The ongoing interconnection of the world through modern mass media is generally considered to be one of the major developments underpinning globalization. This important book considers anew the globalization phenomenon in the media sphere. Rather than heralding globalization or warning of its dangers, as in many other books, Kai Hafez analyses the degree to which media globalization is really taking place. Do we have enough evidence to show that there is a linear and accelerated move towards transnationalization in the media? All too often the empirical data presented seems rather more anecdotal than representative. Many transborder media phenomena are overestimated and taken out of the context of locally and nationally oriented mainstream media processes all over the world. The inherent danger is that a central paradigm of the social sciences, rather than bearing scholarly substance, will turn out to be a myth and even a sometimes dangerously ideological tool. Based on a theoretical debate of media globalization, the work discusses most major fields of media development, including foreign reporting, satellite TV, film, internet, foreign broadcasting, media and migration, media policy and media economy. As an important new contribution to timely debates, The Myth of Media Globalization will be essential and provocative reading for students and scholars alike.

Seminar paper from the year 2012 in the subject Communications - Multimedia, Internet, New Technologies, grade: A, Stockholm University (JMK), course: Global Media Studies I, language: English, abstract: [...] Whether something is a myth or not, is hard to define as the perception of a myth – the evaluation if a certain situation is exaggerated or not (Hafez 2007: 1) – is always something very subjective and depending on the judge’s viewpoint. So it is not surprising that in his book Kai Hafez comes to the conclusion that media globalization is a myth. He links strict requirements1 to the state of globalization and seems to be analyzing mainly German media products under this perspective. He is also largely focusing on the receiving end of media content – the spectator (Hafez 2007: 14) – and emphasizing the role of the medium television within the globalization debate. Although the comparatively minor role the internet plays in this work could be due to the fact that this medium first started its unprecedented exponential grow around 20072. Nevertheless he is neither emphasizing qualitative data to confirm his assumptions of a non-globalized media audience, nor is he presenting a broad range of quantitative figures to support his conclusion of a lack of globalization in the structure of media industry, policy and distribution. Although Hafez is referring to globalization as a process (Hafez 2007: 23), his high expectations of system change (Hafez 2007: 2) are leading to the rather utopian idea of the final state of a entirely globalized world – a situation which he describes has already happened in other sectors, such as economy of industrial goods (Hafez 2007: 4). Especially when dealing with such an all-encompassing question as globalization, it is crucial to dare a glimpse out of the box, not letting one-self be deluded by the West-European media culture one was born into and the wishful thinking of an ideal state of globalism, where all media content is accepted equally among the world’s public (Hafez 2007: 12). In order to challenge such a human terminology like ‘myth’ I consider it appropriate to look at the phenomenon of globalization and media at eye level with the human part of media –its users3. By doing this, the following text will clearly reveal that Hafez’s ‘myth’ isn’t actually reality. [...]

Paul Hopper leads the reader through the varied issues associated with globalization and culture, including deterritorialization, cosmopolitanism, cultural hybridization and homogenization as well as claims that aspects of globalization are provoking cultural resistance.

When the Cold War ended in 1989, American hopes for a new world order were quickly disappointed. A new wave of violence soon erupted, engulfing places from Rwanda and Somalia to Chechnya and Bosnia. These new "clashes of civilizations," fundamentalist jihads, and ethnic massacres appeared to be more savage and less rational than the long twilight struggle with the USSR, during which Washington's adversary was clearly identified and relatively predictable. In an effort to understand these post-Cold War conflicts and to advise the government on how to deal with them, a new school of foreign policy thought has developed. Dubbed "chaos theory," it argues that the much heralded processes of globalization are actually breeding a reaction of irrational violence. Thus, the spread of Western cultural icons through new electronic media often shocks and offends moral sensibilities in traditional societies. The explosive growth of international commerce has triggered a wave of migration and urbanization that throws together people from different cultures and fertilizes xenophobia. Chaos theory has already won converts in the U.S. military, the intelligence community, and the foreign service. Its influence has been manifest in an array of policies, particularly during the U.S. engagement in Bosnia. But chaos theory is mostly wrong. In this book, the author outlines the growth of chaos theory and its growing influence, and then provides a thorough empirical critique. Using detailed studies of Bosnia and global comparisons, he shows that globalization has not played a decisive role in fueling recent conflicts. Indeed, journalists' impressions notwithstanding, there is no evidence that since 1989 warfare has become more savage or even more frequent. The advocates of chaos theory are thus urging the U.S. to invest in preparing for a threat that is largely mythical--a strategy that is at least wasteful and potentially dangerous. The author argues that the most use

In this new work, Axford seeks to contribute to the development of global theory, particularly where it engages with the contested idea of globality; a concept which musters as consciousness, condition, framework, even system. By examining emergent globalities through the lens of world-making communicative practices and forms, the author demonstrates their transformative social power and underlines the cultural dynamics of globalization. Taking a critical view of much of the current scholarship on emergent globalities, Axford steps outside the rationalist-territorialist conceptions of association and order and takes issue with those who advise there is a widespread 'myth' of media globalization. The book examines global communicative connectivity, using digital, or "new" media – especially the Internet - as the prime exemplar of global process. As well as the academic importance of such themes for theory-building, the strategic, "real-world" impacts of communicative connectivity are palpable. Thus, the welter of debate around the influence of the Internet on democracy, democratization, revolt and collective action generally, have real purchase when discussed in relation to the events of the uprisings in MENA, anti-capitalist protests in London and New York and the tribulations of the EU in recent months/years. Using such exemplars the book assesses claims for the existence and robustness of global society, the significance of cosmopolitan communication and the extent of global consciousness. This work will be of interest to students and scholars of globalization, international relations, and media and cultural studies.

Less than a decade after the advent of democracy in South Africa, tabloid newspapers have taken the country by storm. One of these papers -- the Daily Sun -- is now the largest in the country, but it has generated controversy for its perceived lack of respect for privacy, brazen sexual content, and unrestrained truth-stretching. Herman Wasserman examines the success of tabloid journalism in South Africa at a time when global print media are in decline. He considers the social significance of the tabloids and how they play a role in integrating readers and their daily struggles with the political and social sphere of the new democracy. Wasserman shows how these papers have found an important niche in popular and civic culture largely ignored by the mainstream media and formal political channels.

Porter challenges the powerful ideology of "Globalism" that is widely subscribed to by the US national security community. Globalism entails visions of a perilous shrunken world in which security interests are interconnected almost without limit, exposing even powerful states to instant war. Globalism does not just describe the world, but prescribes expansive strategies to deal with it, portraying a fragile globe that the superpower must continually tame into order. Porter argues that this vision of the world has resulted in the US undertaking too many unnecessary military adventures and dangerous strategic overstretch. Distance and geography should be some of the factors that help the US separate the important from the unimportant in international relations. The US should also recognize that, despite the latest technologies, projecting power over great distances still incurs frictions and costs that set real limits on American power. Reviving an appreciation of distance and geography would lead to a more sensible and sustainable grand strategy.