Propaganda, ethics and the information profession

Leave a reply

Just over a week ago, I headed up to London to visit the Propaganda: Power and Persuasion exhibition at the British Library with a bunch of friends and fellow professionals. I had been eagerly anticipating the exhibition ever since I caught the live stream of an audience with Noam Chomsky and Jonathan Freedland a couple of months prior to its opening.  Needless to say, the exhibition was right up my street and thoroughly enjoyable. Indeed, it could have been twice the size and I still would have been left wanting more.  In short, if you can get there before it closes in September, I would seriously recommend making every effort to do so.  As well as providing much thought provoking material on the nature of propaganda, it also led to much pondering on critical thinking and its importance both in terms of the profession in which I belong, and in a broader context.

Critical thinking has been a crucial part of my educational life. History was perhaps my strongest subject at both GCSE and A-level and went on to form part of my degree (alongside English Literature – although the head of history did make repeated attempts to get me to switch my major from literature to history, to no avail). Critical thinking is a crucial component of the study of history. At a basic level, history requires that you analyse and evaluate source material. This evaluation and analysis then informs any research into particular historical events or historic social conditions.  If you are unable to process information in a critical way, you will not excel in the study of history. This is not to say that other subjects do not place equal importance in the ability to apply critical thinking (that would be absurd), but I do know that through studying history I have developed a good standard of critical analysis skills. Of course, when it comes to evaluating information in a historical context, the role and impact of propaganda must be a key consideration.

The Oxford dictionary defines propaganda as:

…information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

Typically propaganda is politically skewed information designed to persuade or educate the populace, normally in an effort to disseminate a particular ideology. Generally when one considers the impact of propaganda throughout modern history, one tends to think of figures such as Lord Kitchener, Norman Rockwell, Josef Goebbels or Leni Riefenstahl (albeit in slightly different ways). Each in their own way helped to communicate a particular set of ideas, whether it be mobilising support for war or by demonising an ‘enemy within’ to consolidate political power, propaganda is a crucial weapon in winning ‘hearts and minds’.

Alternative BP logo created by Susan Poupard (available via Flickr).

Propaganda itself is, obviously, not solely restricted to the political sphere.  Whilst governments churn out propaganda by default (one need only look at the propaganda being forced upon us every day regarding the need for ‘austerity’), corporations are also responsible for a large volume of propaganda, more commonly known as advertisements.  Propaganda can be used to influence people’s perceptions of a product or brand, subverting existing realities to present a positive brand image that then encourages people to purchase such products. There are many examples one can call upon in examining this type of propaganda. The rebrand exercise conducted by BP is one such example.

Back in 2000, BP embarked on a rebranding exercise.  The aim was to present BP as an “environmentally aware energy and general services company.” As they put it on their website:

Since ‘BP’ petrol first went on sale in Britain in the 1920s, the brand has grown to become recognised worldwide for quality gasoline, transport fuels, chemicals and alternative sources of energy such as wind and biofuels. We are committed to making a real difference in providing better energy that is needed today and in the changing world of tomorrow.

The reason for its need to rebrand? The emergence of the global environmental movement. The rise of this movement resulted in increased scrutiny of energy companies and their actions across the world. Not least because of the damaging effect of resource extraction by the industry in countries across the world. Needless to say, the rebrand had little effect on the global environmental movement but it did appear to have an effect on consumers:

After the rebrand exercise, research revealed that BP was seen as the most “environmental” oil brand with more than half the market now agreeing that BP had become “more green” in the past five years. BP’s brand awareness shot up and in a poll of UK marketers BP was rated one of the top 10 green brands, finishing higher up the ranking than Greenpeace.

Pretty effective propagandising. Of course, the effect of such propaganda can be somewhat undermined by very visible, and environmentally damaging, short-comings.

Of course, the BP example is a relatively crude one in demonstrating the ways in which propaganda is utilised by large multinationals. Know-more, for example, is perhaps a slightly more worrying example of corporate propaganda used to mobilise public support in the face of potential government legislation. Know-more is a website sponsored by Philip Morris and is designed to share ‘information’ about the impact of legislation upon smokers. Philip Morris is, of course, a large tobacco company with a vested interest in halting government legislation that might impact upon its business model. The tobacco industry has a long history of lobbying law makers to prevent legislation that would impact upon its customer base (to adopt their parlance), Know-more is just the latest example of the determined efforts by corporate interests to protect their bottom lines.

But these are relatively obvious examples of propaganda by large corporations, examples that informed, educated people will spot and dismiss readily.  There are many others, of course, who will not (obviously as some appear to believe that BP is an energy company more identifiable as a “green brand” than Greenpeace), and perhaps others who believe the protestations of the tobacco industry – although that is perhaps a diminishing segment of society as we become more aware of the harm tobacco causes.  What about the examples that are harder to spot, that require more…effort?

Toward the end of the exhibition at the British Library I caught a rolling video clip with various talking heads exploring the growth of social media and the state of propaganda in the 21st century. One anecdote by John Pilger stood out above all others, and underlined to me both the nature of propaganda now and the importance of critical thinking. Pilger referred to a meeting he had with a dissident in the old Czechoslovakia, before the fall of the Iron Curtain.  The dissident noted the difference between how people in the West and in the East process propaganda, telling Pilger that in the West:

“You believe everything you see on the TV or read on the papers, but we’ve learnt to read between the lines.”

And that is what is so crucial in the modern era, the ability to read between the lines (or critical thinking) and it is an ability, I believe, that should be a fundamental skill for information professionals generally, and librarians specifically.

Image Duncan Hull on Flickr.

The use of propaganda raises an increasing number of ethical questions in our current economic and social environment. We live in a society where neoliberal economics dominates political life. As such, the private sector is increasingly creeping into areas that had long been either the domain of the state or, broadly speaking, independent of the state.  As a result, we are seeing the corporate sector increase its influence in both public and academic libraries. This encroachment raises a number of serious concerns. For example, recent tweets from the @voiceslibrary (not by the current tweeter of the account by the way) account highlighted a particular ethical dilemma many of us will increasingly face in just such a neoliberal environment. What if a course was provided by a private sector corporation with a dubious ethical background and if the course materials provided were wholly uncritical of that corporation? Is it ethical for us to provide materials that effectively act as propaganda for the course sponsor? How do we deal with the dilemma presented to us of choosing between pleasing our employer and maintaining an adherence to professional values and ethics?  Should we reluctantly accept propagandising for the company providing the course as part of our obligations to our employer, or place our professional ethics above the perception that it may do harm to our careers?

