Media imperialism is a theory stating that smaller countries are losing their identity due to the force-feeding of media from larger nations. It can be equated to small community shops closing down due to large superstores moving in, taking over and having a monopoly. As the larger media corporations begin to take over, smaller media companies are either being forced out or swallowed up.

The media coverage of the larger nations has been criticized as having blanket coverage of the world's events. The media content may be affected by the ability to control the content and amount of media coverage on a particular issue. Many think that media imperialism has led to biased information and inaccuracy within news stories.

Ads by Google

Best Media Courses...TV Journalist, TV Production, RJ. Call 098712-96662 for admit today.

masscomedia.comMass Communication Course1-year diploma after 10+2/ Gradu CRAFT film school-Delhi.Apply Now

www.log2craft.org

Media imperialism is not just seen internationally. When large amounts of media output are produced by just a few, or even one company, then this too is media imperialism. Countries such as Canada and Italy are often accused of media imperialism. A large amount of the media output in these two countries is controlled by just one company.

The problem with just one company or owner controlling the media is that media output can be biased. The owner can decide on what information is shown, as well as what to censor. This can sometimes come down to an influence from the country's government. Media imperialism has often been linked with a lack of freedom of information. A large number of 24-hour news channels have been found to be acting without regard to journalistic integrity. Some countries' governments will even be dictated to by large manufacturing companies. This is because a great amount of the country's wealth is brought in from these manufacturing companies. If there is any bad press about these companies, the company will simply move somewhere else.

Another large reason for the existence of media imperialism is due to advertising. Advertisers use media companies to promote their goods but will also lay down stipulations on the content of the media produced. The Canadian Broadcasting Company channel makes at least 25% of its income from advertising. The content of the broadcasting is down to its profits. Many programs shown in Canada are seen to not reflect the Canadian identity.

In Britain, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) operates its own form of media imperialism. The BBC has an annual television license that needs to be bought before you can own a television, regardless of whether you watch the BBC or not. It is similar to going shopping and one shop saying you cannot go shopping unless you pay us a certain amount of money, even if you do not shop with us.

The BBC's television license fee has caused much controversy over the years. If you do not pay the license, you can be fined up to 5,000 GB pounds (GBP). That is around 10,000 US dollars (USD). There are a number of channels available to watch on British television but only the BBC has the right to charge for theirs. It is not strictly thought of as media imperialism, as the content of the BBC is mainly British, even though it may not represent the multiculturalism present in Britain.

.In his discourse on "Cultural imperialism as 'media imperialism,'" Tomlinson stresses that the media are merely one fabric--though an essential one--in the vast patchwork of cultural domination.

According to Tomlinson, both Marxist and "pluralist" (non-Marxist) scholars tend to oversimplify the phenomena of media imperialism. He claims that the former, in their desire to adhere to rigorous

theories, invariably equate media with culture. To Marxists, Tomlinson writes, a deluge of exported Donald Duck cartoons or reruns of "Dallas" is tantamount to a willful and comprehensive manipulation of "dependent" or subaltern cultures. In contrast, he criticizes the pluralist scholars for erring to the other extreme--that is, they are too vague. He asserts that the pluralists, in an effort to steer clear of any preconceived or holistic notion of imperialism, have been too careful to avoid associating media exports with any overall trend or theory of domination.

In fact, Tomlinson writes, the truth about media imperialism lies somewhere in between the two schools of thought. He claims Marxists go too far in assuming that culture and media are interchangeable. He cites the research of Conrad Lodziak, who maintains that, while many people do watch a lot of television, that is not all that they do. In other words, the media comprise only part of one's culture. On the other hand, Tomlinson points out, to separate media imperialism from overall cultural imperialism is unrealistic

We live in a new world order: One where history according to Fukuyama, has supposedly come to an end with one dominant political, economic and cultural power superimposing itself on the rest of the world’s political, economic and cultural entities, both large and small.

But the new world order, arriving soon after the fall of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and making itself visible during the Gulf War, is really an extension of the old and familiar world disorder: one of social and economic parities, of wide gulfs and yawning divides, of colonialism and neo-colonialism and of cultural imperialism and its complicated but ever-present derivatives and manifestations.

Three distinguishable foundations support the new world order today, which is unmistakably and unequivocally led by the United States and all that it represents. These foundations are globalization (through the triumph of capitalism and the free market system); the information revolution (satellite TV, the Internet, the mobile phone) and last but not least media imperialism.

