Abstract
The myths of the globalization paradigm
The study of media globalization has not escaped the definitional entanglements and muddled understandings of the globalization literature. As shorthand for almost anything currently happening in the media, media globalization is a Jack-of-all-trades concept used to refer to various developments, such as interconnected digital platforms, the global expansion of media corporations, the international spread of commercialism and consumerism, the traffic of diasporic media, and the use of various media to resist economic globalism and imperialism. Media globalization is an analytical category to comprehend specific processes, that evokes (un)desirable normative horizons of connected citizens, media systems, and markets. More than a clear set of questions and theories, media globalization is a Rorschach blot of scholarly debates about contemporary dynamics and trends.
No question, the literature on media globalization has raised important questions: What drives the expansion of global media? What is the impact of globalization on media systems and practices? Does global media lead to similar or different content? Are global media used to cultivate transnational sentiments and cosmopolitan citizenship? How are global risks, crises, and disasters portrayed by the media? Critics, however, have rightly pointed out blindspots and “myths” in the “media globalization” paradigm (Ferguson, 1992; Hafez, 2007; Morris and Waisbord, 2001; Sparks, 2007). Some arguments, such as the idea of a global mediated public sphere, are assertions and hopes without sufficient empirical evidence. The notion that global media technologies have fundamentally reshaped collective action is intriguing, but it is too general to capture the vast universe of experiences concerning media and participation. The focus on global media content frequently forgets the vitality of local mediated cultures. Interest in transborder media assumes, rather than demonstrates, the disappearance or the porosity of political and cultural borders.
Along with this critical questioning of media globalization, my interest here is to spotlight some of its limitations for media policy studies. The globalization paradigm assumes the centrality of global processes and downplays local and national developments that are marginally linked to world trends. Media policy is articulated in terms of the expansion of global capital, the global media sphere, and global policies. These are important questions, yet they are bounded by narrow analytical parameters. Put simply, is everything in media policy studies – the debates and formulation of policies as well as specific regulatory frameworks – explained by globalization? What if globalization, actually, explains very little about the complex process of media policy-making? Can we convincingly say, for example, that the way national media policies are debated, designed, and implemented is intelligible only in relation to globalization? What critical issues fall through the analytical cracks of the globalization paradigm?
My interest is to probe these questions in the context of media reforms in Latin America during the past decade. These experiences show two analytical lacunae in the “globalization” paradigm: the presence of counter-tendencies to market-driven globalization and the centrality of the state as the arena for disputes over media organization and performance. Policy reforms cannot be comprehensively discussed from a perspective that foregrounds global processes and dynamics. This perspective does not foreground national politics. Government policies, civic mobilization, coalitions and alliances, and political opportunities are important dimensions of media policies that are not central to the “media globalization” paradigm.
Latin America and media globalization
The evolution of Latin American media cannot be analyzed without addressing globalization. Furthermore, the region’s media history proves right skeptics who believe that fin-de-siècle globalization was the prolongation of historical processes rather than representing completely new developments. The evolution of the media has been linked to colonialism, imperialism, and other forces of globalization.
If globalization is identified with increased interconnectivity, Latin America was already “globalized” before the market media policies of the 1990s. The media in the region were at the crossroads of international flows of capital, migration, technology, and ideas. Media systems historically developed according to the basic tenets of market globalization: privatization and deregulation (Fox and Waisbord, 2002). If globalization is another name for “Americanization,” Latin America has long been a prime market for US capital, technology, and content. Foundational texts in the “media imperialism” tradition viewed Latin America as a perfect illustration of a Hollywood-dominated global media order. The region’s media history during the “American century” is incomprehensible aside from the early and extensive presence of US interests. Finally, if “hybridization” is the essential feature of contemporary cultures in late capitalism (Pieterse, 1994), Latin America cultures were hybrid before postmodernism. Hybrid cultures developed during modernity, and were shaped by multiculturalism, colonialism, and conflict (Garcia Canclini, 2005). In summary, the media in Latin America are Exhibit A of globalized media systems historically shaped by transnational flows.
But globalization always told only part of the story about media in the region. Media policies were not merely a reflection of global trends. International economics and geo-politics provided valuable yet incomplete snapshots of the configuration and dynamics of media systems. The interaction between domestic and international processes historically shaped media systems. From conditions for broadcasting production to the characteristics of journalistic cultures, several issues fell through the analytical cracks of globalization theories (Fox and Waisbord, 2002).
The return of statism
The resurgence of populism in Latin America during the past decade sheds light into the analytical limitations of media globalization perspectives. A complex and ambiguous concept, Latin American populism refers to political movements with support from the working class and the poor, a leadership style characterized by charisma and personalism, economic statism and distributionism, and rhetorical appeals to the “people” against its enemies (e.g. the oligarchy, imperialism, anti-patriotic forces). Populism’s coming to power in several countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela) significantly changed the political landscape. It brought in economic and social policies, political dynamics, and public debates that challenge the neo-conservative order identified with market-driven globalization (Escobar, 2010).
