Information as a weapon in the era of media imperialism

Not a single struggle or war can be won without information. The outcome of such a challenge depends on how professionally one side can utilize information or, perhaps more importantly, who possesses more knowledge and is aware of the enemy's strategy, plans, and activities. While information is cited as an indispensable tool for winning a war, many studies refer to it being likened to a weapon. As humanity witnesses the technological communication revolution, information has begun to find new areas of discovery and become the subject of various experiences.

In a globalizing world where informational borders are disappearing, people tend to share and discuss the same information. Powerful actors “decide” what others will watch, read, or listen to. As a result, a term like information and media imperialism has begun to be widely discussed in academia. In the 20th century, the concept of imperialism was primarily developed by Marxist theorists (Nikolai Bukharin, Vladimir Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, etc.). According to contemporary researchers, because they analyzed, discussed, and criticized classical imperialism, imperialism has taken the form of information imperialism. This is because, in the Digital Age we live in, information as a weapon means power and the most cunning way for those who possess this power to establish dominance over others.

In 1914, Lenin stated that imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism and defined it as follows: “Monopolies, oligarchy, the striving for domination, the lack of freedom, the exploitation of an increasing number of small or weak nations by a handful of the richest or most powerful nations — all these have given birth to those distinctive characteristics of imperialism which compel us to define it as parasitic or decaying capitalism.”

Lenin's definition of imperialism is classical, and it means the exploitation of underdeveloped nations and greater financial capital superiority. As for the modern or post-modern definition of imperialism, it can be said to point to issues such as politics, culture, economy, demographics, the military, religion, etc. When Lenin's definition of imperialism is associated with the definition of the media sector, the processes that the media sector is currently undergoing can be easily noticed. For example, one of these processes is media concentration within the media industry, a concept often mentioned in major rich and powerful countries, and indeed in the United States.

Media companies in the US tend to lead global players by generating large revenues. However, they are also subject to much criticism. Starting from 1980, the whole world has been subjected to a process of liberalization, and technological developments and innovations have affected the media industry.

In this context, liberal policies reduced state monopoly, and a process of partial privatization began in all sectors, including the media sector. This situation brought about significant changes in the public broadcasting sector. Due to the serious competition between private TV channels and the public broadcasting sector, the way of working had to change while trying to rectify the situation. Moreover, the globalization process has directed media industries from being national to international, and as a logical result, investments from abroad have begun to arrive. The liberalization process has also changed the asset-sharing field of media organizations. Thus, it has begun to appear as horizontal media ownership (ownership of media within the same sector), vertical (corresponding to the mutual ownership of activities within the same sector, but covering two or more stages, for example: producing television programs and broadcasting at the same time), and cross-media concentrations (which can include either horizontal or vertical ownership, or both).

In 1983, when the American journalist Ben Bagdikian, born in Kahramanmaraş, published his first edition of “Media Monopoly,” he mentioned that approximately fifty media companies controlled more than half of the media in the US. In 1986, this number dropped to twenty-nine, and in the 2000 edition of the book, only six media companies, or what the US calls the “Big Six” (Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, News Corporation, Time Warner, Viacom, CBS Corporation), were mentioned. These companies control 90% of the media, and therefore media concentration and monopoly have a negative impact on the US nation regarding news and information about their own nation and the rest of the world. In 2022, six companies still control 90% of American media.

In the context of globalization, the information society has no borders. With technological developments, for example, local media has transformed into global media, which means more countries, more performance, more goals, a wider audience, and perhaps most importantly, more capital. All these are valid reasons for the media industry to turn into a profitable business. In the 20th century, people were fighting for freedom of expression or freedom of information; in the 21st century, the goal of influencing media actors or even countries, following the aim of doing profitable business, has led to the abuse and misinterpretation of the principle of freedom of information.

As a result, it is stated that in a globalizing world, information is a massive weapon used for various purposes in all its dimensions, whether to influence or distort, to inform or misinform, to persuade or direct, to establish dominance, or even to wage war.