1. SCHOLARLY PAPER ON INTERNATIONAL MASS MEDIA TRENDS
Ildiko Balogh
Professor: Dr. Lee Artz
Communication 559
6 May 2014
The West: Savior, Enemy, or Peer? Diversity and Democracy in Contemporary Media
Castells once wrote, “the fundamental power struggle is the battle for the
construction of meaning in the minds of the people” (Castells, 2000, p. 13). His observation
captures the essence of global media relations, and the struggle of competing ideologies
over media control in order to cease power. The power of the media to influence, however,
was not always seen in terms of a struggle, but rather it was praised for its potential to aid
development in the Second and Third World.
One of the first theories to praise the role of Western media on global democracy
was Lerner’s ‘Modernization Theory’, according to which exposure to western media
significantly helps the process of transition from a ‘traditional state’ to a ‘modern state’ in
developing countries (Thussu). Lerner emphasizes that communication is a key element in
the development process and modernization of the so-called Second and Third World

2. countries. Lerner argued that by increasing diversity of content, and by providing a
competitive capitalist environment which promotes an increase in quality, a more ‘modern’
and democratic media scene could be created. Lerner’s work has been extensively
criticized since, both from the perspective of the amount and type of influence First World
countries exert on the developing world, as well as regarding the content and cultural
effects of that influence.
One of the major opponents of Lerner’s optimistic views expressed in his
Modernization Theory was ‘Dependency Theory’, that was meant to illumine the unequal
relationships between first and third world nations, a relationship described as “dependent
development” (Thussu, p.61). It was the first body of work in international media studies to
extensively discuss the influence of multinational and transnational corporations on global
media trends. According to its proponents, with the support of their respective
governments, transnational media corporations exercise control over developing nations,
aiding these nation’s development, but maintaining their position of dependence.
According to Miller, due to the expansion of multinational corporations in the global South,
many developing states won political independence, but suffered “dependent
underdevelopment”, being mostly unable to grow economically (Artz). What ‘Dependency
Theory’ described are unequal relationships between nations fostered by corporations that
Western countries (economic and political superpowers) benefit from. In global
communication, according to Dependency Theory, transnational media corporations create
a dependency on both the hardware and software of communication, at the expense of the
cultural autonomy of the developing world (Thussu).

3. However, Dependency Theory failed to take into account consent, and the
importance of local entrepreneurs, and media moguls in the transformation of the media
scene in developing countries. Galtung filled the void, with his concept of ‘Structural
Imperialism’. He argues that the world consists of developed ‘center states’ and
underdeveloped ‘periphery states’, and each has a core and a periphery (Thussu). What he
calls ‘Structural Imperialism’ is a relationship established by the core of the center nation
with the core of the periphery nation for the joint benefit of both (Thussu, p.64). He claims
that the core of a ‘center nation’ shares more characteristics with the core of a ‘periphery
nation’ than with the periphery of the ‘center nation’ itself. Similarly, Artz argues that
“cultural dominance is not imposed, it requires administration by the national dominant
classes in the developing countries” (Artz, 167). As he argues, this newly emerged class he
discusses as a transnational capitalist class, has forged new relations across countries, and
“politically led the privatization campaign so that national policies were reformed for the
benefit of foreign direct investment, mergers and acquisitions” (Artz).
Similarly to ‘Structural Imperialism’, the concept of ‘Cultural Imperialism’ describes
an inequality in global relationships. According to Schiller, who worked in the neo-Marxist
tradition, analyzing these global power structures, ‘Cultural Imperialism’ is “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 to promote, the values and structures of the
dominant centre of the system” (Schiller in Artz). While many scholars agree with his
arguments, many disagree with the use of the word ‘imperialism’. As Artz argues,
“imperialism is enforced by one nation on another for the benefit of nationally-based