This question of propagandising for large corporations cuts across both our personal lives and our professional lives. By identifying ourselves as librarians (or information professionals) we are proclaiming an adherence to a certain set of ethical values. Regardless of whether we are acting in a professional or a personal capacity, these values must surely still apply. In the medical profession, for example, your professional and ethical values do not end the minute you leave the surgery/hospital/pharmacy, you carry them with you at all times. As there are serious ethical considerations when asked to prepare uncritical course materials for a corporate funded education programme, so we must be careful about the information we disseminate publicly. This means avoiding propagandising for corporate interests where we receive financial (or other) benefits directly in return, or at least ensuring a disclaimer is clearly provided. For if, as an information professional, we lack transparency in our provision of information, how can we possibly be trusted in providing clear, unbiased information? By propagandising for a corporate entity for either our own benefit or our employers, we have become a conduit for that corporation. And once an information professional acts as a conduit for corporate interests, without doing so in a transparent fashion, our professional ethics are compromised. Once compromised we can no longer be seen as impartial providers of information, but as effectively something little more than a ‘sponsored link’ on a Google web search.

As I said at the beginning of this post, I am fortunate in that critical thinking formed the backbone of most of my educational life. But it did not form a crucial component in the completion of the MSc in Information and Library Studies qualification. Admittedly there was a module requiring critical analysis of a research article for the Research in the Profession module, but there was little to encourage critical thinking, in my view, or to teach the fundamental skills required to do so. As a result, I wonder to what extent critical thinking should be ‘taught’ in a Masters (or a bachelors for that matter) in information science?  Is it adequately covered in existing LIS programmes? Or is there a greater need for learning the tools and skills required to, as the aforementioned Czech dissident put it “read between the lines”?  I’m not convinced that it is, although others may well disagree. Regardless of the extent to which it is or is not covered in existing LIS programmes, critical thinking is absolutely fundamental to the profession and never more so than now, at a time when our values are increasingly challenged and undermined. Ultimately, how can you be an information professional without being able to effectively critically analyse information?

In short, in my personal view, it is a professional duty to ensure that we always “read between the lines” and ensure that those we serve do not have to in their engagements with us. For if we do not break down the barriers between propaganda and information, who will?

CILIP re-brand – a non-member’s perspective

6 Replies

Ok, I wasn’t going to write anything about this but temptation proved too great. So here are my very quick, undoubtedly ill-thought out, comments.

Is there any need for a re-brand exercise?

Personally, I don’t think CILIP as a name is particularly fit for purpose. I’m not too bothered about the acronym (have you seen acronyms for other professional bodies?!), but I do think the name is far too long. Whenever a representative appears on the radio or television it takes far too long to say what the initials stand for. It should be far more concise. In which case, perhaps a name change is welcome.

On the other hand, should resources be ploughed into a re-brand exercise at a time when libraries are closing and the profession is threatened like never before? Quite probably not. There are better and more important things to spend the money on. Although one needs to consider the limitations of CILIP based on its constitutional make-up (it can’t act as a political campaigning body).

Most importantly, however, a re-brand only deals with the problems at a very superficial level (some might argue that is all a re-branding exercise ever achieves – superficial change, rather than deep structural change and that is its sole purpose…the illusion of change).

If a re-brand is pursued, should it include the word library?

Well, yes it should. But it should also include the words ‘information professional’ for a number of crucial reasons. Personally, I think the suggestion of going back to The Library Association is short-sighted and will lead to a less effective professional body. Librarians often like to describe themselves as ‘information professionals’, which is fair enough as we are. However, there is also a tendency to muddle up the term ‘librarian’ and ‘information professional’ as if they are one and the same. It is important to remember that a librarian is an information professional, but an information professional is not always a librarian. Information professional is an umbrella term, of which ‘librarian’ is just one of the main strands beneath it. If the profession is to paint itself as ‘the information profession’ then it needs to accept that there are a huge number of professionals out there that this term also applies to. A professional organisation representing the ‘information profession’ does, therefore, need to represent everyone working within the information profession, otherwise it is simply not doing its job.

A crucial factor to consider is the economic one. Librarians in the traditional sense are declining in number across sectors, information professionals in general, however, are increasing. Indeed, with data protection and freedom of information increasingly important aspects of the information profession, it is hard to see how some aspects of the profession will fall into decline (unless the government decides to reverse FoI legislation of course…). On the basis of pure economics and growth, it is essential that a body representing the information profession appeals and recruits from across the profession. Which means the professional body must reflect the concerns of these areas of the profession and not restrict itself to libraries alone. But it must also not do so to the detriment of libraries or librarians, which must be at the forefront if the body is to have any hope in fighting the assault on that particular aspect of the profession.

So yes, the professional body should include the word ‘library’ but not exclusively. To do so would, in my view, kill the professional body and prevent it from doing the things many of its membership appear to want. It is, therefore, more than a simple re-brand, a substantial re-thinking of the whole structure is required.

What are the alternatives?

Ok, so here comes the bit where I lay my cards on the table and say something that will no doubt get shot down in flames. Here goes…I think the entire professional set-up needs a substantial restructure. And when I say substantial restructure, I mean we should take it all apart and start from scratch. Why? Because I don’t believe CILIP can ever be the thing that people would like it to be. I often hear/read people say that you need to engage with it, work from within and force it to change into the kind of organisation it should be. But that won’t work. Unlike me to be defeatist I know, but it won’t. It would be either breathtakingly naive or absurdly idealistic to believe that it could.

The problem facing the profession, as I see it, is that, unlike many other professions, we do not have a union representing us. Many other professions have both a professional body and a trade union (I often think of my wife’s professional set-up when pondering our own…they have both a professional body and a union). We do not. We belong to a variety of trade unions, some of which are far too big to have the required focus on the plight facing libraries, librarians and the information profession as a whole. Maybe it is simply not possible to have a trade union representing the profession, maybe it will be ineffectual, but I think not having a body such as a union representing our interests does us harm. CILIP cannot act as a trade union in terms of political activities and without having such a body we are exposed and vulnerable. (If this all sounds familiar, I blogged on this before.)

Why should you care if you are not a member?

Good question. In some ways I feel I probably shouldn’t care, I’m not a member so why should I fret over it? On the other hand, whether I like it or not, the re-brand exercise impacts upon the profession in which I work. To not care about the debate around the re-brand would suggest a certain lack of concern for my profession which, I think, stands in contrast to the things I have tried to do in terms of standing up for it.

What about the CILlP general meeting that has been called?

I fully support Tom in his efforts to secure a debate over this issue. I have the utmost respect for how he has pursued this matter and motivated others to join him in taking a stand. One thing I cannot abide is people moaning about the re-brand and not doing anything about it other than make disparaging remarks about the process itself or insulting representatives of the professional body (and I have been disgusted by the comments of some members). If you have an issue with the process you do something about it. So if you are a member of CILIP and moaned about the re-brand, I draw your attention to the key points in Tom’s post.

Anything else?

No, I’m done.

