Reconsidering the Concept
of Media Imperialism
(Oliver Boyd-Barrett, Bowling Green State University
& Baptist University of Hong Kong)
Summary (1)
 Several different theories related to the rubric of media
imperialism emerged in the 1960s-1970s
 Although these theories related quite well to the
evidence available at the time, they were later deemed
by many critics to be out-of-date or overly simplistic
 Some of these criticisms missed the point. And even
with respect to the role of the US in the 21st century, the
death of US media imperialism has been exaggerated
Summary (2)
 Relevant post-1970s theorization provides multiple
conceptual advances: cultural imperialism, hegemony,
globalization, glocalization, post-colonial theory, “scapes”,
“networks,” soft power”, “perception management,” etc.
 The phenomena of imperialism (e.g. “free trade / neoliberal
imperialism”;” “humanitarian” imperialism and the
“colonization of consciousness”) and their relationship to
communications, has been obscured, historically and
contemporaneously.
 Now need to redefine the debate in a more openended way: focusing on direct, indirect, and dialectical
relationships between media and imperialism, including
media and resistance, today and yesterday. What are the
principal research questions?
Schiller (1969) Mass
Communication & American
Empire
Electronics and economics serving an American century
Marriage of economics & electronics substitutes for
coercion to achieve empire and “empires of free trade”
Entertainment distracts the populace from costs of empire
US control of information confuses, misinforms subject
peoples; encourages allegiance
And everywhere US media inform about and instruct
practices of consumption, with high premium on impulse
and immediacy
These patterns are described as “freedom”
Schiller (2)
 His view of media content was elitist, but he introduced
to the literature a distinctive focus on industrial
structure, business models and regulatory systems
 He provided a critique of limited diversity and
opportunities forgone, and tied it to an interest in the
military-industrial complex and imperialism
 Argued that media contribute to the structural
transformation of society
 Sole focus was on the US and on the present
Schiller (3)
 Attended to consolidation of corporate power in
broadcasting and sidelining of educational/public interest
 Inquired into spectrum allocation and prioritization of
military needs in context of a permanent war society
 With respect to satellite he argued that communications
technology, centered on COMSAT and INTELSAT
following the marriage of military research and private
enterprise, was at the core of US global policing
 Noted central role of profit in the system as a whole
including the heavy dependence of electronics on
government/military buyers
Schiller (4)
 Not the content that counts as the business model
behind the content
 International spread of US media essential to profits of
the communications industry profits, to US industry in
general, through the importance of media as an
advertising medium.
 Satellite was essential to the spread of US media
 Satellite and advertising interests helped undermine
public service broadcasting traditions in other countries,
promoting privatization and commercialization,
spreading western content, ideas and values,
consumerism
 Note the post-colonial context
Schiller (5)
 “The United States communications presence overseas
extends far beyond the facilities owned, the exports, and
the licensing agreements secured by major American
broadcasting companies and electronics equipment
manufacturers, considerable as these are. Equally, if not
more important, is the spread of the American system,
the commercial model of communications, to the
international arena” (p.93).
Tunstall(1977)
 Tunstall’s The Media Are American (1977) supported
Schiller’s thesis but operated on different political premises
 Later, 2007 work, called The Media Were American (2007)
 Tunstall chronicled rise of US domination of many national
markets, in developed and developing worlds, and
particularly concerned to factor in the continuing influence
of older empires, including the British and the French.
 He also paid attention to emerging or established
alternative, usually regional, centers of media power
 Primary driving factor of US media expansion was the
relative wealth of US consumer markets, This enabled US
media to recover production costs in the US and sell at
strong advantage overseas, rivaling other international
competitors and domestic producers.
Boyd-Barrett
 Proposed media-centric view of media imperialism focusing on
unequal relations of media power between media systems of
different nations. Approach influenced by
 Studies of the international news agencies (at that time led by AFP,
AP, Reuters and UPI)
 Drew on analysis of Hollywood box office domination in many
countries of the world
 Analysis of television showed high percentage of US and western TV
products in many countries of the world, and dominating role in the
trade of international television products
 His experience of British domination of the Irish media market
 His study of the influence of imperial powers on media development
in their colonies and domains of influence
