Communication Flux Model:
A Media System Theory for the 21st Century
By Matt J. Duffy
(c) 2009

Since the 1950s, theorists have attempted to create a model that explains the world’s various media systems. In 1956, Siebert, Peterson, and Schramm penned “The Four Theories of the Press,” the first attempt to map the media landscape. Since then, the Four Theories of the Press have been praised as accurate and illustrative and ridiculed as biased and incomplete. Many other theorists have contributed their own models to the field with some borrowing on the Four Theories while others scrap the authors’ ideas for totally original approaches.

This paper will add a new voice to debate. The author will first outline some of the major theories of the press: authoritarian, communist, libertarian, social responsibility, developmental and democratic-participant. He will then note how the current theories fail to adequately account for the present day global media system environment. Then, the author will introduce a paradigm for explaining global media systems, the Communication Flux Model.

The authoritarian model outlined by Siebert et al. can be found most often in countries with monarchies. The ruler, who inherits his right to rule from God, is ordained to protect the country and its people. Residents of authoritarian regimes give up some freedoms in exchange for the benefit of living in a stable society. Plato, Machiavelli and Hobbes have all argued in favor of an authoritarian model. The media system in an authoritarian regime exercises complete control over the media systems – either by state ownership of media outlets or censorship over privately owned media. The press is not allowed to criticize the government, lest social order be upset. The media exists only “to disseminate information that only the state deems to be appropriate.” The government ensures a compliant press through state censorship (in which a government staffer approves material before publication or broadcast) or through self-censorship (in which media outlets learn the rules about what type of material is acceptable.) The government may punish outlets that stray too far from acceptability with monetary fines or jail terms.
Under the communist model, egalitarian social harmony is the goal. The government takes the role of societal care-giver, implementing policies that favor the society as a whole rather than individuals. Unlike the authoritarian model, communist regimes derive their power from the people, rather than divine order. Authors whose writings have led to the communist model include Hegel and Marx. The state exercises control of the media through direct ownership and censorship. The state also assumes that capitalistic models of media systems lead to a decline in programming standards. Communist governments hope to benefit society by demanding more out of entertainment than the basest forms of sensational entertainment. Governments with communist models don’t tolerate criticism of official policies and may respond to violators with dismissal from positions or even detention.

The libertarian model is a vast departure from the aforementioned systems which focus on the benefits to society as a whole. Under a libertarian model, the focus rests solely on the individual. The philosophy derives from authors such as Locke, Smith and Mill who argue that society is served best when markets compete and individuals make choices. In a media system operated according to this principle, the media would be privately owned and operated with little interference from the state. Government would enter the marketplace only to ensure maximum competition. The media under this system regulate themselves and the needs of society would be served by their appeal to consumers’ interests. Under this system, the government may punish businesses that engage in unfair competitive practices.
The social responsibility model appears similar to libertarian, but the government has more authority to regulate the media in the interests of society. Under the model the “media should provide fair and balanced information with a goal of effecting change for the better in society.” The model is a late arrival as a media system, developed in the 1940s as a response in the United States to concerns over the growing capitalistic nature of the press. These concerns led to the formation of the Hutchins Commission, a panel that studied the U.S. media system. Their report as well as several other books formed the foundation of the social responsibility model. Under the social responsibility model, the media are given free access to cover the government and act as a watchdog for the “public interest.” In exchange, they are expected to act in a responsible manner, refraining from excessive sensationalism or cynicism in their coverage. Under this model, the media are expected to report factual information with contextual coverage. They should offer balanced opinion and commentary. And, editors and producers should clarify what societal goals they are trying to steer their coverage toward. In order to achieve these media goals, the government may fine or take away the right for certain media outlets to operate. Another way to achieve these goals is through public admonishment.

