A call to arms: what in the world is happening to information?

This paper is a call to arms. We are fighting a battle, and that battle is about the provision of and access to, information. Some barriers are obvious, including culture, socioeconomic standing, cost of information and education. One of the greatest dangers to society is the concentration of ownership of companies which control information and the media in which it is presented, coupled with the commercialisation of information. This gives rise to opportunity for commercial exploitation, and for bias as to what information is stored and disseminated. Librarians have a social responsibility to voice their concern to the politicians of the world, and also to influence the development of information policies within nations. Edited version of the winning essay for the 2004 Jean Arnot Memorial Fellowship

**********

We live in a world of inequities. There have always been those who are better off, and those who are worse off. Since printing was developed by Gutenberg in the mid 15th century, the way to acquire knowledge has been largely through books-the medium which contained the information was printed. Anyone who could read, could read that information, as long as they knew where to find it, and as long as they had access to it.

But humans are given to invention. Their methods of communication and storage of information were not destined to be limited to the face to face spoken word and the printed word. The first radio signal was sent in 1901, and the first television transmission in 1927. Computers had their origins in the 1940s. Originally, they took up entire rooms, and were the marvel of a generation. * Over time, advances redefined what computers could do, and how much information they could contain. What was seemingly unthinkable in the 1940s now sits on the desktop of millions of employees, and in many homes throughout the world. A device which had its beginnings in 1958 in the United States Defense Force as a response to the technological challenges presented by Sputnik, (l) now features in the lives of people worldwide.

Although the early cost of computers was astronomical, severely limiting and defining who used them, dramatic advancements in technology coupled with reductions in price have occurred. Internet usage increases at a rapid rate. All of this sounds wonderful: in terms of science and the dissemination of information to the masses, it is. Or is it? Is it only some sectors of the masses which have access to that information and who have the awareness of need and skills to retrieve it? Are not those sectors significantly advantaged over others?

The underlying problem with access to information for the latter part of the 20th century was that it was increasingly electronic. In the beginning of the 21st century that is still the case, and this will only continue. The way in which information is produced, disseminated and retrieved has become increasingly electronic. Information in printed format still abounds--books, journals, newspapers--but anyone looking to do even basic research into any topic will need computer retrieval skills. The average person needs the equipment to access the information and also needs the know how. This is where it becomes apparent that not everyone has the equipment to obtain access and not everyone knows how to access and use information effectively.

The great divide

This is the gap between the information rich and the information poor. One group has access and the ability to access, and one does not. The literature on this abounds, and the phrases have been bandied about by politicians ad nauseum. Who are the information rich, and who are the information poor? Although one may think immediately of Indian beggars as being information poor (and they are third world countries have their own classification in this group), there are sectors of western society which are information poor. There are two groups of information poor: those in poor countries, and the poor within developed countries.

Alfred Kagan, editor of a composite policy paper published by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (Ifla) (2) calls the rich and poor countries, the north versus the south. He claims that, to a greater or lesser extent, all countries have an information gap. Two of the most striking examples of this are found within the US and South Africa, which have an extremely skewed distribution of wealth, resulting in excellent information services for some, and poor or nonexistent services for others. He quotes as an example a US study which showed that 73 per cent of white students had computers as opposed to 32 per cent of black students. (3) Kagan notes that Ifla's Dennis Ocholla classifies the information poor in five groups

* the economically disadvantaged populations of the developing countries

* rural people who are often geographically isolated by lack of communication and transportation systems

* those disadvantaged by cultural and social poverty (especially the illiterate, the elderly, women and children)

* minorities who are discriminated against by race, creed and religion

* the physically disabled (4)

The barriers

The barriers to access are largely economic, political, social and technological. According to Jonathan Dreadon the barriers which need to be overcome include cost, commercialisation of information, the type of data stored, culture, format, and education. (5)

Cost is an obvious barrier, lf obtaining information incurs a charge, it is discriminatory against those who cannot pay. Herein lies a paradox for public libraries worldwide--either they must charge for some services, which discriminates, or else they may not be able to offer the service at all, which also discriminates. Because of the commercialisation of information, Dreadon claims that it has begun to blur the distinction between public and private goods. If information is increasingly seen as an economic commodity, greedy multinationals stand to profit, and the information poor go without.

