Controlling Information - II

There is an aspect of controlling information that is not often recognized. It is a reflection of the way in which most governments tend to view their citizens. Most of us think of ourselves as rational beings with the ability to differentiate between right and wrong and decide for ourselves what is the best course of action to take in any given situation. However, governments have a tendency to view us as essentially children in need of guidance. This is a very basic albeit unarticulated justification of secrecy which lies behind controlling information.

A question that can be asked at this point is so what if information is controlled in some fashion? Surely some level of secrecy is desirable at various levels. So long as most information is in the public, does it matter is some is hidden for some time. Good questions to which my answer is that it matters a great deal.

Controlling information has several aspects. One is the secrecy element which has been touched upon previously. Another element is distortion. Information can be hidden not just by hiding it but also by distorting it so that the general public's understanding is different from that of the "insiders". A prime example is the invasion of Iraq. Information was not really hidden in the run up to the war. Instead it was distorted so that most Americans got the (completely false) impression that Iraq was closely connected with the events of 9/11. In a much cruder fashion, the Arab dictatorships that are facing popular revolt are engaged in the same game. They seek to paint the uprising with the brush of Al Qaeda without presenting any proof of the alleged connection.

Distortion is also carried out by non government actors. These include think tanks, agenda driven NGOs, corporations and rich individuals. For a long time, the tobacco industry presented distorted information downplaying the risks of smoking. In recent times, Big Oil has been downplaying the risks of global warming by presenting distorted (and sometimes outright false) information. They seek to give an impression that the science behind global warming is still in doubt even though the overwhelming majority of scientists have been talking and writing about the same for a long time now. The objective over here is to prevent change and create conditions for business as usual to carry on for the sake of short term profits.

The result of controlling information can be disastrous for individuals and societies. The invasion of Iraq and the subsequent uprising resulted in large numbers of men being killed. This left hundreds of households where suddenly women had to become providers in an atmosphere of high insecurity. Not surprisingly, there was an upsurge in prostitution as these women sought to make ends meet in a hostile environment. The denial campaign led by the tobacco companies resulted in a large number of tobacco related deaths that could otherwise have been prevented. Global warming is already affecting and will continue to affect millions of people. There will almost certainly be a huge upsurge in refugees. Already the number of people headed towards the developed countries has resulted in a massive uptick in xenophobia amongst the natives. What will happen when global warming really kicks in? The escalation in tensions that is bound to occur could easily end up in major conflicts which have a high probability of going nuclear.

Controlling information is not just about control. It is also a mind set. It is a thinking that says I know better than anyone else what is good for them as individuals and what is good for us as a society. It treats adults as children who need to be protected. It views most people as being too simple (and yes idiotic) to be given all the information that is relevant to them. Adults are thus unable to make informed decisions and choices regarding themselves and their families. The irony is that the people who seek to control information are too often blindsided by events. They think that they have all the relevant information that is required and then reality rudely interrupts and graphically demonstrates the flaws in their thinking. In the end, we all suffer.

Related articles

• How Serious is the Global Warming Threat? (civicchoices.wordpress.com)
• Global Warming Skeptics Conserve Energy As Much As Believers (usapartisan.com)

Controlling Information

Information is and always has been key to acquiring and holding power. That is why controlling the spread and type of information has been a major priority of all governments down the ages. Giving people access to information has always empowered them while reducing the power of the ruling classes. As new communications technologies came onto the scene, they were gradually subsumed into existing power structures. At first this was done in an obvious manner but over time governments learned to control them behind the scenes. The trick was to convince people that the communication media they relied on was impartial while in actual fact it largely toed the government line.

Take the BBC. Is it impartial? Most people would not hesitate to say yes. But examine it more carefully and it typically acts as an extension of the UK government but never in an obvious manner. News that the government wants spread will receive widespread publicity while events that the government wants de-emphasized will be largely ignored. For example, why is there extensive coverage of Libya which has a ruthless dictator against whom the population are in revolt but we never hear about the protests that have started on a small scale within Saudi Arabia which has a largely self serving ruling tribe? Why is little coverage of the fact that Saudi troops are in Bahrain in an attempt to prevent a populist rebellion that happens to be largely driven by the Shia community?

