Mattleart's chapter on "technical networks" delves thouroughly but consicely into the inventions and developments that formed technological networks from the time of Cyrus the Great and the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution and beyond. This treatment deals not only with developments strictly related to communication, but also includes leaps in transportation networks and displays of technological advancement among nationstates. The inclusive assortment of innovations he presents conveys the advantages that nationstates were experiencing as a result of technological achievements, even as the use of these new tools to consolidate and challenge power (militarily, economically, and psychologically) forshadowed the troubles to come in the 20th century (the race for the atomic bomb or the Nazi propaganda machine, for example).
Both Mattleart and Thussu focus on the nationstate as the original powerbroker utilizing international communication technology as tools of conquest, administration, and influence: control in varying shades of subtlety. What about that anecdote about William Randolph Hearst, though? "You furnish the pictures and I'll provide the war"(Mattleart, 18). Propoganda, even in its broadest sense, and honest reporting are not usually mutually inclusive-- and Thussu makes it sound like today's media is the ideological progeny of Reuters and Radio Free Europe. (Note on First World to Second World propoganda in the Cold War: the ends don't always justify the means that simply.) Where does Hearst, or the individual in general, fit into that framework of powerbrokering and control through influence? Was he genuinely interested in drumming up war hysteria because war sells newspapers? (It would be funny if Hearst was really kidding and this whole thing was taken out of context. Not the haha kind of funny, but still.)
Does Thussu structure international media as a top-down phenomenon because that is how it developed, or was there a bottom-up demand (for more than just financial information) that contributed to the expansion of the international press and deserves more than a passing sentence?
And then the big question: Is the modern-day journalist the logical ideological progeny of Thussu's nationstate and Mattleart's Hearst? If so, then the accusations that today's international journalism has abandoned its principals, is not independent, etc., and that journalists must recognize their age-old obligation to the public, blah blah blah, are based on a glorified misconception. If you believe in objective and accurate reporting, you are not resurrecting the old rules-- the ivory edifice you are thinking of has yet to exist. You are carrying on the tradition of the exceptions to those rules, William Howard Russell style.