Left to market forces, profit will also dictate what data is collected and stored. If this varies between countries, there is an obvious barrier. An example which supports this is found in the book publishing industry. William Wresch asserts that Africa produces less than two percent of the world's book titles and Latin America just five per cent. The industry tends to be dominated by the US and Europe. He quotes the example of figures obtained from Jane Katjavivi, president of New Namibia Books, whose best selling book sold 2,000 in the same year that the US market sold 2 billion books. Her biggest seller sold just one millionth of the US market. (6)

Even in the public information arena there is not a level playing field. Wresch asserts that although there is much talk of an information explosion, major sources of public information have an inordinate American influence, and many foreign ie nonAmerican countries have little information about themselves. In fact he claims that the range of public information available is very little compared to the range of cultures, histories, ideas, and peoples that populate our planet. Rather than an explosion, he claims there appears to be an implosion in which few voices are heard and little of the world seen. (7)

Culture can be an enormous barrier to equality of access. The Star tribune reported that in 1996 more than half the people on the planet had yet to make their first telephone call. In 1990 India had only about 5 million telephones for its population of about 850 million people, which is less than one per cent. (8) John Pateman asserts that there is probably more information and disinformation about Cuba which is put on the internet and accessed by nonCubans and antiCubans, than there is by the Cubans themselves. He asserts that this applies to other parts of the majority world, whose countries are talked about on the internet but who cannot themselves get in to put their own viewpoint across. (9)

The format in which information is stored and presented can, and will, produce problems. With a decreased emphasis on printed material, there is a great danger. A book will always be a book, and is always accessible, as long as a library holds a copy. However technological advances are so rapid that what is state of the art today may well be defunct in five years time. When that occurs there is the problem of how to access it, and how to reproduce it. If the equipment to access a particular format is no longer manufactured this presents a great problem, so provision must be made for this. Philips has recently ceased production of VHS video recorders. It was not that long ago that we were humming along to the song Video killed the radio star. Is another murder about to occur? DVD killed the video star?

Finally, there is the issue of education. Dreadon states that providing access means making information accessible, available and meaning-full. (10) It is not enough to provide the means, without showing people how to use it. Imagine placing your average 65 year old in front of a computer and saying 'here's the internet, now you're on your own'. Many clearly would not have a clue how to use it, so merely providing the means of access is not enough.

An insidious progress

To compound the obvious problems, something more insidious is happening in the background, and it is likely to continue. The irony is that those who are most likely to be affected are probably too busy watching Foxtel to notice. Mergers in the last decade of the 20th century increasingly placed ownership of telecommunications and media companies in the hands of fewer people. Peter Young reports the record number of billion dollar mergers, with telecommunications and the motion picture industry being dominant themes. (11)

An article in The Australian (12) reports that there is a drive by big media companies to be 'all things to all people'. They want to own as much market share as they possibly can of internet companies, television networks, cable television networks, book publishing empires, mobile phone networks, radio broadcasting networks, and the music industry. This example is in an American context but it illustrates a point. Romei and Gilchrist tell us that, despite running the world's biggest media company, AOL Time Warner bosses still have room in their subconscious minds for you--yes, you. This is their dream

   You get home from work, promise the kids the latest
   Harry Potter doll to get them off the cartoon network
   and on to America Online to do their homework,
   switch on CNN for the stock market wrap, check share
   prices and sports scores on AOL via your mobile
   phone, flick through Time magazine, prepare dinner
   from a recipe in Linda McCartney's vegetarian
   cookbook, watch The Matrix on cable, buy tickets to
   Matrix H from AOL Moviefone, listen to a Madonna
   cd while emailing your parents, retire with a Scott
   Turow thriller. You have had a diverse and
   stimulating evening, without once leaving the
   pulsating teat of AOL Time Warner.

