As citizens of the information age, we have grown to understand the concepts of information and communication as one and the same, or, at the most, two sides of the same coin. In an era where any type of information is a product of an agenda to communicate, it is a challenge to separate these two distinct ideas.

When you go online to be informed of what is currently happening in the world, what you see is the end-result of another entity’s deliberate intention to communicate with you, or someone like you in some way. For example, a Facebook friend’s post of a diamond ring is a semiotic symbol of them recently getting engaged (Occam’s Answers, 2017). You might view this as an informative action, but when you consider intent, which is to elicit a social reaction to this event, you would clearly see this action as foundationally communicative in nature.

The difference between information and communication is intent

But let’s say the actor did not intend to receive feedback but instead only wished to inform their circle of this milestone. The locality principle suggests the post would only hold meaning to those who understand the cultural significance of an engagement ring, and those who are not yet aware of said engagement. One of the foundational elements of information is interpretation, where value is determined by the receiver based on their experience. This interpretation can change over time, so a static document can offer more information and higher axiological utility to the same person as their knowledge grows (Burgin, 2008).

Meanwhile, communication’s ultimate goal is to influence behavior, enabled by the information that establishes a shared meaning within a certain community. This is most prevalent in areas like marketing and politics (fundamentally a form of social marketing). The endgame is to make people buy a product or idea. Alexander (1969) noted the importance of communication in wielding power: a means to get elected and a way to control government by codifying personal preferences into laws.

In the digital age, unregulated ICT has accelerated this pursuit of power by its sheer speed and ubiquity, empowering political actors to rapidly weaponize communication against democracy (Brand, 2020). This presents a clear need for a policy framework where big tech can be regulated by the government, whose stakeholdership in communication policy stems from politics being a function of the communication process (Flor, 1991).

References

Alexander, H. E. (1969). Communications and politics: The media and the message. Law and Contemporary Problems, 34(2), 255. https://doi.org/10.2307/1191090  

Brand, M. (2020, October 27). Facebook is tilting the political playing field more than ever, and it’s no accident. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/facebook-is-tilting-the-political-playing-field-more-than-ever-and-its-no-accident-148314  

Burgin, M. (2008, September). Foundations of Information theory. Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1745621_Foundations_of_Information_Theory  

Flor, A. G. (1991). Development communication and the policy sciences. Journal of Development Communication. December.Occam’s Answers. (2017). What is semiotics?YouTube. Retrieved November 18, 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7VA95JdbMQ.