This trio of a single global economic system, an information outpour, and media monopoly is the driving force behind the new world order. Ironically, absent from all this are democratic values, human rights, rationalization of consumption, respect and care for the environment and equality among nations. It is a world order that was defied in Seattle some years ago and in Genoa more recently; criticized by thinkers and intellectuals, students and labor unions, but equally defended by governments and leaders as a good thing. So which is it?

Globalization as a world phenomenon began to gain credence as early as the 1960s. The great communicator Marshall McLuhan was among the first to popularize the term and point to its effect when he wrote in 1967 that "Time has ceased. Space has vanished. We now live in a global village…..a simultaneous happening." He talked about the arrival of a global culture; the homogenization of culture, of language, values and knowledge.

Critics from all over the world began to attack the concept referring to terms such as 'cultural imperialism', 'media imperialism', 'electronic colonialism' 'ideological imperialism' and 'economic imperialism'. The crux of all this is cultural imperialism in its widest definition; from economic and political principles to values and language, to the kind of food we eat, the clothes we wear, the books we read, the TV shows we watch.

In the 1970s the debate over cultural and media imperialism was so hot that it was the driving force behind the movement for a New World Information and Communication Order involving the UN and its various organizations. It tackled the great imbalance in the flow of information between the nations of the world.

This was a pre-CNN, MTV and internet world. One prominent British scholar J. Oliver Boyd-Barret defined media imperialism as "the process whereby the ownership, structure, distribution, or the content of the media in any country singly or together subject to substantial external pressures from the media interests of other country or countries, without proportionate reciprocation of influence by the country so affected." Other definitions followed, but the initiative to address the imbalance in the flow of information had never really taken off.

As in the 1970s, today the rich and mighty have the final word, the loudest voice, their message is the one that is being heard, seen and received. And while the debate continues until today, it has moved beyond media imperialism and more into the realm of the great divides that separate the rich from the poor, be they economic, social, digital or otherwise.

Proponents of globalization speak of social and economic equality, removal of trade barriers, jobs for the poor and an end to plagues in the form of AIDS, famine and regional wars. But that is not the case so far. Globalization also means economic domination, dilution of unique differences that distinguish each and every nation, the triumph of a universal culture and set of values over defenseless cultures, traditions, languages and value systems. It is not clear that globalization will bring prosperity to all, but it is definitely changing our lives at an ever-increasing rate.

Change is not all bad. The information revolution has empowered the common man, but what is knowledge without economic self-determination? Globalization does not mean the instant promotion of democracy and human rights. It is evident today that globalization does not lead to altruism when it comes to serving the political interests of the leading power or powers in the global era. The current US administration, the champion of globalization and its promised fruits, defies world will in areas of the environment (the Kyoto deal on global warming), regional disputes (Palestine, Iraq), nuclear proliferation and the arms race (the disputed missile defense initiative).

Today the debate oscillates between the issues of cultural imperialism, and what it entails to all societies rich and poor, and the problem of the digital divide which the information revolution is creating. But where does media imperialism falls? It is only natural that the economic superpower of the world is also the cultural and media superpower of our times.

This humungous assault on indigenous cultures is penetrating the very fabric of our social and economic existence. Some societies are putting up a fight, others like the Arabs, welcome globalization with open arms. We are passive participants in the great debate that is taking place today; conforming to the new realities and priding ourselves in embracing the new value system that is being dumped on us.

In the age of media imperialism the notion of the sovereign state is quickly disappearing. Satellite dishes are now a familiar part of our urban landscape, a sign of a new world where governments no longer have the undivided attention of their citizens. State-run media are yet to recover from the condition of paralysis that has left them with a dwindling audience. Even when they try to compete they soon discover their limits. How can they compete when competition requires transparency, freedom of expression and objectivity? It also requires a lot of money.

But while the liberation of local audiences from the yoke of centralized information, or disinformation, machine is a good thing in itself; it does not necessarily mean an end to information monopoly. Powerful conglomerates now control the most influential media empires--and empires they have become. Just look at the Time-Warner/AOL merger which brought together some of the most powerful and hottest print, cable and satellite TV, film, radio and internet media properties in the world under one roof.