The merger of AOL with Time Warner in January 2000 was announced ten years after the biggest media marriage ever, between Time Inc and Warner Bros. It was worth US$160 billion when it was unveiled. Romei and Gilchrist quote US media critic Professor Robert McChesney's ** view of US media ownership as having three tiers. First is a tier of eight or nine huge companies, second is a tier of about two dozen, and after that 'you are in the total bush leagues'. His belief is that the concentration of media power in so few hands threatens no less than American democracy.

At the time of writing, Philadelphia based cable network giant Comcast is playing ardent suitor to a seemingly reluctant Disney by proposing a reported US$66 billion dollar takeover. There is nothing Mickey Mouse about this proposal. Comcast's website (www.comcast.com) claims it already brings entertainment television to 74 million homes. Apparently this is not enough. Its promotional slogan under the Comcast Cable banner states 'it's all about total viewing control'. Indeed but who has the total control, we might ask?

It is not just an American democracy which is under threat. McChesney states that the combination of the deregulation of media ownership coupled with the privatisation of television in lucrative European and Asian markets, further combined with new communications technologies, have made it possible for media giants to establish powerful distribution and production networks within and among nations. He claims that the global media market has become dominated by the same eight transnational corporations (TNCs) that rule the US media. (13) The eight TNCs are General Electric, AT&T/Liberty Media, Disney, Time Warner (now AOL Time Warner), Sony, News Corporation, Viacom and Seagram. ***

However the US media market is still actually one of the most competitive in the world. In most countries, media ownership is in the hands of even fewer companies. The real danger is that, even if certain sectors finally do gain access to information, that information can be the product of great bias. When it is controlled by only a few, they have their own political interests and agendas. There is an inherent danger in this. If this sounds too dramatic, consider the reaction of the states of New York and New Jersey on the evening of 30 October 1938, when Orson Welles' War of the worlds was broadcast on CBS Radio. (14) The broadcast unintentionally sent thousands of people into a state of panic because people believed that aliens from Mars really had landed.

Politically speaking

We already have a reality where much is controlled by few. Refinement of national information policies is occurring throughout the countries that are the major information producers of the world, particularly the US and Europe. If these policies worsen, they will allow even more power to the few TNCs. There could be a scenario where even the information rich become information poor. They will only see filtered biased information because that is what those in control want them to see.

Peter Young reports that in the US the corporate strategies to assemble media empires will have a fundamental influence on federal policies in that country, which then flows on libraries and their services, and society in general. (15) Young asserts that the US national information policy needs to be a balance of public good versus commercial gain, but he admits that there are no simple solutions. He concludes that some form of national policy leadership is required to ensure a continued balance between the social interests of the community and economic progress in the information age, and that librarians have a role to play. (16)

During the Clinton administration, the National Information Infrastructure (NII) was a fervently discussed subject. One of the components of the Nil was the Government Information Locator Service (Gils). Using the internet, a user could search the Gils server for the location and content of information holdings of the federal government. It was introduced because the US government regarded the documents as public goods which should not be recharged as they cost billions of dollars of public money to produce. The premise was that it should be made as easy as possible for citizens, communities and companies to exploit them. There was a lack of information about the existence and content of the resources, so Gils was created. (17)

However, in a post September 11 world, such open information policies have been called into question. The threat of being too open and hence too vulnerable to terrorist attacks has, according to Shuler, reformed the landscape of American information policy to something resembling that of the 1980s. Shuler says it is almost as if libraries and their advocates find themselves once again mired down in the bureaucratic information policy firefights waged during the Reagan and Bush (senior) administrations from 1980-1992. (18) He cites as an example the removal of reports, statistics, maps and summaries from government websites because they might reveal too much information about critical infrastructure failures to potential terrorists.

In Australia, laws known colloquially as cross media restrictions exist, purportedly to fight the concentration of ownership in Australia and thus protect diversity. The reality is that two multibillionaires--Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer--already have a stranglehold over the news and information industry. Michelle Gilchrist (19) reports that most big media groups and the federal government want the cross media restrictions dropped. Gilchrist claims the restrictions have more to do with local politics than the realities of Australian media.

