Chapter 4: Seeing the World Through English-Speaking Media

We get much of our information about the world from the internet and global news sources. We use them to learn, form opinions, and connect with others. But these sources are not neutral. Most are designed, owned, or shaped by English-speaking countries, especially the United States and the United Kingdom. They act like a filter, showing us a version of reality that often supports their views and interests. This chapter looks at how that filter works.

The Structural Pillars of Anglophone Dominance

For the foreseeable future, the rest of the world is structurally bound to the Anglophone internet. This isn’t a moral condemnation, but an inevitability born of efficiency and history. This dominance rests on three main pillars:

1. Network Effects of Language: English is not just a language; it’s an infrastructure. Once enough people use it online, the cost of switching becomes prohibitive. Platforms, code libraries, technical documentation, and even memes default to English.
2. Cultural Export Power: Hollywood, Anglo-American music, U.K. literature, and Silicon Valley platforms produce what can be called “cultural equipment.” They shape global norms for storytelling, humor, and even how dissent is expressed.
3. Platform Governance: The servers, moderation policies, and algorithms of the biggest platforms (Meta, Google, X) are tuned first to English-speaking markets. This sets the tone for global discourse.

These pillars create the filter through which much of the world sees reality. Let’s break down how this works in practice.

The Internet: Built with English

The internet’s very foundations use English. The code that makes websites work, the rules that let computers talk to each other, the software we use every day – most were created in English. This creates a powerful network effect. Because the foundational layers are in English, it becomes the most efficient way to communicate globally. Even within a diverse country like India, English is often used as a bridge language between speakers of Tamil, Hindi, and Bengali, reinforcing its role as a global default.

Think about search engines like Google or Bing. They are powerful tools, but the computer programs, or algorithms, that decide which results to show you were mostly created in English-speaking places. These companies often make money by showing results that appeal to their main customers, who are often in those same countries. So, when you search online, the information you find is often ranked and organized according to priorities set in the English-speaking world.

Social Media: An English-Speaking Echo Chamber

The biggest social media sites, news sites, and video platforms are also based in English-speaking countries. They naturally focus on the markets and cultures there. This is a clear example of platform governance, where the rules and systems are designed for one primary audience. This causes several problems:

• Biased Feeds: The algorithms that choose what you see in your news feed aim to keep you engaged. They often promote topics, news, and viewpoints popular in the US or UK, pushing other perspectives aside.
• Uneven Rules: The rules about what you can post are often applied differently depending on who you are or what you say. Discussions that criticize English-speaking countries or viewpoints might get removed or hidden, even if they follow the rules. This can happen even if the discussion is in English but comes from outside the main Anglophone countries.
• Spreading Their Culture: American or British slang, jokes, social debates, and ways of thinking (like specific ideas about race) spread globally through these platforms as if they were universal truths. Often, they arrive without context, causing confusion or leading people in other countries to adopt foreign ideas that don’t fit their own societies.

We need to push these companies to change how they operate. Or, better yet, we need to build and support our own online spaces that value diverse viewpoints from around the world.

Wikipedia: Whose Knowledge Is It?

Many people trust Wikipedia as a source of shared knowledge. But even Wikipedia can present information through an English-speaking lens. Think about:

• Word Choice: An article about a native group like the Inuit might say European explorers “contacted” them. This word suggests the explorers discovered people who were waiting passively, instead of acknowledging that the Inuit had their own long-established society. The words chosen reveal a point of view.
• Labels: Wikipedia labels Puerto Rico an “unincorporated territory” of the United States. This matches the US government’s term, but it hides the fact that Puerto Rico exists in a colonial relationship: its people are subject to US laws but cannot vote for the US president and have no voting members in the US Congress. Calling it a “territory” softens a reality that looks like colonialism.

Even though Wikipedia aims for neutrality, most of its editors write in English and rely heavily on English-language sources. This can unintentionally slant how knowledge is defined, organized, and presented.

News and Entertainment: The World According to Anglo-America

Most global news comes through channels based in English-speaking countries, like Reuters, the Associated Press (AP), the BBC, CNN, or the New York Times. The news they report naturally reflects the interests, values, and history of their home countries.

• Selective Caring: Notice how the news treats different conflicts. Wars involving people seen as “like us” (often meaning white or European) tend to get far more coverage and sympathy than wars elsewhere. The intense media focus on Ukraine, for example, felt very different from the coverage of invasions or long wars in the Middle East, Asia, or Africa. Sometimes, reporters or officials even say it outright, commenting that the victims are “civilized” or “look like us” because they have “blue eyes and blonde hair.” Headlines might call one invasion an “attack on civilisation itself,” while similar attacks elsewhere are described more neutrally. News reports might also ignore or downplay inconvenient facts – like the presence of controversial symbols among fighters – if it doesn’t fit the preferred story.
• One-Sided Stories: Reporting on world events often strongly favors the viewpoint of English-speaking governments and their allies. For example, stories about the Russia-Ukraine conflict often focus only on Russia’s actions, while ignoring factors like NATO expansion or actions taken by Ukraine that might have contributed to the situation.

Hollywood and the wider English-language entertainment industry are huge exporters of culture. American movies and TV shows dominate screens worldwide. This is the cultural export power in action. They subtly spread American ideas about family, success, and relationships. As a result, American or British issues often become templates for others, framed as global concerns (e.g., “our #MeToo,” “our Black Lives Matter”). This flood of foreign content can also make it harder for local filmmakers and storytellers to find an audience.

How to See Through the Filter

When you get information online or through global media, you need to think critically. Ask yourself these questions:

• Who created this?
• What is their likely point of view or bias?
• Are they making assumptions that only make sense in places like the US or UK?
• Is the language neutral, or is it trying to make me feel a certain way?
• Whose voices or perspectives are missing from this story?

If we don’t actively question the information we receive, we risk seeing the world only through the filter created by the English-speaking world. We might mistake their dominant story for the whole truth.