'Cultural genocide'

Who is to compete with a multi-billion dollar media set-up such as this? The medium, as McLuhan had said, has become the message. With an audience of hundreds of millions, think of how powerful CNN has

become today. For the majority, the world is seen through the eyes of CNN. If CNN did not report it, then it didn’t happen. Again to quote Marshall McLuhan who put it so aptly: "Societies are shaped more by the nature of the medium by which men communicate than by the content of the communication." The driving force behind the propagation of cultural imperialism is the media. It is the vehicle which delivers new thoughts and ideas. Media imperialism is central to cultural imperialism. And media imperialism is not all about delivering news. It also brings foreign customs, fashion, lingo, food and others right into our living rooms. It certainly does not preclude the powerful entertainment industry from Hollywood blockbuster movies to the MTV music culture. At the top of the media pyramid sits television, without doubt the most powerful medium of mass domination ever invented. It has been called 'the instrument of cultural genocide.'

But how do media dominate? There is evidently a great imbalance in the flow of information between North and South. Almost 80 percent of the world news flow originates from the major news agencies of the rich North. One UNESCO report puts the ratio of information flow from North to South at 5 to 1. We have become passive and avid consumers of information manufactured and packaged in the West. In addition we are always the source of bad news. The South is where famine, civil wars, violence and wars take place, rarely there are good news coming from our neck of the wood.

We have become instant witnesses to events taking place around the world. This immediacy as seen in the brutal competition among satellite stations to deliver breaking news color our perception, and that of other recipients, of how the world looks like and what the issues are. Who is to say what the real story is in the Chechen or Afghanistan or Algeria for that matter? CNN’s role in the Iraq War will require volumes of research and study. Was CNN impartial in its coverage? Or did it play a major role in demonizing the Iraqis and justifying the American-led attack against it?

We are living the age of the conglomerates with their rich coffers and unlimited resources. How can local media compete against them? And then whose interests do media conglomerates serve? Are they really impartial, or are they part of the political game of influence and global domination? Pakistani media analyst GP SM Hali lists a number of 'techniques' used by conglomerate media to control their audience, among them: repetition of lies, opinions as fact, half truths, misleading headlines, biased photographs, censorship, wrongful attribution and of course yellow journalism which is after all a Western invention.

In the past decade we have seen a rapid parting from local and distinctive cultures, no thanks to the repetitive waves of cultural globalization. We have seen American fast food chains pop up in our cities, satellite dishes becoming permanent fixtures of our cityscape, mobile phones in the hands of teens, movie theaters parading Hollywood blockbuster movies….But this is only one side to globalization. In addition to the transfiguration of our social structure, our economic realities are changing too and so are our values and goals in life. We think we are becoming global citizens but we are not.

We still have unique problems to grapple with and they are not going away any sooner. The myth of the global citizen is just that: a myth. The reality is that we our identity is being diluted, our culture is under siege, our language rendered useless and archaic, our traditions and customs are being chased away.

The end of localization is also manifested in our media. Sooner or later locally owned media will become easy prey for the large conglomerates, and if they survive then they will have to conform to the dictates of global media ethics and traditions. CNN Arabia may soon make an appearance just as it did in Turkey, Japan and elsewhere and the medium will become the message.

Who knows what’s good and what is bad in all this. The information revolution has introduced new things, free access to information, appreciation for democratic values and pressured governments to become more transparent. But in the absence of local alternatives media imperialism is the only reality. Globalization comes as one package; you take it all or reject it all. So what do we do?

Maybe we are living in a global city, not village, with affluent neighborhoods on one side and slum areas on the other. Cultural domination has become a reality and media imperialism has been instrumental in promoting it. Can we accept the slow and imminent demise of our indigenous cultures as a sad fact of life? Some nations seem to resist this, even in the West.

As young westernized people we may find it difficult to come up with a straight answer, being in the eye of the storm ourselves. But if every action summons a reaction, if every thesis generates an anti-thesis leading eventually to some sort of synthesis, we may begin to understand the reasons behind the rise of fundamentalist and so-called reactionary movements in our region and elsewhere. We may begin to appreciate the reasons why we still see young men blowing themselves up to serve their cause, when their peers are busy chasing up the American dream.

For the time being we have to move from being mere passive recipients of the message to participants in its shaping

Media imperialism is a theory based upon an over-concentration of mass media from larger nations as a significant variable in negatively affecting smaller nations, in which the national identity of smaller nations is lessened or lost due to media homogeneity inherent in mass media from the larger countries.[1]

[edit] History and background

The Media Imperialism debate started in the early 1970s when developing countries began to criticise the control developed countries held over the media. The site for this conflict was UNESCO where the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) movement developed. Supported by the McBride report, "Many Voices, One World", countries such as India, Indonesia, and Egypt argued that the large media companies should have limited access to developing countries. This argument was one of the reasons for the United States, United Kingdom, and Singapore leaving UNESCO.