Australia has two national public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS. Given the recent government cuts to the ABC's programming and operations, former staff elected director of the ABC Board, Quentin Dempster, comes to the conclusion that Canberra wants the ABC to be marginalised 'at the insistent urgings of our competitors in media'. (20) Meanwhile, Gilchrist notes that

   changing stance inevitably upsets one of the big media
   moguls, whether it be Kerry Packer's broadcasting
   group or the News Limited publishing empire. Such
   grief is just not worth the pain for either Labor or the
   Coalition, considering how few votes can be won in
   the arcane arena of media ownership. (21)

European policies have differed from country to country, for historical reasons. Nordic countries have traditionally had a more democratic approach in that they have publicised, and made available, public information to citizens. Kangas et al report that in 1995 the European information infrastructure was being redesigned for the European Union context on the impetus of the Clinton administration, as outlined above. The focus, however, was more private property, rather than safeguarding citizens' rights of access to information. (22) One of the main aims of the European Union infrastructure review was to remove legislative barriers from freely competitive information communication, which therefore gives a high priority to the private sector as a builder of the European information network. (23)

McChesney identifies the crux of the matter 

   Since the first systems of mass media and
   telecommunications emerged, their control and
   structure have been political issues ... Perhaps the
   most striking feature of our current age is the increase
   in prominence--for economics, politics, and culture-of
   technologically advanced systems of
   communication and information, that are often global
   in scope. Moreover, the global communication system
   is in the midst of a dramatic transformation that is
   reorganising industries and revamping modes of
   regulation. Yet precisely at the historic moment that
   the social implications of communication appear at
   their greatest, the subject of how communication
   systems are controlled and organised and for what
   purposes is effectively being removed from the range
   of legitimate political debate, as communication is
   turned over to the market for profitable exploitation. (24)

What to avoid

In a provocative fictional article, Aunt Ruth's trunk: a futuristic scenario about the information rich-poor gap, Beth Givens paints a bleak picture of a world of propaganda, dominated by global corporations, where only the privileged have access and privacy. (25) As project director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego, Givens points out that we should work to prevent a future in which

* powerful global corporations exercise a great deal of control over what information is allowed on the network

* public information policy does not have the principles of equal access and ubiquity of access as its foundation

* the gap between the haves and have nots grows so wide that discontent and social unrest are a constant threat

* the gap between the information haves and have nots is so wide that even if the information poor were to gain access, they would not have the skills to make use of it

What can be done

Although some obstacles appear insurmountable and out of our control, it would be accepted within the profession that librarians--particularly public librarians--have a social responsibility to aim for equality of access to information for all. We cannot solve all of the problems of the world. However on both a national and an international level, and even on an individual level, there is much that can be done to break down the barriers and assist in reducing the gap.

International initiatives

On an international level, the Ifla social responsibilities discussion group has been active. It was established in December 1997 to address the role of libraries in society, and has been addressing the following issues

* equality of access to library collections and facilities

* the growing gap between library rich and poor both within and between countries

* the right to know

By using a cooperative approach Ifla has been attempting to reduce the international barriers. Within the context of Dennis Ocholla's definitions, (26) it has been attempting to identify and address the key issues of the information poor. Kagan summarises the key issues as

* rural library development

* literacy in libraries

* fees for service

* human resource development

* electronic information gap

* cooperation between countries (27)

Ifla's recommendations are

* they should develop a research program on rural library development in coordination with national library agencies

* they should urge library and information schools to promote adult basic education skills as a component of their curricula, and also should promote literacy training as a basic library service

* they should take a strong position against fees for basic services and should act as an advocate for public libraries in their negotiations with commercial information providers, and promote a price structure based on ability to pay

* they should encourage library and information science schools to adopt a socially responsible orientation, including the promotion of a strong service ethic towards all population groups

* they should promote the development of local content electronic resources, and should promote policies and develop programs that equalise access to the internet

* they should promote greater resource sharing between the north and south, and should research the training needs of southern countries in order to plan the development of appropriate information infrastructures

