Between Knowing and Understanding

Transparency – from the outset it hardly seems a danger to democratic governance. After all, isn’t it kind of the foundation of a democracy? Principles of accountability and the freedom of information seem, to me at least, to go hand in hand with transparency. Democracy is after all “A government of the people, by the people, for the people” (or so I’ve heard) so don’t ‘the people’ have a right to know exactly what in going on? The aptly named “Transparency Movement” (1) represents this very idea that those in power be held accountable by making data available to the public through networked technologies and on the surface it does seem like an undeniably positive development. But, as with most issues that come up in this course, things aren’t quite as black and white as I would have first thought. Reading Lessig’s (2) article, Against Transparency: The perils of openness in government, I can’t help but agree that there is a big difference between making data available and understanding the meaning of this data. Transparency may well be equating to greater accountability, but at what cost?

The Power of Knowledge

Disclosure is anathema to corruption – that seems to be the premise of the whole ‘Transparency Movement’. Where money and power are involved there are always conflicts of interest, corruption beneath the surface just waiting to be uncovered, or so we assume. If the motives of those in power are under more scrutiny than ever before then surely this openness and accountability will encourage a more genuine political environment? At least that is the premise of the movement.

According to Brandeis;

“Sunlight is … the best of disinfectants”. (3)

And as Lessig points out;

“As political disinfectant, silicone beats sunlight hands down.” (4)

Digitizing data streamlines time consuming bureaucratic processes and network technologies ensure that virtually everyone has access to this data. The question is what are we actually going to do with this unprecedented access to data?

The Gap between Knowledge and Understanding

“Sunlight may well be a great disinfectant. But as anyone who has ever waded through a swamp knows, it has other effects as well” writes Lessig. (5)

The problem isn’t technical. It is the way in which this new-found access to knowledge is used. Just because data is now readily available does not necessarily mean that we will take the time or effort to understand it. Those in power are more accountable than ever before, but at the same time there has never been such a risk of misinterpretation and misrepresentation. As Lessig demonstrates, accusations of corruption are simply too easy to substantiate. To manipulate raw data into vague or suggestive ‘evidence’ which while on the surface seems like the ‘truth’, may have no real legitimacy is the fundamental problem of open transparency.

Bridging the Gap

When I consider this notion of transparency, projects like the Futurefarmers’ They Rule (6) are what immediately come to mind. The They Rule site tracks the links between the most powerful US companies, their board members and the government. Like this visualization of the Bush Administration;

http://theyrule.net/map_175 (7)

Its simple visual representations of complex data seem to epitomize this open and publicly accessible means of accountability which underpins the transparency movement and it is by no means a new development.

Regardless of its problems, transparency is an inevitable byproduct of the networked society. It seems that the time to debate its merits has come and gone, and the efforts of all involved would be better spent learning to adapt. Those in power, whether in governments, business, medicine etc, must all come to terms with the realities of the scrutiny transparency brings because in many ways it is already here, whether they like it or not.

References:

1. Lessig, Lawrence (2010) ‘Against Transparency: The perils of openness in government.’<http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency?page=0,0>
2. ibid
3. ibid
4. ibid
5. ibid
6. Future Farmers 2011, They Rule, <http://www.theyrule.net/> 
7. Future Farmers 2011,  Bush Administration, They Rule, <http://theyrule.net/map_175>

Framing and Reframing

‘Stepping outside the frame’, rethinking the way in which we understand developments in media and the industries they sustain – that was this weeks objective and it begs the question; how do you even begin to identify and remove these frames? Frankly I don’t think there is any way to avoid a certain degree of framing when it comes to media and especially new media. The highly politicized discourse that surrounds the issues of publishing and distribution, driven by the economic and political interests of the key industry players, seems to always be reducing the possibilities of these radical developments in new media down to the issue of industry finances and economics.

If the hype is to be believed, new media are destroying these industries; whether it’s the music industry, journalism or print publishing, the argument remains the same and after spending the last two years studying a media degree, I’ve certainly heard my fair share of fatalistic warnings about my future (or lack there of) in these dying professions, perhaps none more so than in the music industry. But is new media really killing these industries?

It seems everyone has their own perspective, or should I say their own financial imperatives and they are all framing the debate accordingly. The record companies are worried about lost revenue, the musicians about how they are going to make a living and on the flipside; the pirates concerned with undermining the industry’s stranglehold on content and the downloader’s just wanting access and at no cost. The same can be seen in the journalism industry. Publishers are obsessed with their ever decreasing print sales, the journalists are worrying about losing their jobs, while the bloggers and citizen journalists are thinking about how they can capitalize on their audience to make a living and the readers are just interested in securing access to all of this content at no charge. Of course this is a rather simplistic overview, but the point remains valid; that much of the mainstream discourse surrounding new media and its potential seems to be caught up in the economics of the matter, the lost revenues of the traditional media heavyweights, and fails to really consider the true impact of these developments.

But if these industries are really ‘dying’, are we all just wasting our time?

Well I think it’s needless to say that I certainly don’t think so, or I wouldn’t be here in the first place. If you put aside for just a moment, this pathological concern with the economics of these industries, a completely different landscape emerges (and a much more optimistic one). With new media comes a flourishing and dynamic network of production, distribution and consumption. Setting aside the disruption or upheaval of traditional media industries themselves, the ability to create and consume content has never been more prolific than in the online environment.

Things may not be fitting so easily into the established hierarchies of these industries but the fact of the matter is that the value of these emerging networks cannot be measured by the standards of established industries. Maybe then, the solution is to set aside this notion of the media ‘industry’ all together. To ‘step outside the frame’ so to speak and start to understand the real impact of new media which goes far beyond their impact on the bottom lines of the record labels and publishers.