THE CONCEPT OF GLOBAL MEDIA

By

CATHERINE OBY NWANDU

BSU/MAC/Ph.D/15/7314

COM: 901 Seminar in Global Media and Cultural Domination 

Department of Mass Communication

Benue State University Makurdi

obykatelyn.gmail,com, 08066267618

Abstract

Global media is a term used to describe medium or channels of communication as tools used in connecting and sharing of media content across borders. Global media are characterized by media giants across the world who are increasingly becoming sophisticated with technology that aid transmission and distribution of media artefacts and content. This paper discussed global media with examples of global media, vehicle of global media including cable and satellite television. Also, the paper focus on global media and globalization.

Keyword: Global media, transnational media networks global discourse and cable and satellite TV

Introduction 

Globe media refers to the spread and interconnection of production, communication and technologies across the globe. According to Iosifidis (2016), argued that global media have been drivers in the new globalised environment characterized by free trade and free flow of information, technological advancements and technologically mediated communication and new institutional arrangements. The complexity of the media networks and communications companies involved in the global scene and the speed of their expansion on an international scale is unprecedented. Iosifidis (2016) further maintained that the complexity of global media network has put pressure on the existing regulatory framework which is perceived to be inadequate to address issues in a fast-moving globalised world. One such issue concerns the shift in state sovereignty to the international level in media regulation resulting from increased trade and new technologies. According to Raboy (2007), media issues are increasingly transnational, and hence require international interventions and fresh regulatory mechanisms of various types to shape them and drive their development and social responsibilities. Unlike the national media systems where the rules governing the media were more straightforward in general terms (there are cases, especially in the Mediterranean countries where media regulation has been unclear), the emergence of a global media system brings with it increasing calls to apply new rules or reform the existing ones. In fact, globalization denotes a shift from the nation-state to the global when it is applied to media policy-making (Iosifidis, 2011; Mansell and Raboy, 2011).

However, these notions about the media’s pertinent role in globalization processes have also been fiercely challenged by quite a few media scholars, who instead emphasizes the continuing stability and centrality of the nation-state paradigm. National propaganda is often present in transnational media as well, not least in CNN, as are stereotypical and negative depictions of the “others” (Hafez, 2009; Thussu, 2003). Given the existence of obstacles such as language barriers and the “digital divide,” which separates the “haves” from the “have nots” with regard not only to communication technology itself, but also to the skills necessary for using it, there are no real signs of a media network with the ability to constitute a global public sphere (Hafez, 2007).

Conceptual Clarification 

Global media

Global media is a term used to describe medium or channels of communication as tools used in connecting and sharing of media content across borders. Global media are characterized by media giants across the world who are increasingly becoming sophisticated with technology that aid transmission and distribution of media artefacts and content. According to Lyons (2009) the primary vehicle of the phenomenon of global media is the multinational corporation. Media globalisation has aided in both the production and distribution of information. Rai and Cottle (2007) aver that global media are harnessing satellite technology’s ability to broadcast acrossborders, regions and even continents, 24-hour news channels have transcended former barriers of geography and territory that encumber terrestrial television news. Apart from television news, commercial entertainment from media conglomeration, concentration, and commercialisation of Western nations according to McChesney (1997) function as the analytical point of departure – restricting the interest to the shape and structure of transnational media institutions. 

Examples of global Media 

According Jan (2009), global of media is not a term of global nature. As Sparks (2000) has argued, no media is genuinely global in nature. In addition, the so-called global media’s audience is ‘too small, too rich and too English-speaking to be considered inclusive.’ There is little evidence that supports the existence of a global public sphere and the public sphere remains largely state-oriented. There is no question that all these globalizing trends are made possible with the help of mass media at both the domestic and international level.

This process of” global media is often portrayed as a positive force which is unifying widely different societies, integrating them into a “global village”, and enriching all in the process. It is variously described as an inevitable by-product of human evolution and progress, as if it were an organic process, governed by the laws of nature (Jan, 2009). However, globalization is not necessarily a natural progression emerging out of the ordinary communication and interaction of people and cultures around the world. Rather, it results from deliberate human choice by a powerful group of nations, transnational corporations (TNCs) and international organizations which have stakes in the process. The new communications and information technologies have provided methods for large corporations to maximize profits by entering foreign markets.