Later during the 1980s and 1990s, as multinational media conglomerates grow larger and more powerful many believe that it will become increasingly difficult for small, local media outlets to survive. A new type of imperialism will thus occur, making many nations subsidiary to the media products of some of the most powerful countries or companies. Significant writers and thinkers in this area include Ben Bagdikian, Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman, Armand Mattelart and Robert McChesney. However, critics have responded that in most developing countries the most popular television and radio programs are commonly locally produced. Critics such as Anthony Giddens highlight the place of regional producers of media (such as Brazil in Latin America); other critics such as James Curran suggest that State government subsidies have ensured strong local production. In areas such as audience studies, it has been shown that global programs like Dallas do not have a global audience who understand the program the same way (Tamar Liebes and Elihu Katz, The Export of Meaning: Cross-Cultural Readings of 'Dallas'. 2nd ed. Polity Press, 2004).

The United States' corporate media coverage of events has been seen to limit the freedom of the press. Integrity can be lost among media giants. This combined with the control and flow of

information reduces the fairness and accuracy of news stories. American news networks like CNN also often have large international staffs, and produce specialized regional programming for many nations.

Media Imperialism is not always an international occurrence, however. When a single company or corporation controls all the media in a country, this too is a form of Media Imperialism. Nations such as Italy and Canada are often accused of possessing an Imperial media structure, based on the fact that much of their media is controlled by one corporation or owner.

A media source which ignores and/or censors important issues and events severely damages freedom of information. Many modern tabloid, twenty-four hour news channels and other mainstream media sources have increasingly been criticized for not conforming to general standards of journalistic integrity.

In his book Media The Second God, Tony Schwartz, a television advertising specialist, states, “Godlike, the media can change the course of a war, bring down a president or a king, elevate the lowly and humiliate the proud, by directing the attention of millions on the same event and in the same manner.”

Media imperialism is at the moment of primary importance to all the states of the developing world. It is imperative that its various aspects are studied in detail.

Some fifty years ago, about the same time as Pakistan got its independence, George Orwell wrote his famous book Nineteen Eighty-Four. That classic novel with miraculous prescience depicted with a fair amount of accuracy, the events that were to unfold in the present era. In fact the thought control capacity of the powers that be has gone much beyond the Orwellian fancies and fantasies and we have been so conditioned by it that we take it for granted and believe in his slogan “ignorance is strength”.1

The tentacles of this brain washing machine of mass media of the developed countries are used to manipulate the developing world. To borrow again from ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’, the invention of print made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process further.

Orwell, goes on to predict that totalitarian regimes would rely on a ubiquitous “Oblong Metal Plaque Like a Dulled Mirror” to keep the citizens of Oceania brainwashed and obedient: “the instrument called television could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely”.2

His prophecy couldn’t be more correct for television is here to stay and cannot be shut off but like other means of communication it has alternate uses i.e. It can also be used positively. It is one of the most effective means of communication since it has access to nearly every home and reaches even the remotest corners. Thus whoever controls it has a very powerful instrument in his hand for he can channelize the very thoughts of people.

Media Imperialism can be discussed in four postulates:-3

Imbalances in North/South dialogue Influence of intelligence agencies Emergence of Conglomerates & Media Monopolies Propaganda and media warfare

Information plays a paramount role in international relations, both as a means of communication between people and as an instrument of understanding and knowledge between nations. However, in the North/South dialogue, this flow of information is characterized by the following basic imbalances:-

Quantitative Imbalance:- This imbalance is created by the disparity between the volume of news and information emanating from the developed world and intended for

the developing countries, and the volume of the flow in the opposite direction. Almost 80 percent of the world newsflow originates from the major news agencies of the developed countries while they devote only 20 to 30 percent of news coverage to the developing countries, despite the fact that the latter comprise almost three quarters of mankind. This results in a veritable de facto monopoly on the part of the developed countries. According to an UNESCO report, the ratio of information flow from north to south is 5:1 making us passive recipients. To illustrate this, statistics from Who’s on Time a book based on the study of Time’s covers from March, 1923 to January, 1977 reveals that publicity by this international magazine has been actually lopsided in favour of western countries in terms of sociological, economical and political issues as well as personalities. The given table4 indicates personalities from various countries of the world, which appeared on the cover of Time for the aforementioned period.

