Book Review: The Global Media -the New Missionaries Of Corporate Capitalism

Herman and McChesney deliver work that gives us a thorough insight into the world of Global Media and Corporate Capitalism, a concurrence of two worlds that has given birth to justified apprehension amongst scholars and consumers alike. The book provides a succinct roadmap to the rise of the global media from the post war era, the influence of English being established as the global second language, the emergence of new technology like the television, the internet to the augmented pace of global 'liberalisation'. The authors stress that mergers and acquisitions within the global media arena led to the creation of a tiered market. The first tier consists of 10 media conglomerates, which effectively form a global oligopoly. The second tier consists of another batch of firms who are regionally oligopolistic in nature. It is evident that it is this free reign, of such a small number of companies being in control of information on a global scale which concerns the authors. As consumer driven cartels, chasing profits for shareholders, these media corporations are driven down the path of producing material that sells but is socially unfavourable. It all connects with the authors' introductory stance on global corporate capitalism in the world of media being a threat to the public sphere, which requires nourishment via socially beneficial free flowing information expressed eloquently to maintain a healthy democratic social structure. The authors do identify advantages of a capitalist culture that these missionaries have allowed to be injected into their field. For example, they recognise the fact that these conglomerates provide a platform for advertisers to promote 'demand and consumerist values that grease the wheels of the global market' (Herman and McChesney, 1996, pp.189). They do lay these defences along with criticism, however not to great detail, which is why the latter half of this review explores the deficiencies in their arguments and methodology, which in some cases lack substance. The authors mention the phrase 'the balance of the world' with conjunction of the existence of second tier firms and insist upon the notion that 'in view of the prospective growth in parts of the developing world, some of these firms should grow quite rapidly' (Herman and McChesney, 1996, pp.100). Should they go as far as calling the world 'balanced' because of the existence of these smaller firms in the 'second tier'? Furthermore, they do not even provide evidence of this 'prospective growth' that they mention and especially evidence of growth of transnational media activity in the developing world to support their notion. The authors then move on to provide a paradoxical ideology of how they think the internet currently and in the future, will shape global media. They declare the internet 'has become the information highway' (Herman and McChesney, 1996, pp.118), yet they fail to see its potential and not only recognise it as a threat but stress 'the internet will hardly be in a position to overturn the dominance of television and traditional commercial media' (Herman and McChesney, 1996, pp.123). Whereas today, the internet is the fastest growing medium as a transporter of information and these missionaries are locked in a battle of capturing the ever increasing number of consumers that turn their backs on traditional forms of media. The authors' portrayal of the case studies lack constructive depth, it is disappointing, for example, to exemplify the US case, they emphasize on the deterioration in the quality of children's programming but just focus on a period of change between 1955 and 1990, until the Children's Television Act was passed. Having published the book in 1997, one would expect them to provide investigative substance between 1991 and 1996. Furthermore, they state the problem of 'the erosion of local cultures' (Herman and McChesney, 1996, pp.155), whereby they suggest weaker countries (those without linguistic barriers like Japan), like Latin American cultures succumb to denationalisation. They provide no evidence of the significance of the quantity of the population that is 'denationalised'. As for the defences of globalization and commercialisation are concerned, the authors provide little or no evidence to support the problems that they fear transcend across the board. They suggest valid beneficial outcomes of corporate capitalisation in global media, but at the same time, they seem inclined towards the possibility that these benefits are minimal compared to the threats that lurk to harm the public sphere. They quantify the profits of these share market focused firms and conglomerates but fail to quantify the benefits of the 'reach' of global media. This reach has been enabled by the funds pouring in from the inoculation of corporate capitalism into global media. They also fail to identify the economic benefit of economies thwarted by a lack of competitive medium for advertisers to thrive upon. They merely mention 'communication and information provide a large and growing area of investment' (Herman and McChesney, 1996, pp.189) but fail to investigate that this 'investment' may not be insignificant compared to the eye-catching numbers produced by these global media giants. They clearly are dissatisfied at the neoliberal approach of governments when setting regulation that barely contains these media giants from solely focusing on or deriving consumerism, individualism, profit maximisation, dissension towards public accountability and hegemonic dominance. Their concerns over the ever increasing perish of public service broadcasting and the inability of governments to protect these service providers from being engulfed by private commerce-hungry firms is commendable. On the contrary, their descri ptions and evaluations often lack depth and certainly provide diminutive prescri ption to enlighten those who agree with their views. It seems that the authors perceive the global media to have sold its soul for profit. I can only partially agree.