National and individual initiatives

Due to the changes in how information is produced, stored and disseminated, libraries generally are facing challenges which are without precedent. Nationally, librarians need to maintain an awareness that public libraries owe their existence to democracy, and that they are the custodians of the information. In order to protect democracy and the rights of the information poor, librarians, individually and collectively, should

* be involved in the formation of government information policies

* act as a watchdog to ensure that those policies still have the interests of the people and equality of access at heart, rather than capital gain for transnationals

* be aware of minority groups and underprivileged groups within their communities

* actively promote their library's services to all sectors of their communities

* promote information literacy development

* promote user education as a standard service in all libraries, particularly public libraries

* promote the use of and teaching of the internet and electronic resources to all sectors

* make provision for those with disabilities to obtain access eg ramps, large print books for the vision impaired

* make provision in their collection development policies for minority groups who risk becoming marginalised eg talking books for the sight impaired

* promote reading as enjoyable, especially to children ****

The main aims are to

* promote information literacy development

* equalise access

* act as advocates for those who cannot speak for themselves

* see the library as a link between the end users and networked information resources 

* make information available, accessible and meaningful to all

Conclusion

The old saying that 'silence is golden' could well ring true--society's silence means gold for the transnationals. This would mean a greater gap for the information poor of the world. Libraries are a cornerstone of democracy, yet they themselves cannot speak. They risk being seen merely as the sum total of their collections or, worse still, as the buildings which those collections inhabit. It is clearly the custodians of the information who can effect change, and who can stand in the stead of the underprivileged to speak with the politicians of the world and of the nation. Much in the same way that a doctor prescribes medication to prevent a disease without the patient ever knowing how bad their demise could have been, so should librarians prescribe treatment for the information poor. Who else, or which other profession, will plead their cause ?

* According to Time magazine, the first true electronic computer was the ENIAC, unveiled in 1946, in a blaze of publicity. It weighed 30 tons--as big as two semitrailers, had 19,000 vacuum tubes and 6,000 switches, enough to require an army of attendants. It was capable of adding 5.000 numbers in a second. (Source Time magazine, accessed online 30 April 2001) Interestingly, since conducting the original research into this subject, this information has become 'premium content--a euphemistic way of saying that you will have to pay to access it

** Professor Robert McChesney is the author of books such as Rich media, poor democracy

*** An excellent resource detailing US media ownership is the Columbia journalism review website Who owns what www.cjr.org/tools/owners/

**** In an insightful paper, Breaking the information blockade, John Pateman points out that there is a correlation between deprivation and library performance. He notes Booker Prize winner James Kelman's assertion that when working class people leave school they never want to see another book in their lives. They see reading as a form of punishment. By promoting reading to children, this could assist in preventing this negative view from an early age

References

(1) Hafner, K and Lyon, M Casting the net The sciences September/October 1996 pp32-36

(2) Kagan, A The growing gap between the information rich and the information poor, both within countries and between countries Ifla journal 26(1) 2000 p28

(3) op cit p30

(4) op cit p28

(5) Dreadon, J Information rich, information poor: the gap New Zealand libraries 48(9/10) June 1997 p 181

(6) Wresch, W Disconnected: haves and have-nots in the information age New Brunswick NJ, Rutgers University Press 1996 pp40-41

(7) op cit p41

(8) Technology redefining haves and have-nots Star tribune 1996 http://www.startribune.com/digage/drkside.htm accessed 13 February 2004

(9) Pateman, J Breaking the information blockade Focus on international and comparative librarianship 28(2) 10 September 1997 p117

(10) Dreadon op cit

(11) Young, P Changing information access economics: new role for libraries and librarians Information technology and libraries 13(2)June 1994 p103

(12) Romei, S and Gilchrist, M Information overlords and subscriber serfs The Australian 15 February 2001 p M12 accessed 12 Feb 2004 available from LexisNexis

(13) McChesney, R The new global media: it's a small world of big conglomerates The Nation 269 29 November 1999 p11

(14) Radio's War of the Worlds Broadcast 1938 http://members.aol.comljeffl070/wotw.html accessed 13 February 2004

(15) Young op cit p103

(16) Young op cit p113

(17) Kangas, S, Kuronen, T and Pekkarinen, P The right to information the new role of libraries Libri 45 1995 p124

(18) Shuler, J Freedom of public information versus the right to public information: the future possibilities of library advocacy The journal of academic librarianship 28(3) 2002 pp157-159 accessed 12 February 2004 available from Academic Search Elite

(19) Romei, S and Gilchrist, M op cit

(20) Dempster, Q Corporations laughing as Aunty starves The Australian Monday All-round country edition, features column 6 October 2003 p 11 accessed 13 February 2004 available from LexisNexis.

