homogenization of global culture that privileges Western interests and
values and of influencing perceptions of national governments by bringing global issues to the local level and
vice-versa (Matos, 2012).
Box 6.1. Who owns the global media?

Source: Zenith Optimedia as cited in Richter, 2016

(https://www.statista.com/chart/4943/top-10-media-companies/)

According to Zenith Optimedia's (as cited in Richter, 2016) annual global ranking of the largest media
companies in the world. Television remains to be the most important advertising medium, but it is now
followed by internet which has replaced print media as the second. Digital advertising has been on the rise,
with five digital companies Google, Facebook, Baidu, Yahoo, and Microsoft-included in the Top 30 and
representing 65 percent of the entire internet advertising market, and accounting for more than a third of the
revenues of the largest media owners listed in the top 30.
The contributions of media imperialism scholars such as Schiller served as a foundation to an
international campaign directed towards the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO), to demand change in its communication policies with the goal of balancing the relationship
between developed and developing states (Sparks, 2012). In the 1970s and 1980s, the New World
Information and Communication Order (NWICO) debate was the central concern at the UNESCO.
Representatives from developing nations forming the Non-Aligned Movement during the Cold War demanded
significant changes in international communications media in the current world order which they accused of
"neocolonialism" and "cultural imperialism" by the West and their transnational corporations (Buchanan,
2014). The NWICO movement was a collective resistance to pressure UNESCO to change the dynamics of
news media that has been dismissive of the interest and needs of the less affluent world, to change the "one-
way flow" of news, media, and cultural products between the North and South to a "two-way" flow (Buchanan,
2014). The political struggle among developing nations was initially a struggle for a "New International
Information Order," alongside the similar call for a "New International Economic Order," which symbolizes the
South's resistance against the symbolic and economic effects of imperialism (Sparks, 2012).
The NWICO movement resulted to the report of the MacBride Commission entitled Many Voices, One
World (UNESCO, 1980), which forwarded recommendations that aimed to promote independence, diversity,
and pluralism of media and to strengthen the national media of the South. The report aimed to address the
problems of the unequal access and flows of communication due to media commercialization and
concentration. However, the recommendations were fruitless and were perceived as failures; moreover, major
powers such as the United States and the United Kingdom opposed the requests and withdrew from
UNESCO but eventually rejoined (Buchanan, 2014).
Sparks (2012) points out the major shortcoming of the NWICO. The movement had been incoherent in
its critique of the structural inequalities derived from the power struggles between the North and South that
significantly limited human communication. Moreover, the movement had been tainted with the strategic
political alliances with authoritarian leaders who sought regulation of the media to repress and silence the
opposition. He emphasized that "a critical project that recognised only those abuses committed by corporate
and business interests while remaining blind to those of repressive states could never expect to win general
acceptance at a theoretical level" (p. 286).
Furthermore, the paradigm of cultural imperialism has also faced several criticisms. Arguments against
the theory have been directed to its theoretical coherence (Tomlinson, 1999)-its ambiguity and extensiveness
which poses the question of what exactly constitutes cultural imperialism in the unequal cultural exchanges of
countries (Sparks, 2012). The paradigm has also been criticized of romanticizing the national as an agent of
resistance that is worth protecting while failing take into account that the state could be as oppressive and
homogenizing (through nationalism) to societies as the global (Rantanen, 2005). In addition, Sengupta and
Frith (1997) emphasizes the changing global structures of the media and stated that "the cultural imperialism
argument that is framed in terms of 'centres' with power over disempowered 'peripheries' may have to be
reevaluated as the 'new' media slowly penetrate into developing nations" (p. 14). Transnational
communication system and new media have provided new and creative opportunities to establish bonds and
solidarity in creating cultural communities (Ang 1990). This change has been apparent in remarkable historical
events where new media was used by marginalized to instigate social change such as in the case of the
Zapatista Uprising in 1994 against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Battle of
Seattle protests during the World Trade Ministerial Conference of 1999. Still, Sengupta and Frith (1997) also
acknowledge that as regards the role of television, it cannot be discounted that it remains to be a powerful
socializing agent within Third World nations (p. 15).
Despite the arguments against the cultural imperialism paradigm, the of the approach continue to be
recognized by scholars. Tomlinson (1999) a staunch critic of the theory, maintains its relevance as it
highlights the expansionist nature of capitalism and its capacity to shape global culture. Similarly, Rantanen
(2005) sees the strength of the paradigm through its macro-level analysis that is based on the uneven and
asymmetrical political, economic relations of the world system, and the implication of such in developing
societies merits.
On the other hand, other various scholars such as Sparks (2012) have updated and improved the
cultural imperialism framework into the current context of intensifying media concentration, expansion of
influence and control of transnational media corporations, and widening of gaps between the North and
South. He examines the theoretical ambiguity of Schiller's conceptualization and proposes a new alternative
that does not suffer the same crippling flaws of the classical account and a superior theoretical account of the
contemporary developments in international communication. He reconsidered the concept of imperialism, with
the driving force not being limited to a single state but conflict and competition among large-scale capitalism
which is allied with their home states. Instead of a single center, an array of competing states of varying
powers and influence compete and in some instances coordinate their political and economic power to exert
control over less developed and weaker countries (Sparks, 2012).

