Media imperialism is an area in the international political economy of communications research tradition that focuses on how "all Empires, in territorial or nonterritorial forms, rely upon communications technologies and mass media industries to expand and shore up their economic, geopolitical, and cultural influence." In the main, most media imperialism research examines how the unequal relations of economic, military and cultural power between an imperialist country and those on the receiving end of its influence tend to be expressed and perpetuated by mass media and cultural industries. In the 1970s, research on media imperialism was mainly concerned with the expansion of US-based news and entertainment corporations, business models, and products into postcolonial countries as related to the problems of communication and media sovereignty, national identity formation and democracy. In the 21st century, research on media imperialism probes the whole gamut of the media, for example, how an Empire's global economic, military and cultural expansion and legitimization is supported by "the news, telecommunications, film and TV, advertising and public relations, music, interactive games, and internet platforms and social media sites." For the past seventy years, media imperialism research has been undertaken by a wide range of international communication and media studies scholars, North and South. Some of the key researchers in this area are: Oliver Boyd-Barrett, Luis R. Beltrán and Elizabeth Fox, Ariel Dorfman, Thomas Guback, Cees Hamelink, Dal Yong Jin, Armand Mattelart, Robert W. McChesney, Tom McPhail, Toby Miller and Richard Maxwell, Tanner Mirrlees, David Morley, Graham Murdock, Kaarle Nordenstreng, Herbert I. Schiller, Dallas Smythe, Colin Sparks, Daya Thussu, and Jeremy Tunstall.
History of the concept The concept of media imperialism emerged in the 1970s, although earlier developments laid the groundwork for its formulation. In 1961, the Non-Aligned Movement was established by states that were not formally aligned with any major power bloc. These countries advocated for a “middle course” in global communication, seeking greater autonomy for developing nations within the international media system. During the 1970s, political leaders, media practitioners, and intellectuals in postcolonial countries increasingly criticized the concentration of ownership and control held by Western, particularly American, media corporations over global communication networks. At the time, there was a significant imbalance in the flow of news, with information predominantly moving from developed Western countries to the developing world, reportedly at a ratio of approximately 10:1. In response, representatives from postcolonial nations proposed the NWICO at UNESCO as an effort to address these structural inequalities. Supported by the Many Voices, One World, countries such as India, Indonesia, and Egypt argued for policies that would strengthen national communication systems and protect cultural sovereignty. They emphasized that control over media and information was closely tied to broader goals of political independence, economic development, and cultural identity. NWICO aimed to promote a more balanced flow of information, enhance the sovereignty of national media systems, and encourage cultural diversity. However, the proposal faced strong opposition from countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, which supported the principle of a “free flow” of information and market-based communication systems. Critics of NWICO in the West argued that it could lead to restrictions on press freedom, while supporters contended that the “free flow” principle primarily reinforced existing power imbalances. Amid these tensions, the United States and the United Kingdom withdrew from UNESCO in 1985, citing concerns over censorship and limitations on press freedom. The NWICO initiative gradually declined thereafter. The United States later rejoined UNESCO in 2002 under the presidency of George W. Bush.
Key theorists and concepts
Herbert I. Schiller In Mass Communication and American Empire, Herbert I. Schiller emphasized the significance of the mass media and cultural industries to American imperialism, arguing that "each new electronic development widens the perimeter of American influence," and declaring that "American power, expressed industrially, militarily and culturally has become the most potent force on earth and communications have become a decisive element in the extension of United States world power." In his 1976 book Communication and Cultural Domination, Schiller conveyed the very first definition of cultural imperialism, describing it as:
the sum processes by which a society is brought into the modern [U.S.-centered] 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 centres of the system. The public media are the foremost example of operating enterprises that are used in the penetrative process. For penetration on a significant scale the media themselves must be captured by the dominating/penetrating power. This occurs largely through the commercialization of broadcasting.For Schiller, cultural imperialism refers to the American Empire's "coercive and persuasive agencies, and their capacity to promote and universalize an American 'way of life' in other countries without any reciprocation of influence." According to Schiller, cultural imperialism "pressured, forced and bribed" societies to integrate with the U.S.'s expansive capitalist model but also incorporated them with attraction and persuasion by winning "the mutual consent, even solicitation of the indigenous rulers." In some ways, Schiller's early definition of cultural imperialism is akin to Joseph Nye's more recent idea of soft power in international relations. The historical contexts, iterations, complexities, and politics of Schiller's foundational and substantive theorization of cultural imperialism in international communication and media studies are discussed in detail by political economy of communication researchers Richard Maxwell, Vincent Mosco, Graham Murdock, and Tanner Mirrlees.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
