The structural potential for communications imperialism was pointed out by: 

(A) Cees J. Hamelink

(B) Johan Galtung

(C) Gunnar Myrdal

(D) Armand Mattelart

Correct Ans: (B)

Explanation:

Johan Galtung first pointed out the structural potential for communication imperialism. He argued that powerful nations control global media, influencing information flow and shaping cultural perceptions. His theory remains relevant in discussions on media dominance and global inequality.

Galtung’s idea of media imperialism suggests that Western countries, especially the U.S., dominate news and entertainment. This dominance affects how people in developing nations perceive themselves and the world. As a result, local cultures struggle to maintain their identity against foreign influence.

For example, international media giants like CNN, BBC, and Hollywood studios shape global narratives. Since they control much of the world’s news and entertainment, they influence what issues receive attention and how they are framed. Consequently, countries with weaker media industries become dependent on foreign content.

In contrast, scholars like Cees J. Hamelink and Armand Mattelart expanded on Galtung’s ideas. They explored how globalization, digital platforms, and corporate monopolies reinforce media inequality. Meanwhile, Gunnar Myrdal focused more on economic disparities rather than media influence.

Because of Galtung’s work, debates on media diversity, local content production, and fair information exchange continue today. Many countries promote public broadcasting and indigenous media to counteract Western dominance. However, digital platforms like YouTube and Netflix have reshaped the landscape, offering both challenges and opportunities for global media equity.