McLuhan, Shiller, Volkmer, Hafez and Global Media an Essay on Theoretical Approaches to Global Media

This essay has the aim to explore the main theoretical approaches to global media introduced in the first half of Media and Globalization studies. Although the five main theories presented in this work will be explored rather briefly, the main focus will be devoted to two theories in particular in order to approach the subject more broadly. Also, the theories presented were selected in no particular order.

Following this approach, the first theory presented is McLuhan’s optimist view of the global media which McLuhan describes as a Global Village. McLuhan named this theory due to the closeness from one to another within the world due to the introduction of television and mass communication, according to such theory, the more connected individuals are, the smaller the world becomes and the world is interpreted as a village (Miller, 1971, p11). Furthermore, according to McLuhan, the medium is the message means that the way we receive and consume information is perhaps more important than the message itself. Such a statement indicates how media is embedded in our society and arguably not notice by individuals. For instance, nowadays, individuals consume any means of information and produce content themselves almost instantly. Hence, those individuals will most likely be connected with other individuals across the globe discussing the same subjects.

Information pours upon us, instantaneously and continuously. As soon as information is acquired, it is very rapidly replaced by still newer information (McLuhan et al., 1967, p63)
In addition to that, it is crucial to highlight that Mc Luhan died in 1980 before the introduction of the internet and modern media communication, which indicates how ahead of his time McLuhan was. Moreover, one could go as far as argue that McLuhan predicted the internet on his Global Village theory (Tedx Talk, 2015).

Subsequently, another theory explored was introduced by Herman and Chomsky, called The Propaganda Model, where a clear link is drawn between large media institutions and the control of society. The theory highlights how much those institutions are dependent on their product which is information, in order to be able to sell advertising space in their vehicles of communication. Furthermore, Herman and Chomsky express a general concern based on such a structure where corporations have an abundant amount of power over society. Although the theory focused on the United States, there are some indications about how the rest of the world follows a somewhat similar system where profit is actively prioritised.

Many of the media companies are fully integrated into the market, and for the others, too, the pressures of stockholders, directors, and bankers to focus on the bottom line are powerful. These pressures have intensified in recent years as media stocks have become market favourites, and or prospective owners of newspapers and television properties have found it possible to capitalise increased audience size and advertising revenues into multiplied values of the media franchises (Herman and Chomsky, 1994, p5-7).

Furthermore, another theory mentioned in this essay is the work of Schiller on Media Imperialism. One could argue that such a theory has clear similarities with the Propaganda Model where control of the media is exercised by large corporations. The expansion of American television in 1960 to other parts of the world was a valuable tool to spread American culture, especially in Latin America where American programmes and advertising agencies played a crucial role from its birth (Tunstall, 1977, p38). Shiller however, focused on details such as power and control is exercised, according to Shiller’s theory, space satellites were the primary vehicle to propagate the American media imperialism.
During the 1960s, Schiller argued, American policy came to focus even more strongly on subjugating, and pacifying the poor nations; and in this strategy, space satellites were to play a crucial part (Tunstall, 1977, p39).

Moreover, Volkmer’s ‘cosmopolitan citizen theory brings an alternative debate into media globalization, where the world satellite news channels provide a global awareness of events and consequently unify global media even further. The name cosmopolitan citizen and world citizenship are given due to the power and the speed of how global media manages to reach its information ever more broadly and faster than ever witnessed before in history. It is important to mention that although Volkmer has no desired to describe such approach to global media theory as utopistic, it has to be highlighted that this theory explores the rise of a global public sphere (Branston and Stafford, 1999, p144). One could argue that Volker’s studies are a modern version of Jurgen Habermas’ approach to the public sphere.

In contrast, Kai Hafez describes media globalization as a myth, Global Village and Virtual Cosmotolism are only available for those who can access technology and have the means to operate it. Although the global campaign to reach the entire world is rather remarkable, it only occurs when specific scenarios are in places such as access to technology and infrastructure. Furthermore, Hafez highlights that global events have been taking places throughout history even before the creation of modern mass communication.

Ultimately, as far as cultural change is concerned, the globalization debate has produced an internally inconsistent dual myth. This is the notion that culturally imperialist ‘Americanization’ or ‘Westernization’ may be accompanied by the ‘globalization’ or ‘hybridization’ of cultures (Hafez, 2007, p171).

Thomas Friedman, explores another theory of modern globalization called Click, Connect and Collaborate, in his book The world is flat, Friedman writes extensively about how easy becomes for individuals to connect across the globe just by part taking in online discussions and collaborating with the subject, therefore producing more content and rapidly expanding its area of reach. According to Friedman, the world has become interconnect and built not around companies or countries however it is being built around individuals where one can easily be connected with another anywhere across the globe through the internet (Center for International and Regional Studies, 2012).

