Where does the news come from?
Or the more succinct point, what is the cultural logic of globalized news? Over the past few weeks, I have contemplated my research topics for this semester. Ultimately and ideally, they would be linked, so they could fit into my dissertation. And of course, because I finish my coursework in the fall, I should probably begin thinking about my dissertation topic.
A number of things interest me, which makes choosing just one a really difficult endeavor. My interest in international studies has expanded to include most everything that falls under the umbrella of globalization, particularly news. In the past, researchers carefully scrutinized the flows of information, as well they should. The flow of information was (perhaps still is)asymetrical, and embedded inevitably in the information disseminated from, let's say, the United States, resides our cultural logic. Within each word, within the organization of news stories, the artwork, encapsulated within a news story and its package exists an ordering process that seeks to impose upon the world a perspective of how to experience, how to know, and how to describe phenomena.
To examine these flows, cultural imperialism presented a way to dismantle these flows, and illustrate their possible problems. The primary concern that I can derive from the "cultural imperialism thesis", as John Tomlinson calls it, resides in how this cultural logic - as it becomes globalized through the one-way flow of information - might change or impede upon the local culture. Of course as Tomlinson indicates, and scholars like Kraidy and Pieterse illustrate, the cultural imperialism thesis does not do the resilience and flexibility of culture justice. My concern here is of course: what is American, and what is global?
These two words in particular have concerned me as I read through the literature about globalization and media, especially as the descriptors, global and Americanized. It seems at some point those ideas affiliated with "Westernized" began to morph into "Americanized". While I bring my own understanding of "Americanized" news, I still feel a bit hazy on what is meant. If we mean that Americanized news exist in news items that are constructed as commodities, then I'm not sure what to call Reuters' products other than Britianized news. Likewise, if we mean that Americanized news are news items that belong to an American model of providing information necessary for facilitating political participation, again, I'm not sure what we can consider other news products from non-U.S. countries that might hold similar views. The Kosovo case illustrates the differences between the United States and European countries; they have their own conceptions of free speech, uses of news media, and philosophies concerning the role of media in society.
Additionally, I am equally perplexed by the idea of "global", especially when the term is paired with "news". I'm sure the idea of "global" media products are the focus of a number of countries; however, I think Reuters and the Associated Press are my primary concern. Both state they are companies that provide news and information on a global level. So what do they mean by that? If Associated Press is an American organization, then can it be global? Or can we discount its base of operation? And what are global news items? Can I infer from AP's claim of existing as "the essential global news network" that a news organization anywhere can know almost everything that transpires all the time? Likewise, Reuters is a British company that claims to be a "global information company". Can I infer that Reuters can procure and disseminate information from all points of the globe?
There are many finer nuances in these ideas. When we define news, what exactly do we mean? What news values are used to determine the selection of news? Who decides in local news organizations what routines must be followed? What ownership structure exists in areas of Africa, where the news media might be relatively new compared to the European or Euro-American news media? I hope to tackle each of these in turn, probing what is meant by both these words. It occurs to me that many outside the United States might have just as skewed an idea of the U.S. as we have of their countries. Because I am an American, a journalist, and a scholar, I can't help but ask these questions, especially when I know the complexities, nuances, and textures of Euro-American culture are never properly represented in media. While the media might provide us a picture, it is completely flat; it lacks the social context of place.
Take for example this picture: 
Of course, not everyone in the U.S. has access to this type of food. In fact, I found food items in the East that are dramatically different from the Midwest or Southwest. Even while we have a sense of the "imagined community" as Anderson suggests, we lack the social context from the local. We have misconceptions and biases about one another, just as perhaps Bengalis might have about other Indians, or those from Mexico might have about other Latin Americans. So my question to the world would be: What is an American? Ultimately you must search your mind for what elements and ideas came together to form your conception in the first place.
Especially if the original cultural item is removed from its context:
