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 certainly have 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"? Referring to Jeremy Tunstall, it doesn't mean that individual concerns control the world but the networking and connectivity through the media-communication.

There's no exact beginning of the globalization of media but according to the American sociologist Roland Robertson saw the globalization as a five-step process which began in the 15th century (Robertson 1997). The building of global commercial relationships in the 16th century required communication networks. With the development of the printing soon circulated several types of writings between the particular nation states. Eventually, in the 19th century, "in the context of colonial powers, a medial infrastructure was established to enable a fast communication between central point and peripheries" (Jarren, Meier 2000). Out of political and economical requirements, international news agencies aroused and along with the telegraphy, this network developed into a global news agency system. It became a cartel and still controls the worldwide trade of news today. In the 1870th, Europe was connected to the USA, China, India and Australia via undersea cables. Around the turn of the century, 300000 kilometers of cables were laid in the oceans. In 1924 the British king Georg V. announced that his telegram reached its destination at the other side of the world in only 80 seconds. One of the last steps that cleared the way for the global media activities was the slogan "Free Flow of Information" after the Second World War.

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 electronically 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 electronically 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 electronically 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 responsibility 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 consider 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). Considering 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 change 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.

Critical voices of globalization advise against the formation of a global culture with the standardization of products which influences the experiences and lifestyle of generations. According to Hans-P. Müller, the process of globalization leads to a loss of cultural identity. There's a big warning about the destroying of individualism coming along the globalization and standardization of media. The world coalesces to one "big whole" with no space for individualism.

The opposition characterizes globalization as a "complex connectivity" (Hepp 2006). "Globalization doesn't impose a cultural standardization, [...], there'll be no global culture" (Ulrich Beck in Jarren, Meier 2000). It's a new diversity raised out of the closeness between the nations. It's a process of learning from each other, a benefit for everyone. Although there's a new variety concerning food, music and movies, the individual cultures persist. It's closeness in contrast to a "melting together".

Conclusion
As a conclusion, it's the perception that matters. In fact, the world grew together because of the globalization of media. Through the news at the television, the internet and also the radio we know what is happening at the other end of the world at any time. The images in the television are suggestive of experiencing the event directly. That leads to a new closeness and feeling of togetherness. Everything is near and that leads us to a sensibility concerning catastrophes. It's also easier to help when something happened in another place because we know about it. “Homogenization or a new variety regarding the individual cultures?” Looking at the world, people may see a big diversity, new possibilities but also many different cultures. There's no destroying of individual countries and their cultures but a huge assortment in cinema, stores and also the internet. The assortment seems to be unlimited and that what the globalization of media stands for: "unlimited possibilities"