Woolwich, surveillance, politics and extremism

Leave a reply

I wasn’t going to write a post on this initially. Even at this early stage, there will be a million other blog posts on the topic (a million better written blog posts on the topic). But there are some things I felt I could not ignore or not pass comment on. Sometimes the urge to share a perspective on events is too strong not to ignore, or to bury away for fear of being seen to make political points on the back of what is a very tragic and distressing event. Given that, this may come across as a somewhat confused and stumbling post.

Whilst still coming to terms with an event that has shocked everyone, there are already the familiar rumblings about How This Must Not Happen Again. As is to be expected, the talk of legislation has once more reared its head, in particular the Draft Communications Data Bill has been put forward as a necessary step to ensure such events are prevented. Unsurprisingly, this has been proposed by the usual authoritarian figures, principally John Reid, a man who was and remains a keen believer in invasive state power (and is, incidentally, a spokesman for the security industry in the House of Lords – being a director of security firm G4S).

But, as we know, the Draft Communications Data Bill would have made no discernible difference in this case. Both suspects were, apparently, known to the security services before this terrible event took place. They already had their suspicions about these individuals without the power of the Draft Communications Data Bill, so it is unclear how much difference the powers behind the proposed bill would make in this particular case. Even Eric Pickles, not one I am keen to cast in a positive light in normal circumstances, argued that it would have made no difference whatsoever in this case.

Whenever such an event as this takes place, security measures are proposed that, so the politicians claim, will make the streets safer and prevent such tragedies from happening again. But will they really? Will any legislation prevent two individuals armed with knives from going out onto the streets and butchering someone in broad daylight? No, the problem of violent extremism, no matter how it manifests itself, needs to be tackled at a far deeper level than just through simple, flawed legislation.

Whilst it is impossible to know their true motivations, or the sequence of events that led to their decision to launch such a vicious attack, one does wonder how violent extremism in general can be tackled effectively. I should emphasise here that I am not talking about the incident in Woolwich, but rather the broader issue of extremism and marginalisation. Could it be, perhaps, that our political culture is so limited as to push individuals ever closer to the fringes of both the political spectrum and of society in general? Where factors such as poverty probably have a far greater impact, perhaps the way political discourse is framed in this country is also a contributory factor?

Over the past fifty or sixty years (perhaps more than that), our political system has increasingly crowded around the so-called ‘centre-ground’. Despite what many of the ‘loyalists’ on either side might argue, there is very little difference between the main political parties. They have been broadly united on a number of key issues in the recent past, from the invasion of Afghanistan to the need for ‘austerity’. There is very little room for discussion on the margins of these issues (how often do you hear a mainstream politician argue against ‘austerity’, for example, considering the number of esteemed economists who argue it is a damaging economic policy?). For those who take a reasonable position in opposition to these policies (reject ‘austerity’ or oppose foreign wars, both entirely reasonable positions), where is there to go? Given the majority of the media and the political discourse doesn’t really enable reasonable arguments in opposition to the governing orthodoxy (or at least very rarely), it is perhaps no surprise the people shift to the fringes to look for answers. And when you shift to the fringes, where you feel that no-one is listening or representing you, desperation sets in – the desperation to be heard.

In my entire voting life, I have never voted for the Labour Party. The first time I was able to vote was in 1997 and I chose not to vote Labour, predominantly because I felt Blair was, in essence, a Tory wrapped in a red cloak (a very flimsy red cloak at that). However, whilst I am not pre-disposed to voting for Labour, this doesn’t mean to say I would never have considered voting Labour had I lived in an earlier era. Take the Attlee government of the immediate post-war period. If the Labour Party adopted the kind of platform Attlee’s government occupied, I would be more inclined to vote for them as it is a great deal closer to my position than the current Labour Party (although perhaps still not as close as I would like). But this is no longer the party of Attlee and Bevin, and it is highly unlikely ever to be so again. They have, in essence, conceded the battle fought in the 1980s and have accepted neo-liberal economic positions that are at odds with the views and positions espoused by those at the heart of the Attlee government (even though that government was itself not as radical as many would have liked).

So what is left for me? I cannot conceivably vote for any of the major parties, and I am left with the fringes (or the Greens) and I fear that many others across our society equally feel that their views have been marginalised and that there is no-one expressing their own particular point of view. People feel that there is no-one speaking for them and consequently that they have little option but to look to the fringes for the answers they crave. Whether that be radical preachers in mosques, or racist thugs. This isolation from the mainstream and marginalisation is not an excuse for violence, one does not have to resort to violence to express a perspective that public discourse has pushed to the fringes. But one wonders whether the marginalisation itself would be minimised if public discourse wasn’t constrained within such tight boundaries. If, for example, it was seen as reasonable to argue that ‘austerity’ is built on a false premise or that the wars in the Middle East are immoral, perhaps those that hold those reasonable views would not feel so marginalised and consequently pushed to the extremes.

Throughout history, a clustering around the centre-ground has resulted in people being pushed to the extremes in ever-increasing numbers. Where the answers provided by the centre seem inadequate, people begin to look elsewhere for answers. Perhaps we should pause for a minute and ponder whether it is healthy for our society to have otherwise reasonable and sensible positions (moral and political) pushed to the margins. Perhaps, and this seems incredibly naive I accept, perhaps our political debate should be more mature, accepting that there are reasonable views outside the orthodoxy. Of course, broadening public discourse would in no way be a panacea in terms of dealing with extremism or marginalisation but perhaps providing that room for alternative voices in the public debate would be a step towards dealing with the problem

As I said at the beginning, these are at present rather confused and incomplete thoughts. There is no doubt that the murder in Woolwich was a deeply shocking and tragic event. I am not convinced, however, that any amount of legislation or ‘snooping’ will prevent such despicable acts from happening again in the future. The only thing I am sure of is that we need to look at our society, our political culture and our public discourse and see if we can find some answers. We certainly should not look to John Reid and his authoritarian acolytes.

7m people have never used the internet, so why is Universal Credit ‘digital by default’?

Leave a reply

Unusually, the recent figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) regarding internet access made a lot of headlines upon their release (and a lot of tweets, far more than I usually notice when the quarterly figures are released, particularly from journalists). I say unusual as these figures are part of the ONS’s quarterly update figures and I am fairly sure they haven’t received this much coverage in the past. But these figures are important, particularly in the context of the government’s changes to the social security system and the drive to make all claimants do so via the internet.  As I have repeatedly warned before now, this drive is likely to leave many isolated and, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation argue, trap many in poverty. So what do the figures actually tell us about the digitally excluded?

