Introduction
Tony Schwartz in Media: The Second God is right in saying that just like a God the media can influence the course of a conflict or war. He adds that the media can humiliate those who are proud, elevate the humble, and bring down a leader by focusing the minds of millions of individuals to a particular event. The concept of media imperialism is of key importance to many nations. Hence, it should be analyzed in detail. Media imperialism has introduced various risks, particularly in cultural integration. For a coherent understanding of the concept, this paper outlines and discusses the meaning of media imperialism and how it can be witnessed in the influence of American media on the international communication framework.
Media imperialism is a notion that deduces that smaller nations are losing their identities because of the larger countries’ media dominance. The theory can be equated to small shops shutting down their operations due to the takeovers or monopolies of larger retail stores. The little media corporations are either being swallowed or forced out as the bigger companies control the scene. When most of the media coverage provided by a particular nation is that produced by another country, scholars conclude that the culture of the dominant region has displaced that of the home nation. Media imperialism is not seen internationally only. When certain communication companies monopolize the coverage in the country, the act is viewed as imperialism (Waisbord, 2013).
Body
The debate over media imperialism began in the 70s when the developing regions started to realize the control developed nations had on the media coverage. The conflict occurred in UNESCO where an international organization known as New World Information and Communication Order (NWISCO) emerged. The MacBride report supported the movement and incorporated countries such as Egypt, Indonesia, and India. They urged that the content from the developed nations should have limited coverage in the third-world countries. The argument contributed to nations such as Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States leaving the organization of UNESCO (Ritzer, 2012).
The Media Formation Paradigm formulated by Boyd-Barrett frames media imperialism as a relationship that exists between various national communication systems, particularly those that involve power imbalances and historical, political structures. The system emphasizes on the media industrial arrangements in the wealthy regions and the dictatorship of their outlines as suitable models in the global market. The most dominant manufacturers finance and disseminate their products at a faster rate. Boyd argued that the typical structures led to the news agencies adopting the behaviors and roles of the parent firms that appear to provide financial support to the industries (Boyd-Barrett, 2015).
In the 80s and 90s, the large and powerful media companies became increasingly resistant limiting the chances of survival for the local outlets. The new form of imperialism thus commenced where countries were subsidiary to the products of the powerful industries and nations. The most dominant country in media imperialism is the United States. Its media coverage of occurrences has been said to limit the freedom of expression of the press. Integrity can be diffused easily amongst the media giants. The aspect together with information flow inhibits accuracy and fairness of the stories in the news. American media networks such as the CNN have the international personnel and produce regional programming in many countries (Nordenstreng, 2013).
In the local settings of media imperialism, nations such as Canada and Italy have been accused of having an imperial communication structure because the press is controlled by the leadership or an organization. They have watchdogs that exert formal political standards that stifle the media. A media outlet that censors or ignores essential events or issues damages free association. The sources are criticized openly for not adhering to the integrity of journalism. Dominance also leads to some events getting little attention because they belong to a certain company. Films and books have been written by different authors to express the issue of imperialism. An example is Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell (Mirrlees, 2013).
The design of print media made it easy for countries such as America to control the realm of communication and influence the opinion of the public. Radio and film carried the procedure further. Totalitarian regimes such as the Bush leadership used the media to brainwash citizens and make them obedient. The concept of media imperialism can be discussed in four ways regarding the influence of American media on international communication. They include media warfare and propaganda, effects of intelligence agencies, the emergence of media monopolies and conglomerates, and the imbalances in the South and North regime (Matos, 2012).
Information is a vital instrument in the maintenance of foreign relations both as a mode of interaction and a technique of knowledge and understanding between regions. The North and South experience disparities such as quantitative imbalances, the persistence of the colonial period, messages that are not suited for the areas they are disseminated, etc. The disparities have reached UNESCO, and the organization is working hard to correct the issues. The media is an essential tool; hence, government sources and intelligence agencies have sought to finance its operations to control its coverage. For example, RAW manages the ZEE network, and CIA controls the news is given in CNN (Sparks, 2012).
The United States uses the media to instill a powerful influence over the war on terrorism. For instance, an attack from Iraq in the 90s was retaliated by the American government. In the headlines, CNN reported that over 70,000 Iraqis succumbed to the ambush of the United States. However, in the real sense, the country did not utilize smart weapons. 70 percent of their missiles missed the target leading to minimal damages on the Iraqis. The manipulation aimed at instigating fear amongst the terrorists and other nations to prove that American is a conglomerate or super power (Lutz, 2014).
