Information Corruption: Some Thoughts

[Contributory BP]

 

 

Last week in tutorials we were discussing corruption, and one consideration in particular – ways in which information corruption (such as censorship) manifests and occurs and, more critically, what this means – stood out for me.

It’s fair to say technology plays a big part in information corruption. By information corruption I refer to censorship or interference in the dissemination, reception, content etc. of information and ideas in society. It should be noted that ‘censorship’ or ‘interference’ isn’t wholly to be conceived as negative. Sometimes information can be withheld for the public good. If California is having a severe water drought and the local government and authority allowed the media to portray the entire severity of the water shortage, this can cause mass panic and, understandably, citizens would rush to buy up the water or obtain it wherever and however they could. This is quite unproductive and dangerous. But in the context of information corruption where I have created the loose, general perception of corruption as bad (debatable in my opinion), this isn’t my focus.

Take the Internet for instance, what has developed to become one of the biggest forums for information sharing en masse – the world is your audience (generally speaking). Mobile phones, laptops, tablets… all personal information databases and transmitters. With technology comes the opportunity for good; but like all good things, it can be corrupted. Technology is like an accelerant and amplification of ideas; the capacity and capability to organise, broadcast, and reach and impact people en masse is incredible. It can influence the lives, perspectives, and desires of people halfway across the world in completely different realities to you. The development of technology and the technological revolution of how we use it means that citizens can fill the gap left by mainstream media – either because mainstream media are censored or interfered with (directly or indirectly^[1]) by external pressures, or because the speed of media – up-to-the-minute 24/7 news – means that institutions like mainstream media cannot keep up (unlike citizens in real time who may be nearer action) as quickly as necessary. For the latter, mainstream media then tends to relay popular opinion or messages the state or authority officially releases; it is reduced to a passive rebound board.

Citizens can utilise technology for their own ends for mass movement and awareness of issues that might otherwise be contained by external interests. A good case is the Arab Spring, both because technology was successfully utilised for a revolutionary en masse movement, but also as a reminder that it isn’t the be-all-end-all of political movements. One might say technology played the biggest role in generating the activities and impacts of the Arab Spring; yet this is true only to a certain extent. Technology made it easier and innovations like social media and apps increase the amplification of ideas and increase the ability for people to mass mobilise and plan. When the Egyptian government attempted to shut down the Internet, most notably, young people were affected. By today's standards, the younger generation see the Internet as a means and realisation of their ‘right to connect’. And so the government, by attempting as it did, struck a nerve, effecting people enough to act. But technology in this regard complemented traditional activist techniques, not completely eradicated other means. Local centres like mosques were where older generation distributed and shared information to mobilise, while the younger generation use social media and the Internet. Perhaps it can be put down to a generational gap, but technology could be seen as only successful for political ends if utilised selectively.

More relatively, information corruption in countries like New Zealand differs from nondemocratic countries like Egypt as would be expected. Overt censorship isn’t the method of choice. It is far better to conceptualise this ‘corruption’ (so to speak) as information interference because, understandably, with the implications of having an active and, to an extent, empowered civil society with access to reasonably functional and effective institutions, overt censorship is unwise for the integrity and continued existence of the incumbent governing institution. This interference can take the form of restrictions to dissemination or access, a carefully constructed articulation or coverage of events, and sometimes even prevention of coverage (or meaningful coverage).

To summarise, both from points broadly speaking but more selectively as relevant to countries like NZ, three categories arise to help conceptualise information corruption: content, type, and culture.

CONTENT is important for information. Quality of that content and how much (or little) is shared, matters to the overall impression and ideas people form as a result, and subsequent ability or capacity to use the information to be informed and empowered to act. Generally speaking, information provides power for citizens against a governing authority by prompting questions and keeping accountability. If the government or authority interferes with the quality (by choosing or encouraging/promoting content less relevant to important and pressing issues and activities), or restricts the range of content covered, then the ability for citizens to have power by being informed dramatically reduces, and can result in or precipitate an unfavourable power balance. For example, NZ ‘news’ outlets increasingly include advertising, or focus on commodities mixed in with small snippets of isolated domestic incidences. More investigative journalism is discredited (think Nikki Hager), diluted in quality (3 News nightline includes a whole section dedicated to the latest technological commodity, reducing airtime for important issues), or (attempted to be) shut down (think Campbell Live). One point I wish to stress is that in a carefully constructed public/news dialogue, an illusion can be created of diversity of discussion and ideas but the reality can be a pinhole perspective of the dialogue spectrum. Picture different ideological beliefs and perspectives on a spectrum. If the actual full range is reduced to a small section, but ‘diversity’ (read differing) positions are presented on this narrow range, the illusion of discussion and progress is produced.

The TYPE of information production and dissemination is also important. Due to technological innovations like the Internet and social media, there is more self reporting since people have more personal access to innovations to broadcast, comment, and shape the discussions; hence media often take their cue from forums like Twitter on events that are happening. Mainstream media then plays catch-up.

And CULTURE is another important feature.. The relentless 24/7 reporting schedule of news outlets to keep up the demand of an increasingly interconnected and fast paced globe means that capacity for traditional mainstream broadcasters is impaired by features like self reporting, and the influential presence of online discourse shaped by people everywhere. The culture of the country’s media is another feature. NZ often lacks comprehensive coverage of international affairs (whether they affect us or not) - the trade agreement with North Korea is one, Iraqi troop deployment, the TPPA… all are important issues deserving of commentary and discussion, and yet there is hardly a whisper or it. Such issues are less likely to get attention prior to a dilution of media content.

Technology is a source for freedom and provides a great opportunity to share, collaborate and have access to information about ideas, events, and issues otherwise hindered by more restrictive forms of information sharing. But like other forms of information sharing can be corrupted, technology is the similar double-edged sword. Albeit, the difference perhaps is that it is a lot harder to control, and extremely difficult to eradicate its existence in any set territory. Information corruption can be overt - more commonly found in nondemocratic societies - and covert - more common in democratic societies because of an active civil society with functioning institutional channels of discourse and accountability. Issues arising in the future include the potential for control or influence of large corporation providers like Google or Facebook, to exert influence covertly by censoring, restricting or omitting some types of content about important issues and events. Importantly, those in democratic societies should be keenly aware of strategies and techniques to shape preferences and construct by submission, interference or omission, information that is then presented.

^[1] By direct censorship I mean the identifiable and primary input to alter the outcome for purposes negatively intended. This could be the state’s direct influence in bullying, censoring or actively shaping and defining media broadcast or institutional function. By indirect censorship this is a secondary, more difficult to identify input, again altering the outcome for purposes negatively intended. For example, U.S. congress members or government may have ties to mainstream media outlets like Fox News. Likewise with big corporations. Thus it may mean it would not be in the media company’s ‘interest’ to present issues in certain ways or present them at all. The result is a pseudo form of self censorship, muddied by money that is affluent in U.S. politics and society.