Misinformed America: Public Media Consumption and Perceptions of the Modern World System

Charlene Haskin

Submitted to the Faculty of the Sociology and Anthropology Department at the University of La Verne in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of:

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN SOCIOLOGYAdvisor: Fatima Suarez, MSc.

May 2014

Misinformed America

Abstract

Modern development of communication technologies have allowed for widespread exchange of

information worldwide. Similar interactions have been identified to be characteristic of a complex

dynamic between nations referred to as the World-System. Discussed originally by Wallerstein (1974,

2004), the World-System is composed of the capitalist world-economy and the interstate system. These

aspects compose the political and economic interactions within the World-System. The Hegemon

dominates these dynamics, and it is currently the United States. Information about this system is passed to

the citizenry of the world by way of the media. The media itself is dominated as well by few corporate

powers, which are controlled by and forward the interests of the governments that support them

(McChesney and Nichols 2000). The current study attempts to identify a relationship between media

consumption and World-System perception accuracy by posing the following hypotheses: (1) The type of

media source an individual consumes most often impacts the accuracy of their perception of international

interactions within the World-System; (2) As an individual’s education level increases, personal accuracy

of the World-System also increases; (3) As accuracy of World-Systems issues increases, the hegemonic

citizens’ perceived ability to impact these problems decreases; (4) As World-Systems accuracy decreases,

the hegemonic citizens concentration on American problems increases; and (5) As World-System

accuracy increases, an individual’s opinion of the United States as the hegemon decreases. A non-random

snowball sampling technique was used to distribute a four part survey conducted online. Institutional

Review Board approval was granted and data was collected for one month. Participants completed and

electronically signed a consent form. A total of 100 participants submitted data that was used in SPSS

analysis to correlate variables. Seventy-five participants (75%) identified as being female, 15 (15 %)

participants identified as male, nine participants (9%) were transgender. Most hypotheses were not

supported statistically except for the final hypothesis, which supported a significant correlation between

World-Systems accuracy and an individual’s opinion of the United States as hegemon (p=0.021).

2

Misinformed America

Literature Review

Technology and communication in the modern age of Globalization have expanded the

boundaries of social interaction to not only locally, but also globally. As relationships, dynamics

and even conflicts cross borders, which simultaneously precipitate complicated power dynamics

between nations over time; it has been a daunting task to identify consistent theoretical

viewpoints to explain these each of the nuances of global social interaction. However, countless

academics have explored a variety of theoretical frameworks to profile the globalized social

environment of contemporary societies. Research of this scope touches on the historical

evolution of this modern system and also attempts to define characteristics of it. Furthermore, the

modern world-system as described by Wallerstein (1974) himself is a fundamentally changing

system where the roles of the multiple of actors within are constantly adjusting to the needs and

demands that the system presents.

Throughout this constantly changing dynamic, significant empirical research suggests

that each actor plays a vital role not only with the maintenance but also with the efficacy of the

system. These actors have been identified as states that operate within an exchange system:

individuals and corporate or multinational firms that operate to make capitalist profit;

international governing bodies that attempt to serve the purpose of regulating this exchange; and

also individuals and corporations that absorb the benefits (although unequally distributed) of the

constant maintenance of this system (Wallerstein 1974).

Through the development and study of this research it is undeniable that the current

framework of the globalized world presents benefits as well as detriments, distributed to

individuals and states based on their role and placement amongst the power dynamic of the

world economy. This power hierarchy itself has many defining features and currently stands with

3

Misinformed America

referenced core nations holding the most power (Wallerstein 1974). Furthermore, the United

States post World War II has continually maintained (although this is currently arguable) the

position of “super-power” or as described by theorists, hegemony (Sanderson 1999). This role

requires many responsibilities, which includes the ability to create and maintain relationships

with other powerful actors within the system; including but not limited to global governance

bodies and multi-national capitalist corporations. These relationships fundamentally ensure the

profit initiatives and power positions of the United States in the global realm. In the process of

maintaining these intentions, the United States itself has not always acted in a way that ensures

the rights, protections and even distribution of wealth and advantages of globalization to all parts

of the world. Executing political and military power when necessary, the United States has a

notorious global reputation for doing what it takes to maintain this hegemonic position.

Moreover, it is the goal of this proposed research to identify the perception of hegemonic

citizens of their states’ actions within the world-system. In particular, this study attempts to

gauge the American perspective of the world system and the hegemon. In doing so, it is obvious

that the most important influence in shaping the information and perception of global interaction

is the media. Moreover, this research will encompass a comprehensive analysis of the media

consumption (i.e. common media sources and mediums, how often this information is being

accessed and how accurate an individuals perception of international issues is based on these

influences); of the average American (defined by the purposes and limitations of this project as

being a generally educated, American citizen residing currently in Southern California); how the

individual views the legitimacy or accuracy of this information; and whether or not this has

impacted their opinion of the United States and its actions within the world-system. In order to

tackle this task preliminary research is needed to develop a comprehensive background on each

4

Misinformed America

of these variables. Significant areas of literature to consider include: theoretical framework of

globalization, world-systems and related theories, core leadership and hegemonic relationships

with multi-national corporate firms and global governing bodies, and also the globalization,

consumption and dominance of global and American media and its role as an individual actor

within the world-system.

Theoretical Framework: An Introduction to World-Systems and Globalization Theories

Social science research has no doubt affirmed the gravity of global expansion and

dynamics within the relationships of global exchange. However, it seems the research pertaining

to this information is as diverse and broad as the spectrum of the world itself. Theories

associated to Immanuel Wallerstien and his identification of the “capitalist world-economy”

specifically relate to the interaction between states, the power dynamics created with capitalist

intent and the roles and effects of each individual feature of the contemporary system. This

theoretical groundwork has led to the modern expansion of each of these features into nuanced

ways of explaining not only the historical development of this system, but also the current

features and future outlooks.

To begin, empirical research and observation is often committed to explaining the

historical processes, ideologies and influences that have led to the creation of the present

condition, and while it is important to understand the evolution of the world economy and its

power dynamics, the scope of this information is far too extensive and complicated to be related

to the specificity of the goals of this project and its research. Regardless, critical analyses of the

modern world-system are often explained in the literature complimenting the historical study of

the topic. In one such instance, an analytical publication by Sanderson (1999), uses empirical

studies to outline the historical development of the modern world-system (as defined by advance

5

Misinformed America

theoretical research by aforementioned Wallerstein) from essentially the beginning of time

ending in a collective summation of the characteristics that have developed to be features of the

of the modern system. Specifically described are two “complementary pillars” which are the

capitalist world-economy (to be explained in greater detail by citations of Wallerstein’s writings

specifically) and the interstate system (181-182).

Further discussion outlines three interacting zones that make up the economic exchange

within the system, as well as the power dynamic between nations. These zones are defined as

“the core [which] consists of those nation-states that dominate the world economy,” noted as the

“most economically developed zone” (182). With supplementary zones being the periphery,

which is the least developed and very bottom of the power distribution and receives the least

economic rewards, and a middle ground zone, which “combine[s] elements of core and

peripheral economic activity” to be appropriately named the semi-periphery (182). These zones

are the defining feature of the modern world-system and currently have expanded with the

exceptional influence of the process of modern globalization, to include almost every country

and area of the world.

Sanderson formulates a generally distinctive theoretical analysis by describing four

outstanding “characteristic relationships” the three zones carryout within the world-system. The

most relevant of these interactions is the power supremacy of the core encompasses the means of

production as well as, “superior political and military power” which the core in turn uses “to

dominate and exploit both the semiperiphery and periphery” (183). Although this is not

necessarily a novel concept, its identification as a primary feature of the modern world-system

deserves particular attention.

6

Misinformed America

Identified previously, the world-system does not solely operate as an exchange or

development of economic pursuits. The aforementioned complimentary pillar to the economic

perspective is referred to as the “interstate system” which is the collective political interactions

of nations and governments operating within the system (185). The significance of the

development of nations’ governmental systems independent of the dynamics of the world-system

has often been disputed by other theoretical perspectives, but nevertheless, the importance of

individual governing bodies is critical to the survival and continued expansion of the current

system (185). This political “pillar” will be explained in further detail in succeeding remarks.

Furthermore, the basic characteristics of the modern-world system are defined by global

economic and political social interactions.

The previously defined elements of economic zones of the world system are a simple

skeleton of the complex interactions, exchanges, and detailed features of these zones and the

system as a whole. As previously mentioned, the modern world-system as a development of

historical processes “is and has always been a capitalist world-economy” (Wallerstein 2004:23).

Wallerstien asserts that both the aspects of capitalism and the term world-economy should be

viewed as constantly interconnected but also considered individually.

By first specifying that a world-economy has been defined as “a large geographic zone

within which there is a division of labor and hence significant internal exchange of basic or

essential goods as well as flows of capital and labor,” Wallerstien alludes to the exchange that is

referenced so freely be researchers (23). It is the active pursuit and exchange primarily of goods

that not only inspires continual capitalist interaction, but also has led to the inclusion of almost

all of the world’s nations and people in this exchange. However, the inclusion and unification of

7

Misinformed America

this process is characterized by the global division of labor that assigns and perpetuates the

position that states hold within the world-system (23-24).

Moreover, the second aspect of the world-economy is that it is a global system of

capitalism, but “only when the system gives us priority to the endless accumulation of capital”

(24). This is evident when considered that not only do “people and firms [accumulate] capital in

order to accumulate still more capital, a process that is continual and endless” but this goal is

powerfully enforced by “structural mechanisms by which those who act with other motivations

are penalized in some way” with the potential of being alienated from the system as a whole

resulting in only more substantial detriments (24). It is the effective cooperation and integration

of these elements that has led to the continuance and maintenance of this system. Also, dually

noted is the lack of an agreeable or comparable form of political control or cultural practice that

would allow for the creation of a world-empire or dissolve into singular entities due to the

unification and dependence of production resources and the division of labor distributed

throughout the system (24).

In addition, Wallerstien identifies specific actors that engage within the capitalist world-

economy and describes their fundamental importance and role and gives an in depth idea of the

complexity of the modern world-system while explaining how although complex and broad, can

be felt at the most individual and personal levels.

The basic institutions [of the modern world-economy] are the market, or rather the markets; the firms that compete in the markets; the multiple states within the interstate system; the households; the classes; and the status groups (24).

Each of these institutions performs a certain function within the world-system; whether it be

engaging as a competitor within the exchange of capital within the system (firms), reproducing

and following the structure set forth by a specific ideology to reinforce the processes of albeit

8

Misinformed America

unequal capitalist “development” (households) or even accepting and engaging with the role and

position that one has been assigned as a result of national power or economic success (status

groups) (24-39). Of these institutions, the most vital and influential are markets, firms and the

states comprising the interstate system.

The market is an established feature of a capitalist economy. Just as these capitalist

practices and ideas have reached the entire globe, so too have the markets that decide the

economic traffic within the world-economy. It is definable as “a concrete structure in which

individuals or firms sell and buy goods and a virtual institution across space where the same kind

of exchange occurs” (25). The market is not specific to the exchange of military goods, but also

the value associated to commodities, capital and labor. Markets are not and can never “function

fully and freely” because this would eliminate the competitive nature that fuels capitalism and

the constant search for newer, better and cheaper ways to sell production within markets for a

capital gain (25-26). The competition within the markets is supported by the strength and

political clout of the government, which supports a certain firm operating within the market.

Legal processes, including the development of patents, have allowed for the development of

“quasi-monopolies”. Patents are a primary establishment that allows powerful capital

competitors to solidify global markets in their favor:

State restrictions on imports and exports (so-called protectionist measures) are another. State subsidies and tax benefits are a third. The ability the ability of strong states to use their muscle to prevent weaker states to create counter protectionist measures is still another (26).

The institution of these measures globally have proven to be effective means of solidifying

capital development for certain individuals operating within the market, while simultaneously

creating enough competition to prevent the system from failing.

