Misinformed America:
Public Media Consumption and Perceptions of the Modern World System
Charlene Haskin
Submitted to the Faculty of the Sociology and Anthropology Department at the University of La
Verne in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of:
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN SOCIOLOGY
Advisor: Fatima Suarez, MSc.
May 2014
Misinformed America
2
Abstract
Modern development of communication technologies have allowed for widespread exchange of
information worldwide. Similar interactions have been identified to be characteristic of a complex
dynamic between nations referred to as the World-System. Discussed originally by Wallerstein (1974,
2004), the World-System is composed of the capitalist world-economy and the interstate system. These
aspects compose the political and economic interactions within the World-System. The Hegemon
dominates these dynamics, and it is currently the United States. Information about this system is passed to
the citizenry of the world by way of the media. The media itself is dominated as well by few corporate
powers, which are controlled by and forward the interests of the governments that support them
(McChesney and Nichols 2000). The current study attempts to identify a relationship between media
consumption and World-System perception accuracy by posing the following hypotheses: (1) The type of
media source an individual consumes most often impacts the accuracy of their perception of international
interactions within the World-System; (2) As an individual’s education level increases, personal accuracy
of the World-System also increases; (3) As accuracy of World-Systems issues increases, the hegemonic
citizens’ perceived ability to impact these problems decreases; (4) As World-Systems accuracy decreases,
the hegemonic citizens concentration on American problems increases; and (5) As World-System
accuracy increases, an individual’s opinion of the United States as the hegemon decreases. A non-random
snowball sampling technique was used to distribute a four part survey conducted online. Institutional
Review Board approval was granted and data was collected for one month. Participants completed and
electronically signed a consent form. A total of 100 participants submitted data that was used in SPSS
analysis to correlate variables. Seventy-five participants (75%) identified as being female, 15 (15 %)
participants identified as male, nine participants (9%) were transgender. Most hypotheses were not
supported statistically except for the final hypothesis, which supported a significant correlation between
World-Systems accuracy and an individual’s opinion of the United States as hegemon (p=0.021).
Misinformed America
3
Literature Review
Technology and communication in the modern age of Globalization have expanded the
boundaries of social interaction to not only locally, but also globally. As relationships, dynamics
and even conflicts cross borders, which simultaneously precipitate complicated power dynamics
between nations over time; it has been a daunting task to identify consistent theoretical
viewpoints to explain these each of the nuances of global social interaction. However, countless
academics have explored a variety of theoretical frameworks to profile the globalized social
environment of contemporary societies. Research of this scope touches on the historical
evolution of this modern system and also attempts to define characteristics of it. Furthermore, the
modern world-system as described by Wallerstein (1974) himself is a fundamentally changing
system where the roles of the multiple of actors within are constantly adjusting to the needs and
demands that the system presents.
Throughout this constantly changing dynamic, significant empirical research suggests
that each actor plays a vital role not only with the maintenance but also with the efficacy of the
system. These actors have been identified as states that operate within an exchange system:
individuals and corporate or multinational firms that operate to make capitalist profit;
international governing bodies that attempt to serve the purpose of regulating this exchange; and
also individuals and corporations that absorb the benefits (although unequally distributed) of the
constant maintenance of this system (Wallerstein 1974).
Through the development and study of this research it is undeniable that the current
framework of the globalized world presents benefits as well as detriments, distributed to
individuals and states based on their role and placement amongst the power dynamic of the
world economy. This power hierarchy itself has many defining features and currently stands with
Misinformed America
4
referenced core nations holding the most power (Wallerstein 1974). Furthermore, the United
States post World War II has continually maintained (although this is currently arguable) the
position of “super-power” or as described by theorists, hegemony (Sanderson 1999). This role
requires many responsibilities, which includes the ability to create and maintain relationships
with other powerful actors within the system; including but not limited to global governance
bodies and multi-national capitalist corporations. These relationships fundamentally ensure the
profit initiatives and power positions of the United States in the global realm. In the process of
maintaining these intentions, the United States itself has not always acted in a way that ensures
the rights, protections and even distribution of wealth and advantages of globalization to all parts
of the world. Executing political and military power when necessary, the United States has a
notorious global reputation for doing what it takes to maintain this hegemonic position.
Moreover, it is the goal of this proposed research to identify the perception of hegemonic
citizens of their states’ actions within the world-system. In particular, this study attempts to
gauge the American perspective of the world system and the hegemon. In doing so, it is obvious
that the most important influence in shaping the information and perception of global interaction
is the media. Moreover, this research will encompass a comprehensive analysis of the media
consumption (i.e. common media sources and mediums, how often this information is being
accessed and how accurate an individuals perception of international issues is based on these
influences); of the average American (defined by the purposes and limitations of this project as
being a generally educated, American citizen residing currently in Southern California); how the
individual views the legitimacy or accuracy of this information; and whether or not this has
impacted their opinion of the United States and its actions within the world-system. In order to
tackle this task preliminary research is needed to develop a comprehensive background on each
Misinformed America
5
of these variables. Significant areas of literature to consider include: theoretical framework of
globalization, world-systems and related theories, core leadership and hegemonic relationships
with multi-national corporate firms and global governing bodies, and also the globalization,
consumption and dominance of global and American media and its role as an individual actor
within the world-system.
Theoretical Framework:
An Introduction to World-Systems and Globalization Theories
Social science research has no doubt affirmed the gravity of global expansion and
dynamics within the relationships of global exchange. However, it seems the research pertaining
to this information is as diverse and broad as the spectrum of the world itself. Theories
associated to Immanuel Wallerstien and his identification of the “capitalist world-economy”
specifically relate to the interaction between states, the power dynamics created with capitalist
intent and the roles and effects of each individual feature of the contemporary system. This
theoretical groundwork has led to the modern expansion of each of these features into nuanced
ways of explaining not only the historical development of this system, but also the current
features and future outlooks.
To begin, empirical research and observation is often committed to explaining the
historical processes, ideologies and influences that have led to the creation of the present
condition, and while it is important to understand the evolution of the world economy and its
power dynamics, the scope of this information is far too extensive and complicated to be related
to the specificity of the goals of this project and its research. Regardless, critical analyses of the
modern world-system are often explained in the literature complimenting the historical study of
the topic. In one such instance, an analytical publication by Sanderson (1999), uses empirical
studies to outline the historical development of the modern world-system (as defined by advance
Misinformed America
6
theoretical research by aforementioned Wallerstein) from essentially the beginning of time
ending in a collective summation of the characteristics that have developed to be features of the
of the modern system. Specifically described are two “complementary pillars” which are the
capitalist world-economy (to be explained in greater detail by citations of Wallerstein’s writings
specifically) and the interstate system (181-182).
Further discussion outlines three interacting zones that make up the economic exchange
within the system, as well as the power dynamic between nations. These zones are defined as
“the core [which] consists of those nation-states that dominate the world economy,” noted as the
“most economically developed zone” (182). With supplementary zones being the periphery,
which is the least developed and very bottom of the power distribution and receives the least
economic rewards, and a middle ground zone, which “combine[s] elements of core and
peripheral economic activity” to be appropriately named the semi-periphery (182). These zones
are the defining feature of the modern world-system and currently have expanded with the
exceptional influence of the process of modern globalization, to include almost every country
and area of the world.
Sanderson formulates a generally distinctive theoretical analysis by describing four
outstanding “characteristic relationships” the three zones carryout within the world-system. The
most relevant of these interactions is the power supremacy of the core encompasses the means of
production as well as, “superior political and military power” which the core in turn uses “to
dominate and exploit both the semiperiphery and periphery” (183). Although this is not
necessarily a novel concept, its identification as a primary feature of the modern world-system
deserves particular attention.
Misinformed America
7
Identified previously, the world-system does not solely operate as an exchange or
development of economic pursuits. The aforementioned complimentary pillar to the economic
perspective is referred to as the “interstate system” which is the collective political interactions
of nations and governments operating within the system (185). The significance of the
development of nations’ governmental systems independent of the dynamics of the world-system
has often been disputed by other theoretical perspectives, but nevertheless, the importance of
individual governing bodies is critical to the survival and continued expansion of the current
system (185). This political “pillar” will be explained in further detail in succeeding remarks.
Furthermore, the basic characteristics of the modern-world system are defined by global
economic and political social interactions.
The previously defined elements of economic zones of the world system are a simple
skeleton of the complex interactions, exchanges, and detailed features of these zones and the
system as a whole. As previously mentioned, the modern world-system as a development of
historical processes “is and has always been a capitalist world-economy” (Wallerstein 2004:23).
Wallerstien asserts that both the aspects of capitalism and the term world-economy should be
viewed as constantly interconnected but also considered individually.
By first specifying that a world-economy has been defined as “a large geographic zone
within which there is a division of labor and hence significant internal exchange of basic or
essential goods as well as flows of capital and labor,” Wallerstien alludes to the exchange that is
referenced so freely be researchers (23). It is the active pursuit and exchange primarily of goods
that not only inspires continual capitalist interaction, but also has led to the inclusion of almost
all of the world’s nations and people in this exchange. However, the inclusion and unification of
Misinformed America
this process is characterized by the global division of labor that assigns and perpetuates the
position that states hold within the world-system (23-24).
Moreover, the second aspect of the world-economy is that it is a global system of
capitalism, but “only when the system gives us priority to the endless accumulation of capital”
(24). This is evident when considered that not only do “people and firms [accumulate] capital in
order to accumulate still more capital, a process that is continual and endless” but this goal is
powerfully enforced by “structural mechanisms by which those who act with other motivations
are penalized in some way” with the potential of being alienated from the system as a whole
resulting in only more substantial detriments (24). It is the effective cooperation and integration
of these elements that has led to the continuance and maintenance of this system. Also, dually
noted is the lack of an agreeable or comparable form of political control or cultural practice that
would allow for the creation of a world-empire or dissolve into singular entities due to the
unification and dependence of production resources and the division of labor distributed
throughout the system (24).
In addition, Wallerstien identifies specific actors that engage within the capitalist worldeconomy and describes their fundamental importance and role and gives an in depth idea of the
complexity of the modern world-system while explaining how although complex and broad, can
be felt at the most individual and personal levels.
The basic institutions [of the modern world-economy] are the market, or
rather the markets; the firms that compete in the markets; the multiple
states within the interstate system; the households; the classes; and the
status groups (24).
Each of these institutions performs a certain function within the world-system; whether it be
engaging as a competitor within the exchange of capital within the system (firms), reproducing
and following the structure set forth by a specific ideology to reinforce the processes of albeit
8
Misinformed America
9
unequal capitalist “development” (households) or even accepting and engaging with the role and
position that one has been assigned as a result of national power or economic success (status
groups) (24-39). Of these institutions, the most vital and influential are markets, firms and the
states comprising the interstate system.
The market is an established feature of a capitalist economy. Just as these capitalist
practices and ideas have reached the entire globe, so too have the markets that decide the
economic traffic within the world-economy. It is definable as “a concrete structure in which
individuals or firms sell and buy goods and a virtual institution across space where the same kind
of exchange occurs” (25). The market is not specific to the exchange of military goods, but also
the value associated to commodities, capital and labor. Markets are not and can never “function
fully and freely” because this would eliminate the competitive nature that fuels capitalism and
the constant search for newer, better and cheaper ways to sell production within markets for a
capital gain (25-26). The competition within the markets is supported by the strength and
political clout of the government, which supports a certain firm operating within the market.
Legal processes, including the development of patents, have allowed for the development of
“quasi-monopolies”. Patents are a primary establishment that allows powerful capital
competitors to solidify global markets in their favor:
State restrictions on imports and exports (so-called protectionist measures)
are another. State subsidies and tax benefits are a third. The ability the
ability of strong states to use their muscle to prevent weaker states to
create counter protectionist measures is still another (26).
The institution of these measures globally have proven to be effective means of solidifying
capital development for certain individuals operating within the market, while simultaneously
creating enough competition to prevent the system from failing.