4. capitalist profits. What “cultural imperialism” actually describes is domination, maybe even
predominance, but it is not imperialism” (Artz, p. 170).
While most media scholars agree on the inequality of global relationships, some
argue, that cultural imperialist theories undervalue the resistance of audiences, and
overstate the dominance of Western content (Artz). To support their arguments, they point
to trends of ‘Cultural Proximity’, the preference of audiences for content consistent with
their local culture, often produced by developing nations, over Western content, and
‘Localization’, the preference of audiences for local content. According to the proponents of
these countraflow theories, new developments on the global media market have
strengthened local media, and even though the prevalence of western content has not
disappeared, we are witnessing a cultural revival in many developing countries. Moreover,
the appearance of transborder television channels broadcasting from the developing world
to diasporic communities living in the metropolitan centers of the world has contributed to
a greater awareness of cultural differences (Thussu).
However, while certain international media trends go against the tide, they do not
eradicate the prevalence of Western programming and the influence of Western culture on
local markets. According to Artz, the argument that audience preference for content close
to their lives limits foreign imports “presumes transnationals are incapable of producing
culturally proximate content” (Artz, p. 198). As he argues, “transnational media do not
overcome national or cultural boundaries, indeed they depend on and exploit the natural
characteristics of the appropriate national capitalist class” (Artz), a tendency traceable in a

5. localization of foreign programming, such as format shows, but also in the production of
local content, increasingly demanded by audiences.
By arguing that the influence of foreign media in a large portion of the developing
world is limited due to low viewership, proponents of these theories fail to take into
account the influence and power of the elite on local cultures and in decision making, thus,
underrating the western cultural hegemony. They also overlook the capitalist cultural
hegemony in local and regional productions: the increasing prevalence of consumer
culture, the predominance of entertainment, and the ideology of individualism.
In an attempt to capture the essence of these unequal relationships, and settle the
globalization-localization debate, Straubhaar proposes the concept of asymmetrical
interdependence, which, allows us to view global media in terms of a continuum. As he
argues, asymmetrical interdependence provides a more accurate lens to understand
contemporary global media, and sheds light on the “variety of possible relationships in
which countries find themselves unequal but possessing variable degrees of power and
initiative in politics, economics and culture” (Straubhaar, p. 39).
While many scholars discuss the existence and amount of influence the developed
world exerts on the media of the developing world, questions remain: what is the content
that is being transmitted, and how does that content influence local cultures?
Understanding global media through the lens of a newly formed capitalist culture not only
offers us insights into the content of the previously discussed influence, but points to the
importance and necessity of qualitative research in this area.

6. While national capitalist competition and national imperialism are often accepted as
axioms, Robinson argues that they no longer provide a realist lens to analyze contemporary
global affairs (Robinson, 2005). Robinson doesn’t disagree with the existence of
imperialism, he merely sees these global relations as far too complex to be discussed within
a simple North/South or Core/Periphery framework. His explanations of the global
changes that occurred since the 1970s support his point. He argues that the rise of
transnational capital that goes beyond national boundaries, and an emergence of a
transnational capitalist class are shaping global economic relations in a different direction.
This newly emerging capitalist group is a class group without a national identity, and it is in
competition with nationally based players. Through supranatural political and economic
institutions, such as the IMF, and in collaboration with nation state apparatuses, they
advance their global capitalist goals, creating what Robinson calls the transnational state.
These new transnational governing principles of global politics and economy create new
relations of power and inequality around the world. The capitalist class within developing
nations is increasingly resembling the capitalists of the developed world, while the
consumers in each of these nations become increasingly similar as well. As he argues, U.S.
neoliberal policies benefit global capitalism, not American national economic interests,
further strengthening his argument against a national form of thinking.
As structures of ownership, financing, regulations, as well as production norms
shape media content, which in turn affects culture, the emergence of a new transnational
capitalist class (Artz) is undeniably one of the major forces shaping international culture.
Creating a cultural hegemony for capitalist ideology, media owners seek to reinforce
current capitalist relationships relying on profits from wage labor and their position in the

7. hierarchy. Consent is an essential part of this equation, as conflict can only be avoided if
people on all levels of media production agree to the social relationships proposed by the
leadership.
The control over media means the power to decide format and genres, to choose
programming, and to decide who has access to production, as well as to decide what
ideology will be represented in the content, decisions that are increasingly similar across
organizations. The profit driven nature of media corporations led to patters in their
structure, as “organizational structures and norms are found to all but guarantee uniform
practices across companies and uniform formats of entertainment, with creativity
restricted to content diversity” (Artz, p.140). This uniformization decreases the diversity of
voices in the media, and pushes it further away from the democratic principles it claims to
represent.
As content decisions made based on their expected capacity to attract audiences
(Artz, p.140), advertising-hostile programming is excluded for the detriment of informed
citizenship. Business culture, bias for capitalist media practices, and negative portrayals of
the working class are increasingly present, reinforcing existing relationships and structures
(Artz, p.140).
To keep audiences from analyzing the system and avoid open debate on inequality,
media obscure the existence of social class. However, the contradictions of the system,
reflected in people’s experiences cannot always go unnoticed. “Media entertainment
incorporates those lived experiences in an apolitical, comforting way, while defending the
appropriateness of TNMC leadership by also adapting and diffusing alternative narratives,