 His theory was multi-factoral incl. not only ownership, structure,
distribution and content, as well as values of practice.
Have things changed so much?
International news agencies
 International news agency market still dominated by AFP
and AFPTV, AP and APTV, Bloomberg, Thomson-Reuters
and Reuters TV.
 (As before) there is a wide (perhaps wider) variety of
other institutions that gather & distribute news globally
 Mostly western (CNN, BBC, DW, News Corp’s Dow Jones,
France 24);
 Most linked to their respective governments (BBC, CNC
of China, RT and TASS of Russia, DW of Germany, Al
Jazeera (Qatari), Telesur (Venezuela), and Xinhua.
Have things changed? Hollywood
 Industry dominated in revenue terms by six principal
studios of Hollywood and the multinational
conglomerates that own them (News Corporation’s
Twentieth Century Fox, Viacom’s Paramount, Sony’s
Sony Pictures, GE and Comcast’s NBC/Universal, Walt
Disney, Time Warner’s Warner Bros),
 Even as other centers of global production such as
Mumbai (Bollywood) in India, and Lagos (Nollywood)
make more movies and even reach larger audiences.
 Almost 40% of revenue for global movie production and
distribution (worth $86.7 billion in 2012) is generated
from North American audiences, followed by Europe with
23.5% (IbisWorld, 2012).
Hollywood ctd
 MPAA studios and studio subsidiaries accounted for a
modest number, 141, of films released in US in 2011, most
film-makers must work with these giants for assistance in
finance and/or distribution.
 Of top 25 films in terms of 2011 box office, 24 came from
the big six studios.
 US/Canada accounted for approximately one third
($10.2 billion) of the global box office ($32.6 billion)
 Most of this spent on US product primarily, many billions
ahead of the next largest national markets, Japan ($2.3
billion), China ($2 billion) and France ($2 billion), and a few
decimal points behind the whole of Europe, Middle East and
Africa ($10.8 billion) and ahead of the whole of the
Asia/Pacific region ($9 billion) (MPAA, 2012).
Have things changed? Television
 Of total revenues represented by the global television
market (from advertising, subscription and public
funding), North America had the largest share in 2009,
accounting for 39% of almost 270 billion EUR, followed
by Europe (31%), Asia Pacific (21%), Latin America
(8%), Africa and the Middle East (2%)(International
Television Expert Group, 2010).
Have things changed? Recording
 Global music recording dominated by 3 players (Sony
BMG, Time Warner’s Warner Music Group, and Vivendi’s
Universal Music Group – a fourth player, EMI, is now
owned by UMG).
 These account for approx 88% of global sales, 2011
 UMG 30%;SONY 29%;Warner 19%;Indies 10%; EMI 9%
 US is top national market, at $4.37 bn in 2011, ahead of
Japan ($4.09 bn) and Germany ($1.47 bn)(International
Federation of the Phonographic Industry, IFPI, 2012).
Have things changed? Computing
 Significant growth of respective industries in India and particularly
China
 Global computing hardware dominated by US-based corporations
such as AMD, Apple, Cisco, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, and
Oracle – which now owns Sun Microsystems and Java
 US-based corporations remain exceptionally strong in software and
Internet (including Amazon, eBay – which owns PayPal - Facebook,
Google, Microsoft, Twitter)
 Many of these nurtured by concentration of talent and venture
capital in San Jose’s Silicon valley, California (Boyd-Barrett, 2005).
 Top Internet Service Providers (ISPs) globally are US corporations
Comcast Cable (7.15%), Road Runner (4.58%), AT+T (2.5%) and
Verizon FiOS (2.15%).
 Global desktop browser markets are dominated by Microsoft’s
Internet Explorer (55% of the market in 2012), Mozilla’s Firefox –
affiliated with Time Warner’s Netscape (21%), Google’s Chrome
(17%) and Apple’s Safari (5%) (Netmarketshare 2012).
Computing ctd.
 Microsoft: 90%+control of the global desktop operating
system market for PCs (91.5% in 2012), followed by
Mac (7.3%) and Linux (1.25%)(Netmarketshare 2012).
 In the mobile/tablet market, dominant OS supplier is
Apple’s iOS with 61% of the market, followed by
Google’s Android (28%) and Oracle’s Java ME (7%).
 Google global share 84+% of desktop search engine
market, followed by Yahoo (8%) &Microsoft’s Bing (5%).
 Google’s lead is even stronger in the mobile/tablet
search engine market at 91%, followed by Yahoo (6%)
and Bing (2%).
Worldwide Mobile Phone Sales
Computing (mobile)
 Mobile subs 2011: 5981m worldwide with 1092 in China, 907 in
India, 322 in USA, 206 in Indonesia, 197 in Brazil, 142 in Russia,
129 in Japan
 3G/4G mobile subs 2011: 1594 world with 256 in US, 212 in China,
104 in Japan, 71 in India, 66 in Brazil, 48 in Indonesia, 27 in Russia
 Worldwide phone manufacturers (market share) dominated, 2013,
by Samsung (24%), Nokia (15%) and Apple (9%).
 By country South Korea (Samsung and LGE) has 28%, Finland
(Nokia) 15% and China (Huawei, ZTE, TCL, Lenovo,Y ulong) 11.6%
 Smartphone manufacturer market share (2012): Samsung (30%),
Apple (19%), Nokia (5%)
 By Operating System, global market dominated, 2012, by Android
(Google) at 72%, Apple (14%), (Canadian) RIM at 4.5%, (Nokia’s)
Symbian (3%)
(Sources: Mobithinking.com; Gartner; netmarketshare.com)
Global Mobile Operators

