Introduction

In analyzing the effects of cultural imperialism on Nigeria’s National development and

image, this discourse concentrates on two major perspectives by which the concept of
cultural imperialism is driven which are the concepts of Americanisation and Media
Imperialism.

These concepts are emphasized not because they aptly or completely explain what the
effects of cultural imperialism is on developing countries like Nigeria but while
understanding this two concepts we have a broad view of how cultural imperialism
evolve, a true essence of the concept and how these translate to effects.

This discourse also examines the arguments of a globalized culture where proponents
undermine the effects of cultural imperialism and provide that its presumed effect is not
negative overall. Where as the (so called) developing nations cling to the fact that there
is some form of superimposition of culture from (so called) developed nations, the
concept of globalisation of culture expresses that no single culture in the world is
completely independent and stands on its own, we borrow from other cultures. The
relative speedy movement of information from one end of the world to another due to
improved technology enhanced by the new media is submerging world cultures into a
single global culture where aspects of different cultures in the globe could be found.

The discourse concludes with a focus on the effects of media imperialism in Nigeria as
expressed by Osakue S.O. and Elo I (2010) in their work, Revisiting Media Imperialism: A
Review of the Nigerian Television Experience. This discourse x-ray’s Osakue and Elo’s
study of a Nigerian context to media imperialism, these issues can be relied upon to
provide the basic issues, even though not a compilation of all the issues affecting the
Nigerian media in a cultural imperialistic sense.

Cultural Imperialism

In defining cultural imperialism Fagen cited in Christof (2011) says media imperialism
refers to a global situation in which powerful culture industries and actors located
almost exclusively in the West particularly, in the United States, dominate other
Local, national, and regional cultures and actors. This domination is understood as being
largely the outcome of fundamental historical inequalities which have resulted in the
bulk of political and economic power being concentrated in the West especially in the
United States.

According to Morris (2002) cultural imperialism also presumes a sort of hypodermic

needle effect in which the values embedded in cultural products, for instance, in
1
Hollywood films, insinuate themselves into local and national cultures and effectively
overpower them. The result is a global homogenization of culture built mostly but not
exclusively around Western and American cultural forms – e.g. Hollywood action films,
American television sitcoms, UK style reality television programs, CNN style broadcast
news programs, McDonald’s, etc.

In his 1976 work Communication and Cultural Domination, Herbert Schiller defines
cultural imperialism as, “the sum of the processes by which a society is brought into the
modern world system, and how its dominating stratum is attracted, pressured, forced,
and sometimes bribed into shaping social institutions to correspond to, or even to
promote, the values and structures of the dominant centre of the system”.

In this discourse emphasis is on two deliberate perspectives on which cultural

imperialism is believed to operate. These perspectives are Americanisation and Media
Imperialism.

Americanisation

Another perspective to cultural imperialism reveals what some scholars refer to as the
“Americanisation of foreign cultures”. Julia Galeota (2004) in his work, Cultural
Imperialism: An American Tradition, on Americanisation of foreign cultures, says it
involves the dissemination of Ostensibly American principles, such as freedom and
democracy. Though this process might sound appealing on the surface, it masks a
frightening truth, many cultures around the world are gradually disappearing due to the
overwhelming influence of corporate and cultural America. The motivations behind
American cultural imperialism parallel the justifications for U.S. imperialism throughout
history, the desire for access to foreign markets and the belief in the superiority of
American culture. Though the United States does boast the world’s largest, most
powerful economy, no business is completely satisfied with controlling only the
American market; American corporations want to control the other 95 percent of the
world’s consumers as well.

Wikipedia captures the essence of Americanisation this way “When talking about
cultural imperialism, it is often referred to the proliferation of Western moral concepts,
products, and political beliefs around the globe. The United States are not currently the
only cultural imperialists, but today, as a global economic and political superpower, the
spread of American values in the entire world is at the leading edge of a wave of spread
of Western goods and consumerist culture. Some people believe that the spread of
American beliefs and concepts of universal values are beneficial to most nations
because their propagations of ideas such as freedom, democracy, equality, and human

2
rights are concepts that should be, in most people’s opinion, universal indeed.
Proponents argue that their contributions of modern ways of thinking and standards of
becoming part of the industrialized and modernized world make world society better-
off”.

