Media imperialism is an area in the international political economy of communications research tradition that focuses on how "all Empires, in territorial or nonterritorial forms, rely upon communications technologies and mass media industries to expand and shore up their economic, geopolitical, and cultural influence." In the main, most media imperialism research examines how the unequal relations of economic, military and cultural power between an imperialist country and those on the receiving end of its influence tend to be expressed and perpetuated by mass media and cultural industries.
In the 1970s, research on media imperialism was mainly concerned with the expansion of US-based news and entertainment corporations, business models, and products into postcolonial countries as related to the problems of communication and media sovereignty, national identity formation and democracy. In the 21st century, research on media imperialism probes the whole gamut of the media, for example, how an Empire's global economic, military and cultural expansion and legitimization is supported by "the news, telecommunications, film and TV, advertising and public relations, music, interactive games, and internet platforms and social media sites."
For the past seventy years, media imperialism research has been undertaken by a wide range of international communication and media studies scholars, North and South. Some of the key researchers in this area are: Oliver Boyd-Barrett, Luis R. Beltrán and Elizabeth Fox, Ariel Dorfman, Thomas Guback, Cees Hamelink, Dal Yong Jin, Armand Mattelart, Robert W. McChesney, Tom McPhail, Toby Miller and Richard Maxwell, Tanner Mirrlees, David Morley, Graham Murdock, Kaarle Nordenstreng, Herbert I. Schiller, Dallas Smythe, Colin Sparks, Daya Thussu, and Jeremy Tunstall.
History of the concept
The concept of media imperialism emerged in the 1970s, although earlier developments laid the groundwork for its formulation. In 1961, the Non-Aligned Movement was established by states that were not formally aligned with any major power bloc. These countries advocated for a “middle course” in global communication, seeking greater autonomy for developing nations within the international media system.
During the 1970s, political leaders, media practitioners, and intellectuals in postcolonial countries increasingly criticized the concentration of ownership and control held by Western, particularly American, media corporations over global communication networks. At the time, there was a significant imbalance in the flow of news, with information predominantly moving from developed Western countries to the developing world, reportedly at a ratio of approximately 10:1.
In response, representatives from postcolonial nations proposed the NWICO at UNESCO as an effort to address these structural inequalities. Supported by the Many Voices, One World, countries such as India, Indonesia, and Egypt argued for policies that would strengthen national communication systems and protect cultural sovereignty. They emphasized that control over media and information was closely tied to broader goals of political independence, economic development, and cultural identity.
NWICO aimed to promote a more balanced flow of information, enhance the sovereignty of national media systems, and encourage cultural diversity. However, the proposal faced strong opposition from countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, which supported the principle of a “free flow” of information and market-based communication systems. Critics of NWICO in the West argued that it could lead to restrictions on press freedom, while supporters contended that the “free flow” principle primarily reinforced existing power imbalances.
Amid these tensions, the United States and the United Kingdom withdrew from UNESCO in 1985, citing concerns over censorship and limitations on press freedom. The NWICO initiative gradually declined thereafter. The United States later rejoined UNESCO in 2002 under the presidency of George W. Bush.
Key theorists and concepts
Herbert I. Schiller In Mass Communication and American Empire, Herbert I. Schiller emphasized the significance of the mass media and cultural industries to American imperialism, arguing that "each new electronic development widens the perimeter of American influence," and declaring that "American power, expressed industrially, militarily and culturally has become the most potent force on earth and communications have become a decisive element in the extension of United States world power."
In his 1976 book Communication and Cultural Domination, Schiller conveyed the very first definition of cultural imperialism, describing it as:
the sum processes by which a society is brought into the modern [U.S.-centered] world system and how its dominating stratum is attracted, pressured, forced, and sometimes bribed into shaping social institutions to correspond to, or even promote, the values and structures of the dominating centres of the system. The public media are the foremost example of operating enterprises that are used in the penetrative process. For penetration on a significant scale the media themselves must be captured by the dominating/penetrating power. This occurs largely through the commercialization of broadcasting.For Schiller, cultural imperialism refers to the American Empire's "coercive and persuasive agencies, and their capacity to promote and universalize an American 'way of life' in other countries without any reciprocation of influence." According to Schiller, cultural imperialism "pressured, forced and bribed" societies to integrate with the U.S.'s expansive capitalist model but also incorporated them with attraction and persuasion by winning "the mutual consent, even solicitation of the indigenous rulers." In some ways, Schiller's early definition of cultural imperialism is akin to Joseph Nye's more recent idea of soft power in international relations.