As Jan (2009), argued that twenty years ago people talked about Americanization of media in the world. Today people talk more about globalization because it is apparent that although American media play a prominent role in the global scene, media industries from a number of other countries are also heavily across the world. A handful of firms dominate the globalize part of the media system. The six largest are AOL, Time Warner (U.S.), Disney (U.S.), Vivendi-Universal (French), Bertelsmann (German), Viacom (U.S.), and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation (Australian). The other four main global firms are AT&T (U.S.), Microsoft (U.S.), and two media groups that are part of much large industrial corporations: General Electric/NBC (U.S.) and Sony/Columbia/ TriStar (Japanese) (Variety, 2002). Of the top 10 global media firms, then, six are American (counting News Corporations as Australian), mostly produce, distribute, and regulate almost all media outlets. These types of companies were growing and globalizing quickly. Time Warner and Disney generated around 15 percent of their income outside of the United States in 1900, a figure that rose to 30-35 percent by 2002. Behind the top global firms is a second tier of three of four dozen media firms that do between $1 billion and $8 billion yearly media-related business. These firms tend to have national or cultural linguistic stronghold or to specialize in specific global niches, as the BBC specializes in news. About half are American (Gannet, Advanced, and Comcast). Most of the rest come from Europe (Hachette, Havas, EMI, Reuters, and BBC) or Canada, and a handful are based in East Asia (NHK, TVB, Fuji, Asahi, Chinese, Central TV) and Latin America (TV Globo, Televisa, Clarin/Argentina).

Some media industries such as the Hollywood films and TV studios represented by the Motion Picture Association of America have long been global in their operation and scope. They control a number of companies in other that distributed and exhibited (in theaters) the films that they produced in the United Sates. More recently, the owner of Hollywood itself has become globalize, as we have seen. The resulting operation has been scrutinized by critics to see whether the kinds of films produced by Sony will now reflect Japanese rather than American sensibilities. No real change has been found (Griffin, & Masters, 1997). Universal studios were sold to, Vivendi of France, which also had trouble absorbing it, leading to a major internal conflict in 2002 within Vivendi over how far to globalize. Record companies are similarly structures except that they have a more diverse set of origins and an even more international ownership. Major recording companies are based in Great Britain (Thorn), the Netherlands (Philips), Germany (Bertelsmann-BMG), and Japan (Sony). These companies have consolidated across borders. Philips now own Polygram (formerly of the United Kingdom), and Vivendi-Universal now owns RCA (formerly of the United States), and Vivendi-Universal now owns MCA (formerly of Matsushita-Japan, originally U.U.), and AOL Time Warner owns EMI (formerly of Great Britain). Most of these companies also have large foreign branches that often produce and distribute records within other markets as well as distribute American and European music. As record companies have also been acquired by multinational companies, these firms have become more global and less national in characters. Still, there are some important distinctions in the ways that various media are organized around the world.

Cable and Satellite Television

Global media contents are predominately channel through cable or satellite television, which has been familiar to most Americans, Canadians, and some Europeans for years, is now expanding in most other countries of the world. Direct Broadcasting Satellite (DBS) or Direct-to-Home (DTH) started in Japan and Britain and has readily spread to many other countries, often spanning the borders of neighboring countries. By the 1990s, cable systems and the private satellite TV channels to feed them were blossoming in Europe, Latin American, and Asia. These cables systems delivered what is for the most part a one-way expansion of new video channels, especially U.S. cable channels into these new markets. A number of channels quickly became global in reach: CNN, MTV, HBO, ESPN, TNT, Nickelodeon, the Cartoon Network, Discovery, Disney, and others began to dell their existing channels in these countries or even to translate and adopt their U.S. channels to the languages and cultures of the new audiences (Straubhaar & LaRose, 2004). A number of cable channel and DBS services started with a more specific language or regional target. Some European channels focus on news, music, sport, films, children’s shows, and other targeted programming. One satellite television service in Asia, Star TV owned by Rupert Murdoch, originally targeted the whole of Asia with American (MTV, film), European (BBC, sports), and Chinese-language channels. It has since begun to target more specific markets such as India, Taiwan, China, South Asia, Indonesia and Japan, with more localized programming, such as its own adoptions of the music video format and more language-specific programs. Satellite TV and cable television are beginning to expand in Latin America and the Middle East. Again channels exported from industrialized nations (CNN, BBC, MTV, and so on) are popular, but several nations (Brazil, Hong Kong, Egypt, Mexico, Saudi Arabia) are developing their own satellite television channels aimed both at national audiences and neighbors within the same cultural linguistic markets. For example, the Qatar Channel Al Jazeera has aimed to provide regional news to the Middle Eastern regional market of Arabic speakers. By covering the U.S. war against Iraq in a way that gave considerable coverage to Iraqi civilian casualties as well as providing pro-Palestinian coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Al Jazeera has won many viewers in the region, as well as conflict with Western governments, who found that they have little leverage over it. Other countries began to use Al Jazeera footage as a news source.