Well, in light of the government’s Universal Credit and Universal Jobmatch, they certainly raise serious concerns. Take, for example, the age ranges of those that have never accessed the internet. The divide by age is split as follows:

Unsurprisingly, the 75+ group dominates, whilst the younger age groups are relatively small. But what about if we split this chart up between working age and non-working age to make it a little clearer:

Now it is clear from the chart that those of non-working age (ie 65+ and, of course, some people in this group may well still be in employment) far outweigh those of working age in terms of never having accessed the internet, but the working age segment is still quite significant (to be clear on this, “working age” will also include those who cannot work – but they will still be required to access Universal Credit, so the substantive point still stands). Over a quarter of those who have never accessed the internet are of working age. In fact, when you look at the hard figures, over 2 million people of working age have never used the internet. Whilst significantly lower than the overall figure (7 million) this is still quite a sizeable chunk of the population, and perhaps a little surprising too. I focus on this aspect particularly as quite often those who aren’t online are widely assumed to be the elderly, but it cuts across all age groups.  It is also worrying as this group of people are those most likely to be affected by the move to digital by default for benefits claims and seeking work should they be (or become) unemployed. To be clear, 2 million people have never used the internet and are likely to be affected by the government’s “digital by default” policy when it comes to social security.

It is also worth reiterating that all of these figures refer to the numbers of people who have never used the internet, not those who do not have the internet at home. The chances are that the figures for those without internet access at home are slightly higher than the figures for those who have never used the internet.  I think it is important to keep that in mind when looking at these particular statistics.  Furthermore, it is also worth keeping in mind that a recent survey suggested that 16m people lack basic online skills. So even if there are a majority who have accessed the internet, this does not mean to say that they have been able to do so without support or without difficulty.  The divide itself is drawn along two distinct lines: access and skills.  Whilst the divide between those without skills cuts across social boundaries (impacting open rich/poor, young/old etc), the access divide appears to be starkly drawn along income lines.

Dividing those who have never accessed the internet by income raises some serious cause for concern in terms of the government’s “digital by default” policy. This is how the divide stacks up across income groups:

Again, unsurprising that the numbers of those who have never accessed the internet tends to be higher the further down the income scale you go.  For those at the very top, it is incredibly rare to encounter anyone who has never accessed the internet. But, again, what if we divide this up further?  According to the ONS, the average weekly wage in the UK is £444. Unfortunately, this figure falls slap bang in the middle of one of the income groups above. As it is impossible to know how many are immediately above and below £444, I’ve made £400 the dividing line:

The vast, vast majority of those who have never accessed the internet and are of working age, therefore, are clearly among the poorest in society (approximately 600,000 fall in the under £400 bracket – which therefore does not include those earning £400-443 who are also below the average wage). Now all of this is pretty much as one would expect, but I think it is worth laying this all out so we can see clearly to what extent a divide exists between those who have accessed the internet and those who have not.  Indeed, when you look at the hard figures, approximately 5% (616,000/12,515,000) of all of those earning below the average wage have never accessed the internet compared to 1% (133,000/11,878,000) of all of those earning above the average wage. You are, therefore, nearly five times more likely to have accessed the internet if you earn above average wage, than if you earned below.

Furthermore, a sizeable proportion of the disabled have never accessed the internet:

According to the figures, around 3.7m of those defined as DDA disabled have never accessed the internet (DDA disabled refers to those who self-assess that they have a disability in line with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) definition of disability). Again, this is a not insignificant number of people who will be adversely affected by any “digital by default” policy.

What is clear beyond any doubt from these figures is that the poorest in society will clearly suffer as a result of the move to make Universal Credit and Universal Jobmatch “digital by default”, the very group of people the social security reforms are supposed to benefit. With two million people of working age never having accessed the internet before, the consequences of sudden unemployment are stark.  They will need a great deal of support both in terms of claiming benefits and in terms of seeking work, and the current mechanisms in place are not fit for that purpose.

There is a very real and very clear divide here in terms of access to the internet, and the move to digital by default will clearly entrench one aspect of the divide between the haves and the have-nots. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation concluded, Universal Credit could very well trap people in poverty. For those two million people of working age who have never used the internet, unemployment could have disastrous consequences.  With a lack of skills and access to the internet, they could find themselves trapped in poverty and find it very difficult to climb back out.  ”Digital by default” for those claiming social security or seeking employment is simply not a sensible policy.  It is time for Iain Duncan Smith to acknowledge the trap he has created and to reverse a policy that is going to increase poverty rather than reduce it.

Universal Jobmatch – it’s a bit rubbish…

5 Replies

Following the previous guest post on the experiences of Jobmatch, an update:

Another day, another wildly inappropriate job recommendation…

Today’s Jobmatch specials for a qualified librarian: car salesperson or MOT tester (image c/o Hugo90 on Flickr).

So, it’s been a few weeks since I gave my last view on Universal Jobsmash (my…affectionate…name for Universal Jobmatch), let’s see how well it’s done in its task of enabling me to gain employment by giving me access to, and matching me up with employment opportunities.

Now, it can’t really be so hard to get this right. I am in Edinburgh. My specified search categories are “Library and Information Science”, and “Social Media”, with a range of 20 miles of Edinburgh (don’t worry: I’m using real, useful job sites for my actual job search!) . So why it persists in ONLY giving me matches that are completely inappropriate, I cannot understand. Unless, of course, it is an utterly useless site? Well, that’s the only thing I can think of that would explain why, for over 2 weeks now, it’s recommended every day that I apply for the role of an MOT tester in Fife. Or a car salesperson (although at least for variety, this one IS actually in Edinburgh, instead of the previously suggested ones in Glasgow).  In fact, for the last week, those are the only jobs it’s emailed me about with the daily alert service. Strangely enough, I am neither qualified for, nor interested in these positions. You can tell I’m not qualified, as I’ve uploaded my CV to the site, like a good girl. And I’m not interested, as they’re in no way related to my stated interest areas, or my skills.

There’s little point in me browsing for jobs by region, as Jobsmash only recognises one region in Scotland. That region is: Scotland. There are 9 regional search options available for England, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are just big, homogenous masses of “people not in England” to Jobsmash. So browsing for local jobs (since you never know when a job title may hide a good job in the details) is a pointless activity, as jobs of interest may be hundreds of miles away from my location. Added to this is the fact that many of the unvetted adverts going onto it are nonsense. Did you know that Blackpool and Manchester are located in Scotland? No? Me neither, until I saw these adverts in the Scotland browse section. Is this helpful to jobseekers? No. It’s a blanket spamming of the site by people looking to employ agents, possibly on less than minimum wage (can you see an actual rather than potential salary in those adverts? No? Me neither). Woo-hoo – feel my trust for this site just building up!

So – what I’m continuing to receive from Jobsmash are totally wrong job recommendations that are a waste of my time, and the provision of completely unuseable location browsing options. Brilliant. A site to avoid at all costs.  But I wonder whether at some point my “advisor”* will ask me why I’m not using the site. I’ll have to explain to them yet again that it’s beyond useless. And then maybe, if I’m really lucky, I’ll get the chance to try out their new time-wasting effort: the personality test.

Oh my! There’s another waste of time, which won’t have the least impact on anyone’s ability to get a job, or to use the Jobsmash site, but will instead take up time that could have been spend, ohhhh, I dunno – actually applying for jobs? This is a particularly important point if you have restricted access to the internet: what’s more useful, an unemployed person filling in a questionnaire that will tell them they’re lovely and should have a job, or an unemployed person filling in a job application to attempt to actually get a job? If you have limited time on the internet, I know which task I’d prioritise…but what happens if your Jobseekers advisor informs you that if you don’t do the test, you don’t get your benefit? Is it a choice you’d want to have to make?

*An odd name that, since I haven’t had one iota of advice from any of the 4 different people I’ve met with in my 6 weeks of being on Jobseekers Allowance thus far – in fact the second advisor had to correct the errors the first advisor had made with my details. I feel like I’m in such safe hands….

When it comes to the internet, it’s not just government snooping we should be worried about…

Leave a reply

Corporations want your data as much as governments want to snoop.
(Image: El Alma Del Ebro in Zaragoza by Saucepolis on Flickr.)

Remember the early days of the internet?  When start-up companies seemed to be, somehow a different breed from the companies that we had grown accustomed to? “Don’t be evil” appeared not only to be Google’s mantra, but the mantra of a whole host of companies that emerged in tandem with the growth of the internet.  Whereas we had grown accustomed to companies that were focused on shareholder profit over rather than the interests of ‘consumers’ or society in general, these companies seemed to be benign, friendly, sensitive to their social responsibilities.

In contrast to the growth of these ‘benign forces’ of the internet, governments and politicians have become increasingly suspicious of the technology, predominantly because it is an area over which they do not feel they exercise sufficient control.  In the UK, this has manifested itself most obviously and most recently in the Data Communications Bill (or Snoopers’ Charter).  A particularly invasive piece of legislation that was seriously considered by the coalition, it proposed to grant powers to the Home Secretary (or another cabinet minister) to order any ‘communications data’ by ‘telecommunication operators’ to be gathered and retained, effectively collecting ostensibly private data on citizens for whatever purpose they deemed worthy.  It appears, on the face of it, that these proposals have now been abandoned, although that is not to say they won’t come back in a slightly modified form.  If one were a cynic, one might suggest the Liberal Democrats applied pressure to drop the legislation in advance of the local elections to ensure they were case in a positive light? Unlikely perhaps, but my cynical mind can’t help but believe there is more to this than simply a matter of principle, after all Nick Clegg wasn’t always so opposed…

This suspicion, however, doesn’t begin and end at the Snoopers’ Charter. There was also, for example, the introduction of the Digital Economy Act, which enables the blocking of website access for anyone who is deemed to have infringed copyright laws but, consequently, also risks penalising those entirely innocent of any such activity.  Then there is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa) used to investigate Osita Mba, a whistleblower who uncovered a “sweetheart” deal with Goldman Sachs.  Using Ripa:

…HMRC can see websites viewed by taxpayers, where a mobile phone call was made or received, and the date and time of emails, texts and phone calls. According to the revenue website, these powers “can only be used when investigating serious crime”.

And it doesn’t end with proposed or existing legislation; individual politicians have also made calls for illiberal and unhelpful restrictions on the internet. Back in 2011, following the riots, one politician called for Twitter and Facebook to be blacked out during any further disturbances.  Needless to say this was a particularly stupid and disturbing suggestion, not least because the very same social media helped people in the area affected by the riots to communicate with others and ensure their own safety.  There’s no doubt that the freedom provided by the internet frightens those who believe it threatens existing power structures, underlining that, from their point of view, freedom only goes so far…

The desire to highlight some of these illiberal measures isn’t solely restricted to organisation such as the Open Rights Group, many of the giants of the internet are quick to point the finger at the role of government as a threat to the freedom of the individual. Take, for example, the largest of all the companies to emerge in the internet era – Google.

Last week, in an article for The Guardian, Eric Schmidt (executive chairman) and Jared Cohen (Director, Google Ideas) warned that global governments are monitoring and censoring access to the web, which could lead to the internet becoming ever increasingly under state control.  The usual examples are rolled out of authoritarian regimes seeking to restrict what their citizens can access online.  Curiously, however, there is no mention of the United States or Europe (Russia appears eight times, China seven), it appears that we are not affected by the government monitoring or censoring access to the web – oh, apart from the Data Communications Bill, the Digital Economy Act, Ripa etc etc.This omission seems curious considering an admission by Schmidt in a separate interview with Alan Rusbridger, also in The Guardian.

During the interview, Rusbridger notes:

But [Schmidt’s] company collects and stores an extraordinary amount of data about all of us, albeit in an anonymised form. Which is all well and good, until government agencies come knocking on Schmidt’s door – as they did more than 20,000 times in the second half of last year. The company usually obliges with US officials. (It’s more complicated with others.) This will only get worse.

Clearly, as the legislative examples shown above demonstrate, attempts to monitor the web are not only restricted to authoritarian regimes but are also a problem in Western, (supposedly) liberal democracies as well.  When the US is making 20,000 requests in six months (around 100 requests a day on average), it is clear that the problem is not restricted to just China, Russia and other authoritarian regimes.  But there’s another side to this equation. A side that Schmidt and others in the business community seem to be reluctant to talk about, for very obvious reasons.

The extract from Rusbridger’s interview with Schmidt reveals two facts that everyone concerned with the internet and the free flow of information need to be worried about.  First are the actual requests from US officials for data from Google. The second is the data that Google collects and makes available to US officials.  There are, I would argue, two concerns about the future of the internet: government control and corporate control. The former Schmidt is keen to talk about, the latter not so much.

Google’s business is data.  They collect data from users to ‘enhance the user experience’ (a brilliant phrase used to suggest that the collection of your personal data is actually doing you a favour).  The volume of data collected is vast and is collected for a specific purpose: to make money (to “enhance the user experience”). These services do not charge you to make money, they use a commodity you are giving away for free and then selling it on to advertisers. The transaction is different from the traditional service model (consumer purchases goods from service provider), but it is effective and relies on your data to ensure profitability for the service provider. For example, Google was making $14.70 per 1,000 searches in 2010.  Some services do not even require you to visit the service itself to obtain your personal data.  Facebook, for example, has been known to track light users of the service across 87% of the internet.

Google’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt (image c/o Jolie O’Dellon Flickr).