 

Inequality in Information Resources:- The five major transitional agencies monopolize between them the major share of material and human potential while almost a third of the developing countries do not yet possess a single national agency. There is inequality in distribution of the frequency spectrum. The former control nearly 90% of the source of spectrum. In respect to television, not only do 45% of the developing countries have no television of their own while they have to watch a large number of programmes produced in the developed countries.5 President Julius Nyrere of Tanzania once sarcastically remarked that the inhabitants of the developing countries should be allowed to vote in the US Presidential elections because of the bombardment of information regarding US Presidential candidates to developing countries through US controlled media.

TABLE PERSONALITIES FROM VARIOUS COUNTRIES APPEARING ON

TIME COVER COUNTRY NO OF PERSONS PERCENTAGE  

United States 2,294 68.80   Great Britain 193 5.80   Soviet Union 12 3.75  

France 85 2.50   Germany 82 2.40  

China 52 1.60   Japan 34 1.00   India 2 0.75

Saudi Arabia 5 0.15   Turkey 4 0.12  

Pakistan 2 0.06

There is de facto Hegemony and a Will to Dominate:- Such hegemony and domination are evident in the marked indifference of the media in the west to the problems, concerns

and aspirations of the developing countries, who are relegated to the status of mere consumers of information sold as a commodity like any other.

Lack of Information on Developing Countries:- Current events in the developing countries are reported to the world via the transitional media who filter, cut and distort their reports and impose their own way. At times they present these communities in the most unfavourable light, stressing crises, strikes, street demonstrations, putsches and calamities even going to the extent of holding them to ridicule.

The Survival of the Colonial Era:- The present-day information system enshrines a form of political, economic and cultural colonialism in which world events are covered only in so far as it suits the interests of certain societies; the criteria governing selection are consciously or unconsciously based on the political and economic interests of the transitional system and of the countries in which the system is established.

Alienating Influence in the Economic, Social and Cultural Spheres:- Other forms of hegemony include monopoly on advertising, opposing social evolution and transmitting to the developing countries messages which are harmful to their cultures, contrary to their values, and detrimental to their development aims and efforts.

Messages Ill-suited to the Areas in which they are Disseminated:- The news coverage of major mass media is designed to meet the national needs of the countries of their origin. They disregard the impact of their news beyond their own frontiers. They even ignore the important minorities and foreign communities living in their national territory, whose needs in matters of information are different from their own.

The imbalances have reached such a state that in a recent summit of UNESCO, when a new information order was presented stressing a change to correct the north/south imbalances, and providing an equal voice and share in the global village, USA, Britain and Japan walked out from the summit. They felt their monopolies threatened. Thus they not only stopped the order from being ratified. They have not renewed to-date their membership of UNESCO either.6

Influence of Intelligence

Realizing the importance of the influence of media, most of the important news agencies are either financed or backed by intelligence agencies or government sources the world over.7 Their resulting influence can be well gauged. Some prominent agencies are:-

K G B Controlled the Soviet agencies of TASS and pravda while Russian agencies continue to control TASS.

C I A has a major role in CNN while US Government finances AP. M I - 5 has a say in Reuters and BBC. R A W plays an important part in the entire ZEE network MOSSAD totally exploited the Robert Maxwell chains.

An example can be quoted from our own experience. After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, CIA prepared a list of countries in the region where possible reaction to the US arms build up in the Gulf could emanate. Heading this list was Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

It was decided that the best way to counter such an eventuality would be through massive doses of CNN. Although dish antennas are banned in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, yet tacit approval of the monarchy was obtained and the skyline of Saudi urban landscape changed nearly overnight. On the other hand, Pakistan not being an opulent society, could not afford dish antennas in bulk so a more cogent and macabre plan was conceived. STN, then known as PTN was launched. Equipment for receiving and relaying CNN was dumped in Pakistan at throwaway prices and CNN was beamed in every house possessing a TV set.8 The role of media during the operation Desert Storm will not be elaborated here as it is already well-known but suffice it to say that even the American public was duped as for the first time in American history, the US Government succeeded in controlling almost totally what the public would be permitted to know about the conduct of military operations. For months Iraqi warmight was blown out of proportion. Saddam the monster emerged with his tales of atrocities. His republican guards were built in hype.

