he pace 

with which media have been changing overthe past few decades is phenomenal, to say the
least.

The  increased  global connectivity  along with  the conver-gence of communication infrastructures, media
contentand electronic devices have dramatically changed theway  we experience media  and interact
with  it (Jenkins,2006).  More than ever before, there has been an expo-nential multiplication of
information and communica-tion technologies and growth in media services andmodes  of

  delivery.  For  Tehranian  (1999),  the changes intechnology, the transformation  of media  and the global-
ization of communication have  a strong bearing on theability of individuals  and groups

  to  safeguard  diversity.Three interrelated  types of media can be identified  witlidifferent implications:
Macromedia of communication(which  are  associated with global satellite and  computernetworks,
trans-border data  flows,  scientific and  profes-sional electronic mailing, and commercial
advertising)support the globalization of national markets, societiesand cultures, though they privilege
the power centersmore than  the  periphery;

  Mesomedia of communication(such  as  the press, print  media, audio-visual media, thefilm industry, and
news agencies) are usually underthe control of national governments or commercialand pressure groups
and, as such, function mostly asagents of national integration and social mobilization;and Micromedia of
communication (such as the tele-phone, copying machines, audio and video recorders,tapes,  PCs,  and

  the Web)  have primarily empowered thecentrifugal forces of dissent at  the  peripheries of power.They
provide channels for counter-hegemonic projectsof cultural resistance, socio-political participation
andautonomous development.  The  affordability  and ac-cessibility of micromedia are not without
implicationon world peripheries which have increasingly beenfocusing on modernization, indigenous
development,cultural

  identity,

  and political communication  formation(Tehranian,  1999).

Yet,

  the effect of media

  is

  neither monolithic nor uni-form.  Media play a central role in  fostering

  the

  homog-enizing  effect of the culture

  industry;

  as

  such,

  they shapeour relationship with the other and with society.  In anincreasingly media-mediated  culture,
characterized bythe high penetration  of media  which normalize  specificviews and practices through the
power of representa-tion,  individuals develop  a taste for what media show,consume what media
promote, act in accordance withthe information media

  divulge,

  construct reality withina media framework,  and interpret

  events

  in light of whatmedia communicate (Appaclurai, 1990). At the sametime,

  the

  phenomenal development  in the

  field
  of mediaand communications and

  the

  imbrication of media typesand platforms  over the past quarter  of a century or so

are

  promising for cultural

  diversity.

  In  broadcast mediaalone, the multiplicity  of channels, the  unprecedented

access to

  and  affordability  of content production,  and  theproliferation of cross  border programs

have  contributedmuch  to the free flow of ideas and  the multiplication

  of

viewpoints.  The accessibility of media, the  free  flow ofinformation  and  the free exchange of views have
beeninstrumental in promoting

  tolerance,

  understanding andco-existence.  In a  globalized environment such as theone we live in,  promoting  a

media environment whichfosters participation in civic discourse and multi-cul-turalism

  is

  particularly important, although not alwaysachieved or practiced.In some ways, media is a double
edged sword,with the proclivity to be appropriated as a force ofempowerment but also the tendency to
be used as ameans of subjection.  Media can go a  long way  towardestablishing commonness and
fostering solidarity, butcan also induce divisions, deepen misunderstandings,reinforce prejudice and
distort reality.  Media can  be avaluable instrumental in recognizing otherness, em-bracing difference and
promoting culkiral awareness,but can also have a divisive effect through their

  indif-

ference to difference.  Stated differently,  media can putin perspective the diversity of groups
and  individualswith a great deal of authenticity and frequency, and indoing so they can facilitate
intercultural dialogue; butthey can also act as an instrument  of  marginalization,dismissal and
effacement  and  function

  as a

  source of  di-visiveness polarization and estrangement.

  As

  Tehranian(1999) points out, media  and  communication cannot beadequately conceived outside existing
power structuresfor they  can privilege certain players at

  the

  detriment

  of

others:  Communication  can  act

  as  a

  process of free andequal exchange of meaning, development  of epistemiccommunities, and

advancement of social solidarity,and hence of peace and harmony among individualsand
nations.  Conversely,  however, communicationcan also systematically distort perceptions by
creatingphantom  enemies,  manufacturing  consent for wars  ofaggression while stereotyping
and  targeting particular
Journal of  Cultural  Diversity  •  Vol.

  18,

  No. 2Summer 2011