The sheer volume of data handled by many of the largest internet companies should be a cause for concern. Indeed, not only is the data collection itself a concern, but also the willingness with which they give it up to government agencies (note in the aforementioned interview, Schmidt suggests that Google usually say yes to government requests for data).  Of course, many would argue that there is nothing to fear about the collection of personal data: if you have done nothing wrong etc. But you are not in control of the personal data and the rules that govern its use, corporations and governments are. Imagine for a moment a different type of government, a different set of rules, a different environment altogether, would you be so keen on US officials demanding your data and it being handed over as easily as Google do now? And what if Google engineered this change in government? Sounds far-fetched doesn’t it? Maybe it’s not as far-fetched as it might sound…

A recent study by United States-based psychologists, led by Dr. Robert Epstein of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, revealed the disturbing amount of power at the hands of companies like Google. Epstein’s study found that Google has the capability to influence the outcome of democratic elections by manipulating search rankings.  The study (available here – PDF) presented three groups of eligible American voters with actual web pages and search engine results from the 2010 Australian general election. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups, two groups were provided with search engine rankings favouring one of the candidates, the remaining group were provided with rankings that favoured neither:

Beforehand, individuals reported having little or no familiarity with the candidates at all. Based on short biographies, they were asked to rate each candidate and say how they would vote.

They then spent time gathering information using a mock search engine, after which they again rated the candidates in various ways and again said how they would vote.

Before their Internet search, there were no significant differences in how they rated the candidates. Afterwards, however, two thirds of the people in the first two groups said they would vote for the candidate that was favored in the search rankings – a dramatic shift that could easily “flip” the results of many elections, especially close ones, concludes the report.

Now, there is nothing to suggest that Google have actually weighted search results in the way suggested in the study nor that they ever have the intention of doing so, but they can. Not only can they do it, but they can do it without our awareness of such manipulation.

Governments may attempt to monitor us through the introduction of ever more illiberal regulatory measures applied to the internet, but it’s important to remember that the corporations profiting from the internet also benefit from our manipulation.  It strikes me that there are two crucial considerations that we need to remember when we reflect upon the role of the corporation (as opposed to that of the state) in the development of the internet:

1)      The relationship between the user and the service.  Unlike traditional relationships, we are not simply the consumers purchasing goods from a service provider.  They are taking data from us and selling it to advertisers to make money.  Our data is the product and we are the vendor.  The problem is we are not remunerated for this transaction, only permitted to use a service under the terms stipulated by the service provider.  They are not acting out of kindness in offering such services for free, they want more data from users to increase profits.  Users need to be more aware that they are the vendors in this relationship, not the customers.  Of course, we believe and trust them because we are not ‘buying’ from them, we still see them as providing us with something for free when actually they make their money using our data.

2)      Considering the volume of data given away, there is a need to remind ourselves of the nature of government and corporations.  Like governments, corporations are not fixed.  Corporations change.  They change either because of a need to increase profits, or they change because they have been bought out by a rival.  You may well be happy giving Google all your data, but what happens when it is no longer Google?  What if your personal data fell into the hands of a company you were not comfortable gaining access to it?  What then? And whilst a takeover attempt of Google may seem far-fetched at this point, remember that that the very idea that Time Warner would merge with a company called AOL was a fanciful notion towards the end of the last century. Nothing remains static in either the worlds of business or technology.

Above all else, however, we need to remember that companies like Google and Facebook are just that: companies. Whilst they appear warm, fuzzy and less stuffy than traditional corporations, they are still corporations.  Corporations that are acting the same as every other corporation before them, lobbying government to lighten regulation, maximising profit and, where possible, shift the focus onto government shortcomings in the hope that their own activities won’t be subject to scrutiny. They are, after all, just corporations like any other and we should treat them with the same scepticism as we treat older, more established corporations.  For when it comes to the internet, we need to keep a close eye on both the governments who regulate it and the corporations who profit from it.

What is the radical alternative to austerity?

3 Replies

Taken at the Occupy London camp in 2011.

I’ve just recently started reading David Graeber’s The Democracy Project. A History. A Crisis. A Movement, an interesting look at the Occupy movement by one of the leading figures involved in its emergence. Graeber explores the rise of the Occupy movement and explains why he felt it struck a chord with a broad cross-section of society in the fight against neo-liberal economic policy. Unlike many other protest movements, it drew support beyond the traditional middle/educated classes and tapped into something that other movements had failed to manage, despite the similarity in aims and objectives.

It’s an interesting read and has much to say about organising protest movements in the face of dramatic (and unnecessary) cuts. One section particularly stood out for me [pg. 27]:

“The main thing that stuck in my head about the talk about Bloombergville,” I volunteered, “was when the speaker was saying that the moderates were willing to accept some cuts, and the radicals rejected cuts entirely. I was just following along nodding my head, and suddenly I realized: wait a minute! What is this guy saying here? How did we get to a point where the radical position is to keep things exactly the way they are?”

“The Uncut protests and the twenty-odd student occupations in England that year had fallen into the same trap. They were militant enough, sure: students had trashed Tory headquarters and ambushed members of the royal family. But they weren’t radical. If anything the message was reactionary: stop the cuts! What, and go back to the lost paradise of 2009? Or even 1959, or 1979?”

Of course, this is entirely the case. The popular movement against cuts has not really been particularly radical. All it has done is called for a halt to cuts to public services, hardly a radical perspective. Since when has maintaining the status quo been a radical proposition? Indeed, when one considers the broader spectrum, maintaining public services at pre-2008 levels (or arguing against the cuts) is a relatively conservative (small ‘c’) position. The radical positions, it seems to me, are to argue for the cuts with increased deregulation of the private sector or to argue for increased spending coupled with a reversal of thirty years of deregulation.

That said, even the argument to increase investment isn’t really a radical notion. It certainly wouldn’t have been considered radical in the pre-Thatcherite era when Keynesian economics was the dominant force. Recent evidence certainly furthers the argument that the programme of austerity undertaken by the coalition is both unnecessary and damaging.

The programme of austerity owes some of its existence to a study published by economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff in 2010. The study concluded that “median growth rates for countries with public debt over 90 percent of GDP are roughly one percent lower than otherwise; average (mean) growth rates are several percent lower.” In other words, countries with a debt to GDP ratio above 90% have a slightly negative average growth rate.

However, it has now emerged that the study was filled with errors as revealed in “Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rogoff,” by Thomas Herndon, Michael Ash, and Robert Pollin of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. As the Roosevelt Institute notes:

“[The authors] find that three main issues stand out. First, Reinhart and Rogoff selectively exclude years of high debt and average growth. Second, they use a debatable method to weight the countries. Third, there also appears to be a coding error that excludes high-debt and average-growth countries. All three bias in favor of their result, and without them you don’t get their controversial result.”

(You can read a further explanation of the flaws on the Roosevelt Institute blog.)

In essence, the premise behind the programmes of austerity around the world have been based on, as the Roosevelt Institute put it, “someone accidentally not updating a row formula in Excel.”