Once actual operations commenced, reports of an inevitable, clean bloodless war and clinically administered surgical operations of laser-guided bombs dropped down the airshafts of designated military targets while mercifully sparing nearby schools, homes and mosques, were propagated. To achieve credibility, Peter Arnnett of CNN was stationed at Baghdad. His famous Al-Rashid Hotel first hand accounts of US Navy Tomahawk missile strikes on Baghdad are imprinted on everyone’s mind. Flashes of Patriot missiles streaking through the dark sky annihilating each and every incoming Scud missile were frequent presentations of CNN. This was dual purpose. The mighty military industrial complex of the west earned boosted sales to the Middle East and managed to off-load its obsolete hardware on a gullible market scared out of its wits and groping for survival.

For the first time the US Government demonstrated the means to black out the battlefield any time it chose, even in the presence of hundreds of representatives of the world press. When a television reporter while watching the take off of US fighters noticed an aircraft that appeared to be experiencing mechanical trouble, his satellite link was shut down by electronic counter measures.9

Emergence of Conglomerates & Media Monopolies

It was months after the war that the truth of the allies’ failure to destroy the total Iraqi war machine emerged along with the confirmation of numerous casualties inflicted by misdirected US fire, allied bombardment of bomb shelters causing the horrible deaths of hundreds of civilians and destruction of “Milk Powder Factories”. Peter Arnett of CNN’s reports from Baghdad gave the Iraqi regime a powerful instrument of propaganda.

On February 20, 1991 in a testimony before the Senate Committee on governmental affairs, retired U.S. Army Colonel Harry G. Summers, JR. denounced Arnett for “Treason” for “Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy”.10 White House accused Arnett of ‘Speaking for the Iraqi Government’ and Gen. Norman Schwarzkopk of “Aiding and Abetting an Enemy”.11

Green Peace has estimated that 2,500 to 3,000 Iraqi civilians died during the Air War and an additional 70,000 Iraqis died in 1991 alone because of deterioration in health and sanitation

conditions caused by the War.12 Now we know that fewer than 10 percent of the bombs used by allied forces in the Gulf war were smart weapons and that of the 88,500 tons of munitions dropped on Kuwait and Iraq, an estimated 70 percent missed their targets – by anywhere from a few feet to five miles. Experts have testified before Congress in 1992 that the much-vaunted Patriot Missile may have destroyed only one of the 90 Iraqi Scud missiles fired at Saudi Arabia and Israel. There is also substantial evidence that the Patriots not only failed to destroy a significant number of attacking Scuds, but also actually increased the amount of ground damage as they crashed on Israeli streets.13

Emergence of Conglomerates & Media Monopolies

Capitalist societies are ruled by economic and commercial interests. In such societies the power of media is used to influence and even distort the psyche of the people to make them consumption oriented.

The conglomerates in turn are serving the interest of corporates through their effective hold over the media. They aim to turn the third world countries into dumping grounds for those products that are banned or restricted in the West. Common examples are pesticides, cigarettes and injurious pharmaceutical products.

This state of affairs persists particularly in the developed nations including USA where 80% of the media is controlled by 13 conglomerates with massive media empires. Some of the famous media moguls are CNN/TIME WARNER BROS, Grahams, of Newsweek, Westing House which also owns NBC; Twentieth Century Fox which also owns Sony; Rupert Murdoch of Australia, who is whizword in US media; Kerry Packer of Channel 9 who owns 109 magazines.

Similarly in France, almost the entire press is owned by only four groups, which have a wide-ranging influence in the society and matters of national interest.14 In Turkey, every major newspaper has its own channel. To name a few, Hurriaye, Millia and Turkiya.

In Pakistan too, liberalization of government policies towards freedom of expression in the corporate sector has made certain newspaper groups very strong. Publishing houses of Jang, Nawa-e-Waqt and Dawn are no longer dependent on government advertisements and can survive the wrath of any regime. These groups are now so strong that they have adopted the role of ‘king makers’ in the country.

Mr A R Khalid, Professor, Department of Journalism, University of Punjab, in his book “Communication Today” 15 writes, “The fact is the Pakistani journalists are anything but human. Most of them are the worst breed of parasites. Instead of helping the nation they seem hell-bent to suck its blood, to strip it to the last drop and even to bargain national interests for the sake of personal aggrandizement. Their slogan about freedom is only a camouflage to squeeze personal benefits out of the state officials who spare no effort either to out-clever the journalists. Thus the media men in Pakistan should realize their responsibilities and try to discharge their duties to the satisfaction of the people and not to wangle the hypocritical favours of the rulers to secure lucrative advantages for themselves”.

