Americans seem to like their freedom of choice. Tourists are continually shocked (though less and less so) at the 17 types of dishwashing detergent, 35 types of cat food, and entire aisles devoted toothpaste they find immediately upon entering Stop and Shop, that wonderful utopia of consumer-elected goodness. But what happens when potentially harmful pharmaceutical drugs are put to the same democratic test as the toothpaste in the grocery store aisle? A new debate in Congress over the right of pharmaceutical companies to begin advertising drugs on TV whose full effects have not yet been fully evaluated by doctors and/or the Food and Drug Administration is testing the limits of consumer choice and freedom of information. While the pharmaceutical companies argue that the “First Amendment issues that arise from banning truthful speech…must be carefully considered before legislating this area,” many in government and various watchdog groups contend that such early advertising causes consumers to take medications they do not need, or worse, medications later found to be harmful.

It is notable that this article only concerns advertising on television. However, as the advertising industry discovers more and more regulatory roadblocks regarding this particular medium, it is migrating over to the more anarchic world of the Internet. Therefore, the article has implications beyond its own scope regardless of the outcome in this specific political/legal battle. First, it seems that global media, particularly the advertising industry, is creating a paradox: while “direct-to-consumer” advertising is theoretically an extremely democratic method of exchange, its potential monopoly on the information dispensed about its products (at least for the period during which it is advertised before doctors have understand its effects) may have anti-democratic effects in the end. Secondly, global media may be putting medical science, a field that many believe should be left to the medical establishment, up for popular vote. But should everything be democratized, or are some matters better left to the jurisdiction of elites? In this case, the media may be giving consumers not only the right to choose, but also the right to make uninformed decisions. Wikipedia would understand.

I am a senior International Relations (Global Security) concentrator realizing more and more the degree to which technology drives both history and politics. Information technology (along with other forms of global media) appears to be the strongest driving force right now, and I feel that the current state of international politics is impossible to understand without first understanding how discourses are shaped, who shapes them, and what role reality and truth play in the entire web of information/disinformation that now encompasses political life. I am currently writing a senior thesis on the role of democratization in the Rwandan genocide. A large component of my thesis entails the role of media in dispensing propaganda, in reflecting and legitimating myths already pervading society, and in shaping democratic discourse. Ironically (or perhaps very logically), the very media outlets that contributed to the slaughter of thousands were only able to do so through a newly free press and technological innovation. In addition, I am evaluating the international community’s perceptions of both the democratization process and the genocide in Rwanda, which were largely shaped by the politics underlying foreign media operations in the region. I believe this course will give me the theoretical tools I need not only to conduct analysis for my thesis, but for any future IR projects as these issues become increasingly relevant to any valid explanation of world politics.