Developmental theory focuses on media systems in undeveloped nations. The model proposes that media systems in these countries should help the society achieve better social conditions. The governments are expected to “acquire media technology and to deploy it with the purpose of fixing situations that contribute to social hardships.” In order to reach this goal, the concept of media freedom must first be adopted. Often the leaders of developing countries decry press freedom and its obligatory spotlight. But, international pressure would help sway the leadership toward press freedoms under this model. The model derived from the United Nations debates over cultural hegemony in UNESCO in the late 1970s and early 1980s as well as several other authors. Under a developmental model, the government would manage the media to help keep identities intact. Indigenous people would have access to create media content that would help passing along authentic cultural traditions. These productions would be exported to other countries to help make the rest of the world aware of the developing country.

An even newer entrant, the democratic-participant model sees citizen-created media content creating a healthy society and government. Without the citizen input, then media systems will be too heavily favored toward corporate executives or elitist government officials. The model stems from the public journalism movement pioneered by Jay Rosen and Paul Taylor. Under this model, citizens would pressure both the government and the corporations to allow individuals greater access to the media and media-content creating tools. Citizen group would be assured that they could express their opinions without fear of retribution from the government and without having their messages squelched by the media corporations.
The aforementioned models provide a foundation for organizing the media systems theories seen throughout the world. However, problems emerge when applying real-world nations to individual categories.

The latter two “theories” aren’t really theories at all. Few nations actually practice a “democratic-participant” or “developmental” media system. Instead, these theories offer an idealistic state that the authors hope nations will model. Some countries have adopted parts of both models. With the advent of the Internet, blogs and cell phone communications, many cultures have embraced portions of the democratic-participant theory. These technological advances have given citizens much more say in shaping the media in their countries. In the United States, “citizen journalists” can point to specific instances where their points of view have led to changes in the news coverage provoking substantial results (e.g., bloggers drove coverage regarding Senator Trent Lott and television anchor Dan Rather.) But, trying to use these two theories to categorize media systems simply doesn’t work. Nearly all of the world’s media systems don’t operate according to the developmental or democratic-participation model.

The Four Theories works a little a better. Countries do seem to fit broadly into the categories outlined by the authors. But, critics have noted a variety of problems when trying to apply media systems into its categories. First, many critics take umbrage with the model’s apparent bias toward the Western approach to media systems. McKenzie noted that the theory inherently assumed that “government control of media is never desirable whereas freedom from government control was always desirable.” Such a perspective reflects a Western philosophical system in which interests of the individual trumps interests of the society. Other cultures have different philosophical foundations. Grounded in Confucian philosophy, Asian cultures tend to stress the need for social harmony and cohesiveness rather than individual rights.
With the evolution of the media landscape, the Four Theories of the Press looks increasingly out of place. In the 1960s, the media consisted mainly of newspapers, television and radio. For authoritarian or communist regimes, control of those outlets was relatively straightforward. The Communist regimes in China and Russia, for instance, owned all the press outlets and could easily control the media messages. Authoritarian regimes such as Egypt could also control the press without direct ownership through coercive practices. Siebert cites several countries such as Portugal, Ecaudor, Egypt, Pakistan and India that operated in the 1960s under some form of authoritarian control. With all of these examples, times have changed. However, putting many of these countries into easy to pigeonhole categories according to the Four Theories model proves difficult.