The historical contexts, iterations, complexities, and politics of Schiller's foundational and substantive theorization of cultural imperialism in international communication and media studies are discussed in detail by political economy of communication researchers Richard Maxwell, Vincent Mosco, Graham Murdock, and Tanner Mirrlees.
Oliver Boyd-Barrett In 1977, Oliver Boyd-Barrett described media imperialism as the unequal and asymmetrical power relationship between different countries and their media systems. Boyd-Barrett defined media imperialism as "a process whereby the ownership, structure, distribution or content of the media in any one country are singly or together subject to substantial pressure from the media interests of any other country or countries without proportionate reciprocation of influence by the country so affected." Boyd-Barrett emphasized how the corporations that owned the mass media in imperial countries such as the United States (but not exclusively the United States) were also exerting ownership over the mass media in smaller countries while shaping their media business "models", production standards, and formats. From the late 1970s to the 2020s, Boyd-Barrett authored and edited numerous books and volumes on continuity and change in media imperialism.
Tom McPhail In 1987, Tom McPhail defined cultural imperialism as "electronic colonialism", or, "the dependency relationship established by the importation of communication hardware, foreign-produced software, along with engineers, technicians, and related information protocols, that establish a set of foreign norms, values, and expectations which, in varying degrees, may alter the domestic cultures and socialization processes."
Paul Siu-Nam In 1988, Paul Siu-Nam Lee observed that "communication imperialism can be defined as the process in which the ownership and control over the hardware and software of mass media as well as other major forms of communication in one country are singly or together subjugated to the domination of another country with deleterious effects on the indigenous values, norms and culture."
John Downing and Annabelle Sreberny-Mohammadi In 1995, John Downing and Annabelle Sreberny-Mohammadi said: "Imperialism is the conquest and control of one country by a more powerful one. Cultural imperialism signifies the dimensions of the process that go beyond economic exploitation or military force. In the history of colonialism, (i.e., the form of imperialism in which the government of the colony is run directly by foreigners), the educational and media systems of many Third World countries have been set up as replicas of those in Britain, France, or the United States and carry their values. Western advertising has made further inroads, as have architectural and fashion styles. Subtly but powerfully, the message has often been insinuated that Western cultures are superior to the cultures of the Third World."
Needless to say, all these international communication and media studies researchers agree that cultural imperialism is undertaken by the world system's dominant imperial countries with and through the available and new means of communications and mass media, and often to the detriment of the countries on the receiving end of this process.
Tanner Mirrlees In 2016, Tanner Mirrlees redefined media imperialism in a historical study of how the US national security State partners with US-based yet globalizing media corporations to spread media and cultural goods intended to organize trans-national consent to American foreign policy. Building upon the political economy of communications scholarship of Herbert I. Schiller, Mirrlees argues that although the US government and media corporations pursue different interests on the world stage (the former, national security, and the latter, profit), they often collaborate to support the co-production and global distribution-exhibition of Empire-extolling media and popular cultural goods. Mirrlees focuses on four dimensions of media imperialism: 1. a structural alliance and symbiotic relationship between the US nation-state (pursuing its geopolitical interests in world affairs) and US-headquartered media and cultural industries (pursuing their economic interests in world markets); 2. the US nation-state's geopolitical support for the trans-national economic dominance of the US-based media and cultural industries; 3. the US media and cultural industries' support for the US nation-state's international propaganda, "soft power" and public diplomacy campaigns in other countries; and, 4. American media and cultural products whose messages and imagery is intentionally or inadvertently functional to the glorification and legitimization of the US Empire. Although Mirrlees' study focuses on the specificity of American media imperialism and the role of the media and cultural industries to US economic, military and cultural-ideological power, the four dimensions of media imperialism it identifies may be evident in the practices of other old and new imperialist powers.
Dal Yong Jin