i dont think reactions to the states are simple functions of media exposure:
for example, policies either floated or supported by the states often have real, material, lasting negative impact on people's lives (think, for example, structural adjustment policies implemented by the imf across the southern hemisphere) that no amount of media coverage, pro or contra, can frame away.
another assumption seems to be that a mass media apparatus exists in the same way everywhere, and that thie apparatus is consumed in the same ways as it is in industrialized countries. this seems patently false--even within the latter, the types of media most looked to for information varies place to place (france is still more print dominated for example than is the states)....but when you move from northern to southern hemispheres, the situation changes quite radically.
in the states at least, it seems pretty clear that there is a direct correlation between television viewing (as primary information source) and support for the administration--for a study that backs this claim, look here:
http://www.comm.cornell.edu/msrg/msrg.html
see on the right, the report entitled "Perceptions of Muslims, War on Terror..."
nor do i think that relations to the us are a simple function of its economic and military dominance--it follows more from the ways in which these forms of domination are implemented practically. the americans are not the innocent victims of their own position.