Digitalisation: the beginning of the end for journalism and democracy?
It’s no news to people working in the media that the world is increasingly becoming digitalised.
The age of the Internet has fundamentally changed information flows, throwing a spanner in the works for media folk, whose commercial future is as mystifying, yet sinister as Donald Trump’s hairpiece.
The traditional model for the relationship between citizen, media and authority is changing, and control over what the public knows is being exercised and resisted in different ways.
The digital world is like our old mate McLuhan’s “global village” in the sense that, those who have access, have extreme concern and involvement with other people’s lives, for better or worse.
As people converge each part of their lives onto a digital platform, powerful bodies such as governments or big corporations (e.g Google) can look at our emails and purchase choices, make assessments of our character, and keep tabs on our every move.
Journalists, in turn, have transferred their work onto digital platforms, with both positive and negative results.
A positive has been the integration of news into social media news feeds like Facebook, meaning people can keep abreast of what is happening in the world without having to turn on the radio, pick up a newspaper or watch the news. Journalists can give the public real-life updates on developing stories and enrich it with different perspectives enabled by the Internet, and overcome previous setbacks, such as geographical locations.
The obvious drawback of this convergence is that people no longer want to pay for their news. The reason that this is worrying for the future is that true journalists (think the opposite of Fox News), are an essential element to a functioning democracy.
As citizens, we are accountable to the government for the actions we take; if our behaviour is inappropriate, it logically follows that we would be held liable.
But who then is governing, the government?
Without the press maintaining rights to share whistle-blower stories and investigate foul play within government, theoretically governments could do whatever they wish, right?
Turns out, government action has a tendency to be treated as, above the law and not fit for public knowledge. For example, in the infamous case of former NSA employee, Edward Snowden, who alongside journalist Glenn Greenwald, revealed the pervasive extent of surveillance on ordinary American citizens, without their permission or knowledge.
Stories like Snowden’s should not be punishable by the law in the way it has been for him, who is now living in exile in Russia. This is a clear example of society’s rights being obstructed and how a non-government sector needs to be able to scrutinise this and inform the public.
Before you say it, of course, there are many arguments for and against internet surveillance; so let’s just break them down, shall we?
(Source- Digital Media and Society)
What also comes to question is, have surveillance states actually done anything to protect citizens?
If we are trading in our privacy for the promise of effective management of terrorism threats, where is the proof that one enables the other?
Intelligence agencies have not proven themselves to be particularly forthright or honest with the public about their activity and there is scarce evidence,(if any), that mass surveillance does anything to thwart terrorism attacks.
According to Snowden, mass surveillance on all citizens actually assists attacks because too many resources are wasted watching people who didn’t present a threat. And that it has done nothing to stop the likes of the Sydney siege, the Boston marathon bombings and the attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine in France.
He adds that “people who say they don’t worry about their privacy because they have nothing to hide, is like saying I don’t care about free speech because I have nothing to say.”
(This point is taken further by Greenwald in his 2012 TED Talk: “Why Privacy Matters”).
Above, is an excerpt from Her Majesty’s Government. It’s hard to believe that through 50 billion events each day, this surveillance is doing anything to protect the safety of citizens.
Before you say, yeah yeah, but how does Australia stack up?
According to Glenn Greenwell, not so well.
As America outlaws retention of phone calls under an Obama government (note-all other communication like emails are still monitored), Australia moves in the opposite direction.
He describes Australia as, “one of the most aggressive countries that engage in mass surveillance,” and post-Snowden, is the Western country that has gotten away with it the most.
He contextualises, adding that Australian political parties often exploit fears of terrorism, but in reality, “if you are an Australian citizen, you are more likely to die by being struck by lightning or by going out to dinner tonight and contracting a fatal intestinal illness than dying in a terrorism attack.”
And if you’ve somehow managed to stay at ease throughout all of this, this ought to do it. Australia has passed a law that could jail journalists for up to 10 years if they reveal information about special intelligence operations.
A joint submission against the Act, from the likes of Fairfax Media, News Corporation, the West Australian, etc. stated that this is a serious impeachment on the balance “between national security concerns and the importance of public interest reporting by the media and journalists.”
The submission goes on to say that the Act may, “have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and freedom of the media, hindering news gathering to the detriment of Australia’s place amongst modern democracies.”
Government bodies should not have rights that put them above the law and away from the questioning of the public. For our society to be a democracy, and not an oligarchy (which it arguably is already), journalists play a pivotal role, and their rights are essential.
Journalists are there to be the voice of the people and are there to act in the public’s interest, without government constraint.
(Chomsky’s take: https://youtu.be/h-gjxVwyjgg?t=20s)
Perhaps the problem is this: both “democracy” and “terrorism” are empty words.
As important as the media is for citizens to be informed, the use of the word terrorism is inconsistent, reflects a Western bias and resembles propaganda.
The same can arguably be said of democracy.
Democracy is often treated as a static concept that we either practice effectively, live up to honourably, or are unable to attain. It is, however, based on an ideal and subject to many interpretations.
The Panama Papers showcase another example of powerful figures (largely politicians) who place assets in offshore accounts to avoid taxes. While this is agreed to be wrong on an ethical level, this not illegal.
Because Western societies are typically controlled by the wealthiest, laws are enacted to best serve their interests. The Panama Papers prove to be yet another example of what is deemed to not be in the “public interest” in the eyes of the government.
So these are some of the implications for unaccountability of government, but what are the effects on citizens?
A recent Oxford study has found empirical research on the “chilling” effects surveillance of citizens has to their behaviour. Washington Post describes this phenomenon:“if we think that authorities are watching our online actions, we might stop visiting certain websites or not say certain things just to avoid seeming suspicious.”
The study showed that post-Snowden, people were afraid of even reading up on information related to terrorism or national security, which poses a “real threat to true democratic debate.”
There are also numerous psychological studies finding the behaviour of those under monitoring to be far more compliant, conformist and submissive than their counterparts.
Below is an excerpt from Greenwald’s experience of this compliant, fearful behaviour through his pieces on WikiLeaks.
This idea of altering behaviour due to the fear that at any time you may be being watched has it’s roots centuries ago, in philosopher Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon model.
This also is eerily mirrored in a famous passage from George Orwell’s 1984:
A recent case of the FBI taking Apple to court, for not complying with their demands to create an encryption “back-door” to iPhones, highlights the readiness of government authorities to have an “all-access card” to our phones, which increasingly holds all of our private information.
As terrifying as all of this is, the main thing for me that rings home is the utter importance of government accountability.
To have this, journalists need to have the protection of the law and the means to make government, too feel as if at any moment they may be being watched.
The battleground between privacy and surveillance will only worsen as the world becomes more digitalised. Without the press, governments would be in an untouchable state of power, which is why the need for journalism is more imperative now than ever.