Speaking further on what drives Americanisation, Julia Galeota (2004) explains that, “It
is easy enough to convince Americans of the superiority of their culture, but how does
one convince the rest of the world of the superiority of American culture? The answer is
simple, marketing. Whether attempting to sell an item, a brand, or an entire culture,
marketers have always been able to successfully associate American products with
modernity in the minds of consumers worldwide”

According to Julia Galeota (2004), “compounding the influence of commercial images

are the media and information industries, which present both explicit and implicit
messages about the very real military and economic hegemony of the United States.
Ironically, the industry that claims to be the source for “fair and balanced” information
plays a large role in the propagation of American influence around the world. The
concentration of media ownership during the 1990s enabled both American and British
media organizations to gain control of the majority of the world’s news services”. Due to
this development they are able to superimpose their cultures deliberately on cultures of
consuming developing nations.

A careful analysis of the concept of cultural imperialism (Americanisation) especially

relating to the imbalance in cultural flow reveals that the media represent the major
vehicle for this imperialistic movement or the creation and maintenance of unequal
relationships between civilizations favoring the more powerful civilization over the less
powerful. The media is at the center of the practice of promoting and imposing cultures,
usually of politically powerful nations over less potent societies. We see media provide
the cultural hegemony for those industrialized or economically influential countries, to
determine general cultural values and standardize civilizations throughout the world.
(Wikipedia)

Media Imperialism

Citing from Osakue S. and Elo I. (2010) the term “media imperialism” connotes a
situation whereby the media system of a particular area of focus is subjected to the
dictates of the media system of another area.
Perhaps a more concise definition of media imperialism is provided by Boyd–Barrett
(1977). According to him, it is the process whereby ownership, structure, distribution, or
content of the media in any one country are singly or together subject to substantial

3
external pressure from the media interests of any other country or countries without
proportionate reciprocation of influence by the country so affected.

Wikipedia defines Media imperialism as “a theory based upon an over-concentration of

mass media from larger nations as a significant variable in negatively affecting smaller
nations, in which the national identity of smaller nations is lessened or lost due to media
homogeneity inherent in mass media from the larger countries”
S.M. Hali (2000) in his work Media Imperialism talks about a Quantitative Imbalance in
the flow of information within the media, “This imbalance is created by the disparity
between the volume of news and information emanating from the developed world and
intended for the developing countries, and the volume of the flow in the opposite
direction. Almost 80 percent of the world news flow originates from the major news
agencies of the developed countries while they devote only 20 to 30 percent of news
coverage to the developing countries, despite the fact that the latter comprise almost
three quarters of mankind. This results in a veritable de facto monopoly on the part of
the developed countries”.

Citing a UNESCO report by S.M. Hali (2000), he states that “the ratio of information flow
from north to south is 5:1 making us passive recipients. To illustrate this, statistics from
Who’s on Time a book based on the study of Time’s covers from March, 1923 to
January, 1977 reveals that publicity by this international magazine has been actually
lopsided in favour of western countries in terms of sociological, economical and political
issues as well as personalities.

According to Hali (2000), there is a what he refers to as “de facto Hegemony and a Will
to Dominate by the West” through their media agencies, Such hegemony and
domination, he says, are evident in the marked indifference of the media in the west to
the problems, concerns and aspirations of the developing countries, who are relegated
to the status of mere consumers of information sold as a commodity like any other. He
also talks about a lack of Information on developing countries in the news contents of
imperialist media “current events in the developing countries are reported to the world
via the transitional media who filter, cut and distort their reports and impose their own
way. At times they present these communities in the most unfavorable light, stressing
crises, strikes, street demonstrations, putsches and calamities even going to the extent
of holding them to ridicule” Hali (2000) further states that, “The present-day
information system enshrines a form of political, economic and cultural colonialism in
which world events are covered only in so far as it suits the interests of certain societies;
the criteria governing selection are consciously or unconsciously based on the political
and economic interests of the transitional system and of the countries in which the
system is established”. Quoting Hali (2000) further, “The news coverage of major mass

4
media is designed to meet the national needs of the countries of their origin. They
disregard the impact of their news beyond their own frontiers. They even ignore the
important minorities and foreign communities living in their national territory, whose
needs in matters of information are different from their own”.