A considerable portion of the Pakistani press is thriving on sensationalism. These newspapers and magazines often resort to defamation of prestigious institutions which includes the Pakistan Air Force. The modus operandi of these sensationalists is that they pick any small incident, often at the behest of some vested interest and blow it out of proportions in order to create sensation.

Media Warfare and Propaganda

One of the most effective means of warfare is through propaganda, which is an intricate science and a planned exercise to undermine the will of the people. The primary tool of propaganda is the media. Media warfare and propaganda are detailed subjects. Hitler had entrusted an entire ministry to Goebbles to achieve his ends. The Jews and Hindus are pastmasters at it. Machiavelli and Chanakya devoted volumes to the art of statecraft and deceit through propaganda.

Some of the techniques adopted through media to gain the desired effects are discussed below:-

Repetition:- ‘Repeat a lie so often that it appears to be the truth’ is an age old dictum and an effective tactic e.g. Jewish propaganda of 5 million Jews being executed in France alone has gained world-wide sympathy for them. A couple of years ago, a scientist calculated and mathematically proved that the figure could not exceed 80,000. The story was carried by ‘Liberas’ the French daily. The Jews were so infuriated at the shattering of the myth that the top 3 correspondents of the daily were sacked and the story was muffled.16

Opinion as a Fact:- By presenting one’s personal opinion disguised as a fact can easily mislead readers.

Half Truths:- Quoting out of context or presenting only one aspect of information is a favourite ploy of propagandists.

Misleading Headlines:- The headline writer can propagandize effectively since many see a headline but seldom read the story.

Biased Photographs:- Presenting best perspective of favourites and worst of undesirables.

Censorship:- Selective control of information so as to favour a particular viewpoint or editorial position and deliberate doctoring of information or totally disbarring certain undesirable information are certain forms of censorship to create a desired effect.

Wrongful Attribution or Testimonial Technique:- In which a journalist may attribute a statement to a veiled or vague authority to gain credence for an incorrect statement.

Yellow Journalism:- The term denotes scare headlines, superficial writing, faked pictures and interviews and encompasses all of the above. Originated from William Randolph Hearst - 1887 ‘Examiner’, ‘New York journal’- to gain circulation, he urged in 1900 war with Spain and succeeded in making this uncalled for conflagration with its resultant most unfortunate consequences.17

Conclusion

After the end of the cold war, the military industrial complex lost its might. With the roll back of the armed forces, the focus shifted to consumerism and market economy. Media imperialism gained fresh targets. However, the Warsaw pact countries have vast arsenals of armament.

Compelled by economic constraints, they are in search of markets to dump them and boost their sagging economy. Since the military industrial complex would no longer compete with it so it is attempting to eliminate the markets for such arms. This is being achieved by accepting some of the Warsaw pact countries under the control of NATO and secondly by propagating the reduction of defence budgets. Pakistan is at the moment in the eye of the storm of this media onslaught. Altruistically such move to reduce defence budgets would be welcome but unfortunately it is one sided. Pakistan has had to bear the brunt of such discriminations in the shape of Pressler Amendment. Such lopsided and discriminatory laws resulted from a successful media campaign launched to present Pakistan as a rogue nuclear power, governed by unstable fundamentalists and reeking of corruption.

Media has been playing crucial role in Indian society right from colonial to independent era. Indian

freedom fighters, includes extremists and moderates, widely used media to popularize Indian

nationalism and patriotism to rebel against British imperialism.Ramnath goenka of Indian Express

remained as icon of freedom of speech for his critically acclaimed articles on Indira Gandhi and

Amabanis. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech to media by granting autonomy and

independence in publishing news content. Media has been misutilising the constitutional right by

making no difference between  advertisements and editorials by coining a new phrase ‘advertorials’,

particularly in Andhra Pradesh. Here,the  clones of Goebbels  have been using media as a propaganda

device  for their concentration of political and economic power.

In Andhra Pradesh, media emerged as a profitable business. There are 10+ news channels across

Andhra Pradesh and been acting as affiliations to various political ideologies and parties. Now, media is

trying to surpass and side track Telangana agitation. One week ago, one news channel tried to defame

Governer Tiwari by publishing pictures of  body massage  done by teen girls as sexually molested.