Among other changes, populism has set out to drive major reforms in media systems (Waisbord, 2011). Governments have frequently clashed with dominant media companies identified with conservative economic and political interests. Presidents have regularly criticized leading media companies for representing anti-popular interests and conspiring to overthrow them. Under the justification that they need to battle media enemies, governments have strengthened media apparatuses under control of the Executive. They have done so through several strategies: pouring resources into state-owned media, rewarding sympathetic private owners with government advertising and contracts, and expropriating media companies (as has happened in Venezuela and Ecuador in the past years). They also tried to muffle press criticism by passing “gag” laws and, with the help of judges, imposing hefty fines on libelous content.
Also, populism has supported community media that have historically existed in legal limbo and survived on shoestring budgets. The Fernandez de Kirchner administration successfully pushed for a new broadcasting law in Argentina that assigns a third of broadcasting frequencies to “social” (non-commercial, non-government) licenses. The Chávez government has continuously funded dozens of community media, not only in Venezuela – it has also supported a network of radio stations supportive of President Evo Morales in Bolivia.
Not surprisingly, populism’s media policies have generated significant controversy. They have been vigorously opposed by traditional media trade associations, professional organizations, and freedom of expression groups.
It would be wrong to conclude that populism has completely overhauled media systems. Private media still attract the largest audiences. Public media remain hobbled by government discretionalism. Yet governments have a stronger presence in media systems than a decade ago. Taking advantage of the economic bonanza of the last years, populism had spent a considerable amount of public funds on the media. Dissent is not absent in the media, but critics believe that judicial decisions in favor of presidents and new legislation intended to regulate media content have had “chilling” effects on critical news coverage in Ecuador and Venezuela.
What is the significance of populism for debates about media globalization?
First, populism challenges basic tenets of media globalization. Media policies under populism neither represent the domination of global conglomerates nor the consolidation of mediated transnational citizenship. Populism has not implemented policies to suppress international flows of capital and content in the way nationalist administrations did in the region in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Instead, recent policies represent the return of the conception that the state should play a critical role in media ownership, funding, and production. Certainly, the state never went away, even when governments favored privatization, liberalization, and deregulation in the 1990s. The main difference is that populism has beefed up the state presence in the media and aggressively set out to reconfigure the private sector by curbing the power of oppositional media and rewarding sympathetic owners.
Second, populist policies challenge the notion that contemporary media processes are linked to broad globalization processes. They do not illustrate the stretching of power beyond the modern state in an interconnected global economy. Nor do they reflect the rise of a global mediapolis for nurturing world citizenship and debates about planetary problems. In fact, they suggest that, amidst globalization, the state remains a central arena for political, economic, and civic interests to wage political battles, and that governments have considerable margin of action to produce significant shifts in media environments.
If populism is symptomatic of a political crisis that opens new opportunities for citizens’ mobilization and the reformulation of the political order, as Laclau (2005) writes in his influential analysis, it is not obvious that media globalization is at the center of that crisis. Populism and its media policies, arguably, reflect the perpetual crisis of political systems beset by weak democratic institutions (Congress, political parties, media laws) and prone to charismatic, personalistic leaderships.
Certainly, it would be absurd to separate contemporary populism from the global context. Populism has successfully ridden an unprecedented economic bonanza in the region driven by strong global demand for agricultural products, sources of energy, and minerals. Populism’s electoral success and social policies (financed by revenues from oil, gas, soybean and other exports) are inseparable from global economics. Also, the consolidation of populism has crystallized geo-political changes in the region, namely, challenges to the dominance of the US, the consolidation of China’s economic power, and Iran’s marked efforts to exert economic and political influence. Globalization, however, does not explain core dynamics of media politics under populism.
The localism of media movements
Nor do the analytical parameters of media globalization explain the evolution of “media movements” in the region. During the past decades, civic participation has played a critical role in processes that culminated in the passing of progressive legislation about community media, broadcasting, and public access to government information. After decades of existing in legal limbo, community media is now regulated in Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay (Klinger, 2011). Important steps to ensure public access to government records have been made in Brazil, Chile, and Mexico (Mendel, 2009). Broadcasting reform has been at the center of the new law in Argentina.
Without exception, organized citizens have played a critical role in these processes. They have fostered public debates, conducted advocacy with legislators, drafted congressional bills and technical reports, and offered public testimonies. It is hard to imagine any of these legislative reforms would have happened without civic participation, particularly given the limited interest in media reform among political parties.