President Julius Nyrere of Tanzania was once quoted to have sarcastically remarked that
the inhabitants of the developing countries should be allowed to vote in the US
Presidential elections because of the bombardment of information regarding US
Presidential candidates to developing countries through US controlled media. (Hali).

Perhaps in understanding more about the imbalance especially as captured by Robert

McChesney (2001), he states, “In short order, the global media market has come to be
dominated by seven multinational corporations: Disney, AOL Time Warner, Sony, News
Corporation, Viacom, Vivendi, and Bertelsmann…., nearly all of them will rank among
the largest 300 nonfinancial firms in the world for 2001”. Even though not all seven are
truly U.S. firms, all of them have core operations in the United States.

Considering advertising also, McChesney (2001) has this to say “Advertising is a business
expense incurred by the largest firms in the economy. The commercial media system is
the necessary transmission belt for businesses to market their wares across the world;
indeed, globalisation as we know it could not exist without it. Whopping three-quarters
of global spending on advertising ends up in the pockets of mere 20 media companies.
Ad spending has grown by leaps and bounds in the past decade, as TV has been opened
to commercial exploitation, and is growing at more than twice the rate of gross
domestic product growth”.

According to Julia Galeota (2004) “The concentration of media ownership during the
1990s enabled both American and British media organizations to gain control of the
majority of the world’s news services. Satellites allow over 150 million households in
approximately 212 countries and territories worldwide to subscribe to CNN, a member
of Time Warner, the world’s largest media conglomerate”. While also citing British
sociologist Jeremy Tunstall, Julia Galeota (2004) states, “When a government allows
news importation, it is in effect importing a piece of another country’s politics—which is
true of no other import. In addition to politics and commercials, networks like CNN also
present foreign countries with unabashed accounts of the military and economic
superiority of the United States”.

In his work, Media Imperialism and American Way of Life, Müge Güldaş (2011) states
that Disney can be served as an another example which creates Cultural (media)
Imperialism through its cartoon characters among children in different countries in the

5
world. “With or without conscious, children are affected from these points of views.
These are like subliminal messages but also they give a sense of how to think about the
West and the Rest”, Müge Güldaş (2011).

Müge Güldaş (2011) however goes further to give positive examples for Media
Imperialism, “Nations’ attractions with media can have various results. In positive
aspect; we can give women rights example. American way of living and women
reflection created more powerful images in other country’s media as well. We can not
refuse this reality. Women have started to act like these Hollywood powerful and sexy
women, and they have created activist revolutions to become like them. Both in
America and other countries, this side of the Media Imperialism gained supporters”.

Globalisation of culture

While traditional cultural values are progressively being wiped away, critics argue, the
world is increasingly stepping towards a process of cultural synchronization in which a
common global culture based on imperialists societies is becoming more evident. This
cultural uniformity would predictably lead to the extinction of cultures and make the
world less culturally rich and diverse, Julia Galeota (2004)

According to Demont-Heinrich (2011), he states that, In contrast to cultural imperialism,

which encourages scholars to concentrate on cultural domination and cultural
producers and on the power of the latter to impose their ideology on others,
globalisation of culture encourages researchers to focus on cultural resistance and
cultural consumption as well as on the power of people, both on individual and
collective levels, to read, appropriate, and use cultural products in creative and often
counter-hegemonic fashion. So cultural imperialism is primarily concerned with cultural
production and producers while globalisation of culture is concerned primarily with
cultural consumption and consumers.

In his view, Demont-Heinrich (2011) sees globalisation of culture as a response to what

many critics claim is cultural imperialism’s implicit appeals to cultural purity. According
to him, invocations of ‘American’ (or ‘German’ or ‘Japanese’, etc.) culture are highly
suspect, even useless, in the sense that there is no such thing as a singular, pure
‘American’, ‘German,’ ‘Japanese’, etc. culture.

Globalisation of culture ultimately conceives of culture as highly fluid, malleable, and

fundamentally hybrid. Demont-Heinrich (2011) talks about Global communication and
media scholarship’s general swing away from powerful media and cultural producers
toward a focus on active cultural consumers in the mid-1980s and through the 1990s.