Now, TV5 channel broad casted controversial news item on Russian based magazine ‘The Exile’

allegations on Ambani’s (Mukesh Ambani & Anil Ambani) role in the death of Y.S Rajashekara Reddy in

air crash. Immediately Sakshi and Tv9 followed Tv5 and broad casted controversial news items on

baseless rumours.I immediately googled about ‘The Exile’ magazine, to my surprise I learnt that it is a

B graded magazine which has no credible news network which published  YSR death conspiracy in the

very September month. The so called magazine has been banned in Russia and updating from

American soil with mediocre columnists and journalists by sensationalizing rumors and fantasies

disregarding ethics and moralities.

Excess violence evoked across Andhra Pradesh and people have been vandalizing all the available

reliance outlets and cell towers. Congress leaders across Telangana and Andhra regions called for

Bandh in protests of alleged rumours. Is this is the responsibility of MLA’s and MP’s to take such idiotic

and utter foolish mid night decisions from non reliable news items. The only available solution for this

kind of crisis is to terminate and ban all the channels which ignored the very foundations, duties and

responsibilities of media.Will this so called channels are ready to pay the damage done in vandalizing

and destroying the reliance properties across Andhra Pradesh? They must pay for their negligence and

over anxiety which costs crores of rupees.This news must have been pampered by capitalists and

politicians to dilute the issue of Telangana slogan and also to drive to presidential rule for their political

interests.

16. 01. 2004

India Shining and the Western Media: Lessons from China

Guest Column-by Hari Sud.

Last six months were good for the Indian economy.  The economy had recovered from the scanty rainfall syndrome of the previous year and was showing a robust outlook.  I was in Delhi in October/November of 2003 and saw signs of progress in industrials, building activities, telecom, BPO, Software Engineering; food grains etc. Out of this, Telecom was making big news at that time.  Two telephone groups representing two different technologies were having an open fight for the future of wireless phone system.  The government stepped in by re-licensing the new comer and ended the dispute. Later, statistics released proved that Indian public has taken wireless phone to their heart, literally.  About 2 million phones are sold every month, making India a huge market for telecom.  Data released in late December, proved that Indian economy has been growing at an astonishing rate of 8.4% for the last six months and Foreign Exchange reserves had surpassed $100 Billion.  

All these statistics and general feel good atmosphere lead the Finance Minister to make his famous statement – “India Shinning”.  The local media in India went ecstatic with the news. Editorials, feature articles and newspaper columnist wrote upbeat stories on the status of Indian economic. 

The Western press did not miss the above news.  Almost all news services in the world carried articles about India and the economy.  On December 28th, when I was returning from Bahamas, I happened to glance over a copy of a British Newspaper during the flight.  It had a feature article on India and Indian economy.  But the headline was misleading. It started with saying that Indian economy prospering ….., but right from the first paragraph it had very little Indian in it.  Instead, it sang praise of the Chinese achievements and compared them to India. The writer was failing to find words to say anything nice about India. On the other hand China was being praised left and right.  Similar sentiments were being echoed in The Toronto Star and other local newspapers in Canada.  

On the web, I found similar articles in The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time, and Economist.  

Then I wondered – What has India got to do to get a bit of a positive press.  Why is the positive press a monopoly of China only?  

As the days passed I decided to research China and its relationship with the West a bit more.  I present below some of my findings about China and its relationship with the West in last 50 years in a summary format. 

A.  China & the West and Chinese Economic Revival in 20 Years 

China entered into the Western (more specific US) conscience in 1950-52 when a very backward nation, poorly equipped, almost hungry but proud, beat up the mighty United States of America in Korea.  About 35,000 US servicemen lay dead and another similar number injured.  A Great War mongering General of USA had been humbled and the Korean peninsula divided forever. An aftermath of this American debacle in Korean wasteland resulted in US taking notice of the existence of China as a force to reckon with, but mostly in a negative sense.  Subsequent 20 years were spent in finding fault with everything Chinese and brandishing nuclear weapons at them until America was bogged down in Vietnam. US President Richard Nixon decided to make peace with China in 1973 in order to hasten the end of the Vietnam War.  In return he promised a bounty, unheard off by the Chinese.  The Chinese leaders very quickly agreed. It took several years to work