Some others countries moved into fully digital television and cable TV before the United States. Japan and some European countries were operating broadcast digital TV each in 1998, and British Sky Broadcasting in Great Britain, owned by Murdoch, initiated 140 channels of fully digital TV in 1998. Like the latest cable systems in the United States, some systems in both developed and developing countries are beginning to offer two-way information services. For instances, the government of Singapore has offered broadband information services to almost all residents for several years.

Global Media and Globalization

Global media has largely been driven by the interests and needs of the developed world (Grieco and Holmes, 1999). This is not unconnected with the fact that world developments have been increasingly characterized not by their growth dynamics but by their links to the process of globalization. Hence, the overwhelming character of globalization has made it compelling for some scholars to use various aspects of the global economy as units of analysis (Woods, 1988, Tussie, 1994, Cerry, 1994, Krugman and Venables 1995, Tebin and Estabrooks, 1995, Biersteker, 1998, De Vet, 1993, Kahler, 1993; Dunning, 1998; Obadina, 1998, Madungu 1999, Colle, 2000, Ohuabunwa, 1999, Otokhine, 2000). 

Looking specifically at economic globalization, it can be measured in different ways. These centre on the four main economic flows that characterize globalization: Goods and services, e.g. exports plus imports as a proportion of national income or per capita of population

Labor/people, e.g. net migration rates; inward or outward migration flows, weighted by population Capital, e.g. inward or outward direct investment as a proportion of national income or per head of population Technology, e.g. international research & development flows; proportion of populations (and rates of change thereof) using particular inventions (especially 'factor-neutral' technological advances such as the telephone, motorcar, broadband)

As transnational media network, global media is seen as cross-border communication technologies such as the internet, mobile phones, and satellites have contributed to the deterritorialization of space over the last decades, and transnational media networks and news services such as CNN, BBC World News, FoxNews, and Al- Jazeera have entered and transformed the media landscape. In a dialectic fashion, these media are believed both to constitute and to be constituted by globalization, transforming understandings of time and space (Chalaby, 2003; Thompson, 1995). Due to their deterritorialized nature, diverse audiences, and independence of any national loyalties, arguments about their ability to loosen up distinctions between domestic and foreign have been pursued:

“The cross-border coverage of transnational television networks, their multinational audience and international production operations tear apart the relationship between place and television and challenge the traditional relationship between broadcasting and the nation-state.” (Chalaby, 2003: 457)

Global broadcasting corporations not only provide people with a better understanding ofglobal politics (Chalaby, 2003), they also offer new journalistic styles and formats able totransgress the nation-state outlook and, in a dialectic relationship with national news angles, give rise to new horizons for political identity and citizenship (Volkmer, 2003). Accordingly,transnational media have been attributed the potential to constitute a global, or at least atransnational, public sphere (Chalaby, 2003; Volkmer, 2003).

The idea that transnational media networks are able to move beyond the nation-stateparadigm has, however, not escaped criticism. Hafez (2007) argues that there is not enoughempirical evidence of a media system that could accurately be described as “global” in the sense of enhancing the possibilities of a global public sphere. On the contrary, the majority of empirical evidence points in the direction of reinforced stability of the nation-state paradigm. Information and news may be transnational in character, but the media in fact still are, to a considerable extent, local and national phenomena. In times of war, Western propaganda is also present in transnational media, as are polarizing perspectives of “us” and “them” and stereotypical depictions of the “other” (Hafez, 2007; Thussu, 2003):

Today’s international exchanges of images and information, it seems, are no guarantee for global intertextuality in news, for growing awareness of ‘the other’s’ stories and perspectives, and for an increased complexity of world views in the mass media and beyond. (Hafez, 2009: 329)