6
He opines that this swing mirrors a broader movement within media and
communication studies as a whole. “Thus,S for example, in the 1980s and 1990s, the
work of audience studies scholars such as John Fiske (1987) and Janice Radway (1986),
who focused on the power of individual audience members to resist dominant
ideologies ‘encoded’ into popular culture and (re)appropriate cultural objects toward
their own resistive and ⁄ or pleasureful ends, held sway within much of media and
communication studies. In terms of international media studies, Katz and Liebes’ (1987)
study on the American television series Dallas is considered seminal. The authors found
that Israeli viewers of Dallas interpreted the US-made program in diverse ways,
including ways that ran counter to the dominant ideology of the program”.

Globalisation of culture also gives credence to proponents of a “convergence culture”.

Henry Jenkins (2009) in his work Convergence Culture looks at the relationship between
three concepts, Media Convergence, participatory culture and collective intelligence. In
capturing the essence of his work Jenkins through careful study of some international
media contents sees the audience of some media content equally as powerful as the
producers of these contents. New media has created a veritable platform for the
audience or receivers of media content to resist, participate and contribute to the
development of media content, where sometimes audience or fans of a particular media
content create virtual communities and they participate actively to produce collective
intelligence based on interaction in the New Media (blogs, chats, websites etc) to affect
subject media contents.

Ansgard Heinrich (2008) opines that, “In addition, the way users access the news is
being completely revised. News consumption is increasingly “demand-led, rather than
supply-led” and news users do not want to be restrained by the timeline of a
broadcaster but are rather consulting media platforms and outlets that can tell them
what they want to know when they want to know it. News consumption is being
increasingly more personalized and an atmosphere in which a “see for yourself” culture
of news use is developing. Also proliferated by digitization the, shape of media has
shifted away from mostly passive, mass reception to more interactive, individualized
modes of active engagement”. Information used to be solely ‘pushed’ towards
audiences, yet today technologies such as the Internet support a selective ‘pulling’ of
content. Infact, the Internet is a “push-pull medium”, allowing not only journalists, but
every Internet user to ‘push’ information into the virtual sphere as well as to selectively
‘pull’ information from an almost uncountable variety of sources accessible online.
Thus, the increasing number of ‘alternative’ news deliverers as well as the changing
interaction patterns with news on the side of the users pressure journalistic outlets to
react to the transformation of a journalistic sphere in which their roles as sole news
deliverers are collapsing. The fairly simple structure of a sender-receiver model or a

7
‘top-down’ organization of journalistic work seems to be overcome”.

According to Julia Galeota (2004) “Additionally, Internet users actively seek out
information; users can consciously choose to avoid all messages of American culture.
While these arguments are valid, they ignore their converse: if one so desires, anyone
can access a wealth of information about American culture possibly unavailable through
previous channels. Thus, the Internet can dramatically increase exposure to American
culture for those who desire it. Fear of the cultural upheaval that could result from this
exposure to new information has driven governments in communist China and Cuba to
strictly monitor and regulate their citizens’ access to websites (these protectionist
policies aren’t totally effective, however, because they are difficult to implement and
maintain). Paradoxically, limiting access to the Internet nearly ensures that countries
will remain largely the recipients, rather than the contributors, of information on the
Internet”.

Media Imperialistic Issues Affecting National Development in Nigeria.

In this section, discuss will closely be bordered on issues of media imperialism raised
majorly by Osakue S.O. and Elo I (2010) in their work, Revisiting Media Imperialism: A
Review of the Nigerian Television Experience. Much emphasis is given to issues as raised
in this work even though authors concentrated more on media imperialism as it affect
TV only, but their emphasis is relied upon in this discuss because it carefully captures
the essence of this section of the discuss which is Media Imperialistic Issues Affecting
National Development in Nigeria.

In their work, Osakue S.O. and Elo I (2010) observe that “Imperialistic strictures have
compelled most growing democracies in Africa (Nigeria, Ghana, Liberia, Burundi,
Cameroun, among others) to tag along established Western democracies in virtually all
facets of human endeavour. This portends a possible “arrested” development for most
African countries. This, perhaps, also explains why media production in Nigeria has
continued to grapple with the hydra – headed phenomenon known as media
imperialism. Media imperialism discourse is particularly significant in Nigeria, the
continent’s biggest country in terms of population and also home to one of Africa’s most
vigorous media industries. Nigeria has also traditionally been exposed to American or
Western media more than many other nations in Africa, aside South African, which is
regarded as part and parcel of the Western/imperialistic media”.