Misinformed America 10
Additionally, the competitors within the market of the world-economy as primary
generators of production and capital have regularly been associated with governments in order to
sustain a form of political power (28). This political influence, while subjecting the groups to the
potential criticism of governments the world over, also allows for the perpetuation of inequality
and the capacity of the states associated with them, or competing against them. Specifically, “the
strong states, which contain a disproportionate share of core-like processes, tend to emphasize
their role of protecting the quasi-monopolies of the core-like processes” whereas, “the weak
states are usually unable to do very much to affect the axial division of labor, and in effect are
largely forced to accept the lot that has been given to them” (28-29).
The preliminary feature of inequality and skewed distribution of capital rewards within
the modern world-economy is a fundamental issue that begs the question as to why significant
challenge to this system has not become a more prominent issue and also, how the system
remains so stable even with this imbalance. Evidenced by historical data, “prior to the modern
era, world-economies were highly unstable structures which tended either to be converted into
empires or disintegrate” (Wallerstein 1974:348). The particular strength of this system then, is
that as each actor has gone out of its way to engage or attempt to engage with the potential
national success of the world-economy, it has itself broadened to a size larger than any single
political entity can manage to control (348). Therefore, it has not become a world-empire
because of the relationships between political entities and it has not collapsed because of the
promise that this type of economy has for the wealth and development of each nation
individually, regardless of the currently “skewed rewards” (348).
An important aspect of the distorted distribution of the rewards (and opportunities) of the
contemporary world-economy is that the global division of labor is so substantial that it is “not
Misinformed America 11
merely functional—that is, occupational—but geographical” meaning that “the range of
economic tasks is not evenly distributed throughout the world-system” (349). As supported by
Sanderson (1999: 200), geographical location and immersion within the world-system plays a
critical role in the occupational and economic tasks of each area and zone.
This is particularly the case in the advantaged areas of the worldeconomy—what we have called the core states [in these areas] the creation
of a strong state machinery, coupled with national culture, serves both as a
mechanism to protect disparities that have arisen within the world system,
and as an ideological mask and justification for the maintenance of these
disparities (349).
Furthermore, the division of labor has become a foundational element, not only for continuing to
guarantee the success of certain areas, but also the perpetuation of the disadvantaging of others to
obtain this opportunity.
Conclusively, mirroring many aspects of Marxian proletariat versus bourgeoisie
literature, the relationships between those in control of the sources of capital and the means of
producing said capital are in constant competition with each other in order to continuously gain
surplus capital. The firms that act as the competitors within the markets of the world-economy
develop relationships with powerful states allowing for the maintenance of their success within
the world-system as well as continuing those governments’ control over the core processes that
generate the best and the most economic success and continued global influence. Furthermore, it
is these relationships and the processes used to enforce them (patents, state restrictions, etc.) that
perpetuate the unequal distribution of the benefits of the world-economy in the favor of core
nations sacrificing peripheral states ability to also enjoy these rewards. The division of labor
which is a result of the allocation of capital gain as well as access to capitalist enterprise, then
becomes associated with the geographical, cultural, and political authority of the state with
Misinformed America 12
which an individual or firm associates. This expands the class divisions of labor and access to
resources to a global platform where they continue to grow in disparity and severity.
Issues and Potential Crises Associated with World-System Inequality
It is beyond question, theoretically, empirically or otherwise that there is a currently
pressing issue within the current dynamic of the world-system. The inequality between nations
and its citizens and their effective inability to achieve or even access the processes of economic
prosperity associated with capitalist development has become widely recognized. Furthermore,
the potential and outlook for attacking and alleviating the problem of world-system inequality
are current topics of discussion among theorists and researchers of many perspectives and
disciplines.
Regardless of the fact that the inequality of the world-system seemingly impacts almost
every facet of life in general, from poverty and malnutrition to resource depletion and ecological
damage, there seems to be incredible obstacles to correcting the ills of the contemporary world.
Primarily, the applications of the term inequality itself “are not arbitrarily fixed, but rather the
outcome of political and ideological ‘struggle for definitions’” (Giesen and Nobre 2010:339).
Effectively, the culturally appropriate and diverse forms of inequality and the issues associated
with it have changed through development to comprise a “unifying substratum” that
encompasses not only material distribution of goods, but also “political or moral issues […]
culture, gender, environment, education, race, or social esteem” (339). Review of historical
trends reveals that the world-system is no stranger to change, in that there have been periods of
prosperity and improvement as well as subsequent crises for any given area or zone of the system
deepened significantly by the interconnected nature of the world-economy (340). General
assessment of the recent trends and dynamics of the world-economy and the inequality it
Misinformed America 13
perpetuates stipulates a current and future risk, and despite the claims to the stability of the
modern world-system made by Wallerstein and others, noteworthy concerns have been raised
overtime by both developing and developed nations.
Characteristically, we have seen that “for many new states […] formal sovereignty and
decolonization based on the principle of self-determination and access to international
institutions did not result in more international equality”(340). The implementation and
development of global governance and enforcement bodies including the United Nations (UN),
World Bank (WB), World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Monetary Fund (IMF)
have often acted with policy responses which have supported a decreased focus on specific
issues of alleviating poverty and inequality and rather equated these occurrences to an individual
area’s poverty situation to “their state apparatus and the inefficient allocation of available
resources, not because of the unjust structure of the world-system (342-343). Subsequently, as
certain alternatives to the capitalist structure collapsed (socialist movements promote individual
state sovereignty) overtime, social movements became more complex to encompass a
multiplicity of social problems or injustices and attack them from “more offensive positions, like
the one based on ‘identity politics’, for instance” (344-345). The complexity of issues associated
with contemporary social movements has only led to an increased amount of global inequality
and a consequently greater uncertainty, efficacy and desire for international governance bodies to
nail down legitimately appropriate and successful solutions or plans of attack to alleviate global
inequality (346).
Core Leadership and Global Governance:
Colliding Interests in Favor of the Hierarchical System
A unique and sustaining aspect of the modern world-economy is the inherent lack of a
single governing body to regulate and control the exchanges, dynamics and distributions within
Misinformed America 14
the system. However, as posed by the evidence cited by Giesen and Nobre, the inequality within
the system and the burdens associated with the affects have led to the somewhat recent
development of international bodies that have been recognized by developed and developing
nations as being somewhat legitimate ways of instituting some sort of international public policy.
Furthermore, the power and facets of the world-economy are divided between these international
forums to continue to decentralize the power of a single entity. However, within the dealings,
policies, relationships, and operations of these organizations to date, it is clear that they serve a
primary interest and that is to support the initiatives of core leadership while still engaging the
cooperation of the rest.
The stability of the contemporary world-economy is relatively similar today, to the
hierarchy that emerged after World War II. It has been managed and dominated by the powerful
state zones, but due to the recent era of change and transition, they have grown weak. Regardless
of the present challenges “international institutions are committing themselves to maintaining the
old hierarchical order, even in the face of its ineffectiveness of dealing with new challenges and
problems” (Woods 2000:387). Within the current system that exists, international institutions
serve as a checkpoint specifically for developing nations to apparently be included in the policies
and strategies of the world-system. This inclusion has never been directly correlated with the
complete dominance of the will and power of larger, more wealthy states over the more
underdeveloped areas “rather, within the hierarchical system institutions have emerged which
permit limited accommodation and change” (388). These developments and procedural practices
of world-system international order are reliant on the reproduction “of norms and institutions
[that] can only be explained after a power-political framework has been ascertained” making
these kinds of order a continuation of the demands and desires of states placed at the top of this
Misinformed America 15
hierarchy (388). In instances where alternatives to the cooperation within this hierarchy in
accordance with the declarations of international governments, governments have been
persuaded by those in power to comply by a threat of civil war, economic catastrophes and the
promise of “economic liberalization or democratization” (388).
These pressures are supported inherently by historical instances as well as an underlining
potential for success through the process of globalization or development which entails “both an
increase in cross-border transactions of goods and services and an increase in the flow of images,
ideas people and behavior” (389). Certain attributes of the process of globalization have
increased cooperation, integration and participation of the majority of the world. These include;
technological change to develop means of communication and expand global economics,
international trade, international finance and the spread of policy ideas (389-391). Described as
the positions of “haves and have-nots”, disparities in the global-economy exist with respect to
each of these features linking them peculiarly into a developed hierarchical framework. The
“economic inequalities between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’—not just in the sense of having
technology or not, but also in the sense of having the capacity to make rules or not” perpetuates
power controls over “regional trade arrangements and new policies offer both the carrot of wider
markets and the stick of regional competition” (389-390). The connectedness of global influence
and policy intentions brings about financial gains that perpetuate unequal distributions of wealth
but rely expressly on the policy ideas, beliefs, and perceptions. These are “promulgated both
formally through international organizations… and informally through networks of education
and research which globalize particular orthodoxies” (390-391).
Processes of international trade are regulated by the WTO and multi-lateral international
policies including NAFTA that have presented a need for more effective means of regulation, but
Misinformed America 16
also continually put the interests of core economics at the forefront (392-393). International
finances are critical to the exchange of capital within the system and monetary exchanges
associated with international financial “support” or reliefs have been strictly critiqued. Woods
suggests, “the IMF is charged with the role of safeguarding the stability of the international
monetary system. Yet in a globalizing world, this is difficult to do without incursion into the
domestic policies of countries” (394). The UN Security Council functions as a political
governing board with permanent as well as visiting members. However, the core nations are
those with permanent seats and developing and underdeveloped nations hardly ever have a say
due to the fact that their international clout is very rarely recognized and even when it is, the veto
power of its permanent members allows for the maintenance of policies that favor the economic
prosperity of the core (395). The ineffectiveness of global governing bodies as puppets
reinforcing the powers and rules of core zones is a critical concern in moving away from
catastrophic disparities that can lead to the collapse of the current system.
Through out the discussions of the pitfalls and prevails of the world-system, the
economic and political exchanges that occur within the system and the hierarchical features it
inherently maintains, sociologists aim to continue discussion on the matter of specifically
democratic global governance in a hopeful context. Discussions, forums and entire issues of
Sociological journals, as well as political and governmental literatures, have touched on the
potential and the outlook of global governance within the world-system. In order for the
assumptions of global social research to reach fruition and become the springboard for global
change not associated with “national self-interest” but rather the interests of create equality and
balance within the global sphere, global governance is a necessity (Dubrow 2013:56). The
globalization and bonds of the contemporary global society produce “global problems [that]
Misinformed America 17
affect many countries simultaneously, a fact that makes global governance the inevitable,
practical solution” (58). Within the contemporary capitalist world-economy, a form of global
governance that serves the formerly defined purpose of regulating capital exchange and political
policies within the system exists. However, the current institution is plagued by the same harms
of inequality that the system in it of itself is affected by. In this system, “we define political
inequality as a matter of who influences the decisions of the decision-making bodies” but when
applied globally, governance groups are specifically influenced by the “political inequality
between countries and the nationalist interests within countries (58). In the attempt to move
forward, social scientists have set out to test the possibility of democratic reform of these
institutions to better serve their purpose at every level of global society.
In the process of applying democracy to such a large scope of peoples and issues, it is
important to define it as being, “self-rule within boundaries” (58).
[Historically] democracy has always been limited by boundaries, whether
demographic (women’s suffrage is a twentieth-century invention) or
national (“citizens” vote, but not the noncitizens) or international (only a
small select group of countries sit on the UN Security Council). Particular
boundaries change, but the use of boundaries has been constant (59).
Furthermore, it is the latter form of boundaries that present the greatest challenge to the
development of democratic international governance. With the current presence of organizations,
it is evident that the development of some transnational agencies has already occurred as a
“means for countries to coordinate action on multiple simultaneous fronts” without any inherent
“guarantee that the governance will be (or even could possibly become) democratic” (60).
The collaboration of each of the entities of current global governance
works in coordination with not only nations and their governments
[interests, but also] transnational social movement organizations that
advocate for global justice and political equality (61).
Misinformed America 18
It is the underlying hope of sociologists and social research that these international movements
will eventually inspire the development of democratic means of global governance.