(In US$ millions, 2010)(Subs)

1China Mobile (China)
594.2m
China Mobile
$71,571.6m

2Vodafone Group (UK)
338.9m
Verizon (US)
$63,407.0m

3America Movil (Mexico) 224.4m
Vodafone Group
$60,779.7m

4Telefonica (Spain)
216.9m
AT&T
$58,500.0m

5Bharti Airtel (India)
199.2m
Telefonica
$52,729.1m

6China Unicom (China) 169.3m NTT DOCOMO (Japan)
$48,462.5m

7AT&T (US)
148.8m Deutsche Telekom
$45,694.5m

8SingTel (Singapore)
133.9m America Movil
$29,940.4m

9France Telecom (France) 129.5mFrance Telecom
$29,718.0m

10Reliance Communications (India)125.7mSprintN
$28,597.0m

Source: Portio Research (2011) via: mobiThinking
Have things changed? Social
networks
 In terms of number of active users, Facebook still
dominates the global social networking landscape, with
Google Plus, YouTube, Twitter and Chinese internet giant
Tencent's Qzone, filling out the other top positions according
to market research firm Trendstream's Global Web Index.
 Facebook currently has more than a 700 million active users
(and about 1.1 billion user accounts), accounting for 51% of
global social networking use, followed by Google Plus with
25% and YouTube with 21%. The number of Twitter users
has reached 288 million.
 Trendstream expects Twitter's user base to grow fastest
based on accelerating growth over the past year.
 http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclasscnt.aspx?id=20130130000115&cid=1202 Jan 30, 2013
Social Networks, ctd
Have things changed? Advertising
(Zenithoptimedia)
 Top Ad Markets in current US$ millions, 2011&2014
USA
0154129
0173950
Japan
0049949
0052964
China
0032299
0043940
Germany
0025571
0026828
UK
0019204
0021088
Brazil
0016819
0022216
France
0013788
0014216
Australia
0012767
0013770
Canada
0010974
0012394
S Korea
0010232
Russia
0012394
Advertising ctd: Share of World
Market
 (AdAge.com) -- United States accounts for 5% of the
world's population, 20% of global GDP and 34% of total
worldwide advertising, making the U.S. by far the
largest ad market
 China accounts for 20% of the world's population, 13%
of global GDP and -- for now -- just 5% of total
worldwide advertising.
Advertising ctd
 Ad Spend by Region US$million, current prices
2011/2014
 North America
165104
186344
 W Europe
108688
112642
 Asia/Pacific
132172
157155
 C&E Europe
026151
031089
 LatAm
035344
045600
 MidEast/Nafr
004155
004412
 Rest
011592
014812
 Total
483206
552054
Advertising ctd: By region, 2010
Advertising ctd
 % Share by Medium 2011/2014
 Newspapers
20.2
16.8
 Magazines
09.4
07.9
 TV
40.2
40.3
 Radio
07.1
06.7
 Cinema
00.5
00.5
 Outdoor
06.6
06.3
 Internet
16.0
21.4
Advertising: who are the
advertisers?
Advertising ctd: Who are the
advertisers?
Top 100 global advertisers invest 61% of measured-media
budgets outside U.S. in 2009 (Ad Age's Global Marketers:a
study covering 96 countries, territories and regions
Among 46 U.S.-based marketers in Global 100, 12 firms do
more than half of ad spending abroad, largely tracking with
where they generate revenue and expect to find growth
Among the 54 non-U.S. companies on the Global 100 list,
six marketers -- including four pharma firms -- do more
than half of their advertising in the U.S. market
Top 30 Global Marketers 2011
(Allbrands data)
 Proctor and Gamble Kraft
PSA Peugeot/Cit
 Unilever
Fiat
Time Warner
 L’ Oreal
Mars
Glaxco
 General Motors
J&Johnson Honda
 Nestle
Ford
Disney
 Coca-Cola
Comcast
Yum (KFCetc)
 Toyota
PepsiCo
Ferrero (It)
 Volkswagen
Sony
Danone (Fr)
 McDonalds
Pfizer
Deutsche Telekom
 Reckitt Benckiser(H) Nissan
Bierrsdorf/Tchibo
(G:Nivea)
Big5 Ad/Marketing/PR Holdings
2012
 Dentsu (Japan) $14bn (50% NA)
 WPP (UK) $16bn (33% NA)
 Publicis (Fr) $9bn (34% NA)
 Havas (Fr) $2bn
 Interpublic (US) $7bn (57% NA)
Have things changed? IPR
 IBISWorld’s estimates that the 2010 U.S. domestic intellectual
property licensing and franchising market alone was valued at
US$27.5 billion with 20.3% of that total (or US$5.58 billion)
attributed to patent and trademark licensing royalty income.
 October 22, 2005 Economist stated “In America alone, technology
licensing revenue accounts for an estimated $45 billion annually;
worldwide, the figure is around $100 billion and growing fast.”
 IMF data suggest that the US patent market generated transactions
worth $500 million in 2006 and IP-related damage awards and
settlements were $3.4 billion in the US alone
 Ocean Tomo (2010) estimates that in 2009, nearly 81% of the value
of the companies comprising the S&P 500® stock index comes from
intangible assets – the largest component of which is IP.
 Millien writes that in 2005 alone, IBM was awarded 2,941 U.S.
patents, and in 2007 earned about $1 billion annually from its
