Debates have been going on about media studies that sees globalization as key procedure that reduces the responsibility of a nation. Claims have been made which have reduced the capability of countries to control media institutions and what they present to their listeners as seen from the generations of the media technologies that have facilitated communication between places and people. The talks have continued to increase in recent years as people and media companies move to digital content, which is related to the increased content that is made by different consumers and also delivery of content of several platforms, which is a counter of mass communication as seen in the past.
It is viewed that media policies are laid off by the technologies that have been brought about in recent years although recent media research is viewed to concentrate worldwide as it is geared towards different models of social theory. The global view depicts media, technology as well as worldwide movement of different ideas. The recent developments emphasize on national forces which deal with technology as studied by different scholars as they associate general media structures (Terry Flew, 2016). The debates seem to depict that the source of control has moved consumption, creation and supply of information from countries to the world view. This is seen to be promoted by platforms such as social media as issues that concern countries are unclear as they are seen to be associated with the cyberspace. It has led to the weakening of cultural uniqueness since the globalization is seen to result to mixed cultures across the globe. There are those who still maintain that countries still hold media laws and goals which guide them towards the future notwithstanding the technologies that move beyond the country boundaries. The people say that media globalization has been exaggerated as country administrations are still in the forefront of controlling the media with the media answering to the authorized contexts that they deal with to the state. The individual who still stand with the claim that the nation is still in control concerning globalization has mostly entrenched in the western countries and this claim is not likely viewed by the rest of the world in that way.
Talks that concern countries and communication media has brought about differences in the two bodies even though they are both exposed to reproach concerning their analyses in that they are not concentrated on the states. It is always vital to have a divergent perspective when evaluating the association between world media and state guidelines since various divisions of media trainings approach the query in a diverse means. In the two features, it has been discovered that the globe is the emphasized feature as compared to the state. Parts of critical economy as well as global theories focus more on the worldwide reach, saying that there is a move towards anti-statism to shift towards countries as a single governing institution in many that have been confronted by the worldwide media by seeing their guidelines as an article of the mass message model (Micky, 2017). On the other hand, rules and guidelines on communication normally view the country as a beginning point, which is also done by media the approaches. From the past trainings on global communication has moved from the international scale to the country scale, which has been viewed as the basic position of analysis and criticism.
The foundation of global communication came out of several studies into how community outlooks as well as characters of individuals has been impacted by communication with its main focus being developing countries. Despite the current model of communication being shaped by the cold-war, it has since involved relative state learning. It was in the late 60s that global communication started to be studied differently which was different from the development communication and state learning. These studies came about from the rise of dependency theories. The model of international media has always viewed the media as a worldwide media since it rose from the United States and they have extended their financial assets as well as their way of life to the developing nations. This has encouraged associations of reliance to the western world. In media learning, the reliance associations was seen in the idea of cultural imperialism where western cultural values are seen to be forced into other social institutions to depict dominance among other states (Losifidis, 2011). Despite the reliance of global systems theories on international communication, it is wrong to view it as a restrain of the state aspects. It is argued that the theories of international communication seek to radicalize the current model since operative state communication guidelines can only be established in administration order which would give rise to new relations across the globe. Emphasis on the changing aspects of international communication which has shaped the political economy on media learning has not undermined the importance of countries or being related to the reduced vitality of the states.
The discussions on the course of communication flow have shifted form cultural context which is said to suggest one-sided relationships between the western countries and the rest of the world. Recent discussions concern several flows and interdependence have learned the international difficulties, doing away with the stigma of connectedness. Studies of local alteration of creation forms and the rising of mixed media sorts, and the criticism of the duties of local elites have shown the vitality of usage, closeness of cultures, and global dynamics. What has not been analyzed is the duties of national communities, which has seen no yearning to be studied. The study of the flow of communication is still a concern for the local players, administrations and the local audiences. It is apparent that we are not capable and should not do away with the state as a place for political activities as well as cultural and ruling doings completely. Just as relocation disrupts the boundaries of a state and the way of life of its citizens, communications that migrations bring about disrupt the boundaries of the state (Thussu, 2007). Nationhood stays still, but its jurisdictions are overlooked and the supremacy of the current media players is defied by the availability of substitute international communication threads which follow diverse policies and shift in various directions.
The association between the nation and media is still important since the media are critical for creating and upholding power, through their ability to control and at the same time organize the consumption of scarce resources. A country remains important as a group of organizations, laws and beliefs that show the degree of path-reliance based on the past. This is made up of aspects that act as a brake on modification, and due to the fact that countries continue to have additional power that they know. It is evident that the nature of country power has been changed and reconstructed due to international transformation, especially in the field of media. The degree of transformation, although, depends on the divergence between various countries, the continued transformation of local administrations, and the personality of communication flows and methods of making rules, which is said to cover various interests and opportunities. There is no particular way of defining the responsibility of the nation as far as the media is concerned. The capacity of various nations to control their media systems relies of different factors that show diverge ways of nation power. Some countries are better prepared to regulate local media organizations and content as compared to other countries by the use of operative laws and interventions (Tunstal, 2007). Other nations are more equipped to profit from and the consumption of globalization to endorse their local interests to other nations in the world. Countries do not have the ability to regulate what goes on in other parts of the globe but they will still mainly preserve their capacities to control media procedure within their jurisdictions even though the capacity differs largely.