Hegemonic Power Domination of Global Governance
Wallerstein and Sanderson both citied that the victorious nature and dominant economic
position of the United States after World War II fabricated the nation’s ability to firmly root
itself at the very top of the world-system hierarchy. With significant control over production
resources and an influx of capital with the consumption of these products, the United States
experienced an incredible amount of economic success. This dominance of the global-economy
has sustained into a position of hegemony today. Unknowingly, the U.S. solidification of this
role and position came not only with extreme pressure, but also responsibility. Furthermore, the
“emergence of the U.S. as the post-WWII hegemonic power […] is associated with the creation
of extant international regimes in trade, finance development and other issue areas” (Burmeister
2003:1). The regimes described here are heavily reliant on the United States’ relationship with
the institutions of global governance. With this position of power, “the U.S. […] is largely
responsible for the creation of the World Trade Organization (as replacement for the GATT
(General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade))” (1). As the hegemon, the U.S. has created
“international regimes as a strategic extension of their own power in the service of what their
governing elites define as the national interests” (1). Moreover, the U.S. uses this regime within
the WTO (and global governance institutions like it), to maintain its dominant position and
continually regenerate means of accumulating capital. In specific instances mentioned by
empirical analyses of agricultural subsidies and their impact of the United States sectors of
production, the U.S. position seems to remain one that protects primarily, and maybe even
solely, its own economic prosperity. Only the U.S. “it seems is permitted to use food source
Misinformed America 19
security as a rationale for subsidies, as the U.S. routinely debunks food security arguments for
subsidies put forward by other countries” (5). Not only do these instances occur within the logic
of the United States in protecting its hegemonic position, but it also is supported by policy
interactions of the WTO and other international governance bodies.
International Economic Relationships in Maintaining Hegemony
In the process of maintaining hegemonic status, the powerful nations who compete for
economic resources compete with one another and also build relationships with certain nongovernmental institutions that seek to achieve similar or complimentary economic gains.
Relationships between the current hegemonic state and multi-national corporations have often
been criticized as exploitative yet somehow unavoidable. The economic incentives that
encouraged the U.S. government to enter into these trans-national business enterprises are
complex and fundamental to the favorable distribution of economic rewards to those who control
the nations and corporations with power.
Multi-National Corporation’s (MNC’s) international capital accumulation due to the
allocation of production resources to foreign and deregulated markets has caused a shift toward a
new kind of global economy and transfer of wealth. The most significant characteristic of “the
new system is the transfer of capital, technology and management within the multinational
enterprise that extends over many national economies” (Root 1976:34). Moreover, this new
system of capital exchange within markets has created a “proactive” role for the MNC’s as actors
within this system, meaning that the transnational domain encompassed by the collaboration of
any single or many capitalistic corporations then is beyond the control of any single government,
but does provide significant economic stability in the U.S. as this is the place where many of
these enterprises took off. Furthermore, because of the interconnectedness of the MNC’s and the
Misinformed America 20
U.S. government, two hypothesis were proposed to control the abilities and actions of MNC’s of
the global sphere that would need to be enforced by the hegemon (34). Neither of these
assessments has occurred to date and become seemingly obsolete being that the primary (global
restrictive world scenario) is to have the U.S. government force the uninationalization of the
corporations. Drawing them out of the international sphere likely causing “disruption of the
global industrial system with… consequences for all countries” and strong resistance by the
multinationals themselves (35). And a secondary solution, the global supportive world is a
process that aligns to the development of more effective, democratic and larger-scale global
governances.
Conclusively, as a result of their trans-national nature that is beyond the scope of any one
governmental body, MNC’s are able to continue to be the dominant firms and actors within the
entirety of the capitalist world-economy. The United States could not “pressure the MNC’s to
withdraw from foreign operations without at the same time cutting trade, capital and technology
flows with the rest of the world” and as a capitalist economy, it would not want to attempt to
threaten or limit the economic benefits of the established relationship between national
governments and global business (39).
Despite the immediate capital rewards that international business have provided to the
United States and the most wealthy international business entrepreneurs around the world, it is
the aforementioned “shift from international trade to international production” that could
precisely cause the demise of the United States hegemonic reign (34).
Not only do multi-national corporations operate to generate profit that they can use in
order to achieve political power as well, transnational entities of capital production are
increasingly creating a notable distinction within the world. Just as the United States as interests
Misinformed America 21
in the Global Governance organizations and has a certain weight amongst the group as a whole
because it holds numerous power positions within these organizations, multinational business
enterprises share stock and interest in the development and also success of other business groups.
Within the World-Economy of the contemporary capitalist system there exists a “number of
transnational lines (links or connections) identified in the interlocking of directorates that make
up the global corporate economy” (Staples 2006:313). The linkages between directors of
nationally based multinational businesses allows for nations and also those with the most
economic clout worldwide to increase their profits and maintain a stronger hold of the markets
(314). Moreover, the creation of a capitalist global network begins to unfold which is largely
pitted against the demands and limits the successes of those who do not belong to the capitalist
network (311). The fact that the United States as the hegemon has significant global economic
dominance undoubtedly can be attributed to the global interactions of their developed and
unrelenting profit driven business executives. Furthermore, the relationships created between the
U.S. and global governments then serve a primary function to address the needs and demands of
the capitalist network in order to maintain economic clout. Sustaining their global position, but
meanwhile creating a very unbalanced system that needs to be reinforced by other social,
cultural, and military actions.
Military Actions and Influences in Maintaining Hegemony
As formerly mentioned, the world-system itself experiences cyclical cycles of change and
of these cycles are periods of hegemonic rise and decline. Also previously eluded is the critical
role of the hegemon, not only in its desire to maintain its power position but to also create a
global situation that promotes order with this goal. Furthermore, there are inordinate amounts of
variables that must be controlled and can be affected by the economic and military condition of
Misinformed America 22
the hegemonic state. In order to illustrate the importance and significance of hegemonic
conditions on the changes and developments of the world-system, empirical research has set out
to define variables and quantify data that draws a conclusive link.
Kwon (2012) conducted a quantifiable analysis that conclusively links the influx of trade
globalization to the stability of the hegemonic nation-state (341-342). In doing so, Kwon draws
many genuine conclusions to the processes and cycles of hegemonic stability, which are
primarily important to the scope of this review. First, the hegemon inevitably experiences
periods of both stability and instability, “during periods of hegemony, a hegemonic polity
establishes a normative world order and provides the military resources that are necessary to
produce stability in the world system” (325). Processes and progress of trade globalization
increases then when the hegemon is able to maintain the political and military strength to set and
maintain global structures for economic trade of goods and services.
Defining features of both the rise and decline of hegemonic states can be identified
through empirical evidence. During a process of hegemonic rise, a prospective hegemon
“acquires an economic advantage in the world economy” as a result of the successful
accumulation of capital through capitalist economic interactions (325). With the acquisition of
this advantage, the hegemon becomes the economic center for the world-economy and continues
to develop national and international innovations to bolster continued economic success,
requiring the demand for resources and the military and economic competition to retrieve these
resources (326). The process of “decline begins with the geographic dispersion of the economic
innovations that previously provided the (now) declining hegemon with an advantage,” the
entirety of the global economy experiences recession and become “increasingly dissatisfied with
the hegemon’s world order” (326). These processes seem dauntingly familiar. Considering that
Misinformed America 23
in its rise to power, the United States did in fact accomplish each of the steps of achieving
hegemon status and reaped the benefits economically, politically, socially and internationally.
Additionally, the U.S. and the system that has been seemingly stable for decades is beginning to
crumble. Kwon explains that the desperation of the hegemon to maintain its power is seen in an
influx of military intervention, and while this has not been a prominent feature as to this point, it
is undeniable that the United States uses its military clout to influence and change governments
and people of both developed and developing nations as well as its own citizenry (327).
The analysis of military actions by the United States and associated governance bodies
including the UN Security Council, NATO, etc. have been strategic actions in order to control
global threats to the maintenance of the post-Cold War world-system. Moreover, as Wallerstien,
Sanderson, and Kwon have all pointed out, it is a role of upmost importance that the United
States, in defense of its position as hegemon, must take into consideration. Additionally, with
regards to the proposed research, accessing a citizen’s perspective on American military
intervention it will be evident what information the general public receives about these
interventions and how this shapes their perceptions of the stability and impact of the United
States’ position as the hegemon.
In moving forward, the United States as the hegemonic nation is definitely facing new
challenges influenced not only by the spread of communication, but also the commodification of
technology and democracy worldwide. Moreover, in the changing tides of the world-system, the
United States undeniably must plan in order to act accordingly in order to maintain the
hegemonic position. Military planning however is becoming more complex and must account for
a multitude of variables. In a speech, Cordesman analyzes the impacts that globalization has on
military planning for the United States (2000). He explains not only that the US must take into
Misinformed America 24
consideration future forms of coalition warfare, but also the potential for the power position of
the United States to be revoked as a result of under spending, over commitment, and lacking
resources for military demands (3). He explains that, as globalism as swept the world, there has
unfortunately been just as many negative impacts as positive ones:
Work by the CSIS [Center for Strategic and International Relations]
further dramatizes the gap between rich and poor and the fact that
“globalization” may not bring stability or reduce the threat of conflict (5).
Additionally, positive trends in tackling human rights issues and economic prosperity have “been
counterbalanced by serious problems and potential sources of conflict” (5). Moreover, the
actions of the United States are going to look very similar to the military actions taken during the
post-Cold War era despite the developments of globalization. Cordesman identifies that “the US
had overtly used military force more than 240 times before the end of the cold war,” and also,
“UN peacekeeping and peacemaking activity is accelerating” to include US deployment of
troops almost 40 times since 1989 (8-9). It can be deduced that these military actions had the
goal of solidifying the American position as the global super power and will into the future be
very similar when fighting to maintain this spot.
The nature of US global military power adds more complexity to this
situation. […] The US is now the “world’s only super power” in the sense
it is the only power in the world with major global power projection assets
(13).
This assertion aligns with previously stated claims by Kwon, Wallerstein and other scholars and
confirms that hegemonic military intervention and power is a primary influence in the cyclical
nature of the world-system and also in solidifying the power balance in the favor of the hegemon
and its allies.
Historical evidence of American military action and intervention then can not only
provide clues as to the kinds of actions that may still need to take place, albeit slightly changed
Misinformed America 25
in some ways—in order to continue to allow for the United States to be the hegemonic nation. In
a study of American intervention in the name of democracy, Meernik not only makes substantial
claims that American intervention does not often lead to improved democratization abroad, but
he also describes the multitude of situations in which the United States has used some sort of
argument for preserving or protecting democracy as a many influence for intervention.
The Mexican-American war was justified partially on the basis of the right
of Texans to self determination and democracy; later, the rights of Cubans
in the Spanish-American war were similarly defended; Woodrow Wilson
fought World War I to make the world safe for democracy and sent troops
into Mexico, ‘to teach Mexicans the meaning of democracy (391).
U.S. military intervention for aligning principles has been seen also in Lebanon, Grenada,
Panama, Haiti, and countless others not mentioned here (391). However, Meernik poses the
question as to whether or not military force is a very democratic way of encouraging democracy
or even becoming involved in another nation. As academic literature does allude that with more
democratic nations, there is a higher likelihood to achieve universal peace, there may be a
stipulation and deeper incentive to American military intervention than just simply asserting
power dominance abroad. Merrnik conducts a study in which he defines characteristics of
military intervention and democratic change overtime in order to set a points system that
decidedly answers whether or not military intervention for the American goal of preserving
democracy can actually be justified (394). The results show that “the most prevalent outcome
after US military intervention is no change whatsoever” and there are often a significant number
of cases where there is actually negative change (395). These results establish that despite the
fact that US military intervention has yielded more positive outcomes than no intervention at all,
“there is [still] no reason to expect that military force can create democratic norms and practices”
making the claims of presidencies and justifications of military action entirely void. Furthermore,
Misinformed America 26
after identifying that the media supplied rationales for global media intervention in the name of
democracy have been deemed illegitimate by research, it is easy to deduce that the primary
concern then is creating relationships and forming regimes and governments that support the
overall position of the United States as the global hegemon.