Furthermore, George Ritzer describes this new era of globalization as the McDonaldization where the more globalized the world is, the more standardised and similar it becomes, the theory is based on the fast-food chain where results are invariably predictable and identical, most importantly, it aims to generate massive profits with low costs. Although Ritzer mainly refers to this theory based in America, it is rather clear how globalized it has expanded. Moreover, media corporations also become part of such a system where its product becomes more standardised, and the information is distributed more efficiently and equally across the globe. Ritzer also highlights that the McDonaldization theory is based on efficiency, calculability, predictability and control (O’Byrne and Hensby, 2011, p 108). ‘McDonaldized venues, then, emphasized standardized products and quantity over quality (Ritzer and Stillman, 2003, p34).

Although one could argue that all the theories presented in this essay are fundamental and, could easily explore a link between one and another. This essay will focus on two theories exploring common ground, similarities, strength and weakness between one another. Furthermore, this work will combine both theories such as The Propaganda Model and Media Imperialism and explore how those theories complete each other and how strong they are both connected.
Chomsky argues that it is somewhat tricky for mass media corporations to express neutral information once those corporations are utterly dependent on advertising as a means of financial survival. Although there is a level of critique in some media corporations, those critiques are provided by individuals funded by the very same system. Consequently, it forms a definite limit on how much one can really challenge the system as a whole. Moreover, those critiques are produced in a system of filters where censorship is an exercise instead of naturally making difficult for one to be able to notice its real message.

The elite domination of the media and marginalization of dissidents that results from the operation of those filters occurs so naturally that media news people, frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convince themselves and they choose and interpret the news “objectively” and on the bases of professional news value (Herman and Chomsky, 1994, p2).

In addition to that, the media imperialist theory works as a great tool to support Chomsky’s view. However, such theory argues that there are even more links between the mass media and politics where the American government exercise its power through American media corporations. The proliferation of American information is extremely cheap making it easy to be export to other countries, hence exercising its imperial power (Tunstall, 1977, 262-264). Latin America, in particular, is a prime example where American media corporations and Hollywood films play a crucial role in advertising its cultural ideology and educating its people. Therefore, one could highlight how the Propaganda Model, Media Imperialism and the Global Media are American are perhaps not three alternative theories of media globalization, however, all part of one other, completing each other.

Conversely, however, there are arguments which indicate the fade of American media imperialism. Once again, taking Latin America as a base for such an argument, Brazil, in particular, has seen the increase in its domestic entertainment industry. Furthermore, Brazilian soap operas have been one of Brazil’s most significant products of exportation (Oliveira, 1995, p116) reaching all the continents. However, no mention of Brazilian imperialism is noticed. Additionally, a remarkable phenomenon took place in Brazil, when in 1973 a regional survey published that all the participants interviewed, including more than 23 million people in its polling declared watching the same Brazilian programme which indicates that for more than four decades local media corporations have been increasingly claiming a larger slice of this industry (Ramos, 1986, cited in Oliveira, 1995, p116).

It is somewhat challenging having to select which theory plays more relevance in our current scenario. However, I personally find the Propaganda Model and Media Imperialism the two most appealing theories for such an essay. Perhaps one could argue that both theories share a similar base and could arguably be an extension to one another. Furthermore, Chomsky explains his ideas in extreme details and draw a rather convincing argument of our current scenario where corporations careless exercise its power at the cost of the individual. It is crucial to highlight how concern one should be after concluding how well linked large corporations and governments are, most importantly or concerning of all, how such close links are exercised. Although this essay has focused on two theories, it is important to stress that all the theories mentioned above have somehow a connection between each other and, despite the idea that the world is well more connected than before the birth of the internet, it is also massively imported to mention that ‘more than 4 billion people still do not have access to internet’ nowadays (Luxton, 2016), consequently producing a massive division and inequality overall.

Bibliography:

Alfandary, P. (2015). The myth of globalization. Ted Talk, YouTube. Available from

[Accessed 09 November 2018].

Branston, G. and Stafford, R. (1999). The media student’s book, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Friedman, T. (2012). The world is flat. Center for international and regional studies YouTube. Available from

[Accessed 10 November 2018].

Hafez, K. (2007). The myth of media globalization. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Herman, E. and Chomsky, N. (1994). Manufacturing Consent. London: Vintage.

Luxton, E. (2016). 4 billion people still don’t have internet access. Here’s how to connect them. World Economic Forum. Available from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/05/4-billion-people-still-don-t-have-internet-access-here-s-how-to-connect-them/ [Accessed 08 November 2018].

McLuhan, M. et al. (2008). The Medium is the massage. London: Penguin.

Miller, J. (1971). McLuhan. Suffol: Fontana/Collins.

O’Byrne, D. and Hensby, A. (2011). Theorizing global studies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Oliveira, O. S. (1995). Brazilian soaps outshine Hollywood: is cultural imperialism fading out? In: Nordenstreng, K. and Schiller, H.I. (eds). Beyond national sovereignty: international communication in the 1990s. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Ritzer, G. and Stillman, T. (2003). Assessing McDonaldization, Americanization and globalization. In: Beck, U. et al. (eds). Global America? the cultural consequences of globalization. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Tunstall, J. (1977). The media are American. London: Constable.