My conclusion
This study proposed to explore whether there is a media reality evident across different cultures in an era of media globalisation. To do so, it examines international news values in the press coverage of four globalisation summits across four different countries. Through this cross-cultural empirical observation, I argue that modern news production is carried out as an outcome of a triad--a news prism--involving media, governments and INGOs/NGOs. I suggest that this news prism exists universally due to structural integration in media globalisation. However, news media retain their editorial diversity, which is propelled by national interests.

Our case set out to follow Nordenstreng’s direction in performing a content analysis of news to observe international media performance. It is based on fulfilling two objectives. First, it is studying press content across four different cultures to observe constancy in news values in international journalism. And second, it is looking to evaluate the way media frame protest movements in society to investigate the existence of a ‘media reality’. In light of the detailed objectives set out in chapter 4, we feel the findings have justified our conclusions.

In Chapter 1, we studied the influence of globalisation on the media industry. We observed that media globalisation is a term applied to increasing trends of ownership concentration, liberalisation and consumption of international media. Globalisation emphasises economic integration across boundaries and media globalisation reflects this pattern on a purely structural level. However it raises questions about national cultures and identity, noted in literature as the global/local conflict. The impact of media globalisation and national media response to it is a new dimension in communication studies, one that needs to be addressed through extensive empirical research. Our study is a small step towards achieving this feat.

In chapter 2, we conducted an in-depth review of global news trends. We presented a theoretical evaluation of what sources shape our news agenda, citing major literary criticism on news influences. We observed that managing and producing global news content is a sophisticated operation influenced by internal, organisational and external factors. We touched upon contemporary communication concepts such as media framing and media reality, which influence public discourse. Critically evaluating the ideals set forth in journalistic standards, our assessment was that the grounds for questioning media reality over what it promotes as an objective reality appear relevant

In chapter 3, we take the debate of media objectivity further by addressing the presence of mainstream media criticism in contemporary communication literary and professional circles. The argument goes that news content is under fire for ideological bias and encouraging infotainment, which endangers responsible journalism. To illustrate our concern, we assess the rise of interest in the political economy of mass communication in recent years and the growth of alternative journalism on the Internet. However, our assessment is that this criticism has gone unanswered and unexplained by scholars and industry professionals. We emphasise the need to respond to criticism of media’s performance and stress on empirical research as a solution.

In chapter 4, we review the salient features of our research methodology. Describing the research objectives and technique, we elaborate on the steps taken to draw a sample for our content analysis. Given the diverse nature of our sampling method, it was imperative that each of the variables employed in our quantitative analysis was argued and objectively presented for the reader’s deliberation. We justify the means employed to conduct a comparative quantitative study of news content covering two annual globalisation summits across two years and point out some of the problems the study encountered.

Chapter 5 illustrates and evaluates the findings of our quantitative content analysis. It notes the structural and editorial trends in news coverage of the annual WTO and WEF summits.

We began with a comparative analysis of the structural similarities and differences in the news coverage of the annual WTO and WEF summits. Just as we found a global integration of media industries in our literary review, we conclude that news formats are increasingly becoming similar. This is reflected in the preference of journalists for straight news, their increasing appetite for comment and feature over the years and the lack of interviews from the coverage of the summits. Another point of interest for this structural convergence is the dates when coverage peaked during the four summits.

We then attempt to analyse the similarities and differences in the interplay of news sources on content during the coverage of the annual WTO and WEF summits across time and culture. Although this part of the quantitative analysis proved daunting from a research perspective due to the diversity of actors involved, it offers an interesting insight into the very diverse nature of what makes news. News sources and their domination of the news prism vary with each event and it is worth noting how this variation spreads over time. From an outstanding journalistic hegemony over news sources in 1999, we see that the margin of corporate and antiglobalisation sources has increased in 2001. This increase is not tremendous, however, since it has been obvious enough to reflect in our quantitative analysis we can say it is significant. Mainstream media have in effect responded to criticism of their poor performance in covering the WTO 1999 summit from a narrow perspective and this trend is evident in the diversity of the news sources quoted in the coverage.