China, for instance, still operates with a strong totalitarian bent. The government routinely blocks Web sites from foreign news media, occasionally jails journalists for publishing critical information, and uses the threat of license revocation to coerce favorable coverage. However, as a result of the country’s embrace of capitalism, private ownership of media have flourished and signs of press freedom are emerging. Many observers note that Chinese censorship appears to be haphazard – with some critical comments allowed while others are not tolerated. Chinese journalists and academics have also noted that criticism of the government is tolerated as long as journalists are careful with their words. Given this new reality, trying to put China squarely into the Communist Model simply doesn’t work.
Russia, too, can no longer be easily categorized. After the Soviet empire fell, many expected the nation to fully embrace democracy and the tenets of a free press. The country’s press did gain great freedoms throughout the 90s, but with the entrance of Vladimir Putin as president in 2000, the county has crept toward authoritarian control. Putin has used his power to silence critical voices through license revocation and other forms of coercion. Russia is one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a journalist, with many instances of reporters (especially those critical of the government) being killed and their murders often going unsolved. Still, some freedom of the press exists in the country, particularly on the Internet where critical journalism remains particularly unfettered. So, again, the four theories model doesn’t provide an accurate place to categorize the Russian media system. The Chinese and Russian systems don’t completely fit into the “authoritarian” or “communist” models. While parts of their media systems are tightly controlled by the government, other parts enjoy relative freedom. Several other countries (e.g., Egypt, Pakistan, and Venezuela) similarly defy simple categorization.

Another way in which the traditional theories of the press fail to account for today’s media environment stems from suppression of speech not necessarily caused by the government. For instance, recent criticisms of the Muslim religion have resulted in death threats and riots in several countries. In 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was stabbed to death after he created a film that was critical of the Muslim religion. In 2006, a Danish newspaper published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad prompting worldwide reaction from offended Muslims. Riots broke out in several cities leading to the several deaths. Since these events, some critics have complained that media outlets are engaged in self-censorship, careful not to publish material that may result in death threats or violence. At times various governments – particularly governments in Western cultures with a history of protecting speech – have encouraged this type self-censorship in hopes of not upsetting the social order, labeling criticism of Islam as a form of unprotected hate speech. The media environment surrounding the criticism of Islam escapes traditional categorization as well.

Therefore, a new media system is required. The model will be based upon one overarching variable – freedom. By basing this model on this precept, the author invariably opens himself up to arguments of Western bias. Freedom of thought, expression, and activity has been a central theme of Western cultures since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. However, most other cultures also understand the concept of individual freedom, although they may value other factors above it. Despite how each individual culture perceives the value of freedom, all global media systems can in some way be measured – or differentiated – by the amount of freedom held by individuals and journalists to publish or say what they want without fear of encroachment. Freedom should therefore be a main focus of this new model. But, this model must account for the different ways and intensity in which freedom is encroached.

This system should acknowledge that today’s media environments cannot fit into pre-existing categorizations. Because of technological advances, governments can no longer fully control their messages. Some governments (Egypt, China) are experimenting with greater freedom for their media and citizens. Other governments are moving away from media freedom (e.g., Russia.) Also, this model must recognize that some encroachment of freedom derives from non-government sources. The model will address the lack of freedom caused by violence associated with criticism of Islam as well the role of corporate control of media outlets that limits the diversity of ideas in a media system. The model will not ignore the role of self-censorship.

The Communication Flux Model offers a complete overview of all the global media systems. The word flux – used mostly in mathematics and science – refers to the amount of matter that flows through a unit area over a period of time. In this model, flux will refer to the amount of free information that flows unimpeded – for any reasons – through media outlets on a daily basis. As a metaphor for the Communication Flux Model, imagine a flap valve on a water pipe. By turning the handle, the valve opens completely. However, if the handle is turned further, the valve recloses in the other direction. Therefore, to achieve maximum flux, the valve must be turned only so far that the opening remains as large as possible. With the Communication Flux Model, the middle represents complete unfettered information flow. The left represents control hindered by the government. The right represents control hindered by other factors, namely corporations or fear of religious fanaticism. No society sits in the direct center of the Communication Flux Spectrum, nor does the model imply that an ideal society would sit in the center. See Figure 1 for an example of the model.