Certainly the United States does not depend solely on its military brute force in order to
maintain its global position. It is clear that these powers are in addition to the previously
discussed relationships with Multi-National Corporations that feed an economic interest and
Global Governance organizations, which fulfill the global political desires of the United States
and other core nations. The accumulation of each of these interests tilted heavily in the favor of
the United States certainly contributes to its maintenance of power. While it remains that certain
military and economic pursuits and actions of the players within the world-system are critically
important, so too are the cultural elements and powers of the hegemonic nation within the world
system however seem to go somewhat unnoticed. It is the purpose of the remainder of this
review to highlight the global power and influence of global as well as American media and its
impact on the world-system.
The Globalization of Communication and Media
It is the inspiration of the proposed research to determine whether or not Americans
generally seek—or receive in some way—media information that assists them in understanding
the dynamics of the world and to what extent the influence of corporate or mainstream media has
on shaping the accuracy of their perceptions of the global-economy and the United States as an
actor within it. Main cultural elements have always and will always be a main contributor to the
shaping and reproduction of opinions and ideologies that allow for the perpetuation of traditional
local, national and even global traditions. It is the goal of this research to delve into the role that
Misinformed America 27
the media specifically plays as a cultural institution and an actor that actively shapes the
hegemonic citizens’ perception of the occurrences and dynamics of the world-system in order to
perpetuate the unequal dynamics of the system by amending the information that is given so as to
avoid conflicting perspectives and reproduce capitalist ideologies.
First and foremost, the spread of contemporary global media has been a rapid movement
instructed by those with the most control. Like many of the markets within the global-economy it
is one that operates primarily to generate profit and also is dominated almost entirely by
American-based conglomerates. However, it is evidenced by the writings of McChesney and
Nichols that this system too has significant and impactful flaws.
The highly concentrated market makes a mockery of the freedom of press
clause in the First Amendment, which was predicated on the ability of
citizens to create their own media if they so desire (49).
The authors believe that as a direct result of government intervention and deregulation of mediarelated policies as well as the influence of those with economic status, monopolies have been
created to serve the interests of those who own them and that “the problem with their media is
that is exists to serve their interests, not ours” (26). Furthermore, “in 2002 the U.S. media system
is dominated by about ten transnational conglomerates” each of which has adjusted to improve
their profits not only nationally but also function effectively in international markets as well (48).
Moreover, with the impact and removal of many government regulations on media ownership
nationally, the corporate media has expanded unrelentingly (87).
The type of political culture that accompanies the rise of the corporate
media system worldwide looks like that found in the United States: in the
place of informed debate and political parties organizing along the full
spectrum of opinion, there will be vacuous journalism and elections,
dominated by public relations, big money, moronic political advertising,
and limited debate on tangible issues (96).
Misinformed America 28
The expansion of corporate media after the eradication of certain government restraints as
allowed, “massive media corporations [to] better commercially saturate society” while
simultaneously eliminating their desire to provide information that holds to journalistic integrity
(52). Furthermore, the authors affirm that not only do journalists simply have no desire to spend
time or money on important stories, but they also uphold the demands of their shareholders and
government influences so much as to tell blatant lies about national and international events
causing “both public and commercial broadcasters in many nations to become the handmaidens
of the dominant political parties and interests” (91). This considered alongside the establishments
and actions of hegemonic and core nations evidences that the global media operates to pervade
cultural and social information so as to enhance the powers of the dominant economies and their
interests.
The media then is a vital actor in the causes and effects of certain occurrences within the
world system and therefore becomes an entity for power and information distribution. Global
powers become “the dominant players [who] treat the media markets as a single global market
with local subdivisions” (Herman and McChesney 2000: 216). As an individual marketplace,
business, political, and other facets of the world-system can interact with and supply forms of
communication, information regarding the systems and regions themselves and rhetoric that
supports or negates certain occurrences within the global sphere. Instances including “crossborder advertising, trade and investment [create] the demand for media and other communication
services” and the demands are growing and globalizing more rapidly than GDP in a majority of
the world (216). Media and the technologies associated with it have become and investment that
can be sought or sold within the market to consumers in demand drawing industry attention to
the global market potential of media (216). As a market, media producers have corporatized the
Misinformed America 29
enterprises of media to divide competition among a few (217). These corporations operate much
like the Multi-National Corporations of goods and services production in that they are often
associated with a local source or group but focus primarily of the distribution of their service on
a global scale.
The demand and interconnectedness that results from the globalization of media and its
rapid rates of consumption worldwide are effective for many reasons. First of all, the
transnational nature of these services limits the restrictions that can be placed on them without a
centralized global enforcer this nature gives them a somewhat freedom of speech in that the
images, perceptions and characters portrayed are the result of demand and market success. For
example, the concept of violence is said to sell almost anywhere because of the universality of
these images (218-219). The demand for these images and services is supported by the desire to
integrate into the global media market held by almost every nation. With the interconnectedness
and expanded scope of the global media market analysts suggest that as a result, there could
develop a global culture or identity. Despite convincing arguments for this case, it is the express
intent of media suppliers to produce images that will sell and based on cultural preferences
regionally distributed worldwide, in order to make a profit media must be catered to these
particular preferences (223-225).
In order to explain and qualify the globalization of communication and media,
globalization theorists have attempted to apply numerous frameworks to outline the occurrences
and predict future trends. This task, however, has been argued to be impossible due to the fact
that the modernity of the technological communication age presents a novel perspective on
viewing social change and global interaction that can not be defined under the principles of
Misinformed America 30
archaic theoretical analysis (Ampuja 2012:283). Ampuja has identified four specific aspects of
technological globalization.
First, a fundamental process of intensification of worldwide
interconnections and flows; second, this phenomenon has huge causal
significance in that it enforces overall social and cultural transformation.
The elaboration of the significance of globalization is transmuted onto a
spatio-temporal framework that transcends previous sociological
perspective; and finally, claims concerning the novelty of new media and
communication technologies are presented in support of this framework,
so as to convince the reader once and for all that we live today in a
different kind of global era (285).
As the modern era transforms and alludes to new ways of trying to explain social exchange via
the media, it is asserted that importance also lies in realizing the impact that the modes of this
information is taking (i.e. mediums) in order to reach its audience (287). Furthermore, the
commodification and spread of advanced information and communication technologies is
directly related to the geographical and economic position of a nation within the global hierarchy
and decides its access to media sources and technologies that supply them. This understanding
draws an important connection between the globalization of media and the inherently
perpetuated inequalities of the economic effects of the global-economy.
In addition to Amuja’s assertions of economic power and dominance within
contemporary global media, it is recognized by researchers that just as the world-system itself
experiences changes overtime, so too do the markets within it. Furthermore, the media as a
functioning profit market has seen significant historical changes in the modern technological era.
In addition to structural and technological developments in the media market, multiple social
aspects have changed globally and can be noted. Imre and Versraete (2009) present a
comprehensive analysis of post-socialist media positions that have evolved into effective
positions for shaping the identities and perspectives of citizens within the European Union.
Misinformed America 31
The post-Cold War period has brought unprecedented concentration in
global media ownership, the rapid convergence of technological platforms
and the growing availability of the internet and other digital media and
communication technologies (131).
Moreover, the authors continue to state that the intersections between social and economic
growth globally has significantly impacted technological information exchange and had a
profound impact on social identities and interactions. The collection of theories for media
globalization have been compiled into a comprehensive analysis which concludes that any aspect
of social life, can and has been changed by the portrayals of contemporary global media. In
analyzing the intersections of global technologies including, “audiovisual technologies and
expressions, global television news to popular formats, from internet mediated social networking
and political mobilization” (133). The immensity of technological mediums that media can pass
through globally coupled with the dominance of corporate media by a few economic powers,
then can be assumed to have a somewhat determined affect on the breadth and also scope of
issues and perceptions impacted by media. Furthermore, the scope of “the global media
discussed here function not only as agents of macro-political and economic power, but also as
cultural sites of alternative identities and shared critical practices” (135).
As the modern media holds strong to present information that aligns to the needs of their
share holders, it becomes evident that even the issues closest to home become fleeting headlines
that are hardly even glanced at by the majority of the public. In a speech made by Gherson
(2004), it is insinuated that the media coverage in both the United States and Canada is definitely
lacking substantial content. He asserts that not only are “U.S. and Canadian publics woefully ill
informed about each other,” but also that the media coverage provided to these citizens is not of
the upmost integrity (135).
Misinformed America 32
The Canadian and the U.S. media increasingly do an inadequate and
simplistic job of reporting on and interpreting each country’s national
affairs, and that major events in each country are reduced to little more
than headlines across the border (157).
Moreover, despite the fact that Canada is not only our closest international neighbor (along with
Mexico) and also happens to be one of our largest trade partners, the American media has
projected a very skewed perception of the relationship between these nations and the importance
of these relationships. Gherson explains that with the “relatively dismal quality and quantity of
media cross border reporting,” and the inadequate amount of American reporters serving fulltime journalist positions in Canada, this crooked distribution of information about each nations is
even more unequal in the amount of information that U.S. citizens have about Canada (158).
This askew American perception is clearly evidenced in public opinion of current events:
A sizable 59 percent of Americans thought Canada supported the U.S. in
Iraq, or remained neutral, with only 28 percent aware that Canada opposed
the U.S. position. Further, 43 percent of Americans who said they knew
Canada opposed the Iraq War agreed with the Canadian position (162).
It is clear that not only has the U.S. media created a paradigm for deceiving the perceptions of
global events, but also the perceptions of those nations with which the United States engages on
even the most nearby areas. With this assessment, it becomes clear first of all that the media does
affect citizen’s perceptions of a variety of issues and also that with this being the case with our
closest neighboring nation there is probably also an even larger gap in the truth of the
information fed to the American public about international events on an even larger scale.
American Media: Bias, Influence and Resistance
One specific identity that the global media has undeniably reinforced is that of the
Hegemon. The United States, as formerly noted, indefinitely has created beneficiary
relationships with global governance institutions and trans-national economic enterprises in order
Misinformed America 33
to solidify their dominant position in the state of the modern world-system and media
corporatization is certainly no exception. Even among other core nations, American-based media
corporations buy and control a substantial amount of information, media and communication
technologies. The concentration of information distribution in these areas furthermore unevenly
distributes perspectives on global information “from [global]‘North’ to ‘South’ without much of
a counter-flow” (Chalaby 2006: 34). This not only impacts the kind of information that is
available within the media marketplace but also to whom information and products of
communication technology are available. An empirical research analysis of the corporate
institutions that own the media show that a significant number of media companies are not only
owned and operate by American-based groups, but the amount of the corporations is double that
of the next competing nations (37). To expand on the monopoly of corporate media mentioned
by Herman and McChesney, Chalaby explains that “the dominance of American conglomerates
is even more striking at the top end of the world media industry […] seven media corporations
alone have a reach that covers the globe and span all key media sectors from film production to
television distribution. Five of them have headquarters in the U.S.” (38). This fact supports that
the maintenance of hegemony especially in the unique era of the globalization of technological
advancements, is undeniably linked to the cultural influences of global information and
entertainment media.
It is critical to gain knowledge on whether or not people in general are substantially
affected by the information that is fed to them by the constant inundation of multiple media
influences a day which are apparently all owned by corporate goons with the same economical
goals as the governments that perpetuate inequality within the world-system: to continuously and
endlessly generate capital. In a study conducted under the premise that the media does portray
Misinformed America 34
some sort of accurate information about the world, Fabiansson explains that in the world today,
media images of violence and tragedy have sparked some sort of fear in citizens, particularly
children (2007:31). While this fear may not be far off from the actual sentiments one should have
about the dynamics of the world today, it is important to understand how the media can pervade
even the most personal sentiments. Moreover, Fabiansson describes that since the 2011 attacks in
the United States, the media has exploded with descriptions and stories of terrorist acts,
organizations, the violence associated with these groups and the negative outcomes of such,
including war.
The fear trajectory has been developed into a prosperous discourse, utilized
for political, legal, and economic purposes to strengthen political powers
and to restrict personal freedom in movement and in speech (32).