Of course, most of the rhetoric around the need for austerity was deeply flawed even before the news that Reinhart and Rogoff’s conclusions were built on shaky foundations. Take the infamous, oft-repeated, national debt is the same as household debt claim. Leaving aside the idea that a household has the ability to print its own money (don’t try this at home!), the argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

When looking at household finances, is taking on more debt always a bad thing? Or are there circumstances where it is both justifiable and logical? Take, for example, someone in a job earning £20k. They don’t own a car and rely on public transport. They are offered a job paying £40k per year but the job is located further away and public transport is not feasible. They then decide that the best course of action is to take out a loan to buy a car, substantially increasing their debt. The car enables them to travel to their new job and double their annual salary. In the short term they have substantially increased their debt, however now they are earning twice as much, this debt will be cleared within a few years of earning a greater income. Once the debt is cleared, they are clearly in a much stronger financial situation. The debt is gone and they are now £20k better off per annum and their standard of living is sufficiently higher. So was the greater short-term debt burden worth it? The answer is obvious.

And I think this underlines part of the problem. Capitalist systems seem to lend themselves towards short-term measures. Instead of looking to the long term and building long-term stability and prosperity for future generations, it lends itself to short-term solutions that will yield immediate profits, until the next short-term plan is required. Of course, it doesn’t help that the political cycle also lends itself to short-term solutions, solutions that can be used to aid re-election without dealing with long-term effects.

It is certainly clear that the current strategy isn’t working. Borrowing has increased by £245bn more than was originally planned. Consider that for a moment. If £245bn had been pumped into the economy in 2010 to support infrastructure projects and build public services, would our economy still be suffering? Would such investment have sparked growth as money flowed into the economy, into people’s pockets and encouraged greater spending? Quite probably. And yet £245bn has been borrowed with no real purpose or plan. That is a catastrophe and a worrying sign of economic incompetence.

So I look at the current picture and I wonder, what is the radical position? For me the radical answer has got to be to increase spending and reverse deregulation of the private sector. For library campaigners it means the fight needs to be more than against closures and de-professionalisation. The argument needs to be about increased spending. It needs to be about investment in libraries. It needs to be about laying out a clear case for what libraries can offer communities if money is pumped into them rather than taken away. It’s about proposing what can be built rather than simply preventing their demolition. And not just libraries (before anyone thinks I am suggesting cuts to other services to enable spending on libraries – I pick libraries because that’s an area I am particularly focused on). All services should argue the case strongly and persistently for investment. We should not accept that cuts and austerity are a necessity and must be accepted. We need to argue that the reverse is true: spending and investment are the answer.

This may be seen as naïve (who am I kidding, it will be seen as naïve), but the argument should be made and with great vigour. Rather than meekly accepting cuts as an inevitability and buying into the “greater debt is bad” argument, we need to take the battle to those arguing in favour of austerity. They are not expecting an assault on these terms but rather that the opposition will take the moderate halt (or slow) the cuts position. The position for increased investment should not be allowed to crumble when it is faced with the arguments used by the austerity drivers. Instead, the argument should be intensified, not abandoned. The longer people suffer as a result of austerity measures, the more they see wages stagnating and opportunities restricted, the more recovery seems a distant unobtainable fantasy, the more that alternatives will begin to appeal. The trick is to maintain the argument, consistently and coherently. It is this very trick that the right have used to convince people to accept policies that are counter to their own interests. The persistent drumbeat will build support in the long-term and pressurise those driving austerity. The longer we persist in arguing for greater spending, the louder our voices become and the greater support we can mobilise.

But then again, maybe I am just a naïve dreamer…

The Mysterious Case of the Disappearing ebook

4 Replies

I’m a big fan of ebooks. I bought a Sony PRS-505 way back in 2008 (still in full working order). I was  on a task group for the local authority looking into the introduction of ebooks to public libraries across the county and was an enthusiastic advocate for their introduction.  Last year, as a reward for completing the MSc in Information and Library Studies, I treated myself to a Nexus 7 – a device I have used for a mixture of social networking and reading both books and magazines.  I am, I think it is fair to say, enthusiastic about the format.  Bearing all that in mind, what I am about to write is, for me, a stark reminder of one of the serious problems with ebooks.

Last year, I bought a copy of Michael Sandel’s “What Money Can’t Buy“.  It’s an excellent book exploring the influence of the market and its impact on society (go read it).  This morning I switched on my Nexus to have a flick through it, it came up in a conversation last night and I was going to recommend it to a friend, only to discover that whilst it was listed it could not be read.  Initially I thought I’d made an error, so I went online and headed to the “My Books” section on Google Play.  It had mysteriously vanished from the list of books I had bought.

Listed on the Nexus

Error message when attempting to view title on the Nexus.

Listed in the Play Store on the Nexus

Item not found.

Listed on the “My books” shelf in Google Books.

I have no idea why this book has mysteriously vanished from my library.  I’m not sure if there is a copyright issue or whether the item has been temporarily removed for whatever reason.  However, regardless of reasoning, I have not been informed by Google of the reasons why I can no longer access this particular title.  But, more troubling than not being informed, I cannot access a book that I have paid for.

Of course, this is not the first time that a book has been removed from an ereader device.  Back in 2009, in a move of stunning irony, George Orwell’s 1984 was removed from Kindle devices as “illegal copies” had been added to the store, raising a whole series of questions around the extent to which a corporation can ‘pull’ books from your library.  This would not happen with a print title.  Neither Amazon nor any other vendor would turn up at your house and demand to inspect your library as it believes you had bought an ‘illegal’ copy of a book.  Once you purchase a print edition, it is yours. And therein lies the difference between ebook and print (aside from the obvious).

In most cases, ebooks do not belong to you. You do not own it, you are purchasing a license to access that ebook, which is very different.  The only way you can ensure that the ebook you own can legitimately be claimed as yours is if the Digital Rights Management (DRM) is stripped out of it. So long as DRM is built into the text, it is never really yours and can be removed or reclaimed at any moment.  As a result, you have no control over the content whatsoever.  Indeed, the terms of service for Google Books clearly state:

If Google or the applicable copyright holder loses the rights to provide you any Digital Content, Google will cease serving such Digital Content to you and you may lose the ability to use such Digital Content.

My copy of “What Money Can’t Buy” has clearly fallen victim to Google (or the copyright holder) losing the rights to provide the digital content, meaning that I can no longer access the text, despite purchasing access to it at more or less the same price as a print copy.

Now, I guess in many respects I shouldn’t be surprised by all this.  As I noted at the beginning, I have owned an e-reader for some time and I am well aware of the perils and pitfalls of ebooks embedded with restrictive and regressive DRM. However, it is an annoying reminder (as if needed) that ebooks do not belong to the reader, but to the vendor.  You are merely paying a fee to borrow it from Google or from Amazon or from Waterstones for as long as they permit you to borrow it.  It remains the case that if you want to purchase a book and be sure that you can pick it up and flick through it whenever you wish for as long as you draw breath, you are better off buying it in print.  At least until DRM becomes an embarrassing footnote in the history of the ebook.