Figure 1: Communication Flux Spectrum
Heavy government Moderate government Corporate Fanaticism Fear

The spectrum is split up broadly into four categories that represent the type of control most prevalent in those media systems: Heavy government control, Moderate government control, corporate control, and religious control. But, more important than the broad category is the country’s placement on the flux spectrum. See figure 2 for an example of how individual nations fit on the Communication Flux Model:
Figure 2: Communication Flux Spectrum with nation examples

Heavy government Moderate government Corporate Fanaticism Fear
China Egypt United States Great Britain

According to the figure, China exists under the heavy government control. But, its placement to far from the left spectrum indicates that some free information does flow through the country’s media system. In contrast, North Korea – a country with no privately owned media – would sit at the far left end of the spectrum. According to observers, some criticism of the government is permitted as long as it’s carefully written. Also, the explosion of privately owned media is creating the larval stages of a free press. Cell phones have also been used to organize social protests in the country, a sign of more open communication. These factors move China toward the center of the flux spectrum. But, the government still controls enough of the information to leave the country in the heavy government category. The ability for the model to differentiate between the communication flux in China versus North Korea points to its superiority in comparison to the Four Theories Model.

Egypt, while still in the grips of a strong-handed government, sits to the right of China in the moderate government-control space. The Egyptian government regulates the media mostly privately-owned media through licenses and prosecution of material critical of the government. However, the country does allow some latitude for criticism, particularly online outlets. Efforts to impose more censorship have been met with protest and some public discussion. To dismiss Egypt simply as an authoritarian media system wouldn’t accurately reflect the complicated system at play. Therefore, the Egypt sits in the moderate control category, but toward the limited flux side of the spectrum.

The United States sits on the other side of the communication flux spectrum. While the government does regulate some communication (broadcast airwaves, libel), the United States enjoy a virtually unparalleled level of freedom from government control. However, corporate forces do make an impact on the flow of information. Because news organizations are beholden to their advertisers and their own need to make a profit, communication from them can never be called “free.” For evidence of this tendency, some critics point to the firing of NBC reporter Peter Arnett after he made critical comments about the Iraq War in 2003. Also, television audiences reward sensational news reports and low-culture television entertainment with high viewing. Therefore, the flow of communication is hindered by the incessant need to appeal to the biggest audience, rather than simply airing the most-deserving programming. However, technological advances have recently helped mitigate the corporate control on the U.S. communication flow. Blogs and other non-traditional outlets have found great success offering people an alternative to the large, corporate run news outlets. For these reasons, the United States sits in the corporate category, but close to the free-flowing center of the flux spectrum. The category appears quite similar to the democratic-participation model of the press. It stands apart from the libertarian and social responsibility models, the usual labels applied to the U.S. media system.

Great Britain sits in the final category. While the United Kingdom enjoys a long history of free expression, its recent activity moves it into an area of decreased communication flow. Like many other Western countries, Britain is struggling to balance the promises of free expression along with the need to keep social harmony by not offending members of the Muslim faith. Recent developments pointing to a restriction of speech include the cancellation of a play that was to take place in a Muslim heaven and the excising of portions of the play “Tamburlaine” to remove scenes attacking Muhammad. None of the major news outlets in Great Britain chose to reprint the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammad that caused an uproar in 2006. And in 2009, the country refused entry to anti-Muslim Dutch filmmaker and lawmaker Geert Wilders. The decision received criticism from many observers, some of whom noted the trend in self-censorship over issues that would likely provoke violence from Islamic extremists. For these reasons, Great Britain sits toward the right edge of the spectrum where free flow of communication is more impeded. Although, the fatwa against Salmon Rushdie was instituted in 1989, no communication model appears to have addressed the resulting constriction of free speech that’s placed on a society that fears violence reaction to individual speech. In this regard, the Communication Flux Model stands apart from all previous theories.

The model does have some drawbacks. Determining where a nation sits in the spectrum is admittedly a rather subjective task. This rough model doesn’t provide the specificity required to help guide the determination of where media systems should sit on the flux spectrum. To develop the theory more fully a set of criteria should be established that would help guide placement. A checklist might include questions such as “Do any media oulets regularly criticize the government?,” “Have new technologies led to the formation of social protests?” or “Have the courts ever overruled a censor’s actions?” Establishing these criteria would help add validity to the model.

