Information management at new heights

Journalists who deal with public institutions have been used to information management or ‘spin’ for many years now, but in recent times, especially it seems among conservative administrations, it is taking on a more aggressive and distinctly sinister form - to the point where the ultimate result could be loss of freedoms and the undermining of democratic traditions.

Before I am accused of paranoia let me present a few examples, in Australia and around the world.

In Queensland NGOs have been told it is a condition of receiving State Government funding that  they do not criticise the Government in their area of expertise. So an organisation, say a regional art gallery, which has its annual grant cut in half, can’t go to the media to complain because it is still receiving the smaller amount of money and if it speaks out could end up with nothing at all.

In Canada, a survey by the Professional Institute of the Public Service has found that 90 per cent of Federal Government scientists feel they are not allowed to speak freely to the media about the work they do.

The Institute found that 86 per cent of the scientists, faced with a departmental decision that could harm public health, safety or the environment, thought they would face censure or retaliation if they spoke up.

According to the survey, nearly half (48 per cent) were aware of actual cases in which their department or agency suppressed information, leading to incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading impressions by the public, industry and/or other Government officials.

Institute President Gary Corbett said the scientists were working in “a climate of fear”.

In the United Kingdom dozens of local councils are bypassing traditional media and putting out their own newspapers. These are far more sophisticated than the occasional newsletters of the past, appearing in newspaper form and at frequent intervals.

Inevitably, the councils who produce them portray themselves in the most favourable of lights.  

The Government at Westminster has been critical of these ‘Town Hall Pravdas’, saying they are a waste of ratepayers’ money, but to date has done nothing to halt the practice.

There are more subtle – and widespread – ways of ensuring ‘inconvenient truths’ don’t get into the media, the main one being to stonewall. Calls are not returned; information is withheld. When a reply is made it is often by email couched in dense, bureaucratic language that could mean anything, or nothing.

In the past this would not have mattered so much when skilled journalists cut though the blather, found other sources who were willing to give the real story and threw the rubbish back in the faces of its presenters. But today media outlets are under unprecedented pressure as declining circulation, ratings and advertising forces cutbacks in staff. Often media releases and statements are taken at face value with little or no critical examination.

Ironically, one of the reasons UK councils give for the Town Hall Pravdas is that mainstream journalists are no longer available to properly cover local affairs.

As a result, the initiative for generating ‘news’ is shifting from traditional media to the sources of news themselves and that is a very disturbing trend to anyone who believes our national institutions need to be held to account.