9

Misinformed America

Additionally, the competitors within the market of the world-economy as primary

generators of production and capital have regularly been associated with governments in order to

sustain a form of political power (28). This political influence, while subjecting the groups to the

potential criticism of governments the world over, also allows for the perpetuation of inequality

and the capacity of the states associated with them, or competing against them. Specifically, “the

strong states, which contain a disproportionate share of core-like processes, tend to emphasize

their role of protecting the quasi-monopolies of the core-like processes” whereas, “the weak

states are usually unable to do very much to affect the axial division of labor, and in effect are

largely forced to accept the lot that has been given to them” (28-29).

The preliminary feature of inequality and skewed distribution of capital rewards within

the modern world-economy is a fundamental issue that begs the question as to why significant

challenge to this system has not become a more prominent issue and also, how the system

remains so stable even with this imbalance. Evidenced by historical data, “prior to the modern

era, world-economies were highly unstable structures which tended either to be converted into

empires or disintegrate” (Wallerstein 1974:348). The particular strength of this system then, is

that as each actor has gone out of its way to engage or attempt to engage with the potential

national success of the world-economy, it has itself broadened to a size larger than any single

political entity can manage to control (348). Therefore, it has not become a world-empire

because of the relationships between political entities and it has not collapsed because of the

promise that this type of economy has for the wealth and development of each nation

individually, regardless of the currently “skewed rewards” (348).

An important aspect of the distorted distribution of the rewards (and opportunities) of the

contemporary world-economy is that the global division of labor is so substantial that it is “not

10

Misinformed America

merely functional—that is, occupational—but geographical” meaning that “the range of

economic tasks is not evenly distributed throughout the world-system” (349). As supported by

Sanderson (1999: 200), geographical location and immersion within the world-system plays a

critical role in the occupational and economic tasks of each area and zone.

This is particularly the case in the advantaged areas of the world-economy—what we have called the core states [in these areas] the creation of a strong state machinery, coupled with national culture, serves both as a mechanism to protect disparities that have arisen within the world system, and as an ideological mask and justification for the maintenance of these disparities (349).

Furthermore, the division of labor has become a foundational element, not only for continuing to

guarantee the success of certain areas, but also the perpetuation of the disadvantaging of others to

obtain this opportunity.

Conclusively, mirroring many aspects of Marxian proletariat versus bourgeoisie

literature, the relationships between those in control of the sources of capital and the means of

producing said capital are in constant competition with each other in order to continuously gain

surplus capital. The firms that act as the competitors within the markets of the world-economy

develop relationships with powerful states allowing for the maintenance of their success within

the world-system as well as continuing those governments’ control over the core processes that

generate the best and the most economic success and continued global influence. Furthermore, it

is these relationships and the processes used to enforce them (patents, state restrictions, etc.) that

perpetuate the unequal distribution of the benefits of the world-economy in the favor of core

nations sacrificing peripheral states ability to also enjoy these rewards. The division of labor

which is a result of the allocation of capital gain as well as access to capitalist enterprise, then

becomes associated with the geographical, cultural, and political authority of the state with

11

Misinformed America

which an individual or firm associates. This expands the class divisions of labor and access to

resources to a global platform where they continue to grow in disparity and severity.

Issues and Potential Crises Associated with World-System Inequality

It is beyond question, theoretically, empirically or otherwise that there is a currently

pressing issue within the current dynamic of the world-system. The inequality between nations

and its citizens and their effective inability to achieve or even access the processes of economic

prosperity associated with capitalist development has become widely recognized. Furthermore,

the potential and outlook for attacking and alleviating the problem of world-system inequality

are current topics of discussion among theorists and researchers of many perspectives and

disciplines.

Regardless of the fact that the inequality of the world-system seemingly impacts almost

every facet of life in general, from poverty and malnutrition to resource depletion and ecological

damage, there seems to be incredible obstacles to correcting the ills of the contemporary world.

Primarily, the applications of the term inequality itself “are not arbitrarily fixed, but rather the

outcome of political and ideological ‘struggle for definitions’” (Giesen and Nobre 2010:339).

Effectively, the culturally appropriate and diverse forms of inequality and the issues associated

with it have changed through development to comprise a “unifying substratum” that

encompasses not only material distribution of goods, but also “political or moral issues […]

culture, gender, environment, education, race, or social esteem” (339). Review of historical

trends reveals that the world-system is no stranger to change, in that there have been periods of

prosperity and improvement as well as subsequent crises for any given area or zone of the system

deepened significantly by the interconnected nature of the world-economy (340). General

assessment of the recent trends and dynamics of the world-economy and the inequality it

12

Misinformed America

perpetuates stipulates a current and future risk, and despite the claims to the stability of the

modern world-system made by Wallerstein and others, noteworthy concerns have been raised

overtime by both developing and developed nations.

Characteristically, we have seen that “for many new states […] formal sovereignty and

decolonization based on the principle of self-determination and access to international

institutions did not result in more international equality”(340). The implementation and

development of global governance and enforcement bodies including the United Nations (UN),

World Bank (WB), World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Monetary Fund (IMF)

have often acted with policy responses which have supported a decreased focus on specific

issues of alleviating poverty and inequality and rather equated these occurrences to an individual

area’s poverty situation to “their state apparatus and the inefficient allocation of available

resources, not because of the unjust structure of the world-system (342-343). Subsequently, as

certain alternatives to the capitalist structure collapsed (socialist movements promote individual

state sovereignty) overtime, social movements became more complex to encompass a

multiplicity of social problems or injustices and attack them from “more offensive positions, like

the one based on ‘identity politics’, for instance” (344-345). The complexity of issues associated

with contemporary social movements has only led to an increased amount of global inequality

and a consequently greater uncertainty, efficacy and desire for international governance bodies to

nail down legitimately appropriate and successful solutions or plans of attack to alleviate global

inequality (346).

Core Leadership and Global Governance: Colliding Interests in Favor of the Hierarchical System

A unique and sustaining aspect of the modern world-economy is the inherent lack of a

single governing body to regulate and control the exchanges, dynamics and distributions within

13

Misinformed America

the system. However, as posed by the evidence cited by Giesen and Nobre, the inequality within

the system and the burdens associated with the affects have led to the somewhat recent

development of international bodies that have been recognized by developed and developing

nations as being somewhat legitimate ways of instituting some sort of international public policy.

Furthermore, the power and facets of the world-economy are divided between these international

forums to continue to decentralize the power of a single entity. However, within the dealings,

policies, relationships, and operations of these organizations to date, it is clear that they serve a

primary interest and that is to support the initiatives of core leadership while still engaging the

cooperation of the rest.

The stability of the contemporary world-economy is relatively similar today, to the

hierarchy that emerged after World War II. It has been managed and dominated by the powerful

state zones, but due to the recent era of change and transition, they have grown weak. Regardless

of the present challenges “international institutions are committing themselves to maintaining the

old hierarchical order, even in the face of its ineffectiveness of dealing with new challenges and

problems” (Woods 2000:387). Within the current system that exists, international institutions

serve as a checkpoint specifically for developing nations to apparently be included in the policies

and strategies of the world-system. This inclusion has never been directly correlated with the

complete dominance of the will and power of larger, more wealthy states over the more

underdeveloped areas “rather, within the hierarchical system institutions have emerged which

permit limited accommodation and change” (388). These developments and procedural practices

of world-system international order are reliant on the reproduction “of norms and institutions

[that] can only be explained after a power-political framework has been ascertained” making

these kinds of order a continuation of the demands and desires of states placed at the top of this

14

Misinformed America

hierarchy (388). In instances where alternatives to the cooperation within this hierarchy in

accordance with the declarations of international governments, governments have been

persuaded by those in power to comply by a threat of civil war, economic catastrophes and the

promise of “economic liberalization or democratization” (388).

These pressures are supported inherently by historical instances as well as an underlining

potential for success through the process of globalization or development which entails “both an

increase in cross-border transactions of goods and services and an increase in the flow of images,

ideas people and behavior” (389). Certain attributes of the process of globalization have

increased cooperation, integration and participation of the majority of the world. These include;

technological change to develop means of communication and expand global economics,

international trade, international finance and the spread of policy ideas (389-391). Described as

the positions of “haves and have-nots”, disparities in the global-economy exist with respect to

each of these features linking them peculiarly into a developed hierarchical framework. The

“economic inequalities between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’—not just in the sense of having

technology or not, but also in the sense of having the capacity to make rules or not” perpetuates

power controls over “regional trade arrangements and new policies offer both the carrot of wider

markets and the stick of regional competition” (389-390). The connectedness of global influence

and policy intentions brings about financial gains that perpetuate unequal distributions of wealth

but rely expressly on the policy ideas, beliefs, and perceptions. These are “promulgated both

formally through international organizations… and informally through networks of education

and research which globalize particular orthodoxies” (390-391).

Processes of international trade are regulated by the WTO and multi-lateral international

policies including NAFTA that have presented a need for more effective means of regulation, but

15

Misinformed America

also continually put the interests of core economics at the forefront (392-393). International

finances are critical to the exchange of capital within the system and monetary exchanges

associated with international financial “support” or reliefs have been strictly critiqued. Woods

suggests, “the IMF is charged with the role of safeguarding the stability of the international

monetary system. Yet in a globalizing world, this is difficult to do without incursion into the

domestic policies of countries” (394). The UN Security Council functions as a political

governing board with permanent as well as visiting members. However, the core nations are

those with permanent seats and developing and underdeveloped nations hardly ever have a say

due to the fact that their international clout is very rarely recognized and even when it is, the veto

power of its permanent members allows for the maintenance of policies that favor the economic

prosperity of the core (395). The ineffectiveness of global governing bodies as puppets

reinforcing the powers and rules of core zones is a critical concern in moving away from

catastrophic disparities that can lead to the collapse of the current system.

Through out the discussions of the pitfalls and prevails of the world-system, the

economic and political exchanges that occur within the system and the hierarchical features it

inherently maintains, sociologists aim to continue discussion on the matter of specifically

democratic global governance in a hopeful context. Discussions, forums and entire issues of

Sociological journals, as well as political and governmental literatures, have touched on the

potential and the outlook of global governance within the world-system. In order for the

assumptions of global social research to reach fruition and become the springboard for global

change not associated with “national self-interest” but rather the interests of create equality and

balance within the global sphere, global governance is a necessity (Dubrow 2013:56). The

globalization and bonds of the contemporary global society produce “global problems [that]

16

Misinformed America

affect many countries simultaneously, a fact that makes global governance the inevitable,

practical solution” (58). Within the contemporary capitalist world-economy, a form of global

governance that serves the formerly defined purpose of regulating capital exchange and political

policies within the system exists. However, the current institution is plagued by the same harms

of inequality that the system in it of itself is affected by. In this system, “we define political

inequality as a matter of who influences the decisions of the decision-making bodies” but when

applied globally, governance groups are specifically influenced by the “political inequality

between countries and the nationalist interests within countries (58). In the attempt to move

forward, social scientists have set out to test the possibility of democratic reform of these

institutions to better serve their purpose at every level of global society.

In the process of applying democracy to such a large scope of peoples and issues, it is

important to define it as being, “self-rule within boundaries” (58).

[Historically] democracy has always been limited by boundaries, whether demographic (women’s suffrage is a twentieth-century invention) or national (“citizens” vote, but not the noncitizens) or international (only a small select group of countries sit on the UN Security Council). Particular boundaries change, but the use of boundaries has been constant (59).

Furthermore, it is the latter form of boundaries that present the greatest challenge to the

development of democratic international governance. With the current presence of organizations,

it is evident that the development of some transnational agencies has already occurred as a

“means for countries to coordinate action on multiple simultaneous fronts” without any inherent

“guarantee that the governance will be (or even could possibly become) democratic” (60).

The collaboration of each of the entities of current global governance works in coordination with not only nations and their governments [interests, but also] transnational social movement organizations that advocate for global justice and political equality (61).

17

Misinformed America

It is the underlying hope of sociologists and social research that these international movements

will eventually inspire the development of democratic means of global governance.