The media in the United States also has cultural impacts on the developing nations where most of their products are aired. It is known widely that Hollywood is the most advanced media industry in the globe. Their moral values are different from those in the Eastern regions. The organization mesmerizes the listeners with western cultural products such as fast music and foods like Pizza Hut and KFC. The imperialism erodes the variations in the human communities and creates a global culture where the unique traits of local ethnicities are no longer visible. The United States should be blamed entirely for controlling the global media industry since it developed earlier than other regions. The two largest communication industries in the globe are Disney and Times Warner that control more than 30 percent of international entertainment (Khattak, Nasir, and Ahmad, 2012).
TCI, a U.S. cable industry has international holdings in many ventures. The American media realm demonstrates a superficial perspective of democracy that depicts what John Jay says that the individuals who own the world have the right to control it. The problem emanates when the industry dominates the global markets, forces the U.S content on the international audiences, and dumbs down the news to plump their bottom guidelines. The case study presented by Khan and Arif (2009) in Pakistan proves that a culture that is harmless in a particular society is inflicted on another without any regard to whether it will inflict the individuals negatively. People especially the youth have slowly forgotten their traditional values and adopted the Westernized culture all in the name of globalization.
It appears like the world is dictating that for an individual to interact with people from the developed countries, he or she must resolve to drop his beliefs and take up those in the dominant nation. The advancement in technologies in communication has made it easy for powerful cultures to spread and seem superior to others. Sure focusing on an international ethnicity may not be that harmful since people will be brought together, but it should not entail forgetting where you came from to adopt a culture that does not align with your values. The continuous rise of media globalization makes it easy for media imperialism to spread to every region in the globe (Gordon, 2008).
Conclusion
The international media empire in the United States has manipulated foreign communication networks to serve their wishes and promote their traditions, values, and ideologies. Soon the entire earth will be controlled by western civilization if the local media systems do not take action based on assumptions of the mass society theory. The products from the region may be cheap compared to manufacturing their original works, but they have diluted the people’s cultures such that they want to associate with what they see in the films or articles. Media imperialism has led to the standardization and homogenization of the world (Compaine, 2009).
The American media system should not be blamed for the diffusion of their values since their early development is the reason their products have circulated to different areas. Hence, it is up to the local companies to support their media sectors and promote it to an international level. For example, entertainment industries such as Nollywood and Bollywood are slowly entering the limelight and marketing their products in the international market (Baofu, 2009). Global organizations should address the negative effects of media imperialism such as the destruction of journalism integrity and freedom of association. They should ensure that what people see or hear is accurate and unbiased so that it does not lead to conflicts.
Bibliography
Baofu P. 2009. The Future of Post-Human Mass Media: A Preface to a New Theory of Communication. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Boyd-Barrett O. 2015. Media Imperialism. New York: SAGE Publications.
Compaine B. 2009. Think Again: Global Media. Retrieved January 4, 2016 from http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/11/09/think-again-global-media/.
Gordon N. S. 2008. Media and the Politics of Culture: The Case of Television Privatization and Media Globalization in Jamaica. Florida: Universal-Publishers.
Khan M. A. and Arif I. 2009. Media Imperialism and Its Effects on the Culture of Pakistan: A Case Study of the Youth of Multan. Global Media Journal. VOL-II, ISUUE-I.
Khattak A. W., Nasir M., and Ahmad A. 2012. Global Media and the Domination of West. European Journal of Social Sciences. ISSN 1450-2267 Vol.28 No.1 (2012), pp. 35-41.
Lutz A. 2014. These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America. Retrieved January 4, 2016 from http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the- media-in-america-2012-6.
Matos, C. 2012. Globalization and the mass media. In: Encyclopedia of Globalization. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Mirrlees T. 2013. Global Entertainment Media: Between Cultural Imperialism and Cultural Globalization. New York: Routledge.
Nordenstreng K. 2013. How the New World Order and Imperialism Challenge Media
Studies. Creative Commons Licence, tripleC 11(2): 348-358.
Ritzer G. 2012. Media Imperialism. Wiley Encyclopedia of Globalization. DOI: 10.1002/9780470670590.wbeog377.
Sparks C. 2012. Media and cultural imperialism reconsidered. Chinese Journal of Communication, Volume 5, Issue 3, 2012
Waisbord S. 2013. Media policies and the blindspots of media globalization: insights from Latin America. Media Culture Society January 2013 vol. 35 no. 1 132-138.