As part of our analyses, we were interested in media framing of the actors involved in the four events. We evaluated the summits to see what is the direction of the coverage dedicated to the antiglobalisation movement and the corporate sector and what aspects interested media in these actors. Our findings dispel the notion that a corporate hegemony exists in the media circles and that the antiglobalisation movement is sidelined completely because of this control. With the exception of the WEF 2001 coverage, the depiction of the antiglobalisation movement is balanced at all other events. In contrast, the coverage of the corporate sector has been moderately negative in all events sans the WEF 2000 summit. The overall coverage of the antiglobalisation movement has been marginal compared to the corporate sector and we associate this trend to the movement’s lack of interaction with the media, which has grown since 1999.

One of the interesting aspects of this study was that it not only noted news content variations across time, it looks at news in four different cultural settings. Our four case studies, The Guardian from the UK, NYT from the US, DAWN from Pakistan and The Hindu from India, each bore several similarities in their approach towards covering globalisation in the shadow of the WTO and WEF summits. For instance, all four newspapers devote substantial coverage to the performance of their state representatives and their statements at the summits. At the same time our quantitative findings may not sufficiently reflect the distinctive flavour of each newspaper’s coverage. The Guardian’s coverage of the antiglobalisation movement is by far the most balanced and it regularly features columns from leading activists. DAWN relies on news agency reports for most of its coverage however it uses a multiple feeds such as The International Herald Tribune, Interpress Services, Christian Science Monitor, and The Guardian News Service. The Hindu covers the summits from a strong North vs. South approach. This is not to say that such an approach has introduced bias in its reporting rather we mean it in a critical complimentary way. Particular credit goes to its correspondent C. Rammanohar Reddy who not only focuses on the developments inside the auditorium but comments on the performance of delegates, journalists, and activists outside the arena as well. Reddy’s style is distinctively contemporary and we recommend that as a model for other journalists reporting on globalisation.

Finally, we conclude that a diverse media reality prevails across different cultures in an era of media globalisation. We have demonstrated that media dominates the news prism, which it shares with other actors namely governments and INGOs/NGOs. There is negligible allegiance borne by media to governments and NGO/INGOs. Dominating the spectrum gives journalists the space to frame the identity and purpose of the actors. This is evident from the labels they associate with the actors, the selection of pictorial content used in their coverage, and the behavioural or policy aspects showcased in the media. On a broader scale, the amount of coverage given to each actor can also prove detrimental to the importance audiences associate with them in the public discourse.

Further Proposed Research

To evaluate our findings on media’s reporting of globalisation, we recommend a qualitative content analysis of press and online TV news sites over a period of four years. Globalisation has cropped up as an issue in the last decade or so and while the public has grown accustomed to its use as a buzzword, the media has been lacking in its contextual coverage of the distinctive themes underlying the concept.

To evaluate our findings on media framing reality further, we propose that a study be conducted comparing the coverage of the summits printed in the media and that available through the antiglobalisation and corporate websites. This would help us identify exactly what areas are being manipulated or ignored by journalists when they cover a mediated event such as an international summit.

To evaluate our findings on media globalisation, we recommend that more elaborate empirical research in the form of comparative content analysis be conducted. Alternative avenues such as the internet are drawing readers from around the world because they offer a fresh perspective on issues that concern the world at large and mainstream media--particularly the press--will find it difficult to maintain their monopoly unless they respond to the criticism being generated within these avenues.

Abstract:

Does the press reflect a common ‘media reality’ across different cultures in the era of international communication?
This study examines news values in four countries to analyse how a global media reflect reality in a mediated world. I argue that modern news production is based on an axis of establishment, non-governmental organisations and the media. This axis permits a selective flow of information from news organisations that subjectively frame events, actors and issues. By monitoring the coverage of globalisation summits, this study attempts to explore the performance of media across different cultural settings to analyse news values in shaping one of the most controversial issues in the global public sphere. I also evaluate the contemporary criticism surrounding mainstream media in covering conflict issues such as globalisation and the relevance of alternative media proliferation in response to a ‘corporate hegemony’.

International journalism in the ‘Global Public Sphere’

The marriage of media and international politics in the wake of globalisation has opened a new chapter in the exploration of influences on the flow of information. Transformed by a surge of technological advancements in the last century, the media are labelled as ‘global’ purveyors of information and the message they carry generates issues not for a civil society divided geographically but a global public sphere (McChesney, Herman 2001, Shaw, 1999) . This study analyses claims that regardless of national settings, the global press prioritise the same issues and frame a common media reality.

