Peter Bradwell
Researcher
Peter Bradwell is a researcher at Demos. He is interested in digital identity, technology and the ways that information and knowledge is shared...
at 8:44pm
on Friday, 23rd March 2007
There's a lot to the speech that Lord Falconer made on Wednesday evening. He was trying to pull off a tricksy act - talking on the one hand about how great freedom of information is, and on the other explaining why the government is going to change the rules to make it potentially easier for public bodies not to disclose information. It feels a bit like FIFA telling us that high-scoring football games are really great but from now on goalkeepers have to be at least 9ft tall with the reflexes of a ninja - because it’s really hard work fetching the ball from the back of the net.
The Freedom of Information blog has a nice outline of the disparities between his speech and the consulatation process underway on how the FOI Act should change.
Lord Falconer suggests that the media needs to be more responsible in how it uses the FOI Act. The easy answer to that is just a repeat of the idea that openness is an imperative, and the changes the government is - to be honest - bulldozing through will be really damaging, and for a host of reasons.
All true, I’d argue - but his speech does raise an interesting point. He’s arguing that the media is using the FOI Act to dig for scoops, twisting the Act away from a tool for informing the public. It’s interesting because it hints at the notion that there is something wrong with how information – political or otherwise - is communicated by the media. Lord Falconer expresses frustration that the press are subverting freedom of information, by appropriating the government’s good grace in opening its files for the ends of hack agendas.
I’m reading John Lloyd’s book What the media are doing to our politics. What Lord Falconer says in his talk stands out as a great example of what the book argues is a pretty toxic relationship between the media and political establishments. The media exists for the large part with a growing disdain for politicians and their work, complicated by the often overt political agendas of powerful editors or owners. They have great power in shaping, as it is famously suggested, the first draft of history. In response, politicians looks always to second guess the press response to initiatives, announcements and debates. So the problem in Lord Falconer’s diagnosis is that the government are trying, with the FOI Act, to communicate information that is useful in informing the public. He argues that:
‘the purpose of openness is the benefit of the public: the public interest, not the press’ interest’
There are many, many questions and problems thrown up by that quote. For example, how much can either claim to be the medium for communicating and representing the public interest? How comfortable does it feel that the government is changing its openness policy partly because it is upset about how its information is transmitted and received?
These are all enormously interesting problems. But surely, the answers don’t lie in government becoming less open? Surely these are questions of how the government interacts with the media and vice versa; how the free press has changed under the pressures of competition, commercial pressures and citizen involvement and challenge – rather than an argument for government tightening the access legislation? He says that the third parties are the proper agents to work out the limits of openness when balanced against ‘good government’ – but why, then, are the changes proposed by the DCA, based on a pretty half-baked piece of analysis of the purely cash cost of running FOI? Why is the consultation document for the changes widely derided as being a prime example of avoiding answers you don’t want?
There’s a serious bit of debate, already underway, on the challenges of communicating political information in the current media climate. If it does, it seems to me that the response should be about being more open, and more accessible? We’re looking to start some work on how the tools and practices around citizen, DIY journalism can change how we have public debates on news, current affairs and politics. If you’re interested, do drop us an email.
The Freedom of Information blog has a nice outline of the disparities between his speech and the consulatation process underway on how the FOI Act should change.
Lord Falconer suggests that the media needs to be more responsible in how it uses the FOI Act. The easy answer to that is just a repeat of the idea that openness is an imperative, and the changes the government is - to be honest - bulldozing through will be really damaging, and for a host of reasons.
All true, I’d argue - but his speech does raise an interesting point. He’s arguing that the media is using the FOI Act to dig for scoops, twisting the Act away from a tool for informing the public. It’s interesting because it hints at the notion that there is something wrong with how information – political or otherwise - is communicated by the media. Lord Falconer expresses frustration that the press are subverting freedom of information, by appropriating the government’s good grace in opening its files for the ends of hack agendas.
I’m reading John Lloyd’s book What the media are doing to our politics. What Lord Falconer says in his talk stands out as a great example of what the book argues is a pretty toxic relationship between the media and political establishments. The media exists for the large part with a growing disdain for politicians and their work, complicated by the often overt political agendas of powerful editors or owners. They have great power in shaping, as it is famously suggested, the first draft of history. In response, politicians looks always to second guess the press response to initiatives, announcements and debates. So the problem in Lord Falconer’s diagnosis is that the government are trying, with the FOI Act, to communicate information that is useful in informing the public. He argues that:
‘the purpose of openness is the benefit of the public: the public interest, not the press’ interest’
There are many, many questions and problems thrown up by that quote. For example, how much can either claim to be the medium for communicating and representing the public interest? How comfortable does it feel that the government is changing its openness policy partly because it is upset about how its information is transmitted and received?
These are all enormously interesting problems. But surely, the answers don’t lie in government becoming less open? Surely these are questions of how the government interacts with the media and vice versa; how the free press has changed under the pressures of competition, commercial pressures and citizen involvement and challenge – rather than an argument for government tightening the access legislation? He says that the third parties are the proper agents to work out the limits of openness when balanced against ‘good government’ – but why, then, are the changes proposed by the DCA, based on a pretty half-baked piece of analysis of the purely cash cost of running FOI? Why is the consultation document for the changes widely derided as being a prime example of avoiding answers you don’t want?
There’s a serious bit of debate, already underway, on the challenges of communicating political information in the current media climate. If it does, it seems to me that the response should be about being more open, and more accessible? We’re looking to start some work on how the tools and practices around citizen, DIY journalism can change how we have public debates on news, current affairs and politics. If you’re interested, do drop us an email.
LOGIN to add comments
Comments