Does the globalization of media lead to homogenization?

Introduction
Whenever a conversation comes to the subject "globalization", there'll always be a discussion concerning the development of the media. "Does globalization destroy national identities? Does the globalization of media in particular suppress individual cultures?" The media have certainly a huge influence on our thinking and acting. Often we only know about specific issues because of the media. But what exactly means the term "globalization of media"? To refer to Jeremy Tunstall, it doesn't mean that individual concerns control the world but the networking and connectivity through the media-communication.

The global village
"Today, after more than a century of electric technology, we have extended our central nervous system in a global embrace, abolishing both space and time as far as our planet is concerned." (McLuhan 1964) The idea of McLuhan's view of electronical technology is that it has become an "extension of our senses, particularly those of sight and sound" (Symes 1995). He sees the telephone and the radio as a long-distance ear and the television and computer as a long-distance eye. Through the electronical technology we get the chance to see and hear things that are not in our range, without changing our position. So the term "global village" symbolizes the modern world that coalesces to one village through electronical networking. It's about communicating with people all over the world without a physical nearness.

The basic precept of McLuhan's "global village" is that the speed of the technological progress has an impact on our everyday life. "We are increasingly linked together across the globe" (Symes 1995) what enables us to connect with people around the world as quickly as is takes us to contact people within splitting distance. McLuhan argues that "it is the speed of these electronic media that allows us to act and react to global issues at the same speed as normal face to face verbal communication. [...] As electrically contracted, the globe is no more than a village. Electric speed at bringing all social and political functions together in a sudden implosion has heightened human awareness of responsibilty to an intense degree" (McLuhan 1964). The effect McLuhan sees is that we become aware of our global responsibility. We are not alone in this world and we need to care about the others just as for us. The globalization of the media intensifies our awareness.

The fact McLuhan didn't concider is that not everybody is able to benefit from the modern media. There's a dissimilar allocation concerning the access to the Internet or the television.

Homogenization or just a new diversity?
Does the globalization of media lead to homogenization or to diversity? Or is the idea of Americanization more appropriate?

Americanization means "a global media-culture under anglo-american leadership" (Jarren, Maier 2000). Concidering the film industry, most of the big concerns have their place in the United States. Most movies in the cinema all over the world are produced in Hollywood. Of course America has an influence on the world's population through movies. But not only movies, there's also american advertisement everywhere. But why are the american filmmaker such Global Player in this industry? Incidents in the last centuries (e.g. national markets should become international, the strengthening of the infrastructure in the Third World was disturbed and the influence of the World Bank and the IMF became stronger) lead to a dominant position of big media-concerns. It didn't changed much over the last centuries. It's a fact that America has great influence on the world's thinking and acting through movies, advertisement and also news via CNN.