When you can no longer trust the news (or why a neutral internet is so important)
An interesting study by the Pew Research Center shows how the debate on internet neutrality in the United States is being kept out of the public sphere thanks to the way that television stations (who are interested parties) are refusing to cover the issue.
A sample of 2,820 news programs between January and May shows that internet neutrality, a highly controversial subject with major implications for our societies, was mentioned on just 25 occasions, six of which were on Al Jazeera America, which is not exactly the country’s most-watched channel. In other words, if you live in the United States and you want to find out about web neutrality, you have to do so online: the rest of the media is effectively censoring the topic.
And in the rest of the world: Spain, for example? In Spain’s increasingly concentrated media, it’s pretty much the same story: the battle is on for control of the internet, which is seen as virgin territory to be divided up and distributed among the country’s media empires. The government, concerned at hostile media coverage and the power of the internet to provide a platform for protest, is pushing ahead with legislation to protect the interests of the major media groups, in return for their support.
All media are going to have some kind of editorial line; it’s part of their identity, and in many cases is the reason we read, listen, or watch, this or that newspaper, radio station, or television channel. We tend to prefer a version of reality that reinforces our values and views, rather than one that challenges them or is at least impartial and non-partisan. But for the media to simply refuse to discuss or mention a topic on the basis of their own business interests is little more than prostituting their role as information providers.
In Spain, the government’s obsession with controlling the media is now a major cause for concern. It believes that it can make its, and the country’s, problems go away by simply making sure that the media do not discuss them. The fewer media groups there are, the easier that task is to accomplish, especially when it is possible to forge links with them by providing institutional advertising to them or by passing legislation to strengthen their hold over the internet. Recent threats to impose new controls on the social networks, alluding to the supposed “impunity” they enjoy is simply a way of bringing into line one of the few areas where we can communicate freely.
The internet has become a vital resource in the struggle to exercise our democracy. It is the only place where the entry barriers are still sufficiently low so as to allow just about anybody or any organization to provide independent information free of political or business pressures. The neutrality of the internet guarantees this. At the moment, anybody can set up a website as a platform to discuss any subject they like, expressing any opinion or world view, regardless of what the telecommunications giants who provide the infrastructure think. Once the neutrality of the internet is gone, so does the principle of neutrality, effectively creating an elite service for those who can afford to pay for it. Think information highway in terms of toll roads and country lanes.
The value of a neutral internet is that we all get to travel on the highway; and that right is increasingly under threat. It has taken a long time to create the internet, but it won’t take long to destroy the very thing that has made it so valuable in the first place.
(En español, aquí)