Hegemonic Power Domination of Global Governance

Wallerstein and Sanderson both citied that the victorious nature and dominant economic

position of the United States after World War II fabricated the nation’s ability to firmly root

itself at the very top of the world-system hierarchy. With significant control over production

resources and an influx of capital with the consumption of these products, the United States

experienced an incredible amount of economic success. This dominance of the global-economy

has sustained into a position of hegemony today. Unknowingly, the U.S. solidification of this

role and position came not only with extreme pressure, but also responsibility. Furthermore, the

“emergence of the U.S. as the post-WWII hegemonic power […] is associated with the creation

of extant international regimes in trade, finance development and other issue areas” (Burmeister

2003:1). The regimes described here are heavily reliant on the United States’ relationship with

the institutions of global governance. With this position of power, “the U.S. […] is largely

responsible for the creation of the World Trade Organization (as replacement for the GATT

(General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade))” (1). As the hegemon, the U.S. has created

“international regimes as a strategic extension of their own power in the service of what their

governing elites define as the national interests” (1). Moreover, the U.S. uses this regime within

the WTO (and global governance institutions like it), to maintain its dominant position and

continually regenerate means of accumulating capital. In specific instances mentioned by

empirical analyses of agricultural subsidies and their impact of the United States sectors of

production, the U.S. position seems to remain one that protects primarily, and maybe even

solely, its own economic prosperity. Only the U.S. “it seems is permitted to use food source

18

Misinformed America

security as a rationale for subsidies, as the U.S. routinely debunks food security arguments for

subsidies put forward by other countries” (5). Not only do these instances occur within the logic

of the United States in protecting its hegemonic position, but it also is supported by policy

interactions of the WTO and other international governance bodies.

International Economic Relationships in Maintaining Hegemony

In the process of maintaining hegemonic status, the powerful nations who compete for

economic resources compete with one another and also build relationships with certain non-

governmental institutions that seek to achieve similar or complimentary economic gains.

Relationships between the current hegemonic state and multi-national corporations have often

been criticized as exploitative yet somehow unavoidable. The economic incentives that

encouraged the U.S. government to enter into these trans-national business enterprises are

complex and fundamental to the favorable distribution of economic rewards to those who control

the nations and corporations with power.

Multi-National Corporation’s (MNC’s) international capital accumulation due to the

allocation of production resources to foreign and deregulated markets has caused a shift toward a

new kind of global economy and transfer of wealth. The most significant characteristic of “the

new system is the transfer of capital, technology and management within the multinational

enterprise that extends over many national economies” (Root 1976:34). Moreover, this new

system of capital exchange within markets has created a “proactive” role for the MNC’s as actors

within this system, meaning that the transnational domain encompassed by the collaboration of

any single or many capitalistic corporations then is beyond the control of any single government,

but does provide significant economic stability in the U.S. as this is the place where many of

these enterprises took off. Furthermore, because of the interconnectedness of the MNC’s and the

19

Misinformed America

U.S. government, two hypothesis were proposed to control the abilities and actions of MNC’s of

the global sphere that would need to be enforced by the hegemon (34). Neither of these

assessments has occurred to date and become seemingly obsolete being that the primary (global

restrictive world scenario) is to have the U.S. government force the uninationalization of the

corporations. Drawing them out of the international sphere likely causing “disruption of the

global industrial system with… consequences for all countries” and strong resistance by the

multinationals themselves (35). And a secondary solution, the global supportive world is a

process that aligns to the development of more effective, democratic and larger-scale global

governances.

Conclusively, as a result of their trans-national nature that is beyond the scope of any one

governmental body, MNC’s are able to continue to be the dominant firms and actors within the

entirety of the capitalist world-economy. The United States could not “pressure the MNC’s to

withdraw from foreign operations without at the same time cutting trade, capital and technology

flows with the rest of the world” and as a capitalist economy, it would not want to attempt to

threaten or limit the economic benefits of the established relationship between national

governments and global business (39).

Despite the immediate capital rewards that international business have provided to the

United States and the most wealthy international business entrepreneurs around the world, it is

the aforementioned “shift from international trade to international production” that could

precisely cause the demise of the United States hegemonic reign (34).

Not only do multi-national corporations operate to generate profit that they can use in

order to achieve political power as well, transnational entities of capital production are

increasingly creating a notable distinction within the world. Just as the United States as interests

20

Misinformed America

in the Global Governance organizations and has a certain weight amongst the group as a whole

because it holds numerous power positions within these organizations, multinational business

enterprises share stock and interest in the development and also success of other business groups.

Within the World-Economy of the contemporary capitalist system there exists a “number of

transnational lines (links or connections) identified in the interlocking of directorates that make

up the global corporate economy” (Staples 2006:313). The linkages between directors of

nationally based multinational businesses allows for nations and also those with the most

economic clout worldwide to increase their profits and maintain a stronger hold of the markets

(314). Moreover, the creation of a capitalist global network begins to unfold which is largely

pitted against the demands and limits the successes of those who do not belong to the capitalist

network (311). The fact that the United States as the hegemon has significant global economic

dominance undoubtedly can be attributed to the global interactions of their developed and

unrelenting profit driven business executives. Furthermore, the relationships created between the

U.S. and global governments then serve a primary function to address the needs and demands of

the capitalist network in order to maintain economic clout. Sustaining their global position, but

meanwhile creating a very unbalanced system that needs to be reinforced by other social,

cultural, and military actions.

Military Actions and Influences in Maintaining Hegemony

As formerly mentioned, the world-system itself experiences cyclical cycles of change and

of these cycles are periods of hegemonic rise and decline. Also previously eluded is the critical

role of the hegemon, not only in its desire to maintain its power position but to also create a

global situation that promotes order with this goal. Furthermore, there are inordinate amounts of

variables that must be controlled and can be affected by the economic and military condition of

21

Misinformed America

the hegemonic state. In order to illustrate the importance and significance of hegemonic

conditions on the changes and developments of the world-system, empirical research has set out

to define variables and quantify data that draws a conclusive link.

Kwon (2012) conducted a quantifiable analysis that conclusively links the influx of trade

globalization to the stability of the hegemonic nation-state (341-342). In doing so, Kwon draws

many genuine conclusions to the processes and cycles of hegemonic stability, which are

primarily important to the scope of this review. First, the hegemon inevitably experiences

periods of both stability and instability, “during periods of hegemony, a hegemonic polity

establishes a normative world order and provides the military resources that are necessary to

produce stability in the world system” (325). Processes and progress of trade globalization

increases then when the hegemon is able to maintain the political and military strength to set and

maintain global structures for economic trade of goods and services.

Defining features of both the rise and decline of hegemonic states can be identified

through empirical evidence. During a process of hegemonic rise, a prospective hegemon

“acquires an economic advantage in the world economy” as a result of the successful

accumulation of capital through capitalist economic interactions (325). With the acquisition of

this advantage, the hegemon becomes the economic center for the world-economy and continues

to develop national and international innovations to bolster continued economic success,

requiring the demand for resources and the military and economic competition to retrieve these

resources (326). The process of “decline begins with the geographic dispersion of the economic

innovations that previously provided the (now) declining hegemon with an advantage,” the

entirety of the global economy experiences recession and become “increasingly dissatisfied with

the hegemon’s world order” (326). These processes seem dauntingly familiar. Considering that

22

Misinformed America

in its rise to power, the United States did in fact accomplish each of the steps of achieving

hegemon status and reaped the benefits economically, politically, socially and internationally.

Additionally, the U.S. and the system that has been seemingly stable for decades is beginning to

crumble. Kwon explains that the desperation of the hegemon to maintain its power is seen in an

influx of military intervention, and while this has not been a prominent feature as to this point, it

is undeniable that the United States uses its military clout to influence and change governments

and people of both developed and developing nations as well as its own citizenry (327).

The analysis of military actions by the United States and associated governance bodies

including the UN Security Council, NATO, etc. have been strategic actions in order to control

global threats to the maintenance of the post-Cold War world-system. Moreover, as Wallerstien,

Sanderson, and Kwon have all pointed out, it is a role of upmost importance that the United

States, in defense of its position as hegemon, must take into consideration. Additionally, with

regards to the proposed research, accessing a citizen’s perspective on American military

intervention it will be evident what information the general public receives about these

interventions and how this shapes their perceptions of the stability and impact of the United

States’ position as the hegemon.

In moving forward, the United States as the hegemonic nation is definitely facing new

challenges influenced not only by the spread of communication, but also the commodification of

technology and democracy worldwide. Moreover, in the changing tides of the world-system, the

United States undeniably must plan in order to act accordingly in order to maintain the

hegemonic position. Military planning however is becoming more complex and must account for

a multitude of variables. In a speech, Cordesman analyzes the impacts that globalization has on

military planning for the United States (2000). He explains not only that the US must take into

23

Misinformed America

consideration future forms of coalition warfare, but also the potential for the power position of

the United States to be revoked as a result of under spending, over commitment, and lacking

resources for military demands (3). He explains that, as globalism as swept the world, there has

unfortunately been just as many negative impacts as positive ones:

Work by the CSIS [Center for Strategic and International Relations] further dramatizes the gap between rich and poor and the fact that “globalization” may not bring stability or reduce the threat of conflict (5).

Additionally, positive trends in tackling human rights issues and economic prosperity have “been

counterbalanced by serious problems and potential sources of conflict” (5). Moreover, the

actions of the United States are going to look very similar to the military actions taken during the

post-Cold War era despite the developments of globalization. Cordesman identifies that “the US

had overtly used military force more than 240 times before the end of the cold war,” and also,

“UN peacekeeping and peacemaking activity is accelerating” to include US deployment of

troops almost 40 times since 1989 (8-9). It can be deduced that these military actions had the

goal of solidifying the American position as the global super power and will into the future be

very similar when fighting to maintain this spot.

The nature of US global military power adds more complexity to this situation. […] The US is now the “world’s only super power” in the sense it is the only power in the world with major global power projection assets (13).

This assertion aligns with previously stated claims by Kwon, Wallerstein and other scholars and

confirms that hegemonic military intervention and power is a primary influence in the cyclical

nature of the world-system and also in solidifying the power balance in the favor of the hegemon

and its allies.

Historical evidence of American military action and intervention then can not only

provide clues as to the kinds of actions that may still need to take place, albeit slightly changed

24

Misinformed America

in some ways—in order to continue to allow for the United States to be the hegemonic nation. In

a study of American intervention in the name of democracy, Meernik not only makes substantial

claims that American intervention does not often lead to improved democratization abroad, but

he also describes the multitude of situations in which the United States has used some sort of

argument for preserving or protecting democracy as a many influence for intervention.

The Mexican-American war was justified partially on the basis of the right of Texans to self determination and democracy; later, the rights of Cubans in the Spanish-American war were similarly defended; Woodrow Wilson fought World War I to make the world safe for democracy and sent troops into Mexico, ‘to teach Mexicans the meaning of democracy (391).

U.S. military intervention for aligning principles has been seen also in Lebanon, Grenada,

Panama, Haiti, and countless others not mentioned here (391). However, Meernik poses the

question as to whether or not military force is a very democratic way of encouraging democracy

or even becoming involved in another nation. As academic literature does allude that with more

democratic nations, there is a higher likelihood to achieve universal peace, there may be a

stipulation and deeper incentive to American military intervention than just simply asserting

power dominance abroad. Merrnik conducts a study in which he defines characteristics of

military intervention and democratic change overtime in order to set a points system that

decidedly answers whether or not military intervention for the American goal of preserving

democracy can actually be justified (394). The results show that “the most prevalent outcome

after US military intervention is no change whatsoever” and there are often a significant number

of cases where there is actually negative change (395). These results establish that despite the

fact that US military intervention has yielded more positive outcomes than no intervention at all,

“there is [still] no reason to expect that military force can create democratic norms and practices”

making the claims of presidencies and justifications of military action entirely void. Furthermore,

25

Misinformed America

after identifying that the media supplied rationales for global media intervention in the name of

democracy have been deemed illegitimate by research, it is easy to deduce that the primary

concern then is creating relationships and forming regimes and governments that support the

overall position of the United States as the global hegemon.