Even though CNN, as the topical case in point, under regular circumstances does contribute various “global” perspectives and viewpoints, it is extremely sensitive to Americanpatriotism and displays bias in times of military conflicts in which the US is involved, such asthe 2003 Iraq war (Hafez, 2009). Not even the communication technology most associated with cross-border communication, the internet, has according to Hafez (2007) proved to fulfil this expectation. Most people use this technology locally – to communicate with people in their nearby surroundings – not to engage in cultural interaction across nation-state borders. Furthermore the necessary technological means are far from being globally diffused; “no electricity, no internet,” as was pointed out by Sparks (2007b: 152). The nation state paradigm is, according to this view, as powerful as ever before and has, in several respects, even gained in importance. Hafez (2007) illustratively labels this viewpoint in the field of global media studies “the myth of media globalization,” and Sparks (2007a) dismisses the entire theoretical framework of globalization arguing that current developments are better explained as part of the continuing capitalist and imperialist expansion (Nohrstedt & Ottosen, 2001).

The scepticism surrounding global media is far from new. The well-established field ofinternational communication, based on the political economy tradition, has a long history ofpersistently arguing that global media are in fact best described as Western (or American) media, at most of global scope (e.g. Herman & McChesney, 1997; Schiller, 1993). The central argument of these scholars is that escalating media conglomeration has led to a notable Western (American) bias both in terms of ownership and with regard to the distribution of media products. The media achieve their global characteristics as a result of purchases made by a small number of Western-, predominantly US-based multinational media giants, who distribute their products – permeated with neoliberal values and Western lifestyles – all over the globe. Even the “glocalization” that takes place when cultural products are tailored to fit a specific local market is viewed as a commercial strategy and as such nothing more than yet another sign of cultural imperialism (Sparks, 2007b). The rise of competing nonwestern media networks such as Al-Jazeera notwithstanding, the westernizing tendencies of global media have not been eliminated since the power of western, and particularly US dominated media networks such as CNN, is not only restricted to their own large-scale activities; they set the agenda also for other networks (Thussu, 2003).

Thus, claims about cultural imperialism and cultural homogenization have been made, and warnings have been issued about the democratic dangers that surface when it is no longerpossible to hold media institutions accountable to political regulation at the nation-state level. The prospects for democracy do not seem any brighter if we add the argument that active citizens, due to the commercial logic of global media, over time transform into pure consumers in Western-dominated markets (e.g. Herman & Chomsky, 1988; Herman & McChesney, 1997). The consequences of the ravages of seemingly global media, it is alleged, are harmful both to indigenous cultures and to democracy. In this fashion global media counteract rather than promote a global public sphere, and contribute to the maintenance and stability of Western (US) dominance.

In this research tradition, media conglomeration, concentration, and commercialization have functioned as the analytical point of departure – restricting the interest to the shape andstructure of transnational media institutions – and claims about media effects have been madewithout much analytical attention being paid to the actual reception and use among locallysituated audiences. As a counterbalance to this macro-perspective, the research field of culturalstudies has instead focused on the micro-dimension of global media (e.g. Barker, 1999; Crane2002; Tomlinson, 1999). Instead of viewing the impacts of global media as a one-way processthat completely erases local cultures, scholars within this research tradition emphasize processes of cultural “creolization” (Hannerz, 1996) or “hybridization,” i.e. the creation of completely new cultural expressions in the encounter between different cultural forms: “Most forms of culture in the world today are, to varying extents, hybrid cultures in which different values, beliefs and practices have become deeply entwined.” (Thompson, 1995: 170, emphasis in original) The idea of the “active audience,” quite capable of negotiating and opposing media information, has been a guiding principle in cultural studies. Suggestions have even been made (though not uncontested) that the opportunities to “pick and choose” cultural forms due to the rapid development of communication technologies and the creative hybridization that follows, will most likely lead to new and improved conditions for global dialogue (Lull, 2007). Thus, cultural studies have to a considerable extent problematized the idea of the homogenizing effects of global media and questioned the cultural imperialism thesis of the international communication field. The perspectives accounted for above are fairly well established in the research field ofglobal media. The main arguments of international communication and of cultural studiesrespectively are frequently discussed in the literature (e.g. Rantanen, 2005), as are the “globalist” and the “sceptic” perspectives (e.g. Cottle, 2009). Despite their conflicting opinions when it comes to the media’s relation to globalization, the “globalists” and the “sceptics” share at least one basic viewpoint on global media, namely that the proper objects of study first and foremost are those media whose global nature is defined in terms of geographic reach. The discourse perspective that will now be discussed takes a somewhat different stance towards this assumption.

