Modernization theory

Structural imperialism
Galtung argues that the world consists of developed 'centre' states and underdeveloped 'periphery' states. In turn, each centre and periphery state possesses a 'core' - a highly developed area - and a less developed 'periphery'. He defines structural imperialism as a 'sophisticated type of dominance relation which cuts across nations basing itself on a bridgehead which the centre of the centre nation establishes in the centre of the periphery nation for the joint benefit of both'.

In other words, there exists in the countries of the South a dominant elite whose interests coincide with the interests of the elite in the deve­lo­ped world. This 'core' thus not only provides a bridgehead by which the centre nation can maintain its economic and political domination over the periphery nation, but is also supported by the centre in maintaining its dominance over its own periphery. In terms of values and attitudes, the elite group is closer to other elites in the developed world than with groups in their own country.

According to Galtung, the pattern of news flow exhibits these vertical and feudal patterns: news flows from the core to the periphery via the transnational news agencies, while journalists gather information in Southern countries that is eventually retransmitted via the agencies. The effect of this feudal structure is that Southern nations know virtually nothing about events in neighbouring countries that has not been fil­te­red through the lenses of the developed media systems.
The theory argues that if the core actors are defining news according to the criteria and demand for news in the developed world market, then the demand for and criteria of news will be similar in the centre of the peripheral nation. This has been called the 'agenda-setting fun­ction' of the international media. Information is transferred to the Southern elite in such a way that primary importance is attached to the sa­me issues the developed world sees as important. The identity of interests between the centre of the centre and centre of the periphery great­­­ly influences the acceptance of an international agenda and thus Galtung's theory is particularly relevant in understanding global news flow.
A striking similarity can be found in Galtung's theory of structural imperialism with Schiller's definition of cultural imperialism. Both maintain that the structure of political and economic domination exercised by the centre over the periphery results in the re-creation of certain aspects of the centre's value system in the periphery.
Another concern for scholars working within the political economy approach has been to analyse the close relationship between media and foreign policy. The role of the mass media as an instrument of propaganda for corporate and state power has been an important area of inquiry among critical scholars (Herman and Chomsky, 1988/1994). In their 'propaganda model' US economist, Edward Herman, and the renowned linguist, Noam Chomsky, examine through a range of detailed case studies, how news in mainstream US media system passes through several 'filters', including the size, concentrated ownership and profit orientation of media firms; their heavy reliance on advertising and dependence on business and governmental sources for information; and the overall dominant ideology within which they operate. These elements, write Herman and Chomsky, 'interact with and reinforce one another and set the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy' (1994: 2).
For Herman and Chomsky, a propaganda approach to media coverage suggests: a systematic and highly political dichotomisation in news coverage based on serviceability to important domestic power interests. This should be observable in dichotomised choices of story and in the volume and quality of coverage ... such dichotomisation in the mass media is massive and systematic: not only are choices for publicity and suppression comprehensible in terms of system advantage, but the modes of handling favoured and inconvenient materials (placement, tone, context, fullness of treatment) differ in ways that serve political interests'.