Although media movements have been linked to regional and global initiatives, they have been essentially grounded in local and national processes. There is no question that the aforementioned issues have increasingly become matters of action beyond national borders. Dozens of foundations and organizations globally currently work on issues such as the legalization of community media, the regulation of government information, defamation and libel laws, broadcasting ownership reform, and other critical policy matters. The visibility and importance of global actions, however, does not negate the primacy of local politics. In fact, one needs to address the specific conditions of domestic politics to explain significant differences in media policies across countries. Levels of civic mobilization, the particular ideologies of sitting administrations, and the equilibrium of congressional forces are some key variables that need to be considered to understand why some countries have made progress in some areas and others have not. Arguably, the configuration of domestic politics explains why civic mobilization culminated in legislative changes in some, not all, cases. None of these experiences can be correctly considered examples of media globalization at work, even though global actors (from the UNESCO Rapporteur on Press Freedom to Article 19) supported several initiatives. Only marginally do they signal new globalized forms of media politics and citizenship.
Different outcomes across the region reflect the power of the state and the significance of local mobilization and politics. Progressive coalitions were able to promote media reforms in some countries because domestic politics offered suitable conditions, namely, center-left parties in government, astute strategies, and broad agreements among mobilized constituencies (from legislators to unions), and divided positions among media companies. When these conditions were present, there were better prospects for significant reforms to increase official transparency, legalize community media, and institutionalize civic voices in media debates. Conversely, where these conditions are missing, conservative policies remain dominant.
Local politics into global media studies
To say that local politics matters is hardly a theoretical innovation. Yet this point needs to be reiterated for it frequently gets lost amidst excessive enthusiasm about global questions. The “media globalization” paradigm correctly pinpoints important developments that “methodological nationalism” (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2009) cannot grasp. But it offers an incomplete, distorted research agenda that sidesteps old-fashioned politics under the assumption that everything is interconnected in the grand stage of globalization and that global processes should be at the center of the analysis. At this point, who could legitimately question that media power is being restructured “at a distance” by international agencies, global corporations, transnational advocacy networks, and other forces beyond the national? Or who would challenge the notion that global media networks offered new opportunities for cross-border debates and actions? Just continuing to assert that globalization is essential to contemporary media, however, adds little to the debate.
The problem is that, by magnifying transnational trends, the “global turn” in media studies has downplayed the importance of domestic politics. Power and media are not solely, or mainly one could argue, inscribed in the logic of global developments. Globalization is not the only Rosetta Stone to interpret media policies. It is too blunt to assess the interaction between media policies and local politics. The focus on sweeping global trends steers the analysis away from a fine-grained approach that examines the imprint of local politics and institutions on media policies.
Rediscovering the importance of local politics in global media studies is overdue. Approaches are needed that are sensitive to the interaction between global and local power dynamics, institutions, and actors. This line of inquiry is necessary in order to continue to test several propositions advanced by the media globalization paradigm. Are media policies around the world connected? Do they reflect common developments and a unified logic? Can domestic politics be autonomous from global trends? When does globalization affect domestic media policies and when does it not?
Certainly, these questions direct our attention to well-trodden ground in international studies and social theory, namely, the autonomy of state politics and the nature of collective action in a globalized world. Yet they remain important if we are to examine the power of transnational actors and globally connected citizens in media policies. Nuanced perspectives that are sensitive to local and national politics are needed to reassess assertions, fill analytical gaps, and revisit hopes and fears of media globalization. Answers to these questions are unlikely to coalesce around a master, totalizing explanation à la media globalization that advances a unified set of arguments about contemporary media systems and policies worldwide. While they tell us that theories about globalization are insufficient to account for significant developments in media systems, they do not advance equally comprehensive, universalist explanations. Arguments about the persistent significance of states and local politics do not converge in a unified, alter-theory to globalization. They question the notion that domestic actors should be considered simply as vessels for global capital and governance, and find that global dynamics have uneven impact on media systems worldwide. These conclusions, however, are not integrated in a single theoretical paradigm.
More than two decades after it became the dominant subject and analytical prism, globalization remains the obligatory point of reference to situate studies about contemporary media, politics, and policy. Even if some of its diagnosis and predictions are faulty, media globalization is unavoidable. Perhaps its enduring presence is the consequence of its sweeping view at a time of analytical fragmentation and deconstructed narratives. International media studies is splintered into numerous research interests – the drivers of policy change, states and internet censorship, new forms of imperialism, the prospects for global media and cosmopolitanism, the politics of postcolonialism, the impact of digital platforms on political action, and so on. Answers to these questions have produced a rich body of studies, but they have not resulted in robust, general theories that offer alternatives to globalization. They seek to explain specific developments rather than capture the global Zeitgeist or interpret processes with planetary consequences. In contrast, media globalization believes that a unified logic underlies media developments. In the tradition of grand intellectual narratives in the West, it identifies basic principles to explain the structure and dynamics of media systems. At a time of segmented scholarship, divided among myriad research questions and theoretical pursuits, the notion of media globalization continues to offer a common vocabulary as well as ambitious propositions to make sense of the media in the contemporary world.