Ass 1 – CM1011 Koen Glotzbach (345346; Group E) 4-4-2011 1

A comparative look at Wikileaks media coverage

Lecturer: Brandellero, words: 815, online version: http://www.scribd.com/doc/52313291
A topic I would like to investigate is the media coverage of Wikilieaks. Of course this is a wide
topic, including, in my opinion, a wide range of interesting subtopics. For example, one could
look at the media coverage of the prosecution of Julian Assange, taking a perspective of
sensationalism. However, my preference goes to looking at differences in the coverage of the
link between the release of secret documents by Wikileaks, and diplomatic privacy (or: the
importance of freedom and accessibility of government information). Taking this approach
would unveil differences in the discourse/public sphere, culture and scope. These differences
are of increasing importance: The cooperation between the European Union and the United
States increases, of which the social importance may be shown by the commotion that
emerged with the leaking of the intention to sign the Acta agreement. More important,
however, is the increasing integration of the European Union, and increased integration of
policies and an increasing amount of governmental information along with it.
The ongoing European integration makes it important to look at internal differences
with respect to diplomatic privacy, because new agreements on policies have to be reached
and thus differences have to be overcome. Additionally, new policy on political information
and documents of the Union itself must ensure access for Europeans in order to maintain
democracy. This importance for policy is one of the main gains of comparative research ,
according to May (1993). He calls this the “foresight view” (p. 208): A comparative study can
be learning material for future policies, although it does not mean that theory thereafter will
predict what policies do with great certainty.
One other gain that May mentions, is that by conducting a comparative study, one can
see its own structure and practices and the assumptions on which they are based. This “import
mirror view” (p. 208), as May calls it, enables participants of a conversation to better
understand their own drivers and appreciate differences with others on this topic. A third gain
of comparative research, is what May calls the “difference view”, which “adds to an
understanding and explanation of the complicated relationship between economic, social and
political systems without, *...+ opting for the convergence or contingent perspective” (p. 208).
Livingstone (2003) adds another important aim of doing comparative research:
“examining the local reception of imported cultural forms” (p. 279). This is closely linked to
cultural imperialism, in the sense of reception and perception of for example Europe-wide
adopted policies originating from one country. Examination of this is important for the
creation of a basis among Europeans for increasing cooperation.

This work is licensed under www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 cbna KOEN GLOTZBACH 2011

Ass 1 – CM1011 Koen Glotzbach (345346; Group E) 4-4-2011 2

Comparative media research and its difficulties

As shown by Hepp and Couldry (2009), it is possible to approach comparative media research
in multiple ways: Often, a “national-territorial” approach is taken while a “transcultural
approach” would be better (p. 32), to mention this difference before exploring all difficulties.
Yet, throughout the three articles there seems to be consensus that comparative research is a
collection of theories and methods to compare countries to find common characteristics.
Explained so far are the advantages of comparative research and what it actually
embraces. But looking at the difficulties as described by Livingstone, May, and Hepp and
Couldry, makes clear that comparative research is easier said than done. Livingstone, for
example, mainly describes the practical difficulties that come with international collaboration.
However, two main problems, as identified by May (1993) and Hepp and Couldry (2009) are
respectively ethnocentrism and globalisation.
The first problem, stated as ethnocentrism, is actually more broad than indicated by the
term. May (1993) describes not only that one’s own country, is one’s own point of reference:
“in order to understand a culture, we have to know the rules which are employed in that
culture, only then can we understand the ways in which the culture views the social world” (p.
212). May states that only a good explanation of cultural meaning is possible when one lives
within a certain culture, and that consequently a search for causes that may be generalized is
impossible. Overcoming this problem might be possible to only compare two cultures that are
well known by the researcher, because, for example, he or she has experienced both for a long
period of time.
The second problem is globalisation or, as mentioned earlier, the disappearance of
nation states. Hepp and Couldry (2009) make clear that in comparisons a “national-territorial”
approach should be replaced by a “transcultural approach” (p. 32). The difference between the
two is that characteristics may be shared, but that this is not necessarily “within the container
of national territories” (p. 33). They argue that this is important because cultural
characteristics are not tied to nation states anymore. This problem is more difficult to address
than the first problem, because first defining “media cultures” (“translocal” phenomena that
are the “primary resource of meaning”) and then using this system to compare areas is a
rather complex process (p. 37).

Sources
Hepp, A. & Couldry, N. (2009). What should comparative media research be comparing?
Towards a transcultural approach to ‘media cultures’. In D.K. Thussu (Ed.),
Internationalizing media studies (pp. 32-47). New York: Routledge.

This work is licensed under www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 cbna KOEN GLOTZBACH 2011

Ass 1 – CM1011 Koen Glotzbach (345346; Group E) 4-4-2011 3

Livingstone, S. (2003). On the challenges of cross-national comparative media research.

European Journal of Communication, 18 (4), 477-500.
May, T. (1993). Comparative research: potential and problems. In Social research. Issues,
Methods and Process. Buckingham: Open University Press.

This work is licensed under www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 cbna KOEN GLOTZBACH 2011