Furthermore, the fact that media images not only pervade personal so far as to shape emotions,
clearly sentiments on not only the government and its actions, but also the proper discourse for
dealing with international issues can definitely be influence by the media and additionally, these
images are being defined by the political and economic interests of those in power. An
overwhelming media attention on negative and violent world occurrences has proven to impact
people’s personal lives and also shapes the perceptions of the actions that their governments take
in order to protect them from this threat, it is a powerful portrayal that has drastic effects on the
global population (34).
The pervasive and somewhat invasive nature of the media has proven so effective in
shaping the lives and socialization processes of individuals that research has even been done to
attempt to combat these issues. A study done by Canadian researchers Stack and Kelly (2006)
was developed to challenge “researchers and educators [to] attend closely to popular media and
democratizing media consumption” (6). They describe that as a deep-rooted fixture of our
Misinformed America 35
society, “the central media—print radio, and the television” structure the connections that we
make between ourselves, and our surrounding social environment (6). While affirming that “the
barrage of media and consumption” is not as a whole “monolithic and viewers can interpret any
media text in a number of ways,” there are certainly influencing factors that play a key role in the
images we consume through the media (8). The influence and “pervasiveness” of modern media
is so effective that the researchers suggest it could have and might have already surpassed formal
public socialization including education (9). Regardless of this influence, the immensity of media
corporations presents a challenge. “It has become more difficult for the press to hold people in
power to public account, to present a wide range of informed views on the important issues
facing the citizenry” (9).
Moreover, as an institution with the markets of the technological capitalist global market, media
markets are not held accountable to restrictions or expectations by governments or by the public
and serve the purpose of generating capital. However, the portrayals by the media as a means of
traditional socialization and primary elements of daily life do apparently have an impact on the
way that people shape their perceptions of social reality. While most people would deny this
effect on them personally but maybe affirm “third person” effects the media may have on
another person; scholars and individuals alike specifically note the effects of media on children
and youth.
In regards to the information about global governance and dynamics of international
relations, the news media is the primary source and due to its non-fiction nature, “people discuss
the news as though it were facts, neutrally transmitted by the mainstream media,” when in fact,
“journalistic accounts and pop culture are both highly socially constructed (15). Moreover, the
social environments that dominate the media market are also those with interests aligning in
Misinformed America 36
political and economic markets internationally simultaneously. Furthermore, it can be concluded
that media images, while most effective during socialization, do reflect a construction of a
corporate global-economy. And in doing so, media sources more than likely impact more than
just a child’s perception of violence or an adult’s consumption of a branded good. Rather, this
dialect certainly could be translated to encompass even the scale of the modern world-system to
say that images of information news media regarded as non-fictional accounts undeniably are
constructed to impact the perceptions of hegemonic, as well as global citizens.
The current research study will aim to test five primary hypotheses, which are:
H 1: The type of media source that an individual consumes most often has an impact on the
accuracy of their perception of international interactions within the World-System.
H 2: As an individual’s education level increases, their accuracy of international interactions and
the World-System also increases.
H 3: As the awareness of impacts and issues of globalization and World-System’s hierarchies
increases, the hegemonic citizens’ perceived personal ability to impact these problems decreases.
H 4: As the awareness of the impacts and the issues of globalization and World-Systems
decreases, the hegemonic citizens concentration on national-level (American) problems
increases.
H 5: As the hegemonic citizens’ accuracy of world-systems dynamics increases, their opinion of
the United States as the hegemon within this system decreases.
Methods
For the proposed research, there are many concepts that need to be defined. The first and
most significant of these concepts is the World-System. The term itself was first coined by
Wallerstein and is explained in depth by Sanderson. To reiterate, the World-System is the
Misinformed America 37
international network that exists between the interstate system and the complex world-economy.
Dominated by nations of the core, the periphery and semi-periphery nations occupy the lowest
and middle tiers of the hierarchy created from global imbalances of wealth, power, military, and
economic competition between nations of the World-System (Wallerstein 1974:348; Sanderson
1999:182). The most dominant of all nations, which serves as the economic and political superpower and overseer is currently the United States. The position is obtained and maintained with
military-supported political influence in all international arenas (trade, politics, war, etc.)
Wallerstein labeled this position as the World-System’s Hegemon (Wallerstein 2004:23).
Academics and theorists of many disciplines and ideologies have affirmed that postWorld War II this position has been consistently occupied by the United States (Sanderson 1999;
Burmeister 2003; Wallerstein 2004). The complexity of the World-System typically results in
consistent changes in power and has been marked by short-term hegemonic domination or shared
core region powers (Kwon 2012). The United States, however has been able to consistently
maintain is hegemonic power position for decades due to its persistent domination of multiple
dynamic international arenas including most specifically, their military supremacy and
intervention in other nations in many ways including supporting and even in some cases defining
the international governance over international interactions and specific political influences in
the periphery (Cordesman 2000; Kwon 2012; Meernik 1996).
These theoretical definitions played a significant role in shaping the questions that were
asked in order to gauge the accuracy of the participants’ perceptions about international relations
and particularly the United States’ role within these exchanges. However, a critical component of
this research was to also identify the way in which an everyday person would get this
information. The obvious answer is media consumption. Media consumption in the technological
Misinformed America 38
age can encompass a plethora of ideas and medium; this can include traditional means of reading
the news in print form (newspaper, magazine, etc.) and could also include, television broadcasts,
radio programs, internet news sites or even postings to social media networks (including
Facebook, Twitter, etc.). Furthermore, the definition of mainstream media is to be determined by
which type of information media participants engage with the most. This can be limited to only
local or entertainment-specific news or broad enough to include a dynamic combination of many
sources to encompass many different perspectives on a global range of information.
In order to successfully test these variables, questions were asked in groups strategically
to assist in the process of analyzing the participant’s media habits as well as their accuracy,
opinion and interpretation of the World-System and international interactions within it. For
media consumption, participants were asked how often they consume information media, what
medium they are in contact with or most prefer (television, social media, etc.) and also which
source from a list of many they would choose, or do currently choose the most (including CNN,
BBC, FOX News, local news, etc.). In another section, participants were asked categorical
questions as well as true and false questions to which their answers could be ranked, counted and
placed on a scale to identify the accuracy of their perceived knowledge about the World-System.
Finally, participants were asked subjective opinion-based questions that allowed for the
researcher to not only analyze whether or not they know the truth of the actions of the United
States, but also whether or not if they did know the truth, they would potentially have some
desire to change or impact these issues. To view a complete version of the survey instrument and
questions asked to operationalize the research variables, see Appendix A.
Misinformed America 39
Sample
In order to contact a large enough sample that fit the specified qualifications, the
researcher used a process of convenience random, snowball sampling. This means that the
researcher reached the first participants on her own and relied on suggestions and word of mouth
of these preliminary participants to spread the research to other social circles and reach continued
participants. The advantages of this kind of sampling technique was that participants remained
completely anonymous to the researcher and distribution of the survey and collection of data was
very convenient, however the significant disadvantage is that because individuals, including the
researcher, associate primarily with people who think alike to themselves, many of the opinions
and ideas were very similar. The survey was distributed primarily via the Internet through a
secure and anonymous link that provided results to a collective database. The researcher began
with a personal social network (personal Facebook page) and requested that individuals not only
take the survey but also passed it along through their own networks as well.
The sample consists of 100 participants who currently reside in Southern California. Of
these 100 consenting individuals, 15 (15%) were male, one chose to decline from making a
selection. Seventy-five others (75%) were female and a remaining 8 (8%) participants identified
as transgender. The participants were asked to identify their level of education and two (2%)
answered “Some High School”, four (4%) answered “Trade or Technical School”, nine (9%)
answered “High School Diploma”, 50 participants (50%) answered “Some College”, six (6%)
indicated they have an Associate’s Degree while another 18 (18%) had their Bachelor’s Degree
and the final eleven (11%) had a Master’s Degree or higher. The participants were also asked to
specify which political party they identified with; the most common response (n=30, 30%) was
Republican. Additionally, 27 (27%) participants identified as Democrat. Another 27 (27%)
Misinformed America 40
people selected that they “Do Not Associate” with any party in particular; four (4%) chose other,
seven (7%) identified as Moderate or Independent and two (2%) person each identified their
support of the Green or Tea party. In regards to ethnic identity, 72 participants (72%) identified
as White/Caucasian/Euro-American, 18 (18%) identified as Latina/o and two (2%) identified as
Asian, one identified as African/African-American, four (4%) as other and the final (1%)
participant Declined to State. Also, participants were asked to make a selection based on how
they would describe their lifestyle at home. Thirty one (31%) participants, identified as being
Working Class. A large number of participants selected “Middle-Middle Class” (20; 20%), and
also Middle Class (30; 30%). Upper-Middle Class was selected 17 (17%) times and Lower Class
was selected only twice (2%). To view a table of the complete demographics, see Appendix B.
Instrument
This study is an original research study that uses an original instrument created by the
principal investigator, Charlene Haskin and the senior thesis advisor, Fatima Suarez, MSc. A
combined process of three combined months included the beginning steps of preparation
including submitting a research proposal, drafting and editing the instrument, IRB application
and consent forms, to the final process of collecting and analyzing data took altogether three full
months. The instrument is titled “Public Media Consumption and Perception of the Modern
World-System” and consists of five parts. The first part is a demographic section. The second
part gauges the participants’ interaction with information news media. Also, part three tests the
accuracy of what the individual thinks to be true about international relationships and also their
opinions on these matters; part four also attempts to gauge whether or not the participant holds
international relations to be an issue of importance not only for them, but also for the
government of the United States. Finally, part five includes closing remarks that the participant
Misinformed America 41
may provide and thanks them for their time. To view a complete copy of the consent form and
instrument, see Appendix A.
Procedure
The preliminary steps of data collection consisted of drafting and submitting for approval
by the Institutional Review Board copies of both the IRB application for research and a consent
form. These forms were drafted by the preliminary researcher with the assistance of the senior
thesis advisor and submitted with approval at the beginning of April, only after this process were
the surveys distributed for data collection. The survey was created through a data base survey
software website called Qualtrics. The researcher collected participants within their own social
circle by distributing the link for said survey via personal social networks. Data was
continuously collected by the spread of the link by word of mouth through those who had already
participated. Answers we tracked by IP address and kept completely confidential through the
Qualtrics software.
The distribution of the survey itself was extremely easy, however, the most significant
issue with survey distribution that was encountered was the apparently limited spectrum of
individuals willing to spend their online time taking a five part survey. Also, as the demographic
data reflects, the social groups that were tapped to participate were in large part of generally the
same ethnic groups, however class identification did differ significantly.
Data collection modifications were made only in the case that a participant received the
link from someone other than the researcher. This kind of snowball sampling did allow for other
social groups to be reached and was therefore the most effective way to gather participants.
However, in this way, participants who were unfamiliar with the researcher or even the concept
of a participant survey-based senior thesis were unlikely to complete the survey, somewhat
Misinformed America 42
limiting the sample size and variation. This issue was difficult to avoid but did not have any
significant impact on the data collected or the sample that was surveyed.
Results
The study and its associated research hypotheses relied heavily on testing the accuracy of
each participant’s knowledge of general World-Systems events, particularly actions of the United
States and corporate media and the impacts of outsourcing by US-based multi-national
corporations. The survey included multiple questions that were based on research and facts,
which collectively resulted in two scales for comparison. The first was an “Accuracy Index”
which was based on the results of three true or false style questions. Each was true and for each
correct answer participants were given a one, while incorrect (false) choices were scored ‘0’.
This score out of three was applied to other variables in ANOVA statistics testing to produce
results that designated certain hypotheses significant and others insignificant.
This same scale-style process was applied to three other rank questions in which
participants were asked to select between five choices: strongly agree, agree, neither/unsure,
disagree, or strongly disagree. These choices were given a score one through five, respectively.
