Rethinking the Relationship Between Nations, Nationalisms and the Media Classic authors in nations and nationalisms studies recognize traditional media as crucial for the construction of nations and spread of nationalisms. Anderson (1983), for example, insists on the importance of press capitalism, particularly the simultaneity of reading national newspapers, for the creation of a national consciousness. Gellner (1983, p. 127), in turn, focuses on media technologies and points out that 'it is the media themselves, the pervasiveness and importance of abstract, centralised one to many communication, which itself automatically engenders the core idea of nationalism quite irrespective of what in particular is being put into the specific messages transmitted'. He clarifies that those who can understand the language and style of the message transmitted are included in a particular (national) community and are distinguished from those who cannot understand the message. Conversely, Hobsbawm (1990, p. 142) argues that the content of media messages does matter and explains that the media manage to break down the division between the public and the private, or the national and the local, by making 'what were in effect national symbols part of the life of every individual'. The latter argument is also echoed in Billig's (1995) concept of banal nationalism, which refers to subtle, unconscious and unnoticed reproductions of both individual nations and the world as a world of nations. Even though Billig does not devote much space in his book to scrutinize the relationship between nations, nationalisms and the media, he does implicitly recognize the key role of the media in reproducing banal nationalism. The core part of his analysis is based on a one-day survey of 10 British newspapers, both tabloids and broadsheets, sampled on one not particularly eventful day of 28 June 1993 (Billig 1995, pp. 109-111). In the analysis, he shows how the newspapers unwittingly reproduce the world as a world of nations, for example in the categorization of news items into 'Home' and 'Foreign', as well as casually adopt national references, for example in the use of country maps and deictic words such as 'we', 'here' and 'the' (as in 'the nation'). Additionally, Billig more explicitly acknowledges the role of the press, and traditional media in general, as one