Global Media and Communication

The Al-Jazeera–Qatari nexus is debatable and hard to examine because Qatari affairs are rarely in the news. Recently, Qatar made global headlines in connection with an alleged bribe to win the 2022 World Cup bid, which creates a rare opportunity to examine Al-Jazeera’s coverage of this as well as other Qatari affairs. We compared coverage by Al-Jazeera Arabic, Al-Jazeera English and Al-Jazeera America with coverage of international networks (Sky News, CNN International and ITV). The analysis reveals that while Al-Jazeera English and America maintained high journalistic norms when reporting on the 2022 World Cup controversy, Al-Jazeera Arabic almost never criticizes its Qatari sponsor. The study highlights the dramatic differences between Al-Jazeera’s English and Arabic versions, looking at journalistic values in general and Qatari affairs coverage in particular.

This research examines China’s laws and regulations on digital media content, which have developed and transformed along with the market-oriented media reform and Internet growth. It argues that there has been a continuous effort to articulate legal criteria of content regulation since the early 1980s. The body of laws regulating digital content today does not show across-the-board vagueness, but an ‘unbalanced’ development with elaborated rules in some legal areas, yet ambiguous stipulations in some others. The ‘vagueness’ of the law is part of the political and ideological ambiguity of China’s reform and development and will not be resolved independently of larger and more profound transformations of the Chinese state and society. The development of digital content laws in China can only make sense in specific historical contexts rather than by comparing against an idealized Western legal order.

This comparative study examines the power relationship between journalists and political elites in South-Eastern Europe, emphasizing the clientelistic ties under which these interactions take place. It is based on 60 in-depth interviews with journalists from Albania, Kosovo and Montenegro. The results suggest that the journalist–politician relationship in these countries has gradually evolved into two-way communication marked by cooperation and conflict. On one hand, the clientelist ties at the inter-organizational level have subordinated journalists to the political elites in power who negotiate the news agenda with media owners. On the other hand, journalists often serve as tools to combat political and economic enemies, leading to the exposure of corruption and scandals. However, this is done selectively, based on the media owner’s agenda. Overall, the study implies the lack of a uniform relationship between journalists and political elites, challenging previous assumptions that media clientelism in Eastern Europe is a stable system that exerts predictable relationships.

The financial burdens of Filipino migrant workers are exacerbated by the lure of miscellaneous consumer goods peddled to them by businesses looking for a lucrative share of their remittances. This study examines a profit-oriented model of diasporic media that directly serves the business interests of its publisher and its advertisers. It analyses the Taiwan-based EEC Now magazine and criticizes the duplicity of its proclaimed mission of ‘Caring for Migrant Workers Now and in the Future’. Through a thematic analysis of advertisements published in selected issues of EEC Now, the study reveals the consumerist ideology espoused by the magazine: the commodification of the migrant worker’s body, the obligatory sending of balikbayan (repatriate) cargo boxes and cash remittances and the search for the next overseas destination. Applying concepts from Baudrillard’s theory of consumer society and San Juan’s critique of Filipino diaspora formation, the themes from the analysis reveal how profit-oriented diasporic media reflect social inequities and service the global capitalist system that ultimately spawned labour migration.

‘Interlocalization’ has been witnessed as a new praxis in international communication which is all about horizontal flow of knowledge, culture, tradition, know-how and so on, among countries of the world, free from any form of hegemony and domination as against what has been observed in the case of ‘globalization’ and also in ‘glocalization’. This study is an attempt to understand and analyse this phenomenon in the Indian context, and it revolves around two possible broad catalysts of the interlocalization process: (1) India’s communication business alliances and (2) transnational networking among Indian diaspora communities. The article finds that India’s communication business alliances around the world have not yet reached a level to provide the desired impetus to the interlocalization process, although it is gaining momentum. But a highly encouraging scenario is presented in the case of Indian diaspora networking and its implications for the interlocalization process.

This article sheds new light on the pharmaceutical industry’s response to the public relations crisis generated by the global civil society campaign for access to HIV/AIDS medicines since the early 2000s – one of the most contentious policy areas of global trade and health governance. Drawing on interviews with industry insiders, the article explores the industry’s communicative agency in both the media sphere and key sites of power, with a focus on the European Union (EU) policy sphere. The analysis shows that the industry has focused primarily on maintaining access to policymakers and sustaining elite consensus around the existing global intellectual property rights regime through political communication activities that largely bypass mediated public arenas – from strategically promoting its corporate social responsibility (CSR) programmes and mobilizing third-party endorsement to direct lobbying. The article concludes by reflecting on the implications of the findings for critical investigations of the interplay between media and political power in relation to global economic governance.

Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman of Google, and Jared Cohen, Founder and Director of Google Ideas, contend that ‘for governments and companies’, the user-generated content that constitutes big data is ‘a gift, enabling them to better respond to citizen and customer concerns, and, within the emergent field of predictive analysis, to predict what the future will hold’. In this article, I interrogate what it means for data from our social lives to be interpreted as a ‘gift’ by private enterprises such as Google. Who is giving what to whom? What is the nature of the transaction? Whose property is this data? By putting into conversation Schmidt and Cohen’s gift thesis with an analysis of the ‘value’ of participation in digital communication networks, this article seeks to uncover an intellectual property conundrum that legitimizes the rise of new kinds of labour vulnerabilities in the digital age; intensifying the extension of the logic of privatization into our digital social lives; and, in doing so, the importance of intellectual property as a language of critique and resistance.

This article examines the narratives produced in Associated Press, The New York Times and The Times (of London) reports surrounding key events in Kosovo and Syria, leading to calls for North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) intervention, and the construction of perceptions and cultural memories of the conflicts in which they are wielded. The article argues that the narrative themes emerging from this coverage produced uncritical calls for military intervention that are limited and ubiquitous, narrowly delineated the options for response and understanding, relied heavily on press briefings of those that advocate military intervention (ignoring alternative voices), failed to provide deep-level analysis of the conflicts, and remained constant across all three media outlets and across both the Račak and Ghouta events. The article then examines the implications, arguing that the coverage can be understood as the deployment of weaponized media on a battlefield of public opinion and wielded in a way necessitating Western military action.