Commenting on global media as global discourse, Berglez (2008) argued that the discourse approach to global media proposed here does not direct specific attention to the geographic reach of the media, but focuses primarily on the very epistemology of the global. As pointed out by Cottle (2009: 28) in his discussion of the principle paradigms structuring the field of global media studies, it is necessary to go beyond the paradigms of “global dominance” and “global public sphere,” since these approaches to global media fail to explain how issues such as crises of different kinds are mediated and constituted in practice and how they, through their formation in the news media, achieve their “global” characteristics: “Global crises are principally constituted epistemologically as ‘global crises’ through the news media where most of us get to know about them and where they are visualized, narrativized, publicly defended and sometimes challenged and contested.” (Cottle, 2009: 165, emphasis in original) Admittedly, local or national crises, such as 9/11, the 2010 flooding in Haiti, or the 2011 Egyptian revolution, need the connectivity that a cross-border communication infrastructure provides in order to become known, more or less simultaneously, to people around the globe. But, to achieve their global features – to become global crises, involving people and generating action across the world – they are entirely dependent on discursive constructions of them as such. Extending this line of argument, when studying the production of knowledge about the global it is necessary to acknowledge national media as equally important objects of study as any media of transnational reach. As Robertson (2008) argues, the issue of media globalization is an empirical question, and the assumption of most authors that global broadcasters are, or at least should be, more inclined to produce global outlooks than national broadcasters, must be empirically demonstrated rather than axiomatically asserted. In the debate on global media, however, national media, which doubtlessly still are the media that most people turn to, are most often dismissed as not significant knowledge producers concerning the global due to their inclination to depict the world according to nation-state logic (Altmeppen, 2010; Hafez, 2007, 2009). This logic saturates much of their contents, not least in the form of what Billig (1995) terms “banal nationalism,” a national mode of reporting which makes the world orbit around the nation-state, and in terms of taken-for-granted conceptions of the world as constituted by self-governing national “islands” rather than being a complex transnational network (Berglez & Olausson, 2011). In national media the domestic and foreign worlds are, by tradition, separated, and the nation-state becomes disconnected from the rest of the world (Berglez, 2007). At best, relations between the domestic and foreign are constructed through the domestication of foreign events, i.e. by the addition of a national angle to the story from “outside” in order to make it more relevant to the national audience as it is perceived (Clausen, 2004; Gurevitch et al., 1991; Riegert, 1998).

This tendency of national media to reproduce and maintain nation-state discourse andidentity must of course be acknowledged. However, the national outlook should not be viewed as totally precluding other, transnational or global outlooks on the world. As suggested by Volkmer (2003), national media are to an increasing extent influenced by transnational media style and formats. Furthermore, and even more importantly, due to the globalization of risks such as climate change, and conflicts such as transnational terrorism or the Global War on Terror (as labeled by George W. Bush), national discourse is constantly (and perhaps to an increasing extent) challenged by transnational or global discourses That strive for the hegemonic position (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985). It is thus not a question of either national or global discourse but both and, with national and local views functioning in interaction with transnational or global outlooks (Beck, 2006).

In a similar fashion, Hjarvard (2001) suggests that the possible emergence of a global public sphere should be viewed in terms of both-and; the transnational communicative space thathas come into existence through the development of transnational media should be seen as asupplement to national public spheres. The globalizing tendencies of politics, economics, and culture have put the national public sphere under constant pressure, as has the increasing connectivity with other national public spheres. This will ultimately lead to what Hjarvard labels a “global reflexivity,” since fewer and fewer topics can be dealt with without including information from “outside.” In this way, national public spheres will gradually become deterritorialized through the “increased presence of global connections within the national framework” (Hjarvard 2001: 24, emphasis added). Like Hjarvard, Cottle (2009) emphasizes the media’s ability to provide…

…a transnational and global perspective on a problem that both migrates across and transcends national frames of reference or explanation, exposing international interconnections, contextualizing motives and exploring both the scope of the problem and its human consequences(Cottle 2009: 100, emphasis added).