Media Framing vs. Social Reality

Analysing media content is one of the most popular ways of analysing how media reflect reality. Shoemaker and Reese look at various factors featuring journalists’ socialisation, organisational ideology and procedural routines other than external pressures to catalogue influences on media content. Their hypothesis is that what influences media content directly influences the consequence of the media as well. The importance of difference between media content and other sources of information about the world lies in the fact that our views of the world and resulting actions will be modelled by our predominant sources of information: the mass media.

Television brings us pictures from around the world. Similarly, the printed word creates ‘pictures in our heads’ by labelling groups, as Shoemaker and Reese note, freedom fighters or terrorists. Even the nature and extent to which certain groups or characters dominate media space contributes to their positioning in society.

Media manipulation thus exists and scholars such as Gitlin, Entman, Parenti, Dearing and Rogers offer considerable literary ground to support our argument that by framing issues and events, a media reality exists quite different from the real social reality.

Media’s role in framing protest movements have recently attracted significant criticism. It seems far-fetched to imply that journalists do not cover protest groups as part of a professional conspiracy in favour of the status quo. However, organisational and routine pressures might be inherent factors in marginalising dissent in mainstream media. From time constraints to the priority attached to a certain event, journalists may choose to ignore social movements or pay little attention to defining their identity and agenda simply because they are lackluster. To take this argument further, I suggest that since journalists look for entertainment value in events, they seek to create a dramatic picture of new groups rather than focus on their agenda for society.

The anti-globalisation movement’s example is a case in point. In context of our study, the WEF and WTO summits offer us a chance to monitor the portrayal of pro-globalisation and anti-globalisation actors, and the positioning of each campaign’s issues.

Looking Back, Over My Shoulder

I haven't dared look back on my dissertation proposal primarily because it is no longer THE same proposal. My introduction is out of the way and after months and months of struggling with a focus, I have a direction.

When a media student is asked to put forth a proposal, the possibilities seem ambitious, unlimited. The world, as they say, is your oyster. As a media pro, you can tackle anything from international relations to lifestyles to the life sciences. For the themes media organs cover every day are tremendous. If you compare the scope of issues TIME magazine was covering in the 20th century to that in the 21st century, my point becomes crystal clear. It has taken me an entire Masters in the UK -- I must add that since I already have a Masters from Pakistan -- to appreciate the depth and reach of the mass media. Ironically, my Masters was spent critising the very media for its lack of depth, context and objectivity.

To be fair, I cannot speak for all media. When I started my research, I identified Press as a sample since that is the domain I belong to. It is also easily available for analysis both in hard and electronic formats. It has no justification for not evaluating news and events as they happen since it has the time and space to do so. TV and radio, due to their sheer immediacy, cannot. So exempting the electronic media, in particular television, from the 'dumbing down humanity' blame is not likely. Infotainment is a living concept, not a dead Magic Bullet-esque theory. Given the resources, I would love to investigate it further.

Coming back to the Press, my content analysis of dailies from the US, UK, India and Pakistan is nearly over. I have one last set to tackle and I needed to blog my reflections of the hundreds of items I have spent the past two months scouring through.

Choosing 'Globalisation' as I've already illustrated was well worth it -- it is a theme each country, developed and wannabe-developed is confronting, contesting and conversing about. By 'country', it is taken for granted that I am referring to the well-connected literate global civil society. I was hoping to find stark differences in the treatment media professionals give to the issue in each country since the cultural contexts are completely different in each case. Since I do not have the calculations in front of me now, I cannot say that has been the case. As far as my qualitative observation goes, I can say India has a distinctive case made out for itself. However, one thing remains constant. The press in each case, like its other media counterparts, is completely obsessed with politicians, policy-makers and figure-heads. The myth that media drive policy-makers to decision making, the so-called CNN effect is a remarkably pompous assessement and requires concrete investigation. In my case, the press' obsession with its local policy-makers is clearly evident. The pens follow the policy-makers and not vice versa. Take the case of the World Economic Forum's 2000 coverage in The Guardian. Not until Tony Blair flies down to Davos in his chopper is our 'independent' journalist compelled to write home about the WEF. And this is barely a month after 'economic globalisation' made front page headlines thanks to Seattle '99.