Osakue S.O. and Elo I (2010) speak further, “The early advance of the developed nations
of the West (France, United States of America, Britain and Germany) has given them the
leverage to equally develop communication systems to link great distances just to
enhance their business interests. However, this has impacted quite negatively on the
8
media systems of the developing countries as it ensures the perpetuation of the world
information order that has consigned the developing world to a position of mere
consumers of information, even when the information originates in their own
environment. Ultimately, then, the early technological advance of these countries
compels other countries in quest of the development of their media systems to follow
the examples set by these countries”.

Also according to Osakue S.O. and Elo I (2010), “the influence of the American media
content only intensifies consumption values instead of production values in many
countries which are compelled to depend and view the world through the prism of
Western values, ideas and civilization”.

In Nigeria, emphasis is on transmission facilities just to keep pace with international

broadcast standards as dictated by the global north and rural integration and
development is paid lip service. Ordinarily, the hardware of media systems (that is, the
technology), which Nigeria is used to, is Western. The hardware is intended for use in
aid of development. But when the hardware comes with all its cultural appurtenances,
then whatever development it would bring would be Western–tainted, if not a complete
implantation of Western culture (Osakue S.O. and Elo I, 2010).

Another issues identified by Osakue S.O. and Elo I (2010) as imperialistic, affecting the
Nigerian media is Language, they assert that “Language as an element of media
imperialism in Nigerian media is Quite significant. The major language of broadcasting is
English. It is only in special programmes that indigenous languages are used. Most of the
time indigenous languages are used for news translations. But the time allotted
for such translations is not more than a few minutes per language. Thus, not more than
one item of news is broadcast in the news translations. The inclusion of such translation,
is therefore, not for any purpose of integration or grassroots development through
communication, but merely to show that no language area is marginalized in a political
sense. It must equally be noted that the use of English to broadcast news and other
programmes has communication problems of its own, especially as regards the
influence and integration of the rural and illiterate populace who may not understand
the English language adequately”.

Furthermore, the industrial arrangement for the continuation of media production is

linked to financial facilities which the media utilize for stability. Western countries have
established a solid foundation that enables their media systems to be financially
independent. This ensures their continuous production of content which they can
dispose of to developing countries cheaply. The structure of Hollywood, for example,
gives it an unassailable advantage that enhances the invasion of Third World cinema and
television by American film and television products. The strong foundation of
9
Hollywood is a development which was encouraged by the American government in
various ways including the formation of the Motion Picture Export Association of
America (MPEAA) in 1946 (Ekwuazi, 1991). This body was formed to regulate film
making as well as deal with the exploration of films and garner whatever advantage was
needed abroad. This ensured that America maintained the lead while others followed.
Thus, Hollywood has been able to consolidate and intensify its grip on global distribution
and exhibition of motion picture as a result of neo-liberalism on trade practices and
terms (Hjort & Petrie, 2007 as cited by Osakue S.O. and Elo I, 2010).

Osakue S.O. and Elo I, 2010, explains on the issue of media content development or
programming, according them, “Though the NBC requires that stations broadcast 60%
local content in their daily transmission, it has not augured well for the industry as the
small turnover of most of the TV outfits does not allow for the production of
programmes that can meet international standards. In fact, private stations are now
involved in the broadcast of sponsored programmes which do not serve the interest of
integration/rural/grassroots communication in Nigeria where over 70 percent of the
people are rural dwellers (Omoera, 2006 as cited by Osakue S.O. and Elo I, 2010).
Religious programmes take up the largest percentage of weekly broadcasts in the name
of local content. Even when some other Nigerian stations, including HiTv pride
themselves for bringing innovative solutions in television content and programming, it
appears that they do so in crass ignorance, insensitivity and short-sightedness because
many of the programmes ape foreign media without regard to the socio-cultural
sensitivity and sensibility of Nigerians. A clear case is “Kokomansion” currently on HiTv
which shamelessly copies the America’s “Playboy Mansion” with all its moral failings in
the light of the Nigerian cultural mores, sense of decency and respect for motherhood
and womanhood all in the name of commercial fortune and what Tony Subair of HiTv
and other organizers of the reality show calls innovation and creativity.
In fact, Ojo (2009) hits the nail on its head when he noted that the quest for fame,
money and material pursuit drives Kokomansion”.