The issue of whether or not the media are capable of displaying global or transnationalconnections is pivotal to the discourse approach to global media suggested here. Globaldiscourse in the news media is, as argued by Berglez (2008), characterized by the depiction of connections – including antagonistic ones – between people, processes, events, and phenomena at the local, national, transnational, and global levels. This focus on interconnections between various geopolitical scales makes the global news style quite different from the traditional foreign news style, which primarily reports from one nation to another without displaying any connections between the two (Berglez, 2008). If a global discourse is present, the most local (in terms of geography) of all media might be labeled “global” (in terms of discourse), providing a global interpretative framework by linking national and transnational identities or positioning a local event in a global context or vice versa. 

Thus, the decisive criterion of global media, from a discourse theoretical perspective, is the ability to display complex and often subtle connections between various geopolitical scales.These relations do not have to be of the “objective” or realist kind to be acknowledged asbuilding blocks of a global discourse. More precisely, a global discourse does not have tocomprise “real” relations of causality, motives, and interconnections, for instance that it is the carbon dioxide emissions of the First World that is the cause of the extreme droughts in the Third World. The connections displayed in media discourse could also be of a purely constructivist nature, i.e. be the “creations” of media logic itself. The inherent characteristics of news media, such as their preference for dramatic and emotionally charged reporting (perhaps occasionally also supplemented with the journalist’s deliberate intent to incite action among citizens) sometimes lead to the emergence of a global discourse that involves interconnections between people across vast distances. A telling example of this kind of global discourse, building on pure constructivist connections, is the “globalization of emotions” (Cottle, 2009: 99) that the media have engaged in over the last decades in relation to human suffering caused by wars or naturaldisasters. As noted by Nohrstedt (2009, cf. Shaw, 1996), there has been an increasing tendency in the news media to display the “true face” of war, i.e. the casualties and human

Conclusion 

This paper widens our understanding of the globalization of media in terms of media organizations. It signifies the circle of ownership, media markets, advertisers and, leadership in the culture sphere because core countries dominate the culture of the periphery. However, globalization is not necessarily a natural progression emerging out of the ordinary communication and interaction of people and cultures around the world. Rather, it results from deliberate human choice by a powerful group of nations, transnational corporations (TNCs) and international organizations which have stakes in the process. The new communications and information technologies have provided methods for large corporations to maximize profits by entering foreign markets. The work lined up with skeptical approaches and argued that the process of globalization and governance does not lead to a weak state. It can be argued that the role of the state is increasing rather than diminishing. Indeed, states are involved in constant interaction with other players of international society such as civil society and businesses in order to produce greater integration, social cohesion and consensus-based world politics. The most significant shifts in economic globalization and the rise of multinational enterprises are heavily dependent on state support in order to provide an environment of smooth functioning.

References

Altmeppen, K.D. (2010). The Gradual Disappearance of Foreign News in German Television: Is there a Future for Global, International, World or Foreign News?, Journalism Studies, Vol.11, No.4, pp. 567–576.

Beck, U. (2006). Cosmopolitan Vision. Polity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Berglez, P. & Olausson, U. (2011). Intentional and Unintentional Transnationalism: Two Political Identities Repressed by National Identity in the News Media, National Identities, Vol.13, No.1, pp. 35–49.

Berglez, P. (2008). What is Global Journalism? Theoretical and Empirical Conceptualisations, Journalism Studies, 9 (6), pp. 845–858.

Biersteker, T.J (1998), "Globalization and the models of operation of major institutional Actors" Oxford Development Studies, 20(1): 15-31.

Billig, M. (1995). Banal Nationalism, Sage, London, United Kingdom.

Cerry, P.G. (1994) "The Dynamics of financial globalization technology, market Structure, andpolicy response" Policy Sciences Vol 27, pp 317-342.

Chalaby, J. (2003). Television for a New Global Order: Transnational Television Networks and the Formation of Global Systems. Gazette, Vol.65, No.6, pp. 457–472.

Clausen, L. (2004). Localizing the Global: “Domestication” Processes in International News Production, Media, Culture and Society, Vol.26, No.1, pp. 25–44.

Cottle, S. (2009). Global Crisis Reporting: Journalism in the Global Age, Open University Press, Maidenhead, Berkshire, United Kingdom.