Governments are not the only ones seeking to influence and control information. Large corporations and rich individuals also seek to do so. Their motivations are more commercial. Corporations seek a constant stream of concessions which are often against the economic interests of the general population. One way of securing these is to highlight the (alleged) benefits that corporations bring to communities while hiding the costs. Thus Walmart will emphasize the jobs that a new store will bring to a community while hiding the medical cost to the community because they pay their workers minimum wages and do not provide medical coverage. Rich individuals often use loopholes within the law to avoid taxes. They control and manipulate information (often indirectly) to the general public in order to avoid possible backlashes.

Military and intelligence services are usually among the most enthusiastic controllers of information. A lot of crimes can be hidden in the name of national security. The best part of this is that whenever national security is invoked, the notion that the country is in danger can be implanted in the minds of the citizens and that immediately becomes an emotive issue.

So information is controlled for a variety of reasons by a variety of forces. Most of these reasons are specious. The whole purpose of controlling information is to keep the general population in a state of ignorance regarding the true state of affairs in any issue. In democratic societies where covert control is not possible, the aim is to provide a superficial and distorted understanding of critical issues whereas autocratic societies can suppress any and all information.

A Matter of Trust

There is a news report that Chinese trust prostitutes more than politicians and scientists. Apparently, an online survey was published by Insight China magazine. It seems that 7.9% of respondents consider prostitutes to be trustworthy putting them in third place behind farmers and religious workers. Scientists get a bad rap coming in close to politicians and teachers. Least credible were secretaries, real estate developers, agents, entertainers and directors. An editorial on China Daily on this rather surprising finding can be found here.

On the face of it, this result is quite surprising. But think about it. What is trust? Trust can be defined as a person on whom or thing on which one relies. Wikipedia defines trust as a "relationship of reliance." No moral judgment needs to be made in matters of trust. In this respect, it is paradoxically not surprising that prostitutes can be viewed as more trustworthy than say politicians. After all, when someone visits a prostitute, he knows exactly what he is getting. There are no undertones. There is a straight forward commercial transaction taking place with both parties knowing what they are getting. Of course I am not condoning prostitution in any fashion. I am simply making a statement regarding the nature of transaction.

Politicians are expected to do anything to stay in power so it is not surprising that they are not trusted. What about scientists.?These people are supposed to advance the state of our knowledge in an impartial manner. Supposedly facts rule in matters scientific. A single contrary observation is sufficient to disprove scientific "fact" that may be held for centuries. Take the case of swans. For centuries, it was a proven "fact" that all swans are white. Countless observations over the years had established this beyond any doubt. Until the first black swan was sighted. Immediately the statement "all swans are white" was disproved. So in this highly objective field, why do scientists have so little credibility? Part of the reason can be that over the years, there have been many exposes that have reduced the credibility of scientists. There is a mystique of scientists that they are supremely objective and pursue knowledge for its own sake; unmoved by monetary considerations. However, scientists are also human and many have slipped from the pedestal that they have been placed on by the average layperson. There have been too many cases of scientists colluding with companies to suppress negative research or scientists fudging their results or even stealing other people's work.

What is certain is that trust takes a long time to build and a very short time to be destroyed. What is also certain is that untrustworthy individuals and institutions ultimately suffer the ill effects of their actions. Often it seems that such people can get away with murder. However, fate has a habit of creeping up unawares and striking when you least expect it.

A Question of Ethics

Science has advanced at a far more rapid pace than our capacity to assimilate these changes. A good example of this is the debate on stem cell research. Should this be allowed or not. Both sides have their point of view which they are unwilling to change. Proponents say that stem cell research will result in break-throughs in medical advances. New types of treatments and cures for existing ailments will be developed. Opponents generally rely on the argument that all life including fetal life is sacred.

Another example: developments in genetics will soon allow people to screen for genetic abnormalities in fetuses. However, what is to prevent couples from making changes that are cosmetic in nature like increasing height? Is it ethical to do so? What about couples who opt not to do these kind of changes? What about couples who cannot afford to have these kind of changes done? Won't these be steps towards creating a society where opportunities are not equal because of genetic manipulations? Would we want to live in a society like that? These questions have been raised in books like Brave New World (by Aldous Huxley) and in movies like Gattaca.

What about using sperm banks to inseminate a woman when her husband is infertile? Should this be allowed?