portfolio.
Licensing and franchising
 Overall value of U.S. intellectual property in 2005 was $5.5 trillion,
more than the nominal gross domestic product of any other country,
 Intellectual property trade accounted for 60% of US exports
(totaling $900 bn in 2007) in a country whose GDP was $14 tn.
 Compares to total value of global trade in information and
communication technology (ICT) of $4 tn in 2008 (Slater, 2011).
 Internet economy alone amounted to 4.1% of GDP across the G-20
nations ($2.3 tn) in 2010.
 Slater (2011) records intensive IT-using industries account for 25%
of GDP and 25% of economic growth, whereas IT-producing
industries (semiconductors, computers, communications, software)
account for 3% of GDP and 25% of economic growth.
 In 2007, the U.S. spent 2.67% of total GDP on R&D, or US$374.11
bn.
All media
 Total US revenue for publishing, film and sound recording,
telecommunications and Internet industries in 2009 over $1
trillion.
 Telecommunications accounted for almost half ($494 billion);
publishing accounted for a quarter ($264 billion), Internet service,
web services and data processing for less than a tenth ($103
billion), broadcasting for about the same ($99 billion) and motion
pictures and sound recording a little less ($91 billion), with the
remainder accounted for by the categories of Internet publishing
and broadcasting ($20 billion) and “other” ($7 billion). (U.S. Census
Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012, p.710).
 Xinhua: Total output value of China's media industry doubled
in the past five years to hit 580.8 billion yuan (89.2 bn U.S.
dollars) in 2010.Fastest growing sectors in 2010 were online
advertising, the film industry and radio broadcast
advertising.
 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/201104/22/c_13841792.htm
All media
 The National Science Board (2012): global value-added by ICT
industries (semiconductors, communications equipment, computers,
communications, computer programming and data processing)
more than doubled from $1.2 trillion in 1995 to $2.8 trillion in 2010
 ICT industry accounts for 6 percent of global GDP. Of the total, the
US alone accounted for 26%. Asia as a whole, including Japan,
China and the “Asia 8” accounted for 33%, and Europe 22%.
 United States has highest ICT share of fixed capital investment
(26%) of large OECD economies, with the United Kingdom a close
second.
 United States is leader in ICT business infrastructure among the
larger developed economies (table 6-2), with an index score
substantially higher than those of France, Germany, the United
Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea.
 All within broader context of “knowledge and technology-intensive”
industries (KTI) whose global value added totaled $18.2 trillion in
2010, representing 30% of estimated world gross domestic product
(GDP).
The Issue of Reception
Regardless of whether audiences agree with, negotiate or
reject the dominant or hegemonic meanings of texts….
Whatever restricts access of producers to technologies of
communication and to audiences, reduces the range and
diversity of representations available, or the ease with
which audiences may access them is a legitimate matter of
democratic and human concern
Large media conglomerates, many substantially dependent
on global brand advertisers, operating both online and
offline, through every aspect of the communications
process, including the gatekeeping of content flows through
networks of cable, satellite, telephony, internet restrict
access and diversity.
They are the new colonizers of consciousness
Reception (2)
 Hall, Morely and other cultural theorists of the 1980s were
writing in advance of the emergence of strong “framing”
and “indexing” theories. These suggest audiences are
vulnerable to the systematic foci, emphases and exclusions
of mainstream media, as agenda setting theory would also
suggest
 Schiller (19690: exaggerated fear of “Wall-to-Wall Dallas”
and cultural homogenization,
 Yet there has been significant homogenization – the
homogenization of neoliberalism – and Dallas was
symptomatic of the ways in which new communication
technologies would be harnessed to promote the ideologies
of extreme capitalism, and of free trade imperialism, or
neoliberalism-by-pretext (“humanitarian intervention,”
democracy, getting-rid-of-”tyrants”)
Back to Imperialism
Practical contemporary issue of neo-liberal / “free trade” /
“extreme capitalistic” imperialism operating territorially and
digitally, significantly dependent on perception
management to gain consent for the neo-liberal order
Promoted by adoption of Friedmanesque economics by
Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.
Scuttled post-WW2 balance achieved between capital and
labor, returned us to the 19th century, and elevated the
hegemony of Pax Americana
One starting point is to identify the range of relationships
between communications media and imperialism
7 Relationship of Media to
Neoliberalism (1-3)
 Media, information and communications industries interrelate with
processes of globalization in a variety of important ways:
 (1) they provide the enabling physical infrastructure for global
communications (e.g. overland and undersea cables, satellites and
satellite delivery systems, and wireless stations for wired and
wireless communication, including internet and telephony);
 (2) media and communication hardware and software industries are
themselves significant domains for international capital
accumulation, generally in the form of large multi-media
conglomerates operating internationally, and as such are fullblooded corporate members of what is sometimes described as a
neoliberal world economic order;
 (3) they provide vehicles for the advertising of goods and services
produced by member states and corporations of this order, most of
whom are signatories to the World Trade Organization;
7 Relationships of Media to
Neoliberal Imperialism (4&5)
 (4) through their content and the representations of
lifestyles in their content, they trigger a "demonstration"
effect that stimulates continuing demand for goods and
services and that is generally positive for consumerism;
 (5) many of these media also service the global financial
and commercial order through the provision of an
informational infrastructure, one that is increasingly
essential to the operation of modern capitalism, that
comprises sophisticated, interactive instruments for the
interrogation of massive financial, commercial and
corporate data-bases; in some instances such media
also provide electronic market places for trading activity;
7 Relationships of Media to
Neoliberalism (6&7)
 (6) media also police the ideological boundaries of
tolerable expression at national and international levels
– promoting content that increasingly serves the
interests of neoliberalism (mainly having to do with the
progressive abolition of national restrictions on trade in
goods and services), marginalizing, suppressing or
excluding content that does not and (
 (7) these industries provide critical support to the
development of the “surveillance society” or, in other
words, to the centralized collection of more and more
detailed, instantly accessible intelligence (to those few
who control or pay for it), to a degree unparalleled in
human history in a manner that is also increasingly and
literally “weaponized,” in the form of drone and other
forms of robotic warfare.
Scholarly Foundations
 The problem is imperialism. Media are implicated with
imperialism in many different ways, directly, indirectly,
dialectically, and media are equally implicated in
processes of resistance to imperialism
 The range of connections is represented by such
different scholars as Harold Innis and Marshall McLuhan,
Herman and Chomsky, Daya Thussu
 Mainstream media uniformly support hegemonic power
to which they are subject. Through almost all the 50+
US interventions, invasions and destabilizations since
World War 2, mainstream US media have supported US
aggression, hypocrisy and evasion.
The Case of Hollywood
 Liaisons between Pentagon, FBI and CIA
 Entertainment as effective perception management
 Think Quiet American (Mankiewwicz 1958)(Noyce 2002)
 Think Alfred Hitchcock: esp.Topaz, Torn Curtain
 Also need to understand Hollywood as an ideological
forum (think Executive Action, JFK or Syriana as well as
Zero Dark Thirty)
 Often most troubling when seemingly most “real” – think
Good Shepherd, Charlie Wilson’s War or Green Zone and
other “Iraqi War Films” such as In the Valley of Elah
 Differentiate between support for the agents, the
institutions and for US foreign policy
The Case of Iran
 Accusing Iran of aggression, without evidence
 Assuming White House and anonymous official sources tell the truth
 “As though” journalism: pretending that the reader has not been
paying attention
 Beefing up western propaganda against Iran
 Disinformation and confusion
 Dubious sources linked to dubious journalists: that may be covertly
linked to the military-industrial establishment or appear consistently
to be behind stories that appear to work propagandistically
 Preparing the public for war, and blaming it on Iran
 Present Iran as negatively as possible, sometimes lying
 Presumption of the worst
 Pretense of certainty in contexts of uncertainty or improbability