GLOBAL COMMUNICATION

1. Discuss why international media wants to control the global flow of information.

Because globalization has as much to do with the corporate structure of a media company as
with the products that a media company produces, vertical integration in multinational media
companies becomes a necessary aspect of studying globalized media. Many large media
companies practice vertical integration: Newspaper chains take care of their own reporting,
printing, and distribution; television companies control their own production and broadcasting;
and even small film studios often have parent companies that handle international distribution.

A media company often benefits greatly from vertical integration and globalization. Because of
the proliferation of U.S. culture abroad, media outlets are able to use many of the same
distribution structures with few changes. Because media rely on the speedy ability to react to
current events and trends, a vertically integrated company can do all of this in a globalized
rather than a localized marketplace; different branches of the company are readily able to
handle different markets. Further, production values for single-country distribution are basically
the same as those for multiple countries, so vertical integration allows, for example, a single
film studio to make higher-budget movies than it may otherwise be able to produce without a
distribution company that has as a global reach.

2. Discuss on the effects of media ownership on press freedom.

State and government owned media are under direct state or ruling party control and may
therefore tend toward favoring incumbent parties or candidates. Privately owned (whether
corporate or otherwise) media may be independent, but may also serve the political interests
of their proprietors. Media ownership also affects the voters’ right to information. Voters’
access to information on elections is limited in some countries by poor diversity of media
ownership.
 3. Why is it that the affiliation between journalism and politics is considered to be a two
way street by a number of scholars who have studied this discourse.

This is because they both have to gain something from the other, for instance their Roles and
responsibilities:

In democracies, the role of the journalist is supposed to be to inform the public debate so that
the audience can make educated choices. The role of politicians is supposed to be to represent
those who elected them and to ensure that the concerns of that electorate are listened to,
considered, and, where appropriate, acted upon. In such a political system, the journalist
should act on behalf of the audience to ensure that politicians do their job. The journalist
should be exploring and covering the issues that most concern their readers and listeners. In
doing so they should include a diversity of voices and political opinions in order to offer the
richest and most complete coverage possible. If they achieve that, they are more likely to offer
journalism that enhances understanding and encourages dialogue and debate.

According to some sources, there are two types of media: informational rich, which are the
elites who seek information from a diversity of elite specialist media, political elites also pay
attention to the media to monitor what coverage they receive, and issue that journalists place
onto the public agenda. And information poor, that is voters. In this case politicians deploy the
mass media to communicate with voters. Most voters are almost entirely dependent upon the
mass media for information about the political process, candidates and issues.

What is clear is that the relationship between journalists and politicians can have a significant
impact on the functioning of a fair and just society. Politicians make decisions and take action
on behalf of the public. Journalists scrutinize those decisions and report the implications to the
public.
To understand the relationship between the media and politics, it’s important to look at the
various dynamics that can exist between a journalist and a politician.

1: The hunter: Tracks politicians down relentlessly. Follows any trail. This journalist never gives
up until they have their prey. They are driven and won’t believe the politician, even when the
politician is telling the truth. The hunter journalist can often lack perspective and objectivity.
Their contribution to enhancing the understanding of the audience is questionable.

2: The activist: Committed to a cause and will fight any politician who is against that cause while
supporting any politician who backs the cause. This journalist can be blinkered and one-
dimensional. They find it hard to be objective because they realise that offering another
perspective may weaken the angle they wish to push. The activist journalist enjoys being seen
as the martyr and often risks becoming the story rather than covering the story. The question
has to be asked, can an activist be a journalist and can a journalist be an activist – highly
unlikely.

3: The buddy: Becomes a close friend to the politician and rarely questions their position, often
taking the stance that the politician is right regardless of any evidence to the contrary. This
journalist will do the politician a favour, but will have limits – usually when they think they will
be found out. However they will always be ready to lend a hand when needed if they feel that
their coverage might benefit the politician and themselves. The buddy journalist is easily
manipulated.

4: The possession: Owned by the politician through compromise and over-familiarity. They
probably lost their journalistic integrity at an early age. Likely to publish anything the politician
wants with no questions asked. This journalist is little more than an unpaid member of the
politician’s public relations team. They enjoy name-dropping and being seen as connected to
the influential.

5: The party member: Does his or her best to hide their allegiance, but can’t help it showing
through in their tone, story choice and their ability (or inability) to ask the searching question.
The party member journalist will spend a lot of time rubbishing the political opinions of those
with whom they disagree. They can be spotted by their enthusiasm for a story that other, less-
compromised, journalists fail to see. They will defend that story choice against all logical
reasoning.

6: The comfortable: The “I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine” journalist. Their view is why
fighting when you can both have a profitable and easy life? Who will know? This journalist sees
their job as a 9 to 5 chore that serves only to provide the means to exist. Usually enjoys fine
wine and good food. Is available to all parties to woo. The comfortable journalist sees this as
being fair, impartial and objective.

7: The constructive journalist: Manipulated by those who fear probing, rigorous and skeptical
journalism? Pressured into self-censorship due to senior and peer-group pressure to take a
positive view of news. This could lead to the “constructive journalist” becoming little more than
a public relations machine having been stripped of their role in scrutinizing, questioning, and
holding the powerful to account. The constructive journalist allows those with something to
hide to keep their secrets and becomes a messenger for those who are setting the
‘constructive’ and ‘positive’ news agendas.

8: The true journalist: Free from party ties, has integrity and can’t be bought, is passionate
about informing the public debate, seeks the truth, reports objectively and fairly, and includes
multiple perspectives even including those they dislike. Is prepared to investigate all they hold
dear. Sees nobody as being beyond reproach and is realistic about human nature. The true
journalist seeks the truth.
 References

Boyd-Barrett, Oliver “Media Imperialism Reformulated” in Thussu, Daya (ed)

Electronic Empires – Global Media and Local Resistance, London: Arnold, 157-177

Castells, Manuel (2000) The information age: economy, society and culture, vol 1:

The Rise of the network society, 2nd edition, Oxford: Blackwell

Curran, James and Park, Myung-Jin (eds.) (2000) “Beyond Globalization theory” in

De-Westernizing Media Studies, London: Routledge, 3-19

Featherstone, Mike (eds) (1990) Global Culture – Nationalism, Globalization and

Modernity

Held, David, Goldblatt, David, McGrew, Anthony and Perraton, Jonathan (eds)

(1999) Global Transformations: politics, economics and culture, Cambridge: Polity

Press

Herman, Edward S. And McChesney, Robert W. (2004) The Global Media – the

New Missionaries of Corporate Capitalism, London: Continuum