At the same time, The Guardian's own coverage of issues related to globalisation is phenomenal. Over the two years I looked at the coverage of the WEF and WTO summits, the paper presented articulate, investigative and concise articles breaking down the myth of free trade, globalisation, human and labour rights, environment and patents. Commendable indeed. Notably, this analysis was not neccessarily in connection with the Summits I was observing but the papers own policy of following labour and globalisation issues.

The New York Times in this respect has a lot to catch up with. And until my quantitative data is in order I would refrain from commenting on its performance.

DAWN, surprised me with its coverage of the summits, in particular, the anti-globalisation summits. I also noticed the byline InterPressServices quite often under the coverage which reminded me the NWICO's effects are still evident.

The Hindu dissappointed me with its coverage of Seattle's WTO Summit however its coverage of the Summits in 2001 offers an extensive behind-the-scenes insight. Here I should acknowledge their correspondent C. Rammanohar Reddy's witty yet to the point commentary on the events. In fact, my first assessment is that The Hindu's coverage of combining facts with feature and opinion is the best coverage of two otherwise 'predictable' events in the year 2001.

Some excerpts from my introduction follow so my new objectives become clear in the reader's mind.

Communicating Globalisation: Media eye on the great debate

@ The Core:
Consider my initial case.

The organized presence of the anti-globalisation activists at international moots most noted in the media since the third 1999 WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle raises an interesting question about the nature of response the corporate sector has devised to the political opposition mounting against it.

With the release of Naomi Klein’s No Logo (www.nologo.org), the conflicting viewpoint of the pro and anti-globalisation camps appear to have transcended to the printed word. Klein claims global corporations are not answerable for their exploits to the broader public and that a global movement has thus surfaced opposing ‘corporate rule’. In a direct response to No Logo, leading industry publication The Economist ran a coverstory in September 2001 (www.economist.com) countering Klein’s hypothesis.

The lead article in The Economist is a very visible attempt to counter globalisation’s ‘enemies’ by a media institution. It is one of many attempts to corner and analyse globalisation today by the news media. In essence, this is a concentrated attempt by a media organ to address the conflict issues about globalisation and its characteristic features, which in this case was brands. This study investigates similar attempts by the press to educate its audience about the pros and cons of globalisation in the light of the media coverage of the anti-globalisation movement and the corporate sector’s response to it. By doing so, it will prove or disprove the hypothesis that the media are not focusing on the conflict issues surrounding globalisation or are not doing enough to address the problem areas which could facilitate the process.

The study is primarily concerned with the media’s role in conveying the globalisation message, how it has managed to identify and cover its ‘enemies’, and whether this has led to a better understanding of the message that INGOS and corporations need to devise to gain support for implementing an international framework for trade. In this context, the study will work around the following research question:

“What are the media's perceptions about globalisation’s 'enemies'; and what role is it playing to bridge the 'great divide'?”

The proposal started out with the following subsets:

The question raises subset questions that the study tentatively looked to answer.

o What is the media’s own understanding of the term globalisation?
o What are the key controversies and conflict issues surrounding the globalisation debate?
o What are the key controversies and conflict issues surrounding the globalisation debate in the media today?
o How is the press presenting the conflict issues, or what are termed as globalisation’s ‘enemies’ to its audience particularly
in the aftermath of the WTO ministerial meeting held in Seattle in 1999?
o Are the INGOs and MNCs targeted by globalisation’s ‘enemies’ countering the negative perceptions being created about globalisation in the press? If so, how and what message are they sending to promote globalisation in the face of confronting opposition?
o What kind of a balance is the press striking in educating the audience about the pros and cons of globalisation in the light of this study?

Until December 2001, my proposal remained dormant. Since then, my post-graduate study of International Communications at the University of Leeds has led me to a number of interesting concepts in contemporary media theory. I am now refurbishing my proposal to a more mediacentric point of view as the next few days entries will show.

Briefly, I attempt to study news items from leading daily publications in the US, UK, India and Pakistan in order to indentify news values across different cultures. My hypothesis so far is that news values remain constant across different cultures. To argue my case I will focus on the coverage of globalisation in the press in these four countries. I am hoping this study would allow me to broach concepts such as News Frames (Media Framing of Reality; See Inventing Reality by Michael Parenti and works by Todd Gitlin).
Some other authors whose work I will be deriving from include Kaarl Nordenstreng and Shoemaker & Reese. Too tired right now to link you to resources on the web for these fellows but promise to deliver later.