Certainly the United States does not depend solely on its military brute force in order to

maintain its global position. It is clear that these powers are in addition to the previously

discussed relationships with Multi-National Corporations that feed an economic interest and

Global Governance organizations, which fulfill the global political desires of the United States

and other core nations. The accumulation of each of these interests tilted heavily in the favor of

the United States certainly contributes to its maintenance of power. While it remains that certain

military and economic pursuits and actions of the players within the world-system are critically

important, so too are the cultural elements and powers of the hegemonic nation within the world

system however seem to go somewhat unnoticed. It is the purpose of the remainder of this

review to highlight the global power and influence of global as well as American media and its

impact on the world-system.

The Globalization of Communication and Media

It is the inspiration of the proposed research to determine whether or not Americans

generally seek—or receive in some way—media information that assists them in understanding

the dynamics of the world and to what extent the influence of corporate or mainstream media has

on shaping the accuracy of their perceptions of the global-economy and the United States as an

actor within it. Main cultural elements have always and will always be a main contributor to the

shaping and reproduction of opinions and ideologies that allow for the perpetuation of traditional

local, national and even global traditions. It is the goal of this research to delve into the role that

26

Misinformed America

the media specifically plays as a cultural institution and an actor that actively shapes the

hegemonic citizens’ perception of the occurrences and dynamics of the world-system in order to

perpetuate the unequal dynamics of the system by amending the information that is given so as to

avoid conflicting perspectives and reproduce capitalist ideologies.

First and foremost, the spread of contemporary global media has been a rapid movement

instructed by those with the most control. Like many of the markets within the global-economy it

is one that operates primarily to generate profit and also is dominated almost entirely by

American-based conglomerates. However, it is evidenced by the writings of McChesney and

Nichols that this system too has significant and impactful flaws.

The highly concentrated market makes a mockery of the freedom of press clause in the First Amendment, which was predicated on the ability of citizens to create their own media if they so desire (49).

The authors believe that as a direct result of government intervention and deregulation of media-

related policies as well as the influence of those with economic status, monopolies have been

created to serve the interests of those who own them and that “the problem with their media is

that is exists to serve their interests, not ours” (26). Furthermore, “in 2002 the U.S. media system

is dominated by about ten transnational conglomerates” each of which has adjusted to improve

their profits not only nationally but also function effectively in international markets as well (48).

Moreover, with the impact and removal of many government regulations on media ownership

nationally, the corporate media has expanded unrelentingly (87).

The type of political culture that accompanies the rise of the corporate media system worldwide looks like that found in the United States: in the place of informed debate and political parties organizing along the full spectrum of opinion, there will be vacuous journalism and elections, dominated by public relations, big money, moronic political advertising, and limited debate on tangible issues (96).

27

Misinformed America

The expansion of corporate media after the eradication of certain government restraints as

allowed, “massive media corporations [to] better commercially saturate society” while

simultaneously eliminating their desire to provide information that holds to journalistic integrity

(52). Furthermore, the authors affirm that not only do journalists simply have no desire to spend

time or money on important stories, but they also uphold the demands of their shareholders and

government influences so much as to tell blatant lies about national and international events

causing “both public and commercial broadcasters in many nations to become the handmaidens

of the dominant political parties and interests” (91). This considered alongside the establishments

and actions of hegemonic and core nations evidences that the global media operates to pervade

cultural and social information so as to enhance the powers of the dominant economies and their

interests.

The media then is a vital actor in the causes and effects of certain occurrences within the

world system and therefore becomes an entity for power and information distribution. Global

powers become “the dominant players [who] treat the media markets as a single global market

with local subdivisions” (Herman and McChesney 2000: 216). As an individual marketplace,

business, political, and other facets of the world-system can interact with and supply forms of

communication, information regarding the systems and regions themselves and rhetoric that

supports or negates certain occurrences within the global sphere. Instances including “cross-

border advertising, trade and investment [create] the demand for media and other communication

services” and the demands are growing and globalizing more rapidly than GDP in a majority of

the world (216). Media and the technologies associated with it have become and investment that

can be sought or sold within the market to consumers in demand drawing industry attention to

the global market potential of media (216). As a market, media producers have corporatized the

28

Misinformed America

enterprises of media to divide competition among a few (217). These corporations operate much

like the Multi-National Corporations of goods and services production in that they are often

associated with a local source or group but focus primarily of the distribution of their service on

a global scale.

The demand and interconnectedness that results from the globalization of media and its

rapid rates of consumption worldwide are effective for many reasons. First of all, the

transnational nature of these services limits the restrictions that can be placed on them without a

centralized global enforcer this nature gives them a somewhat freedom of speech in that the

images, perceptions and characters portrayed are the result of demand and market success. For

example, the concept of violence is said to sell almost anywhere because of the universality of

these images (218-219). The demand for these images and services is supported by the desire to

integrate into the global media market held by almost every nation. With the interconnectedness

and expanded scope of the global media market analysts suggest that as a result, there could

develop a global culture or identity. Despite convincing arguments for this case, it is the express

intent of media suppliers to produce images that will sell and based on cultural preferences

regionally distributed worldwide, in order to make a profit media must be catered to these

particular preferences (223-225).

In order to explain and qualify the globalization of communication and media,

globalization theorists have attempted to apply numerous frameworks to outline the occurrences

and predict future trends. This task, however, has been argued to be impossible due to the fact

that the modernity of the technological communication age presents a novel perspective on

viewing social change and global interaction that can not be defined under the principles of

29

Misinformed America

archaic theoretical analysis (Ampuja 2012:283). Ampuja has identified four specific aspects of

technological globalization.

First, a fundamental process of intensification of worldwide interconnections and flows; second, this phenomenon has huge causal significance in that it enforces overall social and cultural transformation. The elaboration of the significance of globalization is transmuted onto a spatio-temporal framework that transcends previous sociological perspective; and finally, claims concerning the novelty of new media and communication technologies are presented in support of this framework, so as to convince the reader once and for all that we live today in a different kind of global era (285).

As the modern era transforms and alludes to new ways of trying to explain social exchange via

the media, it is asserted that importance also lies in realizing the impact that the modes of this

information is taking (i.e. mediums) in order to reach its audience (287). Furthermore, the

commodification and spread of advanced information and communication technologies is

directly related to the geographical and economic position of a nation within the global hierarchy

and decides its access to media sources and technologies that supply them. This understanding

draws an important connection between the globalization of media and the inherently

perpetuated inequalities of the economic effects of the global-economy.

In addition to Amuja’s assertions of economic power and dominance within

contemporary global media, it is recognized by researchers that just as the world-system itself

experiences changes overtime, so too do the markets within it. Furthermore, the media as a

functioning profit market has seen significant historical changes in the modern technological era.

In addition to structural and technological developments in the media market, multiple social

aspects have changed globally and can be noted. Imre and Versraete (2009) present a

comprehensive analysis of post-socialist media positions that have evolved into effective

positions for shaping the identities and perspectives of citizens within the European Union.

30

Misinformed America

The post-Cold War period has brought unprecedented concentration in global media ownership, the rapid convergence of technological platforms and the growing availability of the internet and other digital media and communication technologies (131).

Moreover, the authors continue to state that the intersections between social and economic

growth globally has significantly impacted technological information exchange and had a

profound impact on social identities and interactions. The collection of theories for media

globalization have been compiled into a comprehensive analysis which concludes that any aspect

of social life, can and has been changed by the portrayals of contemporary global media. In

analyzing the intersections of global technologies including, “audiovisual technologies and

expressions, global television news to popular formats, from internet mediated social networking

and political mobilization” (133). The immensity of technological mediums that media can pass

through globally coupled with the dominance of corporate media by a few economic powers,

then can be assumed to have a somewhat determined affect on the breadth and also scope of

issues and perceptions impacted by media. Furthermore, the scope of “the global media

discussed here function not only as agents of macro-political and economic power, but also as

cultural sites of alternative identities and shared critical practices” (135).

As the modern media holds strong to present information that aligns to the needs of their

share holders, it becomes evident that even the issues closest to home become fleeting headlines

that are hardly even glanced at by the majority of the public. In a speech made by Gherson

(2004), it is insinuated that the media coverage in both the United States and Canada is definitely

lacking substantial content. He asserts that not only are “U.S. and Canadian publics woefully ill

informed about each other,” but also that the media coverage provided to these citizens is not of

the upmost integrity (135).

31

Misinformed America

The Canadian and the U.S. media increasingly do an inadequate and simplistic job of reporting on and interpreting each country’s national affairs, and that major events in each country are reduced to little more than headlines across the border (157).

Moreover, despite the fact that Canada is not only our closest international neighbor (along with

Mexico) and also happens to be one of our largest trade partners, the American media has

projected a very skewed perception of the relationship between these nations and the importance

of these relationships. Gherson explains that with the “relatively dismal quality and quantity of

media cross border reporting,” and the inadequate amount of American reporters serving full-

time journalist positions in Canada, this crooked distribution of information about each nations is

even more unequal in the amount of information that U.S. citizens have about Canada (158).

This askew American perception is clearly evidenced in public opinion of current events:

A sizable 59 percent of Americans thought Canada supported the U.S. in Iraq, or remained neutral, with only 28 percent aware that Canada opposed the U.S. position. Further, 43 percent of Americans who said they knew Canada opposed the Iraq War agreed with the Canadian position (162).

It is clear that not only has the U.S. media created a paradigm for deceiving the perceptions of

global events, but also the perceptions of those nations with which the United States engages on

even the most nearby areas. With this assessment, it becomes clear first of all that the media does

affect citizen’s perceptions of a variety of issues and also that with this being the case with our

closest neighboring nation there is probably also an even larger gap in the truth of the

information fed to the American public about international events on an even larger scale.

American Media: Bias, Influence and Resistance

One specific identity that the global media has undeniably reinforced is that of the

Hegemon. The United States, as formerly noted, indefinitely has created beneficiary

relationships with global governance institutions and trans-national economic enterprises in order

32

Misinformed America

to solidify their dominant position in the state of the modern world-system and media

corporatization is certainly no exception. Even among other core nations, American-based media

corporations buy and control a substantial amount of information, media and communication

technologies. The concentration of information distribution in these areas furthermore unevenly

distributes perspectives on global information “from [global]‘North’ to ‘South’ without much of

a counter-flow” (Chalaby 2006: 34). This not only impacts the kind of information that is

available within the media marketplace but also to whom information and products of

communication technology are available. An empirical research analysis of the corporate

institutions that own the media show that a significant number of media companies are not only

owned and operate by American-based groups, but the amount of the corporations is double that

of the next competing nations (37). To expand on the monopoly of corporate media mentioned

by Herman and McChesney, Chalaby explains that “the dominance of American conglomerates

is even more striking at the top end of the world media industry […] seven media corporations

alone have a reach that covers the globe and span all key media sectors from film production to

television distribution. Five of them have headquarters in the U.S.” (38). This fact supports that

the maintenance of hegemony especially in the unique era of the globalization of technological

advancements, is undeniably linked to the cultural influences of global information and

entertainment media.

It is critical to gain knowledge on whether or not people in general are substantially

affected by the information that is fed to them by the constant inundation of multiple media

influences a day which are apparently all owned by corporate goons with the same economical

goals as the governments that perpetuate inequality within the world-system: to continuously and

endlessly generate capital. In a study conducted under the premise that the media does portray

33

Misinformed America

some sort of accurate information about the world, Fabiansson explains that in the world today,

media images of violence and tragedy have sparked some sort of fear in citizens, particularly

children (2007:31). While this fear may not be far off from the actual sentiments one should have

about the dynamics of the world today, it is important to understand how the media can pervade

even the most personal sentiments. Moreover, Fabiansson describes that since the 2011 attacks in

the United States, the media has exploded with descriptions and stories of terrorist acts,

organizations, the violence associated with these groups and the negative outcomes of such,

including war.