Inadequate funding is another sore point that makes Nigerian television stations hook
on to foreign stations to bring international events to viewers. Many stations even use
such attachment to source for advertising from patrons because such events, especially
sporting activities easily attract sponsors. A case in point is the European Football
Champions’ league final played between Barcelona Football Club of Spain and Arsenal
Football Club of England on Wednesday, May 17, 2006. The Nigerian Breweries
sponsored the analysis of the match on Nigerian Television Authority’s (NTA’s)
“Newsline”. But an important football match like the Nigerian Football Federation final
is rarely aired. Notable is the finals of the African Women’s Football Championship,
hosted by Nigeria and which Nigeria won for a record fifth time on November 11, 2006.

10
It was only the local television station – the Delta Rainbow Television (DRTV) that aired
the match and it is probably because it was the state (Delta State) that hosted the
championship on behalf of the country. Other stations chose to broadcast the English
Premier League matches played that weekend. The situation is now even direr as many
conglomerates, including Guinness, Heineken now bankroll the broadcast of league
matches from Europe to the dereliction of Nigerian league matches. Overtime, this and
other programming activities of most Nigerian TV stations seem to have accumulatively
influenced the attitude and behaviour of Nigerians, especially the youths. Today, it is rife
to see Nigerian youths wearing T-shirts, rubber bracelets and caps with inscriptions such
as “Chelsea FC”, “Arsenal FC”, “Man U for Life”, “New York Lakers”, to mention a few
(Okhakhu & Ate,2008 as cited by Osakue S.O. and Elo I, 2010 ).
In fact, the average Nigerian football fan knows more about football players and their
activities in the Spanish League (La Liga), German(Bundesliga), Italian League (Serie A),
French League (Ligue 1), among others, than the Nigerian sporting scene. The point
being made is that gradually but certainly the Nigerian television is being trapped in the
web of subtle conditioning of the minds of the people to imbibe values which make
their desire for foreign goods, services or ideas to increase (Udeze, 2005). And there is a
strong connection between this consumptive social attitude and the globalisation
agenda which continuously buoys up the economy of the producing nation and slows
down the economic, industrial and technological growth of the consuming nation (Boyd-
Barrett & Thussu, 1993 as cited by Osakue S.O. and Elo I, 2010).

Osakue and Elo, 2010, also comment on the incidences where Nigerian media outfits
cull from their foreign counterparts, they have this to say “This incident tells much
about the information management system that obtains in Nigeria, which hamstrings
the average Nigerian broadcast outfit and reduces it to a position where its Hobson’s
choice is to tag along Western media behemoths due to some ethno political and
economic behests within the country. Needless to say that many of the TV stations
continue to feature video clips of foreign TV stations anytime they broadcast
international news under the demeaning rubric of “this was culled from CNN, BBC, SABC
and so on”. At times it is even the complete audio-visual footage of the particular news
item that is culled from the foreign TV station.

Ibagere and Edosa cited by Osakue and Elo (2010) noted that Nigerian television at the
turn of the new millennium, “resorted to acquiring culturally foreign programmes from
TV Africa and other pay TV cable outfits with whom many stations seem to have signed
a contract”. Imperialism then, seems to wear a new look. Rather than accuse Western
nations (particularly America) of invading Nigerian screens with elements of their
culture, the focus should now be on South Africa with its robust broadcasting through

11
which Western culture continues to invade Nigerian culture, as signified by the
programmes of such satellite stations as Channel O, E Entertainment, MNET and others.

To worsen the matter, as Osakue and Elo puts it, Nigerian media audience seems to
have acquired Western tastes without commensurate financial power to satisfy such
tastes. Also, the Nigerian television system does not possess the capacity to provide
such fare comparable with Western standards. This is why satellite television has
become more popular even though it is quite expensive. According to Anibeze (cited by
Osakue and Elo 2010) while the cable TV stations broadcasting the world cup in
Germany was charging 9.9 Euros (1,800 naira) per month, people were paying 9,000
naira for DSTV monthly in Nigeria, with additional 500 naira if one was paying through
an agent. Despite this high cost, Nigerian viewers continue to yearn for foreign
programmes. Thus, the economics of scale does not favour the average Nigerian TV
broadcaster as it fights tooth and nail to keep hope alive in a hostile business
environment where it is compelled to become a dependant of others because of the
consumptive attitude of its people.
Golding (1977) made this point When he observed that the factors which have forced
television into this Situation include “the demands of a largely elite population having
Cosmopolitan tastes and interests as well as the high cost of local production”.