It is countries that are concerned with arrangements and organizations that are international including the European Union. Such arrangements follow the observation that for all the suggestions of development in the count of state institutions, the country stay dominant to the suturing of pacts between native, state and global levels of administration (Chalaby, 2005). The procedures of nation intervention are considered irregular, a move in focus from welfare nation main concern and nation media favourable to economic activities created to ensure investments to gain profits in both state and international markets. This is dependent on the state. Controls at various stages continue to be a main aspect of nation intervention despite the reduced interest in the control organizations that give out state content or in controlling the insufficiency that shaped previous interventions. Signals of reduced control of a state is hardly seen, but the responsibilities of the nations is altering to international media and better advances in media expertise and consumption. Internalization has helped to strengthen the national status quo which is a contradiction to those defending the delivering capability of the worldwide administrative society.
Although the responsibilities of the America has moved from regulatory of the media to administrating and ensuring developments by giving a controlling framework, it still holds the position of the central policy player. There has been a move from regulation to administration where power is disbursed among global bodies, the local society, and corporate bodies. The nation is also impacted by the rise of international corporations and non-governmental bodies, it also has an effect on local and global environment. On the other hand, it should be known that the nation prioritizes corporate relationships more compared to the local society since there is an order of influence, which prioritizes commercial interests. Globalization is not influenced by the authority of the country but the altering connections with global and local players in the business community. There is now better connection with both the local and global players. The nation maintains the responsibility of development and institutionalization of international administration (Curran, 2000). Global businesses also highly rely on the nation’s support to give an atmosphere that will ensure smooth operations of the businesses. The nation holds on as the main player in the local and global fields by allowing commercial incorporation by implementing market-based guidelines and rules.
According to Thussu (2007), the United States leads in international export market I media products as per the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. Receipts from films and television tape rentals have depicted a rise from 2.5 billion US dollars in 1992 to 10.4 billion dollars in 2004. The European continent has continued to be the main consumer of American content and in 2004, the value of exports was 6.7 billion dollars, which is 60% more of all film exports. Television programs from the state is broadcasted in more than 120 countries yet the difference between exports on film and television programmes and the imports in the same is more than 341 million dollars while the exports were valued more than 30 times that (Mohammadi, 1997). The opening up of the audio-visual market to western countries has changed the countries’ television landscape, with a significant rise in the number of channels available for the American audiences in the past decade to more than 1700 in 2005, with entertainment shows depicting the most growth. The move has raised the US Presence in the worldwide market, mostly in film-based programming, which is always labelled in the local dialect. While US based firms remain undoubted front-runners in the selling television programmes in the globe, Britain lead the world in export television formats (Slater, 2013). Britain exported formats worth 1 billion US dollars which was 45% of global format sales by hours and 49% by titles. This shows how Britain is also a dominant player in the media industry globally, offering stiff competition to the United States.
The Main reason for US control in the international entertainment market is the country’s film industry. Hollywood-based films are aired in around 150 nations internationally, and they lead market shares in many nations. Almost a third of Hollywood’s revenue was garnered from global markets in the late 70s and by 2005, half of the industry’s profits were from international markets (Wasko, 1994). Motion Picture Association in 2004 was estimated to have a value of 25.24 billion US dollars with the global top ten selling films and shows being produced by Hollywood. The wide reach of the media in the United States, marketing and communication systems greatly add on to the international flow of consumerist messages, which in turn, assist the country to use its controlling ability to endorse their country’s political and commercial interests. With the nation’s capability to surpass geographic jurisdictions, transnational television is vital as far as media stream is concerned. In this times of globalization, the single-way vertical movement has paved way to several and horizontal movements as subaltern media content suppliers have come up to facilitate the developing cultural market. Notwithstanding, as the trade figures depict, the flow of the US media content keeps on defining the international market, although how the content is utilized at the international level presets a questionable variety of replies, which are made harder by the scarcity of realistic learning. People debate that international-state-local interface is giving out varied disjuncture instead of a single international way of life (Wheeler, 2016). In this study of international movements, the viewers and media perspective was not considered and that the content can be understood in a different way by distinct viewers. Arguments have greatly been limited to how the rest of the globe relates to, embraces, adjusts to or takes the United States’ media categories.
Certainly, we can see from the above context that the media is not American, although the country controls the most shares of the global market in the film industry. This is because there are other key players in the sector, including Britain, who produce films that are consumed globally despite their market share not being as huge as America’s. Most of the film content produced in Hollywood is distributed globally, which makes the host country earn a lot of revenue from it. Despite this, the media is still owned by all the countries that produce various content that is consumed locally and globally, and not the United States only.