Reaction Paper 3: Approaches to theorizing International Communication II

The second theory I chose to focus on, which is part of the second chapter of the textbook, is the ‘free flow of information’. This concept has emerged post WW2, as a reflection of the Western capitalist ideology. This ideology perceived international communication as a mean of promotion for democratic ideals, free market and freedom of expression. On the contrary, the Marxist ‘side’ commonly promoted state regulated communication, and was said to use communication for propaganda.

The concept of ‘free flow of information’ means that the media are part of a liberal, free market economy, and can be sold privately from any owner to any other one. Because of the Western domination over world’s media resources and related capital, the West had also the most to gain from the international implementation of this ideology, and from the commodification of international communication.

The ‘free flow of information’ has both a political and an economic dimensions. On one hand, the political dimension is that the richest actors had a hand on international behavior, such as the rise of trade barriers, and the revendication of a role of “public watchdogs.” On the other hand, the economic dimension is that free flow of information has assisted in the advertising and marketing of Western products to a global market.

My own reflection on the concept of ‘free flow of information’ is that it has had a huge impact on what the world is today, economically, politically and culturally. Principles such as democracy, freedom of expression, free market (...) are nowadays almost globally accepted by academics as ideal models of development. However, these principles are not universal, although I would indeed agree on the importance of personal liberties and human rights.

My question here is about the extent to which democracy has been used as a legitimizing reason behind cultural and economic expansion, as well as a tool of mobilization in context of conflict (e.g. vs Soviet Union). Rather than true pluralism, I think that free flow of information has led to the word of the richest becoming the dominating voice over international communication. Therefore the ideology claimed by the defenders of this approach are not quite met with the reality of things.

Free flow of information is in my opinion not a mean towards freedom of expression, but rather a way through which international communication has reflected the pre-existing international power relations and economic interests.