“Digital by default” for Universal Credit to be ditched?

1 Reply

Is a u-turn on Universal Credit in the pipeline?
(Image Seattle Public Library by Jeff Maurone on Flickr.)

Regular readers of my blog know that I have a somewhat obsessive interest in matters concerning the digital divide and its impact.  Just recently, this has manifested itself in concern about the impact of moving benefit claims online as part of the broader benefits reforms towards a new Universal Credit.  As I explained here, the reforms had the potential for trapping thousands of people in poverty, making it more difficult to re-enter the workplace and, consequently, see a severe decline in their income.  This was further exemplified in the recent post by a current jobseeker on the Universal Jobmatch website.  But there are encouraging signs ahead.

Earlier today, I stumbled upon this report by the Local Government Chronicle:

The government has rowed back on its ‘digital-by-default’ stance on universal credit, which expects the vast majority of benefit applicants to make and update claims online, LGC has discovered.

One source said officials employed the term “digital as appropriate” during discussions.

The government had previously insisted the credit would be “digital by default”, and set a target for 80% of claims to be made online by 2017.

The shift comes amid growing concern among senior local government figures about the government-commissioned universal credit IT systems.

The report goes on to add (unsurprisingly considering recent government IT projects):

A second source from one of the ‘pathfinder’ authorities, which are expected to pioneer the new welfare regime, said the technology was “not “fit for purpose”.

The department appeared to be “in disarray” as it grappled with the scale of change, the source said, and added that such uncertainty was “alarming” for councils which will be expected to offer face-to-face support for claimants.

And it was clear, as I have argued, that the system had the potential to trap people in poverty as one councillor observed that “people will lose their home and we have a duty to house them” as their income is restricted due to an inability to access or utilise the technology.  However, a DWP spokesperson claimed that:

“Claimants to Universal Credit will engage with the new benefit online, and our digital by default emphasis has not changed. Since the very beginning we’ve known that some people will not be able to manage their claim online, and that’s why they will be able to get help from us over the phone and in person. We have been working with local authorities on the best ways to help people get online and be digitally independent for a number of months now.”

So what does this really mean for Universal Credit? Well, I suspect that it is slowly beginning to dawn on both central and local government that the move to “digital by default” would actually result in an increase in costs as measures would need to be taken to ensure those without access to the internet (more likely the longer term unemployed or those living in poverty) were on a level playing field with those with access.  That’s possibly a generous reading of the potential shift. But regardless, the possibility of a shift in policy is an encouraging sign because there is no doubt that pursuing this policy would trap thousands in poverty.  The coalition is keen to talk about the benefits trap, but their benefit reforms would undoubtedly create a poverty trap.

However, it also emerged earlier this week that the government is launching a cross-government fund of £400,000 to help social housing tenants improve their online skills. Landlords have until 3rd June to apply for funding (will be interesting to see how many do apply).  Lord Freud, Minister for Welfare Reform, revealed the fund and announced that:

Many tenants in social housing don’t have access to the internet. So we are launching Digital Deal to support those who want to get online so they can access the opportunities the internet opens up – for example to help search and apply for jobs, find out about community services and to manage their benefits online.

Of course, there is already an infrastructure in place to provide people with support in accessing the internet: public libraries. But given the extent to which they have been cut (and continue to be cut) the funding is not there to provide the support many require. It will be interesting to see if this fund has any impact at all (given it relies on landlords applying), or whether it is just a cheap gimmick.  In truth, we probably need much more detail about the fund, what it hopes to achieve and how before we can draw any real conclusions.

Fundamentally, I don’t think we are going to see a substantial change in government policy in terms of addressing the digital divide. I see little evidence to suggest that there is a serious will to address the divide and ensure the gap between the information rich and information poor is bridged.  However, there is perhaps room to be optimistic that the extent of the damage by the government in these areas might not be quite as bad as we feared. Maybe.

 

 

Paris Brown and the Daily Mail – a depressing tale…

7 Replies

So, it emerged today that Paris Brown has stepped down as the country’s first youth police commissioner, before she had even really started the job.  I cannot condone the comments that she had made on social media, they were appalling and insulting, but I think it is worthy of note that these comments were made before she was revealed in the post and, crucially, by a teenage girl.  Let’s be clear, this does not mean that I believe all teenagers make stupid public comments, but I think we can all accept that very few people went through their teenage years without saying something they later regretted (not to mention in adult life).  However, there is one thing that stands out for me above all else in the way this story has been reported, and that is the disreputable actions of the Daily Mail.

This tweet (which can no longer be found as the account has been deleted) underlines the disgraceful nature in which the Daily Mail has behaved:

Note the date. 6th April 2013 (ignore the time on the datestamp, Twitter sometimes gets that wrong for whatever reason).  The very next day, the Mail splashed its exclusive.  Think about that for a moment. On the very day it was planning a story designed to destroy her reputation, it invited her up for a photoshoot and a chat with one of their journalists.  All the while, they must have known what was being planned.  Frankly, I find this absolutely disgraceful behaviour by all those concerned.  I’m not surprised she was devastated with the story.  She had been lulled into believing that the lovely Mail were giving a 17 year old girl some positive coverage for doing something for her community.  Instead, she was being made to look a fool.  I guess we shouldn’t be surprised by this, but still…

I have been trying all day to ask the journalist responsible for the story, Russell Myers, why the Mail acted in this way. Despite having only 400 followers (and therefore fairly unlikely to be inundated with tweets), he has continually ignored my question.  Maybe he feels ashamed.  Maybe he doesn’t give a damn.  But either way, I think both he and his colleagues have behaved disgracefully over this story.  Of course the press are right to investigate and scrutinise.  But to abuse in this way is disrespectful and outrageous.

One last thing I would add, it also emerged that the police are investigating her tweets. This seems to me to be a spectacular waste of time and tax payers’ money (ironic given the Mail’s actions led to the investigation).  And I sincerely hope they do not pursue it any further. (Edit 9/4/13 20:51pm I didn’t make it very clear here but, as pointed out in the comments, the police are obliged to investigate where complaints have been made. The police are not at fault for this, they are merely performing their duties.)

So well done the Mail. You treated a 17 year old girl as a fool and brought about a police investigation into some distasteful tweets. So much for standing up for taxpayers and freedom of speech. Not doing a good job of proving that Leveson recommendations shouldn’t be implemented are you?

I’ve repeatedly contact the author of the story for an explanation as to why they felt it was necessary to invite Paris for a photo shoot and a chat when they were already planning this story.  If I get a response, I will post it here.

EDIT (13/4/2013): This blog post refers to actions that were believed at the time to have been carried out by the Daily Mail. The story was, however, written by a Mail on Sunday reporter and published in the Mail on Sunday, not the Daily Mail.