The fear trajectory has been developed into a prosperous discourse, utilized for political, legal, and economic purposes to strengthen political powers and to restrict personal freedom in movement and in speech (32).

Furthermore, the fact that media images not only pervade personal so far as to shape emotions,

clearly sentiments on not only the government and its actions, but also the proper discourse for

dealing with international issues can definitely be influence by the media and additionally, these

images are being defined by the political and economic interests of those in power. An

overwhelming media attention on negative and violent world occurrences has proven to impact

people’s personal lives and also shapes the perceptions of the actions that their governments take

in order to protect them from this threat, it is a powerful portrayal that has drastic effects on the

global population (34).

The pervasive and somewhat invasive nature of the media has proven so effective in

shaping the lives and socialization processes of individuals that research has even been done to

attempt to combat these issues. A study done by Canadian researchers Stack and Kelly (2006)

was developed to challenge “researchers and educators [to] attend closely to popular media and

democratizing media consumption” (6). They describe that as a deep-rooted fixture of our

34

Misinformed America

society, “the central media—print radio, and the television” structure the connections that we

make between ourselves, and our surrounding social environment (6). While affirming that “the

barrage of media and consumption” is not as a whole “monolithic and viewers can interpret any

media text in a number of ways,” there are certainly influencing factors that play a key role in the

images we consume through the media (8). The influence and “pervasiveness” of modern media

is so effective that the researchers suggest it could have and might have already surpassed formal

public socialization including education (9). Regardless of this influence, the immensity of media

corporations presents a challenge. “It has become more difficult for the press to hold people in

power to public account, to present a wide range of informed views on the important issues

facing the citizenry” (9).

Moreover, as an institution with the markets of the technological capitalist global market, media

markets are not held accountable to restrictions or expectations by governments or by the public

and serve the purpose of generating capital. However, the portrayals by the media as a means of

traditional socialization and primary elements of daily life do apparently have an impact on the

way that people shape their perceptions of social reality. While most people would deny this

effect on them personally but maybe affirm “third person” effects the media may have on

another person; scholars and individuals alike specifically note the effects of media on children

and youth.

In regards to the information about global governance and dynamics of international

relations, the news media is the primary source and due to its non-fiction nature, “people discuss

the news as though it were facts, neutrally transmitted by the mainstream media,” when in fact,

“journalistic accounts and pop culture are both highly socially constructed (15). Moreover, the

social environments that dominate the media market are also those with interests aligning in

35

Misinformed America

political and economic markets internationally simultaneously. Furthermore, it can be concluded

that media images, while most effective during socialization, do reflect a construction of a

corporate global-economy. And in doing so, media sources more than likely impact more than

just a child’s perception of violence or an adult’s consumption of a branded good. Rather, this

dialect certainly could be translated to encompass even the scale of the modern world-system to

say that images of information news media regarded as non-fictional accounts undeniably are

constructed to impact the perceptions of hegemonic, as well as global citizens.

The current research study will aim to test five primary hypotheses, which are:

H 1: The type of media source that an individual consumes most often has an impact on the

accuracy of their perception of international interactions within the World-System.

H 2: As an individual’s education level increases, their accuracy of international interactions and

the World-System also increases.

H 3: As the awareness of impacts and issues of globalization and World-System’s hierarchies

increases, the hegemonic citizens’ perceived personal ability to impact these problems decreases.

H 4: As the awareness of the impacts and the issues of globalization and World-Systems

decreases, the hegemonic citizens concentration on national-level (American) problems

increases.

H 5: As the hegemonic citizens’ accuracy of world-systems dynamics increases, their opinion of

the United States as the hegemon within this system decreases.

Methods

For the proposed research, there are many concepts that need to be defined. The first and

most significant of these concepts is the World-System. The term itself was first coined by

Wallerstein and is explained in depth by Sanderson. To reiterate, the World-System is the

36

Misinformed America

international network that exists between the interstate system and the complex world-economy.

Dominated by nations of the core, the periphery and semi-periphery nations occupy the lowest

and middle tiers of the hierarchy created from global imbalances of wealth, power, military, and

economic competition between nations of the World-System (Wallerstein 1974:348; Sanderson

1999:182). The most dominant of all nations, which serves as the economic and political super-

power and overseer is currently the United States. The position is obtained and maintained with

military-supported political influence in all international arenas (trade, politics, war, etc.)

Wallerstein labeled this position as the World-System’s Hegemon (Wallerstein 2004:23).

Academics and theorists of many disciplines and ideologies have affirmed that post-

World War II this position has been consistently occupied by the United States (Sanderson 1999;

Burmeister 2003; Wallerstein 2004). The complexity of the World-System typically results in

consistent changes in power and has been marked by short-term hegemonic domination or shared

core region powers (Kwon 2012). The United States, however has been able to consistently

maintain is hegemonic power position for decades due to its persistent domination of multiple

dynamic international arenas including most specifically, their military supremacy and

intervention in other nations in many ways including supporting and even in some cases defining

the international governance over international interactions and specific political influences in

the periphery (Cordesman 2000; Kwon 2012; Meernik 1996).

These theoretical definitions played a significant role in shaping the questions that were

asked in order to gauge the accuracy of the participants’ perceptions about international relations

and particularly the United States’ role within these exchanges. However, a critical component of

this research was to also identify the way in which an everyday person would get this

information. The obvious answer is media consumption. Media consumption in the technological

37

Misinformed America

age can encompass a plethora of ideas and medium; this can include traditional means of reading

the news in print form (newspaper, magazine, etc.) and could also include, television broadcasts,

radio programs, internet news sites or even postings to social media networks (including

Facebook, Twitter, etc.). Furthermore, the definition of mainstream media is to be determined by

which type of information media participants engage with the most. This can be limited to only

local or entertainment-specific news or broad enough to include a dynamic combination of many

sources to encompass many different perspectives on a global range of information.

In order to successfully test these variables, questions were asked in groups strategically

to assist in the process of analyzing the participant’s media habits as well as their accuracy,

opinion and interpretation of the World-System and international interactions within it. For

media consumption, participants were asked how often they consume information media, what

medium they are in contact with or most prefer (television, social media, etc.) and also which

source from a list of many they would choose, or do currently choose the most (including CNN,

BBC, FOX News, local news, etc.). In another section, participants were asked categorical

questions as well as true and false questions to which their answers could be ranked, counted and

placed on a scale to identify the accuracy of their perceived knowledge about the World-System.

Finally, participants were asked subjective opinion-based questions that allowed for the

researcher to not only analyze whether or not they know the truth of the actions of the United

States, but also whether or not if they did know the truth, they would potentially have some

desire to change or impact these issues. To view a complete version of the survey instrument and

questions asked to operationalize the research variables, see Appendix A.

38

Misinformed America

Sample

In order to contact a large enough sample that fit the specified qualifications, the

researcher used a process of convenience random, snowball sampling. This means that the

researcher reached the first participants on her own and relied on suggestions and word of mouth

of these preliminary participants to spread the research to other social circles and reach continued

participants. The advantages of this kind of sampling technique was that participants remained

completely anonymous to the researcher and distribution of the survey and collection of data was

very convenient, however the significant disadvantage is that because individuals, including the

researcher, associate primarily with people who think alike to themselves, many of the opinions

and ideas were very similar. The survey was distributed primarily via the Internet through a

secure and anonymous link that provided results to a collective database. The researcher began

with a personal social network (personal Facebook page) and requested that individuals not only

take the survey but also passed it along through their own networks as well.

The sample consists of 100 participants who currently reside in Southern California. Of

these 100 consenting individuals, 15 (15%) were male, one chose to decline from making a

selection. Seventy-five others (75%) were female and a remaining 8 (8%) participants identified

as transgender. The participants were asked to identify their level of education and two (2%)

answered “Some High School”, four (4%) answered “Trade or Technical School”, nine (9%)

answered “High School Diploma”, 50 participants (50%) answered “Some College”, six (6%)

indicated they have an Associate’s Degree while another 18 (18%) had their Bachelor’s Degree

and the final eleven (11%) had a Master’s Degree or higher. The participants were also asked to

specify which political party they identified with; the most common response (n=30, 30%) was

Republican. Additionally, 27 (27%) participants identified as Democrat. Another 27 (27%)

39

Misinformed America

people selected that they “Do Not Associate” with any party in particular; four (4%) chose other,

seven (7%) identified as Moderate or Independent and two (2%) person each identified their

support of the Green or Tea party. In regards to ethnic identity, 72 participants (72%) identified

as White/Caucasian/Euro-American, 18 (18%) identified as Latina/o and two (2%) identified as

Asian, one identified as African/African-American, four (4%) as other and the final (1%)

participant Declined to State. Also, participants were asked to make a selection based on how

they would describe their lifestyle at home. Thirty one (31%) participants, identified as being

Working Class. A large number of participants selected “Middle-Middle Class” (20; 20%), and

also Middle Class (30; 30%). Upper-Middle Class was selected 17 (17%) times and Lower Class

was selected only twice (2%). To view a table of the complete demographics, see Appendix B.

Instrument

This study is an original research study that uses an original instrument created by the

principal investigator, Charlene Haskin and the senior thesis advisor, Fatima Suarez, MSc. A

combined process of three combined months included the beginning steps of preparation

including submitting a research proposal, drafting and editing the instrument, IRB application

and consent forms, to the final process of collecting and analyzing data took altogether three full

months. The instrument is titled “Public Media Consumption and Perception of the Modern

World-System” and consists of five parts. The first part is a demographic section. The second

part gauges the participants’ interaction with information news media. Also, part three tests the

accuracy of what the individual thinks to be true about international relationships and also their

opinions on these matters; part four also attempts to gauge whether or not the participant holds

international relations to be an issue of importance not only for them, but also for the

government of the United States. Finally, part five includes closing remarks that the participant

40

Misinformed America

may provide and thanks them for their time. To view a complete copy of the consent form and

instrument, see Appendix A.

Procedure

The preliminary steps of data collection consisted of drafting and submitting for approval

by the Institutional Review Board copies of both the IRB application for research and a consent

form. These forms were drafted by the preliminary researcher with the assistance of the senior

thesis advisor and submitted with approval at the beginning of April, only after this process were

the surveys distributed for data collection. The survey was created through a data base survey

software website called Qualtrics. The researcher collected participants within their own social

circle by distributing the link for said survey via personal social networks. Data was

continuously collected by the spread of the link by word of mouth through those who had already

participated. Answers we tracked by IP address and kept completely confidential through the

Qualtrics software.

The distribution of the survey itself was extremely easy, however, the most significant

issue with survey distribution that was encountered was the apparently limited spectrum of

individuals willing to spend their online time taking a five part survey. Also, as the demographic

data reflects, the social groups that were tapped to participate were in large part of generally the

same ethnic groups, however class identification did differ significantly.

Data collection modifications were made only in the case that a participant received the

link from someone other than the researcher. This kind of snowball sampling did allow for other

social groups to be reached and was therefore the most effective way to gather participants.

However, in this way, participants who were unfamiliar with the researcher or even the concept

of a participant survey-based senior thesis were unlikely to complete the survey, somewhat

41

Misinformed America

limiting the sample size and variation. This issue was difficult to avoid but did not have any

significant impact on the data collected or the sample that was surveyed.

Results

The study and its associated research hypotheses relied heavily on testing the accuracy of

each participant’s knowledge of general World-Systems events, particularly actions of the United

States and corporate media and the impacts of outsourcing by US-based multi-national

corporations. The survey included multiple questions that were based on research and facts,

which collectively resulted in two scales for comparison. The first was an “Accuracy Index”

which was based on the results of three true or false style questions. Each was true and for each

correct answer participants were given a one, while incorrect (false) choices were scored ‘0’.

This score out of three was applied to other variables in ANOVA statistics testing to produce

results that designated certain hypotheses significant and others insignificant.

This same scale-style process was applied to three other rank questions in which

participants were asked to select between five choices: strongly agree, agree, neither/unsure,

disagree, or strongly disagree. These choices were given a score one through five, respectively.