Another substantial drawback is the “Fanaticism Fear” category. First, the category sits on the opposite end of the spectrum from heavy government – effectively implying that fear of fanatic response squelches free speech as much as a totalitarian regime. Evidence doesn’t support that implication. In most cases where free speech is restricted due to fear of fanatical response, the decision is widely discussed and often ridiculed. Also, in some cases fear has prompted a certain action, but a later development negated the effect. For instance, in 2008 the American publisher Random House decided to drop the publication of a novel about the Prophet Mohammed. The company said it feared the book could “incite acts of violence,” clearly a decision to self-censor over fear of fanaticism. However, in Great Britain a smaller publishing house bought the rights to the book and later published it. The model requires a method to deal with such instances where communication eventually does flow freely. It should also be reorganized to show that fear of religious fanaticism doesn’t equate with totalitarian censorship.
Despite these drawbacks, the Communication Flux Model offers several benefits. It provides a way to classify media systems in a more accurate way than the Four Theories and other models. The model allows for subtle variations in the amount of free flow of information. Also, the model specifically addresses the reduced flow of communication caused by the fear of fanatical Muslims. The relatively new phenomenon (which first gained prominence during the Mohammad cartoon riots of 2006) should be cataloged by academics and studied for its effects on communication systems.
 
Works Cited
Anderson, John Ward. “Cartoons of Prophet Met With Outrage.” The Washington Post, January 31, 2006.
Honan, Edith. “Random House pulls novel on Islam, fears violence,” August 7, 2008. Reuters Wire Service Report. http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0736008820080807 (February 26, 2009).
Huang, Hung. “Censorship in Chinese Media.” New York Times blog post, September 25, 2008. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/censorship-in-chinese-media/?scp=6&sq=
china%20censorship&st=cse (February 25, 2009).
Jenkins, Paul. “Russian journalism comes under fire.” BBC, July 2, 2004, sec. Europe. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3860299.stm (February 25, 2009).
Kishkovsky, Sophia. “Internet is the outlet against Russian censorship.” The International Herald Tribune, August 31, 2008. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/31/technology/LOSHAK.php (February 25, 2009).
McKenzie, Robert. Comparing Media from Around the World. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2005.
“Self-censorship in the West, two decades after the fatwa against Salman Rushdie: Speech impediments.” The Economist, February 14, 2009. http://www.economist.com/world/
international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13130069&source=features_box_main (February 25, 2009).
Shokry, Muhammad. “Analysis: Egyptian bloggers emerge as opposition voice.” BBC Monitoring World Media Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring, January 9, 2008.
Siebert, Fred Seaton, Fredrick Seaton Siebert, Theodore Peterson, Theodore Bernard Peterson, Wilbur Lang Schramm, and Wilbur Schramm. Four Theories of the Press: The Authoritarian, Libertarian, Social. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1963.
Simons, Marlise. “Dutch Filmmaker, an Islam Critic, Is Killed.” The New York Times, November 3, 2004, sec. International / Europe. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/international/
europe/03dutch.html (February 25, 2009).
Teel, Leonard. “In the Know: Media, Government, and Citizens' Access to Information in China and the U.S.” Presented at the 69th World Media Forum, Atlanta, February 19, 2009. [Information collected from various speakers during educational forum.]
“The limits to free speech: Cartoon wars.” The Economist, February 9, 2006. http://www.economist.com
/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5494602 (February 25, 2009).
Waterfield, Bruno, and John Bingham. “Dutch antiMuslim politician turned away from Britain at Heathrow .” Telegraph.co.uk, February 12, 2009. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
newstopics/politics/lawandorder/4603182/Dutch-anti-Muslim-politician-turned-away-from-Britain-at-Heathrow.html (February 25, 2009).