Globalization is often viewed as a media phenomenon (which, by the way, is not a new tendency, given Stefan Zweigs critique of the global synchronicity in times of radio in the 1920s), but rarely mirrored in the production of (new) media itself. Regarding the case of pokémon and its "Americanisation" as well as the adbuster-movements I will try to show two processes which are only two sides of the same coin: indigenization and subverting global signs (brands). The signs and brands, which are used like the flags of nations in former, are widely regocnised, but this also makes them an easy target.
New technologies have not only brought global networks, selling content regardless of its origin as long as it sells well, but also broader possibilities of showing one's dissent to the world. Famous tendencies as watchblogging (aimed at the media) show the consumer of today not only as a helpless victim. Counterculture indeed became consumer-culture but it did not always give up its rebellious attitude. New conflicts are not a matter of territory, as Paul Virilio already observed in the first US-Iraqu-War, but ithey are also a struggle for cultural hegemony. The coining of terms and conveying of ideologic meaning shapes our perception.
Therefore we will look closer in how the individuals possibilies of content (which often means: dissent) production and networking also affect a global economy, which used to rely on the spotless image, which often was due to widespread ignorance.