The correct answers for each was score five: Strongly Disagree. In this way, the most correct or

accurate perceptions would be scored 15 and the least correct or most inaccurate received a score

of three. This scale was deemed the “Outsourcing Index” as each question inquired about

international impacts of multi-national corporate production outsourcing. For both types of

scales, some participants who opted out of answering these questions received a score of zero

and their answers were not considered as part of the data set. Both the Accuracy Index, as well as

the Outsourcing Index, were used for testing the variables of each hypothesis, to give variety as

well as potentially call into question which issues (military and political intervention by the

42

Misinformed America

United States or Multi-National Outsourcing) the majority of participants were more familiar

with.

Hypothesis 1

The first hypothesis attempted to link participants’ media consumption habits to their

accuracy of World-Systems events. In doing so, there were many questions in which participants

identified the frequency and media source they most often associate with when consuming

information media. Specifically, which news source (i.e. FOX News, MSNBC, BBC, CNN,

social media postings etc.) a participant used most often and whether or not this impacted the

correctness of either aforementioned index. Of the available choices, participants most often

selected CNN News (20, 20%). The second most common was KTLA or other local news, which

was selected 19 times (19%). Other popular answers included, FOX News (14, 14%), BBC news

(8, 8%), and some sort of social media posting (9, 9%). An ANOVA test was performed with

this information and both the Accuracy Index as well as the Outsourcing Index. The former of

which resulted in insignificant results (p=0.279) concluding that the media source that a

participant used did not significantly impact the precision of a participant’s perception of the

United States’ military and political interactions globally. However, moderate significance was

associated with media source and the accuracy of the participant’s knowledge of issues of

international outsourcing (p=0.06). The results concluded that the individuals who chose the

most common answer CNN News (20, 20%) received an average score of 9.15. On the other

hand, a less popular answer revealed that MSNBC viewers (2, 2%) received the highest average

score of 13.5. The lowest average score on the outsourcing index was achieved by those who

relied on the Los Angeles Times as their main source of news (2, 2%).

43

Misinformed America

Table 1: Effects of News Source Choice on Accuracy of Personal Perceptions on International Outsourcing

News Source N=100 Mean Score on Outsourcing Index 

Al Jazeera N=4 11.75BBC News N=8 9.88CNN News N=20 9.15FOX News N=14 9KTLA or local news   N=19 8.74Los Angeles Times   N=2 7.5MSNBC N=2 13.5NBC News N=3 9.67New York Times   N=4 10Social Media Postings   N=9 8.89Other N=6 10.33

Hypothesis 2

The second hypothesis for research attempted to determine a relationship between

education and knowledge about the World-System. Participants of the study were asked to select

their education level and the majority of participants selected having some college education (48;

48%). Another 17 (17%) participants said they were recipients of a Bachelor’s Degree, nine

participants (9%) selected having a High School Diploma, while another nine people stated that

they are recipients of an Associate’s Degree. Eight (8%) participants of the study stated that they

have a Master’s Degree. Four (4%) participants selected having a trade school education, two

(2%) participants selected having some high school and another 2 participants (2%) stated

having some other education while just one participate selected having a Doctorate or Ph.D. As

an important agent of socialization, an individual’s educational background could be a way that

people shape their perceptions about the international environment. However, ANOVA tests that

associated this variable with both the Accuracy Index and the Outsourcing Index did not result in

44

Misinformed America

significant association. The calculated P-value for the Accuracy Index was P=0.894 and for the

Outsourcing Index the P-value amounted to P=0.919. This means that although education is an

important source of information and socialization, it is not a significant influence on whether or

not a person has an accurate perception of international interactions within the World-System.

Table 2: Effects of Education Level on Accuracy of Perception of International Events

Education Level N=100Mean Score of Accuracy

IndexMean Score of

Outsourcing IndexSome High School N=2 1.5 10Trade or Technical School N=4 2 10.25High School Diploma N=9 1.67 8Some College N=48 1.81 8.63Associate's Degree N=9 1.88 9.13Bachelor's Degree N=17 2.11 9.06Master's Degree N=8 1.88 10.13Doctorate or Ph.D. N=1 Constant ConstantOther N=2 2.5 ConstantAccuracy Index P=0.894Outsourcing Index P=0.919

Hypothesis 3

Another important goal of this study was to analyze a participant’s personal initiative or

responsibility for changing or attempting to change the issues that exist within the World-

System. In order to so, participants were asked to answer the question, “do you think that you

could have any impact on changing the issues within the world to day that result from

inequality?” To this, the majority of people (49, 49%) answered that they do not think they could

have a significant impact on global issues, but given the opportunity they would like to try.

Another 22% (22 participants) said that they did not think that they could impact this issue in

anyway. While only 19 (19%) participants remained optimistic, claiming they did think they

45

Misinformed America

could definitely impact global issues in some way. This variable was applied in ANOVA tests

with both indexes, which produced the following results. An ANOVA test with the accuracy

index showed an insignificant link between accuracy of opinion about the World-System and an

individuals perceived ability to impact global issues with a P-value equivalent to 0.495. The

second test also showed an insignificant link (p=0.787) between accuracy of opinion about

outsourcing issues and the perceived ability to change global inequalities. However insignificant,

a large majority of participants expressed that despite their chances of making a significant

impact, they would try to change global issues if given an opportunity to do so.

Table 3: Effects of Personal Perceptions of the World System on Perceived Personal Impact on Global Issues

Personal Impact on Global Issues N=100

Yes, definitely N=19

Probably not, but I would like to try N=49

No, not at all N=22

Accuracy Index P=0.495Outsourcing Index P=0.787

Hypothesis 4

The fourth hypothesis for study attempted to analyze whether or not people who knew

about World-Systems issues and hypothetically understood the significance of these issues

considered them to be more or less important than issues in the United States. Sentiments about

global issues are often met with comments about their significance in comparison to the issues at

home, or at least whether or not they are more relevant. Participants were asked, “do you think

46

Misinformed America

that U.S. social issues are more important than global issues?” To which a majority (n=55, 55%)

answered that no, global issues are just as important. However, 26 (26%) participants did feel

that U.S. issues are in fact more important. Only one participant felt that global issues were more

important and a final 17% (17 participants) refrained from answering or did not know. An

ANOVA test was performed to compare this result to the Accuracy and Outsourcing Indexes in

order to determine whether there was significance. With regards to the Outsourcing index, there

was no significant correlation between knowledge of outsourcing issues and personal

significance of U.S. versus Global social problems (p=0.409). Although, an ANOVA test

performed with this same variable and the Accuracy Index showed moderate significance

(p=0.093), linking to some extent knowledge of world-systems dynamics to an individuals

personal opinion of the importance of U.S. or global social issues.

Table 4: Relationship Between Accurate Knowledge of World-System Dynamics and Personal Significance of U.S. over Global Social Problems

US vs. Global Social Issues N=100Mean Score of Accuracy Index

US issues are more important N=26 1.77Global issues are just as important N=55 2.11Global issues are more important N=1 ConstantDon't Know/Did not state N=17 2.33

Accuracy Index P=0.093Outsourcing Index P=0.409

Hypothesis 5

The final hypothesis for this study attempted to access whether or not the information that

a participant has gathered on World-System events impacts their personal opinion of the United

States as the Hegemonic power within the contemporary system. In this case, participants were

asked to rank their opinion of current role of the United States in international affairs on a scale

of one to ten, where one represented being not at all satisfied and ten being representative of very

47

Misinformed America

satisfied. An ANOVA test that tested this information with the Accuracy Index resulted in a P-

value of 0.009 and a similar ANOVA test with the Outsourcing Index also resulted in a

significant P-value of 0.043. Further statistics that compared these indexes to a question asking

participants to rank the United States on a scale one to ten based on the means by which the

United States has maintained its position as the global super power resulted in significant P-value

of 0.021 for the Outsourcing index but an insignificant value of 0.424 for the Accuracy Index. As

a whole, this data reveals that in general, the information that people have gathered in one way or

another regarding international issues does impact their opinion of the United States in general

and also as the global super power.

Table 5: Effect of World-System Accuracy on Personal Satisfaction with the United States as Hegemon

Rank of U.S. Satisfaction Accuracy Index Score

1 2.52 1.453 2.754 2.085 1.656 2.117 2.148 1.679 210 2.5

P=0.009

48

Misinformed America

Table 6: Effect of Correctness of World-Systems Outsourcing on Personal Satisfaction with the United States as Hegemon

Rank of U.S. Satisfaction

Outsourcing Index Score

1 6.752 9.913 10.54 10.925 10.476 8.677 8.578 10.679 7.510 8

P=0.043

Discussion

The research that was done in completion of this study was undoubtedly something that

was not only thought provoking but also a somewhat novice concept for research in this field. As

shown throughout the previous review of current literature, researchers have focused on the

developments and characteristics of the World-System in general and have even attempted to

explain the impacts that the hierarchies and systems set up on an international level have had on

developing nations, periphery countries and even international governance agencies

effectiveness. The research done in this study and the data collected as a result have laid the

ground work for a very important next step in accessing the issues that exist within the World-

System, evaluating the ways that people get information about these issues and even possibly

developing a way that advocates, academics, and activists alike can attempt to reach out to the

average American citizen in mobilizing a movement towards changing the World-System in a

positive way.

49

Misinformed America

The most notable discoveries of this research have warranted some very important

identifiable deductions. An important identification to make that has not already been stated is

the raw score that individuals on average received on both the Accuracy Index and also the

Outsourcing Index. The former, as mentioned previously, asks individuals a series of true and

false questions and gives a point for each correct answer. These questions pertain primarily to the

United States military and political actions on an international level to establish and protect its

position as the world Hegemon. In general, participants did not do as terribly as had been

presumed prior to data collection. Out of 100 participants, while some neglected to answer the

entire question, the smallest group of only 16 (16%) participants received a score of only zero

out of three. The largest majority, 24 (24%) participants scored a two out of three while another

21 (21%) participants scored a total of three out of three on the Accuracy Index. This shows that

a major majority of people surveyed in this study have at least a general idea of the issues within

the World-System and have shown this be answering more than just one of the questions

correctly.

With regards to the questions themselves, the data shows that one of the three questions

was answered false more frequently than the other two. This question was a true false question

composed as follows: “The United States is responsible for the development of corporate-

friendly authoritarian regimes in regions such as Latin America.” As this statement is true based

on foreign military interactions in Guatemala and other Central and South American countries as

well as different regions around the world, a false answer denoted that a participant is either

oblivious to this occurrence or has been mislead as to the intentions of these actions. A majority

of participants got this question correct with 54 people (54%) answering that this was true, yet 35

(35%) participants answer this question incorrectly. This is important to consider because for the

50

Misinformed America

other questions which comprised this Accuracy Index, which discussed military and political

intervention to protect the global position of the United States and also whether or not issues or

conflicts arise as a result of inequality in the World-System only 25% (25 participants) and 20%

(20 participants) answered this question incorrectly, respectively. This means that a larger

number of people are familiar with these issues as compared to the previously noted question

which they are less familiar with.

Similar analysis can be made of the second kind of index that was generated to test a

participant’s knowledge of the World-System. As described in the literature, many issues and

root causes of inequality within the hierarchy of World-System dynamics come as a result of

exploitation of nations and citizens of the periphery by wealthy nations and powerful

corporations of the core. This process is completed and enhanced by outsourcing of production

processes of profit corporations that lower labor costs for wealth groups but stagnate the quality

of life for people in these areas. Moreover, the United States as a wealthy nation, not only

benefits from the profits of these corporations, but also assists them politically, militarily or

otherwise so that the actions of Multi-National Corporations are overlooked because of the

“potential” for development and profit incentives this brings in for both parties.

For these reasons, participants were asked a series of three questions which asked to what

degree they agreed or disagreed with the given statements in order to gauge to what extent they

knew about or understood this complicated dynamic. Overall, for each question, the majority of

individuals claimed that they neither agreed nor disagreed or they were unsure of how they felt.