The correct answers for each was score five: Strongly Disagree. In this way, the most correct or
accurate perceptions would be scored 15 and the least correct or most inaccurate received a score
of three. This scale was deemed the “Outsourcing Index” as each question inquired about
international impacts of multi-national corporate production outsourcing. For both types of
scales, some participants who opted out of answering these questions received a score of zero
and their answers were not considered as part of the data set. Both the Accuracy Index, as well as
the Outsourcing Index, were used for testing the variables of each hypothesis, to give variety as
well as potentially call into question which issues (military and political intervention by the
Misinformed America 43
United States or Multi-National Outsourcing) the majority of participants were more familiar
with.
Hypothesis 1
The first hypothesis attempted to link participants’ media consumption habits to their
accuracy of World-Systems events. In doing so, there were many questions in which participants
identified the frequency and media source they most often associate with when consuming
information media. Specifically, which news source (i.e. FOX News, MSNBC, BBC, CNN,
social media postings etc.) a participant used most often and whether or not this impacted the
correctness of either aforementioned index. Of the available choices, participants most often
selected CNN News (20, 20%). The second most common was KTLA or other local news, which
was selected 19 times (19%). Other popular answers included, FOX News (14, 14%), BBC news
(8, 8%), and some sort of social media posting (9, 9%). An ANOVA test was performed with
this information and both the Accuracy Index as well as the Outsourcing Index. The former of
which resulted in insignificant results (p=0.279) concluding that the media source that a
participant used did not significantly impact the precision of a participant’s perception of the
United States’ military and political interactions globally. However, moderate significance was
associated with media source and the accuracy of the participant’s knowledge of issues of
international outsourcing (p=0.06). The results concluded that the individuals who chose the
most common answer CNN News (20, 20%) received an average score of 9.15. On the other
hand, a less popular answer revealed that MSNBC viewers (2, 2%) received the highest average
score of 13.5. The lowest average score on the outsourcing index was achieved by those who
relied on the Los Angeles Times as their main source of news (2, 2%).
Misinformed America 44
Table 1:
Effects of News Source Choice on Accuracy of Personal Perceptions on International
Outsourcing
News Source
Al Jazeera
BBC News
CNN News
FOX News
KTLA or local
news
Los Angeles Times
MSNBC
NBC News
New York Times
Social Media
Postings
Other
N=100
Mean Score on Outsourcing Index
N=4
N=8
N=20
N=14
11.75
9.88
9.15
9
N=19
N=2
N=2
N=3
N=4
8.74
7.5
13.5
9.67
10
N=9
N=6
8.89
10.33
Hypothesis 2
The second hypothesis for research attempted to determine a relationship between
education and knowledge about the World-System. Participants of the study were asked to select
their education level and the majority of participants selected having some college education (48;
48%). Another 17 (17%) participants said they were recipients of a Bachelor’s Degree, nine
participants (9%) selected having a High School Diploma, while another nine people stated that
they are recipients of an Associate’s Degree. Eight (8%) participants of the study stated that they
have a Master’s Degree. Four (4%) participants selected having a trade school education, two
(2%) participants selected having some high school and another 2 participants (2%) stated
having some other education while just one participate selected having a Doctorate or Ph.D. As
an important agent of socialization, an individual’s educational background could be a way that
people shape their perceptions about the international environment. However, ANOVA tests that
associated this variable with both the Accuracy Index and the Outsourcing Index did not result in
Misinformed America 45
significant association. The calculated P-value for the Accuracy Index was P=0.894 and for the
Outsourcing Index the P-value amounted to P=0.919. This means that although education is an
important source of information and socialization, it is not a significant influence on whether or
not a person has an accurate perception of international interactions within the World-System.
Table 2: Effects of Education Level on Accuracy of Perception of International Events
Education Level
Some High School
Trade or Technical
School
High School Diploma
Some College
Associate's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Master's Degree
Doctorate or Ph.D.
Other
Accuracy Index
Outsourcing Index
N=100
Mean Score of Accuracy
Index
Mean Score of
Outsourcing Index
N=2
1.5
10
N=4
N=9
N=48
N=9
N=17
N=8
N=1
N=2
P=0.894
P=0.919
2
1.67
1.81
1.88
2.11
1.88
Constant
2.5
10.25
8
8.63
9.13
9.06
10.13
Constant
Constant
Hypothesis 3
Another important goal of this study was to analyze a participant’s personal initiative or
responsibility for changing or attempting to change the issues that exist within the WorldSystem. In order to so, participants were asked to answer the question, “do you think that you
could have any impact on changing the issues within the world to day that result from
inequality?” To this, the majority of people (49, 49%) answered that they do not think they could
have a significant impact on global issues, but given the opportunity they would like to try.
Another 22% (22 participants) said that they did not think that they could impact this issue in
anyway. While only 19 (19%) participants remained optimistic, claiming they did think they
Misinformed America 46
could definitely impact global issues in some way. This variable was applied in ANOVA tests
with both indexes, which produced the following results. An ANOVA test with the accuracy
index showed an insignificant link between accuracy of opinion about the World-System and an
individuals perceived ability to impact global issues with a P-value equivalent to 0.495. The
second test also showed an insignificant link (p=0.787) between accuracy of opinion about
outsourcing issues and the perceived ability to change global inequalities. However insignificant,
a large majority of participants expressed that despite their chances of making a significant
impact, they would try to change global issues if given an opportunity to do so.
Table 3: Effects of Personal Perceptions of the World System on Perceived Personal Impact on
Global Issues
Personal Impact on Global Issues
N=100
Yes, definitely
N=19
Probably not, but I would like to try
N=49
No, not at all
N=22
Accuracy Index P=0.495
Outsourcing Index P=0.787
Hypothesis 4
The fourth hypothesis for study attempted to analyze whether or not people who knew
about World-Systems issues and hypothetically understood the significance of these issues
considered them to be more or less important than issues in the United States. Sentiments about
global issues are often met with comments about their significance in comparison to the issues at
home, or at least whether or not they are more relevant. Participants were asked, “do you think
Misinformed America 47
that U.S. social issues are more important than global issues?” To which a majority (n=55, 55%)
answered that no, global issues are just as important. However, 26 (26%) participants did feel
that U.S. issues are in fact more important. Only one participant felt that global issues were more
important and a final 17% (17 participants) refrained from answering or did not know. An
ANOVA test was performed to compare this result to the Accuracy and Outsourcing Indexes in
order to determine whether there was significance. With regards to the Outsourcing index, there
was no significant correlation between knowledge of outsourcing issues and personal
significance of U.S. versus Global social problems (p=0.409). Although, an ANOVA test
performed with this same variable and the Accuracy Index showed moderate significance
(p=0.093), linking to some extent knowledge of world-systems dynamics to an individuals
personal opinion of the importance of U.S. or global social issues.
Table 4: Relationship Between Accurate Knowledge of World-System Dynamics and Personal
Significance of U.S. over Global Social Problems
US vs. Global Social Issues
US issues are more important
Global issues are just as important
Global issues are more important
Don't Know/Did not state
N=100
N=26
N=55
N=1
N=17
Mean Score of
Accuracy Index
1.77
2.11
Constant
2.33
Accuracy Index P=0.093
Outsourcing Index P=0.409
Hypothesis 5
The final hypothesis for this study attempted to access whether or not the information that
a participant has gathered on World-System events impacts their personal opinion of the United
States as the Hegemonic power within the contemporary system. In this case, participants were
asked to rank their opinion of current role of the United States in international affairs on a scale
of one to ten, where one represented being not at all satisfied and ten being representative of very
Misinformed America 48
satisfied. An ANOVA test that tested this information with the Accuracy Index resulted in a Pvalue of 0.009 and a similar ANOVA test with the Outsourcing Index also resulted in a
significant P-value of 0.043. Further statistics that compared these indexes to a question asking
participants to rank the United States on a scale one to ten based on the means by which the
United States has maintained its position as the global super power resulted in significant P-value
of 0.021 for the Outsourcing index but an insignificant value of 0.424 for the Accuracy Index. As
a whole, this data reveals that in general, the information that people have gathered in one way or
another regarding international issues does impact their opinion of the United States in general
and also as the global super power.
Table 5: Effect of World-System Accuracy on Personal Satisfaction with the United States as
Hegemon
Rank of U.S.
Satisfaction
Accuracy Index Score
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2.5
1.45
2.75
2.08
1.65
2.11
2.14
1.67
2
2.5
P=0.009
Misinformed America 49
Table 6: Effect of Correctness of World-Systems Outsourcing on Personal Satisfaction with the
United States as Hegemon
Rank of U.S.
Satisfaction
Outsourcing Index
Score
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6.75
9.91
10.5
10.92
10.47
8.67
8.57
10.67
7.5
8
P=0.043
Discussion
The research that was done in completion of this study was undoubtedly something that
was not only thought provoking but also a somewhat novice concept for research in this field. As
shown throughout the previous review of current literature, researchers have focused on the
developments and characteristics of the World-System in general and have even attempted to
explain the impacts that the hierarchies and systems set up on an international level have had on
developing nations, periphery countries and even international governance agencies
effectiveness. The research done in this study and the data collected as a result have laid the
ground work for a very important next step in accessing the issues that exist within the WorldSystem, evaluating the ways that people get information about these issues and even possibly
developing a way that advocates, academics, and activists alike can attempt to reach out to the
average American citizen in mobilizing a movement towards changing the World-System in a
positive way.
Misinformed America 50
The most notable discoveries of this research have warranted some very important
identifiable deductions. An important identification to make that has not already been stated is
the raw score that individuals on average received on both the Accuracy Index and also the
Outsourcing Index. The former, as mentioned previously, asks individuals a series of true and
false questions and gives a point for each correct answer. These questions pertain primarily to the
United States military and political actions on an international level to establish and protect its
position as the world Hegemon. In general, participants did not do as terribly as had been
presumed prior to data collection. Out of 100 participants, while some neglected to answer the
entire question, the smallest group of only 16 (16%) participants received a score of only zero
out of three. The largest majority, 24 (24%) participants scored a two out of three while another
21 (21%) participants scored a total of three out of three on the Accuracy Index. This shows that
a major majority of people surveyed in this study have at least a general idea of the issues within
the World-System and have shown this be answering more than just one of the questions
correctly.
With regards to the questions themselves, the data shows that one of the three questions
was answered false more frequently than the other two. This question was a true false question
composed as follows: “The United States is responsible for the development of corporatefriendly authoritarian regimes in regions such as Latin America.” As this statement is true based
on foreign military interactions in Guatemala and other Central and South American countries as
well as different regions around the world, a false answer denoted that a participant is either
oblivious to this occurrence or has been mislead as to the intentions of these actions. A majority
of participants got this question correct with 54 people (54%) answering that this was true, yet 35
(35%) participants answer this question incorrectly. This is important to consider because for the
Misinformed America 51
other questions which comprised this Accuracy Index, which discussed military and political
intervention to protect the global position of the United States and also whether or not issues or
conflicts arise as a result of inequality in the World-System only 25% (25 participants) and 20%
(20 participants) answered this question incorrectly, respectively. This means that a larger
number of people are familiar with these issues as compared to the previously noted question
which they are less familiar with.
Similar analysis can be made of the second kind of index that was generated to test a
participant’s knowledge of the World-System. As described in the literature, many issues and
root causes of inequality within the hierarchy of World-System dynamics come as a result of
exploitation of nations and citizens of the periphery by wealthy nations and powerful
corporations of the core. This process is completed and enhanced by outsourcing of production
processes of profit corporations that lower labor costs for wealth groups but stagnate the quality
of life for people in these areas. Moreover, the United States as a wealthy nation, not only
benefits from the profits of these corporations, but also assists them politically, militarily or
otherwise so that the actions of Multi-National Corporations are overlooked because of the
“potential” for development and profit incentives this brings in for both parties.
For these reasons, participants were asked a series of three questions which asked to what
degree they agreed or disagreed with the given statements in order to gauge to what extent they
knew about or understood this complicated dynamic. Overall, for each question, the majority of
individuals claimed that they neither agreed nor disagreed or they were unsure of how they felt.
The first question stated that on a whole the United States achieved its position as Hegemon with
the equal treatment of developing nations in mind. From research and review of literature, this
statement is factually incorrect, however, 18 (18%) participants either agreed or strongly agreed.