De Vreese, C. H. (2007). The EU as a Public Sphere, Living Rev. Euro. Gov., Vol.2, No.3. Available at: www.livingreviews.org/lreg-2007–3.

Grieco, M. And Holmes, L (1999) "Tele Options for Community Business: an opportunity for economic growth in Africa" Africa Notes (October) pp1-3.

Griffin, N., & Masters K (1997). Hit and Run: How Jon Peters and Peter Guber took Sony for a ride in Hollywood, New York: Touchstone Books.

Gurevitch, M., Levy, M. & Roeh, I. (1991). The Global Newsroom: Convergences and Diversities in the Globalisation of News, In P. Dahlgren & C. Sparks (eds), Communication and Citizenship: Journalism and the Public Sphere in the New Media Age, pp. 195–216, Routledge, London, United Kingdom.

Hafez, K. (2007). The Myth of Media Globalization. Polity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Hafez, K. (2009). Let’s Improve “Global Journalism”! Journalism, Vol.10, No.3, pp. 329–331.

Hannerz, U. (1996). Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places, Routledge, London, United Kingdom.

Hjarvard, S. (2001). News Media and the Globalization of the Public Sphere, In S. Hjarvard (ed.), News in a Globalized Society, pp. 17–39, Nordicom, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Iosifidis, P (2016). Globalization and the Re-emergence of the Regulatory State. In T. Flew, P. Iosifidis, J. Steemers (2016) Global Media and National Policies: The Return of the State (16-31). New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Iosifidis, P. (2011) Global Media and Communication Policy (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan).

Jan, M (2009). Globalization of Media: Key Issues and Dimensions. European Journal of Scientific Research, 29(1): 66-75

Krugman, P. and Verables, A.J. (1995) "Globalization and the inequality of Nations" Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 110(1): 857-880.

Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. Verso, London, United Kingdom.

Lull, J. (2007). Culture-On-Demand: Communication in a Crisis World, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., London, United Kingdom.

Mansell, R. and M. Raboy (2011), ‘Introduction: Foundations of the Theory and Practice of Global Media and Communication Policy’ in R. Mansell and M. Raboy (eds.) Handbook of Global Media and Communication Policy (London: Routledge), pp. 1–20.

Obadina, T. (1998) "Globalization, human rights and development", Africa today (October) pp32-33

Ohuabunwa, M. S.I. (1999): the Challenges of Globalization to the Nigerian Industrial Sector" Nigerian Tribune December 14, PP. 20 - 21.

Otokhine, E. (2000): Internet Strengthens Cultural Imperialism" The Comet, August 23, P. 21.

Raboy, M. (2007) Global Media and Communication (London: Routledge).

Riegert, K. (1998). “Nationalising” Foreign Conflict, University of Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.

Robertson, A. (2008). Cosmopolitanization and Real Time Tragedy: Television News Coverage of the Asian Tsunami. New Global Studies, .2 (2): 3.

Straubhaar,J., & LaRose, R (2004). Media Now: Understanding Media, Culture, and Technology. Thomson: Wadsworth: pp. 480-498.

Tebin, H.M. & Estabrooks, M. (1995) "The globalization of telecommunications: study in the struggle to control markets and technology" Journal of Economic Issues Volume 29 Numbers 2.

Thompson, J. B. (1995). The Media and Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Thussu, D. K. (2003). Live TV and Bloodless Deaths: War, Infotainment and 24/7 News, In D. K. Thussu and D. Freedman (eds), War and the Media: Reporting Conflict 24/7, Sage, London, United Kingdom.

Tussie, D.1994. "Globalization and Word Trade From Multilateralism to Regionalism" Oxford Development Studies 26 (1): 32-46.

Variety, R.E (2002). Variety’s global 50. www.variety.com

Volkmer, I. (2003). The Global Network Society and the Global Public Sphere. Development, Vol.46, No.1, pp. 9–16.

Volkmer, I. (2008a). Conflict-related Media Events and Cultures of Proximity. Media, War & Conflict, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 90–98.

Volkmer, I. (2008b). Satellite Cultures in Europe: Between National Spheres and a Globalized Space. Global Media and Communication, Vol.4, No.3, pp. 231–244.

Woods, N (1988) "Editorial’ Introduction Globalization, Definitions Debates and implications" Oxford Development Studies vol 26 No 10 pp 8-23.