The first question stated that on a whole the United States achieved its position as Hegemon with

the equal treatment of developing nations in mind. From research and review of literature, this

statement is factually incorrect, however, 18 (18%) participants either agreed or strongly agreed.

51

Misinformed America

The majority, 37 (37%) participants stated that they neither agreed or disagreed or were unsure.

A final 36% (36 participants) stated that they disagreed with these statements and have identified

and acknowledge the mal-intentions of certain actions of the United States. Similar results were

identified for the other two questions that became a part of the series for the Outsourcing Index.

The remaining pair of questions that was asked as part of this index were: (1) Outsourcing by

US-based capitalist corporations does not directly disadvantage the lifestyle of people in the U.S.

The final question was: (2) Outsourcing described above does not directly disadvantage

individuals of “developing” world nations where the outsourcing is taking place. For the most

part, the data collected for these questions was very similar to that collected for the first question

mentioned as part of this index, however, for the former, a larger majority (57; 57%) of people

disagreed or strongly disagreed with that statement. This mean that overall, people chose not to

answer and although that data is somewhat inconclusive, the researcher can assume that a

significant amount of people have little to no accurate information about issues that result from

the actions of Multi-National Corporations and the interactions that this has with the United

States government.

Another notable finding has to do specifically with participants’ consumption of media.

As mentioned before, for the most part with this sample, there is no one source that can be

identified as the most popular. However, a more important consideration is the amount of trust

that a person associates with their chosen news source. Research in this area suggests that ideas

of the media have become one of the most pervasive influences for socialization and that the

news media is even more impactful because people as a whole believe that the information given

in this form is always non-fiction; or at least it should be. In order to evaluate this research in

application to this survey sample, participants were asked to rank their chosen source of news

52

Misinformed America

based on how trustworthy they believed that source to be on a scale of one to ten. Over 50% of

participants (73 participants; 73%) ranked their selected choice of news at least six or higher.

Which mean that a significant amount of participants have certainly followed the trend that

overwhelmingly, people do believe that their news source is at least somewhat trustworthy and

therefore most likely hold the information that they get from it to be true. Due to the fact that it

has been stated in review of previous literature that media corporations on an international level

are not only owners of each other, meaning that in some way they all forward the same profit

agenda, but that also their main financial contributor is the government. The government then

can significantly impact what is being said in the mainstream media and a predominant amount

of people will hold this to be the truth because they believe that the information they consume

from their chosen source is information that can be trusted.

A portion of this study was aimed at discovering whether or not people believed that they

had some sort of responsibility to try and change issues of inequality that they know about in the

world. As this was previously established in hypothesis three, a more notable discussion is

whether or not individual’s think that the United States should make it a priority of the

government to the actions or intentions of multi-national corporations. The profit initiative of

these companies include outsourcing and exploitation of the developing periphery nations and

disadvantages these citizens and can also impact job availability in the United States.

Participants were given the statement: “The United States does not have any responsibility to

monitor or change the actions and intentions on Multi-National Corporations” and were asked to

what extent they agreed or disagreed. A majority of people (30; 30%) stated that they disagreed

with this statement while another 26 (26%) participants selected that they neither agreed or

disagreed or were unsure. With another 16 (16%) participants saying they strongly agree with

53

Misinformed America

this statement that leaves only 18 (18%) participants who either agreed or strongly disagreed.

This data shows that of those surveyed, participants overwhelmingly believe that the actions of

Multi-National Corporations should be changed and that the United States has the responsibility

as the world Super Power to influence the necessary changes or issues.

The most notable of these deductions is that after having determined that which news

source individuals choose has a moderate impact on the accuracy of their perception of the

World-System. This information can be linked to the conclusions of hypothesis five, in which it

was found that significant influence can link an individual’s accuracy of knowledge about the

World-System to an individuals opinion of the United States in general and also as an actor

within this system. As the citizens of the Hegemonic nation, Americans as a citizenry have the

most potential to change issues that occur in the World-System. As the results in hypothesis five

show, the opinions of citizens regarding the United States do change based on the information

that they know regarding World-System events and inequalities. If we as a group can continue to

educate the larger population and change their perception of the United States as an actor within

this system, it is possible that we can also create change within our own government and

furthermore change the dynamic of the World-System in general.

Limitations

The research study conducted was done as exploratory research onto a topic that has been

rarely explored. As a member of the hegemonic society and a Sociology student determined to

impact the inequalities of the world, the researcher has been interested in the way that people

around me seem to idle through their lives unconcerned with the global impacts of the life we

live. In attempting to access this group and also get an idea of how a person’s perception of

global issues could be impacted by the corporate media that informs the majority of society on

54

Misinformed America

these issues the researcher constructed this study. However, major limitations did exist in its

execution.

A major limitation was the amount of time given between IRB approval and submission

deadlines that became an issue due to the fact that the research was conducted in fulfillment of a

senior thesis for the University of La Verne. Another limitation was that participants that were

members of a very limited spectrum and social circle completed the survey. The majority of

participants were in some way personally connected to the researcher or the friends of the

researcher who may have also taken the survey themselves. Furthermore, in order to create a

generalizable population size that could be accomplished in a short time frame, participants were

residents of Southern California. Each of these issues could be improved in future research and

could definitely improve the effectiveness and legitimacy of valuable information.

A final limitation to this study is most likely the most significant. A researcher who is

familiar with and well read on literature, language and concepts of World-Systems Theory

conducted this study. The instrument itself was written under this pretense and data itself was

analyzed with this lens. Furthermore, individuals who are not familiar with this topic and may

have had a hard time conceptualizing the data the was presented and also the correlation made

between variables. Additionally, participants of this study may have been exposed to terms, links

and ideas that may have been confusing or hard to understand making their answers difficult to

select and their results slightly altered from what they may actually know.

Reflexivity

The researcher has realized that not only are there limitations that have impacted the

conduct and product of the research and data associated with this study, but also that the

researcher herself has had an unintentional impact on the end result. These impacts include, first

55

Misinformed America

and foremost, the fact that on some level, a large majority of the participant were direct

acquaintances of the researcher. Due to the fact that most participants not only know the

researcher personally, and therefore are familiar with not only the subject of the research in

particular but also the researchers own opinions about the global and national society. Another

reflexive issue is that when writing the questions, just as the questions themselves as well as the

stated purpose of research could guide the participant in a way that altered their answer choice,

the researcher’s perception of the issues being asked could have definitely subconsciously

influenced the composition of individual questions and answer choices further contributing to the

alteration of a participant’s answers.

Suggestions for Future Research

In the event that a person would wish to contribute to the development of this research, a

major suggestion by the researcher of this study would be to consider doing this research in a

qualitative study. In this way, future research could be more specific and be certain that the

participant understood each question fully before answering the question. Also, a qualitative

study would allow for the researcher to better gauge not only the actual accuracy of a person’s

perception of World-System events, but also their personal consciousness of their own ideas

about international issues. Furthermore, qualitative research would benefit this study so as to

identify what individuals truly think about global social problems and the impact of the United

States on these issues. Having to answer a structured set of question in a quantitative survey like

the one described here undeniably guides participants in a way that is undesirable.

Another major change that should be made to the execution of this study is to ask more

questions that test the accuracy of a person’s perceptions about the World-System. Evidently, as

this information in its purest form is extremely hard to access due to the fact that the majority of

56

Misinformed America

media sources have a bias in one way or another, this can pose quite a large challenge. However,

in the study presented above, only a total of six questions were asked in order to gauge a

person’s accuracy of World-System events. Furthermore, the questions asked did not hold a

consistent format and were hard to analyze and may have possibly been misleading to

participants. Therefore, more questions should be asked, but they should be asked in succession

in a consistent format. Also, it would be beneficial to have more than just a true or false answer

to test the accuracy of one’s information. As stated before, a false answer or an answer of agree

or strongly agree by a participant of this study was an indicator that they either were oblivious or

had been mislead. Only with probing that would be accomplished through qualitative research

questioning and analysis would a researcher be able to discover whether or not this false

interpretation was a result of not being very well-versed on international issues, or if an

individual had been mislead by a frequent, but facetious news source.

Other suggestions include, asking individuals whether or not they feel they have done

something that has impacted the issues they see as a result of the inequalities of the World-

System. The study done here simply asked people if they believed that global inequalities were a

significant issue and whether or not they believed there was a personal responsibility to do

something about it. It would be interesting to see whether or not people actually put their beliefs

into action or simply half-hearted hold these beliefs or at least associate with what they think is

the “correct” answer for a survey. Also, many of the questions as well as the selections for

answers could be adjusted to better clarify and evaluate an individual’s ideas, however many of

these issues could be avoided by making this study into a qualitative one, as previously

mentioned. Also, in an effort to expand this topic to reach its full potential as well as gain

information that can be applied to the large majority of the United States, a reformulated

57

Misinformed America

approach should be conducted in regional locations with a larger sample size throughout the

entire United States and from a diverse variety of participants.

58

Misinformed America

References

Ampuja, Marko. 2011. “Globalization Theory, Media-Centrism and Neoliberalism: A

Critique of Recent Intellectual Trends.” Critical Sociology. 38(281). (Retrieved

from Sage Publications on February 6, 2014).

Burmeister, Larry L. 2003. “The Hegemon Hedges: U.S. Farm Programs, WTO

Compliance and International Regime Stability. University of Kentucky:

Department of Sociology. 1-8. (Retrieved from SocIndex on February 20, 2010).

Chalaby, Jean K. 2006. “American Cultural Primacy in a New Media Order: A European

Perspective.” International Communication Gazette. 68(33). (Retrieved from

Sage Publications on February 11, 2014).

Cordesman, Anthony, H. 2000. “Globalization and U.S. Military Planning.” Center for

Strategic and International Studies. Retrieved March 30, 2014.

(http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/000301globalization.pdf)

Dubrow, Joshua K. 2013. “Democratic Global Governance, Political Inequality and the

Nationalist Retrenchment Hypothesis.” International Journal of Sociology. 43(2):

55-69. (Retrieved from SocIndex February 10, 2014).

Fabiansson, Charlotte. 2007. “Young People’s Perception of Being Safe—Globally and

Locally.” Social Indicators Research 80(1): 31-49. (Retrieved from SocIndex on

March 27, 2014).

Gherson, Giles. 2004. “The Role of the Media and Public Perceptions.” Canada-United

States Law Journal. 30:157-163. (Retrieved from Academic Search Premier on

March 30, 2014.)

59

Misinformed America

Giesen, Klaus-Gerd and Marcos, Nobre. 2010. “World-System Inequalities Before and

After the Crisis.” Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice. 22:339-348.

(Retrieved from JSTOR on February 10, 2014).

Herman, Edward and Robert McChesney. 2000. “The Global Media.” Pp. 216-227. In

The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization

Debate, edited by D. Held and A. McGrew. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Imre, Aniko and Ginette Verstraete. 2009. “Media Globalization and Post-Socialist

Ideologies.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 12 (131): 131-135. (Retrieved

from Sage Publications on December 12, 2013.)

Kwon, Roy. 2012. “Hegemonic Stability, World Cultural Diffusion, and Trade

Globalization.” Sociological Forum. 27(2): 324-347. (Retrieved from SocIndex

on February 10, 2014).

McChesney, Robert W. and John Nichols. 2002. Our Media, Not Theirs: The Democratic

Struggle Against Corporate Media. New York: Seven Stories Press.

Meernik, James. 1996. “United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of

Democracy.” Journal of Peace Research 33(4): 391-402. (Retrieved from JSTOR

on March 30, 2014.)

Root, Franklin R. 1976. “U.S. Based Multinationals and the Industrial World: Two

Alternative Futures.” 4(1): 34-39. (Retrieved from JSTOR on February 20, 2014).

Sanderson, Stephen K. 1999. “The Evolution of the Modern World, I: The Expanding

and Evolving Modern World-System.” Pp. 181-243 in Social Transformations: A

General Theory of Historical Development. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and

Littlefield Publishers.

