Following the breakdown of traditional centers of power, language, and understanding of “society” and “nation” in the 16th century, one can make the argument that media became the new religion, even if not in a direct way (i.e. not the object of worship per se, but rather as a source of truth and wisdom). Entire institutions arose following the ever-increasing number and forms of media. As Anderson notes of the centuries following this collapse of traditional modes of social relatedness, new forms of media emerged that began even more so to develop and shape a highly structured view of past, present and history and to begin to create a reality that, like the borders of a nation, only exist as constructs. “The census, the map, and the museum; together, they profoundly shaped the way in which the colonial state imagined its dominion—the nature of the human beings it ruled, the geography of its domain, and the legitimacy of its ancestry” (Anderson, 1983, p. 163).

It is difficult to disagree with Anderson’s assertions that these forms of print media created a reality that might otherwise not exist if these artifacts had not been created—if these histories had not been “written” as primary documents, as eternal, living testaments to a shared past. What is important to note, however, is that as written, one-sided documents, these forms of media are drastically different in scope and ability than the new digital media forms, most notably as seen in internet and other instant communication advancements. The key difference is that there is a communal quality to the construction of these new forms of media and while this does not apply to all of them, there are enough new forms of expression that are free from the biases and problems inherent to print capitalism that they constitute a new form of media altogether.

Some theoretical approaches suggest that “mass media are analyzed as forces that provide audiences with ways of seeing and interpreting the world, ways that ultimately shape their very existences and participation within a given society” (Spitulnik, 1993, p. 209) and this certainly seems to be a position that Anderson agrees with. What is interesting about this assertion and where it might fall short, at least based on more modern conceptions of media, is that it does not give enough credit to more localized movements aimed at personalizing media exchanges and avoiding what are clear, biased interests. Before the internet, avoiding these major media outlets was nearly impossible, especially since major media companies owned almost all of the radio and television stations (McCheseney, 2004). In addition, as the core of McCheseney’s book drives home, prior and current policies only serve to allow these major companies to continue in their dominance but their hold on power is weakening due to the ability of the internet to “localize” news and bring together communities based on realities and communities that already exist and do not exist due to the constructs imposed by media.

A problem that is currently being remedied by participants in the new media (a group which includes and is not limited to independent journalists, internet communities, bloggers and other digital communicators and their readers) is that of cultural homogeneity. As part of what Appadurai (1987) defines as “the tension between cultural homogenization and cultural heterogenization” (295) that is the crux of all of the serious modern concerns about media, this seems to be a concern borne from a capitalist system. As indicated by the scores of examples of corporate homogeneity in media ownership presented in McCheseney’s 2004 book, The Problem of the Media, prior to the internet and, as the author suggests, certainly even still, there is no diversity in opinion. While there may be orchestrated attempts to make it seem as though there is no overwhelming corporate control over media (the often-cited idea that the media has a distinct liberal bias, for instance) there certainly is—there is no denying this. Where the hope lies is in the fact that new communities—new ways of discussing consciousness of space, time, and thought are emerging rather than new constructions of these essential things themselves. In this open-ended perception of media as an active, evolving entity based on community action and interest and with a distinct exclusion of any media that is affiliated with a NASDAQ or other symbol, McCheseney’s grim view of the media and its stagnation can become a problem of history rather than of contemporary media debates.
Anderson’s book requires a new chapter and a new edition that summarizes and analysis the enormous paradigm shift in media due to the Internet and its impact of societies and their feelings of mass, connected, shared consciousness (otherwise conceived of as a form of nationalism). Arguably, the internet is the most important development in mass communication since the invention and widespread use of the printing press its associated adaptation into Anderson’s concept of print-capitalism. Similarly, Spitulnik’s discussion of the inherent problems with the concept of “indigenous media” would be complicated extensively if it included the massive “.org” movement, citizen journalism (bloggers), and other “local” forms of media that instead of being overlooked in favor of large media outlets actually seem to be gaining even more momentum. In short, many of the seminal works on media and its ability to shape history itself (not to mention perceptions of history) as well as societies more generally are woefully out of date. While they address core concepts, particularly in the case of Anderson’s sweeping historical assertions, they are incomplete as treatises on modern communication and as such, warrant further development by new cross-disciplinary (anthropology, communications, law, technical production, etc) scholars trained in new media while still firmly rooted in the theoretical traditions presented here.
Works Cited

Anderson, B. (1983 (Reprint Edition 1991)). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso.
Appadurai, A. (1987). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Theory, Society and Culture .
McChesney, R. (2004). The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the Twenty-First Century . Chicago: Monthly Review Press.
Spitulnik, D. (1993). Anthropology and mass media. Annual Review of Anthropology , 22, 293-315.