This is National Government in the Sunshine Week. Not declared by Congress or the President, but by the media, including the American Society of Newspaper Editors. So expect to see a number of stories about access to information and transparency of government processes. One of the first stories is an AP review of the issue: Government Reducing Access to Information.
We often frame the issue of access to information and knowledge in terms of ownership -- who owns the intellectual property rights. But the real issue is one of control. Ownership of a patent or copyright allows one to dictate the conditions of use. However, what if the information is publicly owned? Who gets to dictate the conditions of access and use? In most cases, it is the government, especially if they can claim that it is government-owned, rather than publicly-owned. That gives the government the ability to deny access to the information, just like a monopoly holder of a copyright can deny access. The AP story describes how it is becoming harder to gain access to government information, even through the Freedom of Information Act.
Another version of control is manipulation. Sunday, the New York Times ran a large story on covert attempts by the government to control the news through prepackaged stories:
In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.
In my mind, the problem with this practice is not the Administration's attempt at public relations or political spin. One can argue that these news shows are the video equivalent of the press release. What bothers me is how these "video press releases" get presented to the public.
An examination of government-produced news reports offers a look inside a world where the traditional lines between public relations and journalism have become tangled, where local anchors introduce prepackaged segments with "suggested" lead-ins written by public relations experts. It is a world where government-produced reports disappear into a maze of satellite transmissions, Web portals, syndicated news programs and network feeds, only to emerge cleansed on the other side as "independent" journalism.
It is also a world where all participants benefit.
Local affiliates are spared the expense of digging up original material. Public relations firms secure government contracts worth millions of dollars. The major networks, which help distribute the releases, collect fees from the government agencies that produce segments and the affiliates that show them. The administration, meanwhile, gets out an unfiltered message, delivered in the guise of traditional reporting.
Between tighter control over access and manipulation, I wonder if we are losing the concept of the government as provider of objective public information. As we move forward in the information age, that would be great loss indeed.
Leave a comment