8. political challenges, and troubling social contradictions within the dominant frame” (Artz,
p. 149). Media owners seek to reinforce their dominance through these narratives, as “the
cultural construction of meaning and symbols is inherently a matter of political and
economic power” (Artz).
The effects of the media on culture and society are undeniable, consumerism
being one of the major issued discussed by those concerned, a principle necessary for
sustaining the capitalist system. Consumerism also provides comfort in the alienation it
causes.
“As work life and social life become more commercialized and atomized and
urban neighborhoods become more isolating, media narratives and images may
displace the primary traditional sources of group identity, such as school, ethnicity,
religion, even sport and political parties. Television entertainment may then become
a “symbolic place” where collective political identities and understandings are
reorganized” (Artz).
The desire of the masses is channeled into rituals of consumption, and commodities
that become new social signifiers.
Capitalist cultural hegemony relies on the consent and collaboration of all social
classes to exist, as “hegemony appears as a consensual culture only so long as the leading
group can meet the minimal needs of the majority ” (Sassoon in Artz, p. 144). It relies on
technocrats, bureaucrats, managers, researchers, politicians, media producers, and
corporate directors and entrepreneurs (Artz, p. 143) to reinforce its ideology. In a capitalist
society the consent of the middle class is achieved through their aspirations and

9. idealization of the capitalist class. And the working class is “rewarded” with minimal wages,
and the opportunity to consume. Central to this consent is the ideology of individualism
that compels wage labor to think in terms of their individual well-being and goals, and keep
them from discovering the power that lies within collective effort and bargaining.
On a global scale the weakness of U.S. influence on foreign media markets
demonstrates the strength of transnational capitalist cultural hegemony, and that
consumerist media entertainment has become culturally internalized (Artz, 144). This
“new international division of cultural labor” (Miller in Artz, p. 152) has been adopted, and
while localized programming is increasingly popular, it increasingly promotes the
hegemonic ideals of capitalism.
This new global hegemonic culture has an enormous influence on political systems
around the world and the democratic potential of the media, a system that was once
believed to be the cornerstone of democracy through the creation of a healthy public
sphere. As Jurgen Habermas defines it, the public sphere is “an arena, independent of
government (even if in receipt of state funds) and also enjoying autonomy from partisan
economic forces, which is dedicated to rational debate (i.e. to debate and discussion which
is not ‘interests’, ‘disguised’ or ‘manipulated’) and which is both accessible to entry and
open to inspection by the citizenry” (Thussu). His definition clearly underscores the
weakness of the current global media system: not only that it is not independent of partisan
economic forces, but it represents a partisan economic force in itself.
The key to reforming global media, and restoring its democratic potential lies in the
for-profit nature of TNMCs. Investing in good quality, publicly funded programming has the

10. potential to create a public service media system that serves the citizenry instead of
corporate profits. With the right structure, public media can be protected from partisan
political forces. And with the necessary funding that allows the creation of quality
programming, it has the capacity to compete with privately owned media. We have to start
viewing it as an investment in our and our children’s future.
Public service media would create a democratic public sphere by allowing voices to
be heard equally. According to Artz, “communication isn’t just about listening or watching.
Communication means citizens have voice. And not just voice, but access to media that can
broadcast and disseminate messages to the entire society. Democracy in media includes the
right to receive information, the right to expression, and the right to distribute messages
through all available media (Artz, p. 307). It is our responsibility, as to be media scholars, to
educate the public that this sphere is far from being achieved, and to organize social
movements meant to attain this goal.

11. References
Artz, Lee. ‘The Corporate Model from National to Transnational’. In The Media Globe.
Trends
in International Mass Media, pp.99-119. Plymouth: Rowan & Littlefield, 2007.
Castells, M. (2000). Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society. British
Journal
of Sociology, 51(1), p. 5-24.
Robinson, W. I. (2005). Global Capitalism: The New Transnationalism and the Folly of
Conventional Thinking. Science & Society 69 (3), p.316-328.
Straubhaar, J. D. (1991). Beyond Media Imperialism: Asymmetrical Interdependence and
Cultural Proximity. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 8(1), p.39-59.
Thussu, Daya Kishan. International Communication. Continuity and Change. London:
Arnold,
2002. Print.