(21) Romei, S and Gilchrist, M op cit

(22) Kangas op cit p124

(23) op cit p125

(24) McChesney, R The global struggle for democratic communication Monthly review 48 17 July 1996 pl

(25) Givens, B Aunt Ruth's trunk: a futuristic scenario about the information rich-poor gap American libraries 26(5) May 1995 pp414-417

(26) Ocholla, D Human resource development and training: a social responsibility against information poverty by information schools 1998 http://www.ifla.org/VII/dg/srdg/srdg2.htm accessed 12 February 2004

(27) Kagan op cit p28

Other references

Anderson, D What of the information poor? Library review 42(l) 1993 pp 20-24

Berman, J and Morris, J AOL/Time Warner merger Jerry Berman, Congressional Testimony 2 March 2000 http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/0302ber-pdf accessed 3 May 2001

Bowden, R The information rich and Ifla's information poor Ifla journal 26(4) 2000 pp298-302

Cherry, J Proposed media ownership changes are out of step with world experience Online opinion posted 24 June 2003 http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=421 accessed 13 February 2004

Continuing internet growth seen Television digest 30 April 2001 http://urn:bigchalk.com:US;EL&dtype=00&dinst= accessed 3 May 2001

Cooper, C Pressure to get big or get out mergers and acquisitions a special report The Australian 12 April 2001 p 29

Cousins, S J and Muir, A Providing information on economic and monetary union: a case study of the East Midlands European information relay Journal of documentation 58(4) 2002 pp 396-399 accessed 14 February 2004 available from Emerald Fulltext

Dyson, E et al A magna carta for the knowledge age New perspectives quarterly 11(12) 22 Sept 1994 p26

Given, J Overview of Australia's media ownership rules 19 November 1997 http://www.comslaw.org.au/research/Ownership/19971119_mediaownrules.html accessed 3 May 2001

Golden, F Who built the first computer 2001 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,21861,00.html accessed 30 April 2001

Gore, A No more information haves and have-nots Billboard 10 (43) 22 October 1994 p6

Haywood, T Info-rich info-poor: access and exchange in the global information society London, Bowker-Saur 1995

Head, M Media magnates call for scrapping of ownership restrictions http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/med-m22.shtml accessed 12 February 2004

Jackson, K Media ownership regulation in Australia issued 22 October 2001, updated 16 June 2003 Parliamentary Library of Australia http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/sp/media_regulations.htm accessed 12 February 2004

Kagan, A Ifla social responsibilities discussion group, 16 August 1998 Focus on international and comparative librarianship 29(3) December 1998 pp197-199

Lawrence, G Information poor, information rich: rural America and the internet Journal of agricultural and food information 2(3) 1994 pp71-81

Martin, W The global information society Aldershot, Hampshire, England, Aslib Gower 1995

Martinez, M Access to information technologies among school-age children: implications for a democratic society Journal of the American Society for Information Science 45(6) 1994 pp395-400

Schulze, J Lively to air with large doses of reality The Australian All-round country edition, finance column 9 January 2004 p23 accessed 12 February 2004 available from LexisNexis

Turner, C The European information infrastructure: policy themes and challenges Information services and use 18(4) 1998 pp255-261 accessed 17 February 2004 available from Academic Search Elite

Karen Williams is a reference librarian at the Underdale campus of the University of South Australia. Karen has a Bachelor of Arts majoring in journalism and media, and a Graduate Diploma in Information Studies. Address: University of South Australia Holbrooks Road Underdale SA 5032 [e-mail]

Karen Williams Reference Librarian University of South Australia