Misinformed America 52
The majority, 37 (37%) participants stated that they neither agreed or disagreed or were unsure.
A final 36% (36 participants) stated that they disagreed with these statements and have identified
and acknowledge the mal-intentions of certain actions of the United States. Similar results were
identified for the other two questions that became a part of the series for the Outsourcing Index.
The remaining pair of questions that was asked as part of this index were: (1) Outsourcing by
US-based capitalist corporations does not directly disadvantage the lifestyle of people in the U.S.
The final question was: (2) Outsourcing described above does not directly disadvantage
individuals of “developing” world nations where the outsourcing is taking place. For the most
part, the data collected for these questions was very similar to that collected for the first question
mentioned as part of this index, however, for the former, a larger majority (57; 57%) of people
disagreed or strongly disagreed with that statement. This mean that overall, people chose not to
answer and although that data is somewhat inconclusive, the researcher can assume that a
significant amount of people have little to no accurate information about issues that result from
the actions of Multi-National Corporations and the interactions that this has with the United
States government.
Another notable finding has to do specifically with participants’ consumption of media.
As mentioned before, for the most part with this sample, there is no one source that can be
identified as the most popular. However, a more important consideration is the amount of trust
that a person associates with their chosen news source. Research in this area suggests that ideas
of the media have become one of the most pervasive influences for socialization and that the
news media is even more impactful because people as a whole believe that the information given
in this form is always non-fiction; or at least it should be. In order to evaluate this research in
application to this survey sample, participants were asked to rank their chosen source of news
Misinformed America 53
based on how trustworthy they believed that source to be on a scale of one to ten. Over 50% of
participants (73 participants; 73%) ranked their selected choice of news at least six or higher.
Which mean that a significant amount of participants have certainly followed the trend that
overwhelmingly, people do believe that their news source is at least somewhat trustworthy and
therefore most likely hold the information that they get from it to be true. Due to the fact that it
has been stated in review of previous literature that media corporations on an international level
are not only owners of each other, meaning that in some way they all forward the same profit
agenda, but that also their main financial contributor is the government. The government then
can significantly impact what is being said in the mainstream media and a predominant amount
of people will hold this to be the truth because they believe that the information they consume
from their chosen source is information that can be trusted.
A portion of this study was aimed at discovering whether or not people believed that they
had some sort of responsibility to try and change issues of inequality that they know about in the
world. As this was previously established in hypothesis three, a more notable discussion is
whether or not individual’s think that the United States should make it a priority of the
government to the actions or intentions of multi-national corporations. The profit initiative of
these companies include outsourcing and exploitation of the developing periphery nations and
disadvantages these citizens and can also impact job availability in the United States.
Participants were given the statement: “The United States does not have any responsibility to
monitor or change the actions and intentions on Multi-National Corporations” and were asked to
what extent they agreed or disagreed. A majority of people (30; 30%) stated that they disagreed
with this statement while another 26 (26%) participants selected that they neither agreed or
disagreed or were unsure. With another 16 (16%) participants saying they strongly agree with
Misinformed America 54
this statement that leaves only 18 (18%) participants who either agreed or strongly disagreed.
This data shows that of those surveyed, participants overwhelmingly believe that the actions of
Multi-National Corporations should be changed and that the United States has the responsibility
as the world Super Power to influence the necessary changes or issues.
The most notable of these deductions is that after having determined that which news
source individuals choose has a moderate impact on the accuracy of their perception of the
World-System. This information can be linked to the conclusions of hypothesis five, in which it
was found that significant influence can link an individual’s accuracy of knowledge about the
World-System to an individuals opinion of the United States in general and also as an actor
within this system. As the citizens of the Hegemonic nation, Americans as a citizenry have the
most potential to change issues that occur in the World-System. As the results in hypothesis five
show, the opinions of citizens regarding the United States do change based on the information
that they know regarding World-System events and inequalities. If we as a group can continue to
educate the larger population and change their perception of the United States as an actor within
this system, it is possible that we can also create change within our own government and
furthermore change the dynamic of the World-System in general.
Limitations
The research study conducted was done as exploratory research onto a topic that has been
rarely explored. As a member of the hegemonic society and a Sociology student determined to
impact the inequalities of the world, the researcher has been interested in the way that people
around me seem to idle through their lives unconcerned with the global impacts of the life we
live. In attempting to access this group and also get an idea of how a person’s perception of
global issues could be impacted by the corporate media that informs the majority of society on
Misinformed America 55
these issues the researcher constructed this study. However, major limitations did exist in its
execution.
A major limitation was the amount of time given between IRB approval and submission
deadlines that became an issue due to the fact that the research was conducted in fulfillment of a
senior thesis for the University of La Verne. Another limitation was that participants that were
members of a very limited spectrum and social circle completed the survey. The majority of
participants were in some way personally connected to the researcher or the friends of the
researcher who may have also taken the survey themselves. Furthermore, in order to create a
generalizable population size that could be accomplished in a short time frame, participants were
residents of Southern California. Each of these issues could be improved in future research and
could definitely improve the effectiveness and legitimacy of valuable information.
A final limitation to this study is most likely the most significant. A researcher who is
familiar with and well read on literature, language and concepts of World-Systems Theory
conducted this study. The instrument itself was written under this pretense and data itself was
analyzed with this lens. Furthermore, individuals who are not familiar with this topic and may
have had a hard time conceptualizing the data the was presented and also the correlation made
between variables. Additionally, participants of this study may have been exposed to terms, links
and ideas that may have been confusing or hard to understand making their answers difficult to
select and their results slightly altered from what they may actually know.
Reflexivity
The researcher has realized that not only are there limitations that have impacted the
conduct and product of the research and data associated with this study, but also that the
researcher herself has had an unintentional impact on the end result. These impacts include, first
Misinformed America 56
and foremost, the fact that on some level, a large majority of the participant were direct
acquaintances of the researcher. Due to the fact that most participants not only know the
researcher personally, and therefore are familiar with not only the subject of the research in
particular but also the researchers own opinions about the global and national society. Another
reflexive issue is that when writing the questions, just as the questions themselves as well as the
stated purpose of research could guide the participant in a way that altered their answer choice,
the researcher’s perception of the issues being asked could have definitely subconsciously
influenced the composition of individual questions and answer choices further contributing to the
alteration of a participant’s answers.
Suggestions for Future Research
In the event that a person would wish to contribute to the development of this research, a
major suggestion by the researcher of this study would be to consider doing this research in a
qualitative study. In this way, future research could be more specific and be certain that the
participant understood each question fully before answering the question. Also, a qualitative
study would allow for the researcher to better gauge not only the actual accuracy of a person’s
perception of World-System events, but also their personal consciousness of their own ideas
about international issues. Furthermore, qualitative research would benefit this study so as to
identify what individuals truly think about global social problems and the impact of the United
States on these issues. Having to answer a structured set of question in a quantitative survey like
the one described here undeniably guides participants in a way that is undesirable.
Another major change that should be made to the execution of this study is to ask more
questions that test the accuracy of a person’s perceptions about the World-System. Evidently, as
this information in its purest form is extremely hard to access due to the fact that the majority of
Misinformed America 57
media sources have a bias in one way or another, this can pose quite a large challenge. However,
in the study presented above, only a total of six questions were asked in order to gauge a
person’s accuracy of World-System events. Furthermore, the questions asked did not hold a
consistent format and were hard to analyze and may have possibly been misleading to
participants. Therefore, more questions should be asked, but they should be asked in succession
in a consistent format. Also, it would be beneficial to have more than just a true or false answer
to test the accuracy of one’s information. As stated before, a false answer or an answer of agree
or strongly agree by a participant of this study was an indicator that they either were oblivious or
had been mislead. Only with probing that would be accomplished through qualitative research
questioning and analysis would a researcher be able to discover whether or not this false
interpretation was a result of not being very well-versed on international issues, or if an
individual had been mislead by a frequent, but facetious news source.
Other suggestions include, asking individuals whether or not they feel they have done
something that has impacted the issues they see as a result of the inequalities of the WorldSystem. The study done here simply asked people if they believed that global inequalities were a
significant issue and whether or not they believed there was a personal responsibility to do
something about it. It would be interesting to see whether or not people actually put their beliefs
into action or simply half-hearted hold these beliefs or at least associate with what they think is
the “correct” answer for a survey. Also, many of the questions as well as the selections for
answers could be adjusted to better clarify and evaluate an individual’s ideas, however many of
these issues could be avoided by making this study into a qualitative one, as previously
mentioned. Also, in an effort to expand this topic to reach its full potential as well as gain
information that can be applied to the large majority of the United States, a reformulated
Misinformed America 58
approach should be conducted in regional locations with a larger sample size throughout the
entire United States and from a diverse variety of participants.
Misinformed America 59
References
Ampuja, Marko. 2011. “Globalization Theory, Media-Centrism and Neoliberalism: A
Critique of Recent Intellectual Trends.” Critical Sociology. 38(281). (Retrieved
from Sage Publications on February 6, 2014).
Burmeister, Larry L. 2003. “The Hegemon Hedges: U.S. Farm Programs, WTO
Compliance and International Regime Stability. University of Kentucky:
Department of Sociology. 1-8. (Retrieved from SocIndex on February 20, 2010).
Chalaby, Jean K. 2006. “American Cultural Primacy in a New Media Order: A European
Perspective.” International Communication Gazette. 68(33). (Retrieved from
Sage Publications on February 11, 2014).
Cordesman, Anthony, H. 2000. “Globalization and U.S. Military Planning.” Center for
Strategic and International Studies. Retrieved March 30, 2014.
(http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/000301globalization.pdf)
Dubrow, Joshua K. 2013. “Democratic Global Governance, Political Inequality and the
Nationalist Retrenchment Hypothesis.” International Journal of Sociology. 43(2):
55-69. (Retrieved from SocIndex February 10, 2014).
Fabiansson, Charlotte. 2007. “Young People’s Perception of Being Safe—Globally and
Locally.” Social Indicators Research 80(1): 31-49. (Retrieved from SocIndex on
March 27, 2014).
Gherson, Giles. 2004. “The Role of the Media and Public Perceptions.” Canada-United
States Law Journal. 30:157-163. (Retrieved from Academic Search Premier on
March 30, 2014.)
Misinformed America 60
Giesen, Klaus-Gerd and Marcos, Nobre. 2010. “World-System Inequalities Before and
After the Crisis.” Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice. 22:339-348.
(Retrieved from JSTOR on February 10, 2014).
Herman, Edward and Robert McChesney. 2000. “The Global Media.” Pp. 216-227. In
The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization
Debate, edited by D. Held and A. McGrew. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Imre, Aniko and Ginette Verstraete. 2009. “Media Globalization and Post-Socialist
Ideologies.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 12 (131): 131-135. (Retrieved
from Sage Publications on December 12, 2013.)
Kwon, Roy. 2012. “Hegemonic Stability, World Cultural Diffusion, and Trade
Globalization.” Sociological Forum. 27(2): 324-347. (Retrieved from SocIndex
on February 10, 2014).
McChesney, Robert W. and John Nichols. 2002. Our Media, Not Theirs: The Democratic
Struggle Against Corporate Media. New York: Seven Stories Press.
Meernik, James. 1996. “United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of
Democracy.” Journal of Peace Research 33(4): 391-402. (Retrieved from JSTOR
on March 30, 2014.)
Root, Franklin R. 1976. “U.S. Based Multinationals and the Industrial World: Two
Alternative Futures.” 4(1): 34-39. (Retrieved from JSTOR on February 20, 2014).
Sanderson, Stephen K. 1999. “The Evolution of the Modern World, I: The Expanding
and Evolving Modern World-System.” Pp. 181-243 in Social Transformations: A
General Theory of Historical Development. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and
Littlefield Publishers.
Misinformed America 61
Stack, Michelle and Deirdre M. Kelly. 2006. “Popular Media, Education and Resistance.”
Canadian Journal of Education. 29(1): 5-26. (Retrieved from JSTOR on
December 12, 2013).
