媒体全球化不能被认为是描述其普遍性质的术语。正如Sparks(2000)所指出的那样，媒体没有真正反映其全球性质的来源或维度。所谓的“全球媒体受众”，因为其包容性的考虑，其内容极其丰富。很少有证据支持国际公共领域的参与，而且在公共领域有很大的国家特定倾向(Waisbord,2013)。没有否认的事实是，在国内和国际的大众媒体的协助下，每一个全球化的趋势都得到了保证。媒体全球化在媒体行业的模式中非常普遍，突出了创建和组织媒体的方式。世界已经变得高度资本主义基于市场的综合市场或经济。在广告的支持下，专家对国家施加的压力对于确保媒体的商业化是至关重要的，尤其是对客户(Goonasekera et al .，2013)。这对于将电信公司私有化，并拥有政府的正式所有权是至关重要的。因此，快速的变化已经远远超出了辛普森和朋友等媒体的直接偏好和评级。
Media globalization cannot be considered as a term depicting its universal nature. As argued by Sparks (2000), there is no source or dimension of media genuinely reflecting its global nature. The so-called audience of global media is extremely rich and small for its inclusive consideration. There are few evidences supporting the involvement of international public sphere and there is large state specific orientation across the public sphere (Waisbord, 2013). There is no denial in the fact that each and every globalizing trend is ensured by the assistance of mass media domestically and internationally. Media globalization is highly pervasive across the models of media industry, highlighting the ways to create and organize media. There world has become highly capitalist based on integrated market or economics of the marketplace. The pressure on countries by experts is crucial for ensuring the commercialization of media, under the support of advertisement, focuses specifically upon customers (Goonasekera et al., 2013). This is further ahead crucial for privatizing companies of telecommunication with formal ownership of the government. As a result, the rapid changes have profoundly affected way beyond the immediate preferences and rating of media shows such as Simpson’s and Friends.