The comic portrays how Western news broadcasting perpetuates biased and prejudiced images of
non-Western nations

Cultural Pluralism: Transition from homogenization to heterogenization

Criticisms against the cultural imperialism paradigm would eventually pave the way for the emergence
of a new paradigm termed "cultural pluralism" (Sreberny 1996 as cited in Rantanen, 2005). Other scholars
would also refer to the paradigm as "cultural globalization" (Matos, 2012). The paradigm shift was a departure
from the "one-way" model of cultural imperialism towards a more nuanced and sophisticated analysis of
"multidirectional flows" among country relations (Matos, 2012). It was a reaction to the treatment of the
paradigms of modernization and cultural imperialism to the role of the audience as passive receptacles of
information and ideas. The contemporary approach recognizes the capacity of the audience in reacting and
mobilizing toward resistance and empowerment, according to their socio-economic context and cultural
preference (Matos, 2012).
This shift in paradigms would be regarded by Rantanen (2005) as the homogenization-
heterogenization debate (see Table 6.2), with the past two paradigms, the development, and imperialism
approach as being under the homogenization school with their assumptions on the impact of globalization on
media and cultures. The heterogenization school, on the other hand, is anchored on the definitions of
globalization as hybridization, synchronization, re-territorialization, and indigenization (Rantanen, 2005).
Contemporary media studies have focused on "unpacking" the audience and its capacity to receive and
interpret messages. It is a departure from the view of the homogenous audience to an audience that is
fragmented with distinctive tastes (Rantanen, 2005).
 Table 6.2 Rantanen's (2005) different paradigms of the global, the national and the local

Paradigm Global media seen National media Local media seen Consequences
as? seen as? as?
Communications Homogeneous Homogeneous ? Homogeneous
and development
Cultural Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous
imperialism
Cultural pluralism Heterogeneous ? Heterogeneous Heterogeneous
Source: Rantanen (2005, p. 76)

The heterogenization school has also been criticized in several aspects. Sparks (2012) describes the
new orthodoxy as "systematically marginaliz[ing] the role of the state," as pervasively seen from the slogans
of "think global, act local" and "glocalization" (p. 286). While it is of importance that the overemphasis of the
state. is corrected, is it, however, problematic to dismiss the significance of the role of the state (Sparks,
2012). Criticisms of heterogenization school have also been enumerated by Rantanen (2012), such as the
power it provides the audiences without taking into account the inequality their access to media and
communications, and the neglect of the economic clout of global media firms and their concentration in the
United States.
Studies would also present empirical evidence that is not reflective of the assumptions of the
paradigm. Gordon's (2009) study on Jamaican media, challenges the cultural heterogeneity and diversification
thesis and argues the proliferation of homogenization of American culture evidenced from the imported
models for the production of local television content. She argues that while adaptation of American
programme models has been successfully localized to the point of producing original and separate products,
as seen in the telenovelas of Mexico and Bollywood films of India, such success has not been present in
Jamaica where "local programmes do not bridge the gap between local and global to the point where an
original genre is actually created" (p. 324).

Reference Book:
Coronacion, D. & Clilung, F. (2018). Convergence: A College Textbook in Contemporary World. Books Atbp.
Publishing Corp.