Staples, Clifford L. 2006. “Board Interlocks and the Study of the Transnational Capitalist
Class.” Journal of World-Systems Research 12(2): 308-319. (Retrieved from
SocIndex on March 24, 2014.)
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. “Theoretical Reprise.” Pp. 347-357 in Capitalist
Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth
Century. Academic Press, Inc.
Wallerstein, Immanuel, 2004. “The Modern World System as a Capitalist World
Economy: Production, Surplus-Value and Polarization. Pp. 23-41 in WorldSystems Analysis: An Introduction. Duke University Press.
Woods, Ngaire. 2000. “Order, Globalization and Inequality in World Politics.” Pp. 387399. In The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization
Debate, edited by D. Held and A. McGrew. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Misinformed America 62
Appendix A
Misinformed America 63
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Media Consumption and Global Social Issues
You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by Charlene Haskin, a student
who is working on her Bachelors of Science degree in Sociology from the Department of
Sociology and Anthropology at the University of La Verne. The results of this study will
contribute to the completion of my senior thesis. You were selected as a possible participant in
this study because you an adult resident of southern California who has access to media for
purposes of entertainment and information.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of media consumption on the knowledge of
southern California residents regarding international interactions within the contemporary
World-System.
PROCEDURES
If you decide to participate in this study, the researcher will ask you to do the following things:
This research study will be executed via online. Participants will be asked to read and sign an
electronic consent form. After reading the consent form, the participants will be asked to either
“Accept” or “Decline” in order to participate in the study. The online study is called Media
Consumption and Global Social Issues. Participants can complete the survey in any location of
their choosing, but they will be asked to complete the survey in its entirety. The extent of
information covered in this survey will require at least 15-30 minutes to complete. Upon
completion of the survey, participant will be prompted and encouraged to pass on the link to the
survey on their own social media site or to any participants who think they would be willing to
participate.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Participation in this study will require the completion of a survey in its entirety. The survey
developed is meant to assess many complex aspects of this topic, therefore it is possible that in
agreeing to participate in this study, the participant will need to contribute a significant amount
of time (approximately 15-30 minutes). However, it is extremely critical to this study and the
researcher will appreciate the participant’s willingness to lend his or her time to the completion
of this study and furthermore my senior thesis.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The results of this study will precipitate the participants’ curiosity about global international
social interactions. Thus the participants will become more motivated to seek more information
in order to promote awareness on international issues and the inherent link between the United
States and other national or corporate powers to these issues. Furthermore, this research will
Misinformed America 64
expand on the existing literature on World-Systems and Globalization theories by providing
insight on the citizens’ access to information and interaction within the system. Overall, the
results of this study will address a gap in the literature on the impact of shaping particularly the
hegemonic (American) citizens’ factual accuracy of international relations and World-Systems
so as to inspire change within the system.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identify the
participant will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with the participants permission or
as required by law, with the exception of the researcher’s senior thesis advisor. Confidentiality
will be maintained as the survey will be administered online, consent agreements and data
collection instruments will never be tangibly linked, thus eliminating confidentiality concerns.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
The participant can choose whether to be in this study or not. If the participant chooses to be in
this study, he or she may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. The
participant may also refuse to answer any questions that he or she does not want to answer and
still remain in the study. However, the researcher will greatly appreciate if the participant could
answer all questions if possible. The investigator may withdraw the participant from this research
if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact the principal
investigator, Charlene Haskin at charlene.haskin@laverne.edu or the senior thesis advisor,
Fatima Suarez, MSc. at fsuarez@laverne.edu.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You
are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research
study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a research participant, contact Marcia L.
Godwin, Ph.D., IRB Director, at 909-593-3511, extension 4103, (mgodwin@laverne.edu).
University of La Verne, Institutional Review Board, 1950 Third Street, CBPM 123, La Verne,
CA 91750.
Misinformed America 65
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT OR LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE
I understand the procedures described above. My questions have been answered to my
satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.
________________________________________
Printed Name of Participant
________________________________________
Printed Name of Legal Representative (if applicable)
________________________________________
Signature of Participant or Legal Representative
______________
Date
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR (If required by the IRB)
In my judgment the participant is voluntarily and knowingly giving informed consent and
possesses the legal capacity to give informed consent to participate in this research study.
________________________________________
Signature of Investigator
______________
Date
Misinformed America 66
Public Media Consumption and Perception of the Modern World System
Please answer the following questions as honestly and specifically as possible:
Part 1: Demographics
1. Where do you live? State __________________
County _________________
City ___________________
2. What is your personal gender affiliation?
a. Female
b. Transgender
c. Male
d. Decline to state
3. What is your age? __________________
4. Are you a US born citizen?
a. Yes
b. No
4b. If not, where were you born? _____________________
5. What is your education level?
a. Some High School
b. Trade or Technical School
c. High School Diploma
d. Some College
e. Associate’s Degree
f. Bachelor’s Degree (B.A. or B.S.)
g. Master’s Degree (M.A.)
h. Doctorate or Ph.D.
i. Other (please specify) _________________________
6. Which Political Party do you identify as/with?
a. Democrat
b. Green Party
c. Moderate/Independent
d. Republican
e. Tea Party
f. None/ Do Not Associate
g. Other ___________________________
h. Decline to state
7. What is your race?
a. African/African-American
Misinformed America 67
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Asian
Latino
Pacific Islander
White/Caucasian/Euro-American
Other _______________________
Decline to state
8. How would you describe your lifestyle at home?
a. Lower Class
b. Working Class
c. Middle Class
d. Middle-middle Class
e. Upper-Middle Class
f. Upper Class
9. On average, what is your average annual income?
a. $15,000 or lower
b. $15,001-$25,000
c. $25,001-$35,000
d. $35,001-$45,000
e. $45,001-$55,000
f. $55,001-$65,000
g. $65,001-$75,000
h. $75,001 or greater
10. Are you currently employed?
a. Yes, full-time employment
b. Yes, part-time employment
c. No, currently unemployed
d. Other (please describe) _______________________
10b. If yes, what is your occupation? ________________________
Part 2: Personal Media Consumption
The following questions discuss your personal, individual consumption of media. Please answer
the following questions as accurately as possible.
11. How often do you read, listen to and/or watch the news (i.e. Daily news, local news,
world news, etc.)?
a. Very Often
b. Often
c. Occasionally
d. Rarely
e. Very Rarely
Misinformed America 68
12. When you consume news, what type(s) of media source do you use the most often?
(Please select all that apply).
 Internet News Site(s)
 Newspaper
 Television News Broad Cast
 Social Media News postings
 Other (please specify) __________________________
13. If you were to choose any of the following sources to obtain your news from, which of
the following news broadcasting sources would be your default?
a. Al Jazeera
b. BBC News
c. CNN News
d. FOX News
e. The Guardian
f. KTLA or other local news broadcast
g. Los Angeles Times
h. MSNBC
i. NBC News
j. New York Times
k. USA Today
l. Some sort of social media posting (i.e. Facebook, twitter, etc.)
m. Other (please specify) ___________________________________
14. On a scale of 1 to 10 (with 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest), how trustworthy
do you think your chosen form of news is as far as giving complete, accurate and honest
stories on a regular basis?
Not At All
1
2
3
4
12. Of all the news sources available to
you, how important do you think it is to
retrieve information from a variety of
sources?
13. How often do you think that media
sources change or alter the information
that is made available to the public?
5
6
Completely Trustworthy
7
8
9
Always
Often
Sometimes
Almost
Never
Never
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
10
Misinformed America 69
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither/
Unsure
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
14. I believe that there is an appropriate
reason for a media source to change the
information they deliver to their audience.
15. I believe that the government should
influence the information that is given by
the media.
Part 3: Personal Perceptions of International Interactions
Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge.
16. Based on your knowledge regarding politics and international relations, on a scale of 1 to 10
(with 1 being the least and 10 being the most), how satisfied are you with the current role and
actions of the United States in current foreign affairs?
Not At All
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Extremely Satisfied
8
9
10
16. The United States government and military intervention is responsible for the development of
corporate-friendly authoritarian regimes in regions such as Latin America.
a. True
b. False
17. The U.S. has established itself to be the primary world super-power (economically,
politically and militarily). This position was obtained and maintained with any substantial
military intervention in other nations.
a. True
b. False
18. Has the United States government used military and/or political influence to assist or boost
the power of multi-national corporations around the world?
a. Yes
b. No
19. How satisfied would are you with the position of the United States as the global superpower means the country has used to maintain this position?
Not At All
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Extremely Satisfied
8
9
10
Misinformed America 70
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither/
Unsure
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20. As a whole, the United States has
achieved its position in the WorldSystem/Global-Economy with fair
treatment of developing nations in mind.
21. Outsourcing by US-based capitalist
corporations does not directly
disadvantage the lifestyle (ie.
Employment, income, health, etc.) of
people in the U.S..
22. Outsourcing described above does not
disadvantage individuals of the
“developing” world nations where the
outsourcing is taking place.
23. The United States government does
not have any responsibility to monitor or
change the actions and intentions of multinational corporations.
24. Do you concern yourself with the economic and political state of other less-powerful, lesswealthy nations?
a. Not at all
b. Sometimes
c. Often
d. Very often
25. Multi-national corporate control of the media is run by a relatively small number of corporate
news powers.
a. True
b. False
Part 4: National and Personal Responsibility
26. Do you believe that there are inherent issues that develop from the inequality between
wealthy and poor nations?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not sure
27. Do you think that you could have any impact on changing the issues within the world today
that result from inequality?
a. Yes, definitely
b. Probably not, but I would like to try.
c. No, not at all
Misinformed America 71
28. On a scale of 1 to 10, how important do you think it is to try and change the global issues of
inequality?
Not very important
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very Important
8
9
10
29. Do you think that you could have more of an impact on issues within the United States than
on global social issues?
a. Yes, definitely
b. Maybe, not sure.
c. No, I do not think I can impact these problems significantly
d. No, if I wanted to I could make an equal impact on either issue
30. Do you think that U.S. social issues are more important than global issues?
a. Yes, definitely
b. No, global issues are just as important
c. Global issues are more important than U.S. social issues
d. Don’t know/choose not to state
31. Do you think that it is your responsibility to impact the lives of others, either globally or
locally, in any capacity?
a. Yes
b. Maybe, not sure
c. Probably, but I am not an activist
d. No, not at all
Part 5: Closing Remarks
32. Is there anything else that you would like to add that has not already been asked in this
survey?
a. Yes ___________________________________________
b. Unsure
c. No.
Thank you for your time. Your personal contribution to this research is greatly appreciated and
the time you have committed has been of great assistance.
Misinformed America 72
Appendix B
Misinformed America 73
Table 1: Sample Demographics (N=100)
Demographic Variable
Frequency
N=100
Percentage
75
15
9
1
75%
15%
9%
1%
20
46
38
20%
46%
38%
Education Level
Some High School
Trade or Technical School
High School Diploma
Some College
Associate’s Degree
Bachelor’s Degree
Master’s Degree or higher
2
4
9
50
6
18
11
2%
4%
9%
50%
6%
18%
11%
Political Party Affiliation
Democrat
Green Party
Moderate/Independent
Republican
Tea Party
None/Do Not Associate
Other
Decline to State
27
2
7
30
2
27
4
1
27%
2%
7%
30%
2%
27%
4%
1%
1
2
18
0
72
1%
2%
18%
0
72%
4
1
4%
1%
2
2%
Gender
Female
Male
Transgender
Decline to state
Age
18-20
21-30
30+
Racial Identity
African/African-American
Asian
Latino/a
Pacific Islander
White/Caucasian/EuroAmerican
Other
Decline to State
Social Class Affiliation
Lower Class
Misinformed America 74
Working Class
Middle Class
Middle-Middle Class
Upper-Middle Class
Upper Class
31
30
20
17
0
31%
30%
20%
17%
0%
Income
$15,000 or lower
$15,001-$25,000
$25,001-$35,000
$35,001-$45,000
$45,001-$55,000
$55,001-$65,000
$65,001-$75,000
$75,001 or greater
28
14
14
8
3
1
6
26
28%
14%
14%
8%
3%
1%
6%
26%