60

Misinformed America

Stack, Michelle and Deirdre M. Kelly. 2006. “Popular Media, Education and Resistance.”

Canadian Journal of Education. 29(1): 5-26. (Retrieved from JSTOR on

December 12, 2013).

Staples, Clifford L. 2006. “Board Interlocks and the Study of the Transnational Capitalist

Class.” Journal of World-Systems Research 12(2): 308-319. (Retrieved from

SocIndex on March 24, 2014.)

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. “Theoretical Reprise.” Pp. 347-357 in Capitalist

Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth

Century. Academic Press, Inc.

Wallerstein, Immanuel, 2004. “The Modern World System as a Capitalist World

Economy: Production, Surplus-Value and Polarization. Pp. 23-41 in World-

Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Duke University Press.

Woods, Ngaire. 2000. “Order, Globalization and Inequality in World Politics.” Pp. 387-

399. In The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization

Debate, edited by D. Held and A. McGrew. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

61

Misinformed America

Appendix A

62

Misinformed America

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

Media Consumption and Global Social Issues

You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by Charlene Haskin, a student who is working on her Bachelors of Science degree in Sociology from the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of La Verne. The results of this study will contribute to the completion of my senior thesis. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you an adult resident of southern California who has access to media for purposes of entertainment and information.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of media consumption on the knowledge of southern California residents regarding international interactions within the contemporary World-System.

PROCEDURES

If you decide to participate in this study, the researcher will ask you to do the following things:

This research study will be executed via online. Participants will be asked to read and sign an electronic consent form. After reading the consent form, the participants will be asked to either “Accept” or “Decline” in order to participate in the study. The online study is called Media Consumption and Global Social Issues. Participants can complete the survey in any location of their choosing, but they will be asked to complete the survey in its entirety. The extent of information covered in this survey will require at least 15-30 minutes to complete. Upon completion of the survey, participant will be prompted and encouraged to pass on the link to the survey on their own social media site or to any participants who think they would be willing to participate. POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS

Participation in this study will require the completion of a survey in its entirety. The survey developed is meant to assess many complex aspects of this topic, therefore it is possible that in agreeing to participate in this study, the participant will need to contribute a significant amount of time (approximately 15-30 minutes). However, it is extremely critical to this study and the researcher will appreciate the participant’s willingness to lend his or her time to the completion of this study and furthermore my senior thesis.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY

The results of this study will precipitate the participants’ curiosity about global international social interactions. Thus the participants will become more motivated to seek more information in order to promote awareness on international issues and the inherent link between the United States and other national or corporate powers to these issues. Furthermore, this research will

63

Misinformed America

expand on the existing literature on World-Systems and Globalization theories by providing insight on the citizens’ access to information and interaction within the system. Overall, the results of this study will address a gap in the literature on the impact of shaping particularly the hegemonic (American) citizens’ factual accuracy of international relations and World-Systems so as to inspire change within the system.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identify the participant will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with the participants permission or as required by law, with the exception of the researcher’s senior thesis advisor. Confidentiality will be maintained as the survey will be administered online, consent agreements and data collection instruments will never be tangibly linked, thus eliminating confidentiality concerns.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL

The participant can choose whether to be in this study or not. If the participant chooses to be in this study, he or she may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. The participant may also refuse to answer any questions that he or she does not want to answer and still remain in the study. However, the researcher will greatly appreciate if the participant could answer all questions if possible. The investigator may withdraw the participant from this research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact the principal investigator, Charlene Haskin at charlene.haskin@laverne.edu or the senior thesis advisor, Fatima Suarez, MSc. at fsuarez@laverne.edu.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS

You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a research participant, contact Marcia L. Godwin, Ph.D., IRB Director, at 909-593-3511, extension 4103, (mgodwin@laverne.edu). University of La Verne, Institutional Review Board, 1950 Third Street, CBPM 123, La Verne, CA 91750.

64

Misinformed America

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT OR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE

I understand the procedures described above. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.

________________________________________Printed Name of Participant

________________________________________Printed Name of Legal Representative (if applicable)

________________________________________ ______________Signature of Participant or Legal Representative Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR (If required by the IRB)

In my judgment the participant is voluntarily and knowingly giving informed consent and possesses the legal capacity to give informed consent to participate in this research study.

________________________________________ ______________Signature of Investigator Date

65

Misinformed America

Public Media Consumption and Perception of the Modern World System

Please answer the following questions as honestly and specifically as possible:

Part 1: Demographics

1. Where do you live? State __________________County _________________City ___________________

2. What is your personal gender affiliation?a. Femaleb. Transgenderc. Maled. Decline to state

3. What is your age? __________________

4. Are you a US born citizen? a. Yesb. No

4b. If not, where were you born? _____________________

5. What is your education level? a. Some High Schoolb. Trade or Technical Schoolc. High School Diplomad. Some Collegee. Associate’s Degreef. Bachelor’s Degree (B.A. or B.S.) g. Master’s Degree (M.A.) h. Doctorate or Ph.D. i. Other (please specify) _________________________

6. Which Political Party do you identify as/with?a. Democratb. Green Partyc. Moderate/Independentd. Republicane. Tea Partyf. None/ Do Not Associateg. Other ___________________________h. Decline to state

7. What is your race?a. African/African-American

66

Misinformed America

b. Asianc. Latinod. Pacific Islandere. White/Caucasian/Euro-Americanf. Other _______________________g. Decline to state

8. How would you describe your lifestyle at home?a. Lower Classb. Working Classc. Middle Classd. Middle-middle Classe. Upper-Middle Classf. Upper Class

9. On average, what is your average annual income?a. $15,000 or lowerb. $15,001-$25,000c. $25,001-$35,000d. $35,001-$45,000e. $45,001-$55,000f. $55,001-$65,000g. $65,001-$75,000h. $75,001 or greater

10. Are you currently employed?

a. Yes, full-time employmentb. Yes, part-time employmentc. No, currently unemployedd. Other (please describe) _______________________

10b. If yes, what is your occupation? ________________________

Part 2: Personal Media Consumption

The following questions discuss your personal, individual consumption of media. Please answer the following questions as accurately as possible.

11. How often do you read, listen to and/or watch the news (i.e. Daily news, local news, world news, etc.)?a. Very Oftenb. Oftenc. Occasionallyd. Rarelye. Very Rarely

67

Misinformed America

12. When you consume news, what type(s) of media source do you use the most often? (Please select all that apply).

Internet News Site(s) Newspaper Television News Broad Cast Social Media News postings Other (please specify) __________________________

13. If you were to choose any of the following sources to obtain your news from, which of the following news broadcasting sources would be your default?a. Al Jazeerab. BBC Newsc. CNN Newsd. FOX Newse. The Guardianf. KTLA or other local news broadcastg. Los Angeles Timesh. MSNBCi. NBC Newsj. New York Timesk. USA Todayl. Some sort of social media posting (i.e. Facebook, twitter, etc.)m. Other (please specify) ___________________________________

14. On a scale of 1 to 10 (with 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest), how trustworthy do you think your chosen form of news is as far as giving complete, accurate and honest stories on a regular basis?

Not At All Completely Trustworthy1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Always Often Sometimes Almost Never

Never

12. Of all the news sources available to you, how important do you think it is to retrieve information from a variety of sources?

1 2 3 4 5

13. How often do you think that media sources change or alter the information that is made available to the public?

1 2 3 4 5

68

Misinformed America

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither/Unsure

Disagree Strongly Disagree

14. I believe that there is an appropriate reason for a media source to change the information they deliver to their audience.

1 2 3 4 5

15. I believe that the government should influence the information that is given by the media.

1 2 3 4 5

Part 3: Personal Perceptions of International Interactions

Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge.

16. Based on your knowledge regarding politics and international relations, on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 1 being the least and 10 being the most), how satisfied are you with the current role and actions of the United States in current foreign affairs?

Not At All Extremely Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

16. The United States government and military intervention is responsible for the development of corporate-friendly authoritarian regimes in regions such as Latin America.

a. Trueb. False

17. The U.S. has established itself to be the primary world super-power (economically, politically and militarily). This position was obtained and maintained with any substantial military intervention in other nations.

a. Trueb. False

18. Has the United States government used military and/or political influence to assist or boost the power of multi-national corporations around the world?

a. Yes b. No

19. How satisfied would are you with the position of the United States as the global super-power means the country has used to maintain this position?

Not At All Extremely Satisfied1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

69

Misinformed America

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither/Unsure

Disagree Strongly Disagree

20. As a whole, the United States has achieved its position in the World-System/Global-Economy with fair treatment of developing nations in mind.

1 2 3 4 5

21. Outsourcing by US-based capitalist corporations does not directly disadvantage the lifestyle (ie. Employment, income, health, etc.) of people in the U.S..

1 2 3 4 5

22. Outsourcing described above does not disadvantage individuals of the “developing” world nations where the outsourcing is taking place.

1 2 3 4 5

23. The United States government does not have any responsibility to monitor or change the actions and intentions of multi-national corporations.

1 2 3 4 5

24. Do you concern yourself with the economic and political state of other less-powerful, less-wealthy nations?

a. Not at all b. Sometimesc. Often d. Very often

25. Multi-national corporate control of the media is run by a relatively small number of corporate news powers.

a. Trueb. False

Part 4: National and Personal Responsibility

26. Do you believe that there are inherent issues that develop from the inequality between wealthy and poor nations?

a. Yesb. Noc. Not sure

27. Do you think that you could have any impact on changing the issues within the world today that result from inequality?

a. Yes, definitelyb. Probably not, but I would like to try.c. No, not at all

70

Misinformed America

28. On a scale of 1 to 10, how important do you think it is to try and change the global issues of inequality?

Not very important Very Important1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

29. Do you think that you could have more of an impact on issues within the United States than on global social issues?

a. Yes, definitelyb. Maybe, not sure.c. No, I do not think I can impact these problems significantlyd. No, if I wanted to I could make an equal impact on either issue

30. Do you think that U.S. social issues are more important than global issues?a. Yes, definitelyb. No, global issues are just as importantc. Global issues are more important than U.S. social issuesd. Don’t know/choose not to state

31. Do you think that it is your responsibility to impact the lives of others, either globally or locally, in any capacity?

a. Yesb. Maybe, not surec. Probably, but I am not an activistd. No, not at all

Part 5: Closing Remarks

32. Is there anything else that you would like to add that has not already been asked in this survey?

a. Yes ___________________________________________b. Unsurec. No.

Thank you for your time. Your personal contribution to this research is greatly appreciated and the time you have committed has been of great assistance.

71

Misinformed America

Appendix B

72

Misinformed America

Table 1: Sample Demographics (N=100)

Demographic Variable FrequencyN=100

Percentage

GenderFemale 75 75%Male 15 15%Transgender 9 9%Decline to state 1 1%Age18-20 20 20%21-30 46 46%30+ 38 38%

Education LevelSome High School 2 2%Trade or Technical School 4 4%High School Diploma 9 9%Some College 50 50%Associate’s Degree 6 6%Bachelor’s Degree 18 18%Master’s Degree or higher 11 11%

Political Party AffiliationDemocrat 27 27%Green Party 2 2%Moderate/Independent 7 7%Republican 30 30%Tea Party 2 2%None/Do Not Associate 27 27%Other 4 4%Decline to State 1 1%

Racial IdentityAfrican/African-American 1 1%Asian 2 2%Latino/a 18 18%Pacific Islander 0 0White/Caucasian/Euro-American

72 72%

Other 4 4%Decline to State 1 1%

Social Class AffiliationLower Class 2 2%

73

Misinformed America

Working Class 31 31%Middle Class 30 30%Middle-Middle Class 20 20%Upper-Middle Class 17 17%Upper Class 0 0%

Income$15,000 or lower 28 28%$15,001-$25,000 14 14%$25,001-$35,000 14 14%$35,001-$45,000 8 8%$45,001-$55,000 3 3%$55,001-$65,000 1 1%$65,001-$75,000 6 6%$75,001 or greater 26 26%

74