It must be noted that imperialism is not only a feature of globalisation it is a detrimental

development that supplants indigenous
media culture with the foreign one. The manifestation of this can be gleaned from the
adoption of Western practice as could be seen in the content displayed in Big Brother
Africa (BBA) show which was aired for the first time in 2007. This was an imitation of Big
Brother America. Tagged as a reality show, BBA featured obscene scenes of inmates
having their baths as well as amoral interactions. Some other Western programmes that
have been shamelessly aped by Nigerian TV broadcasters are “Don’t Forget the Lyrics”,
“Who Wants to be a Millionaire”, “Project Fame”, to mention a few.

That may also be difficult, if not impossible to send correspondents to places to get
news as Ben Murray – Bruce (then Director General of the NTA and now Chairman
Silverbird TV) acknowledges. It is no surprise then that the likes of CNN and BBC will
continue to be the imperial sources of news for Nigerian television organizations. On the
fact of the paucity of funds to make programmes he says, “You don’t have any problem
with scripts and artistes. Your problems are in funding and equipment “(Cited in Osakue
and Elo 2010).

12
Conclusion

The complete reversal of negative effects of cultural (media) imperialism on the

Nigerian media may be difficult, it could only be reduced. on the other hand, it is a
possibility for the Nigerian nation corporately, to develop a holistic media programme
that deliberately seeks to impose certain aspects of its culture on the global audience,
Americanisation of foreign cultures, involves the dissemination of Ostensibly American
principles, Nigeria as a nation should also seek to deliberately disseminate Nigerian
culture, principles, Image, way of life on other cultures of the world. Nollywood and the
Nigerian music industry can be seen to be performing that function of superimposition
of the Nigerian culture on other African Cultures this should be improved upon
deliberately by the government.
As Osakue and Elo (2010) suggests, it is high time stakeholders in the Nigerian media
made genuine and conscious effort to change the situation. Such effort should include
better funding, serious investment in the development of home-grown media
technologies, investment in high level manpower development, innovative programmes
and more specialized programming with indigenous flavours by both the public and
private media outfits operating in the country.

13
References.

Ansgard, H. (2008). Network Journalism: Moving towards a Global Journalism Culture.

Retrieved from http://ripeat.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Heinrich.pdf

Boyd, B. and Oliver (1977). Media imperialism: towards an international framework for
the analysis of media systems. In Mass Communication and Society, James, C.,
Michael G. and Jane W. (Eds). London: Arnold.

Christof, D. H (2011). Cultural imperialism versus globalization of culture: riding the

structure-agency dialectic in global communication and media studies. Sociology
Compass, 10, 1–13.

Hali, S. M. (2000). Media imperialism. Defence Journal. Retrieved from

http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/june/imperialism.htm

Hjort, M. and Petrie, D. (2007). Introduction. In The cinema of small nations, Hjort, M
and Petrie, D. (Eds.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.

Julia, G. (2004). Cultural imperialism: an American tradition. Retrieved from

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/essay3mayjune04.pdf

McChesney, R. (2001). Global media, neoliberalism & imperialism. International Socialist

Review. Retrieved from http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/McChesney/
GlobalMedia_Neoliberalism.html

Morris and Nancy (2002). The myth of unadulterated culture meets the threat of
imported media. Media, Culture &Society 24: 278–89.

Müge, G. (2011). Media imperialism and American way of life. Flows in Media and
Communication. Retrieved from http://iletisim.ieu.edu.tr/flows/?p=749

Osakue, S. O. and Elo, I. (2010). Revisiting media imperialism: a review of the Nigerian
Television experience. The International Journal of Research and Review, 5, 1-18.

14
 UNIVERSITY OF JOS
DEPARTMENT OF MASS
COMMUNICATION

PAPER PRESENTATION ON

CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AND NATIONAL

DEVELOPMENT

BY

MAILAFIYA MAGAJI
UJ/2012/PGAR/0159

LECTURER

MR. GODFREY DANAAN

JUNE 2013

COURSE: ISSUES IN PRINT AND

BROADCAST JOURNALISM (MAC 515)

15