Max Ediger

Who controls information technology and how is it being used? How does the use of information technologies affect marginalized communities and in what ways can the churches come to their rescue?

According to Norbert Wiener, the Greek kybernotos means ‘pilot’ or ‘steersman’, and the Latin equivalent refers to governance. Cybernetics, then, is a science devoted to describing the controller in all systems of information, including the mind that steers human behaviour and communication. That behaviour could include everything from the regulation of a heartbeat to the governance of foreign policy.1

In other words, cybernetics involves a process of information input with the intention of getting a specific kind of output in response. In computers, we type in certain information or commands and we expect that the computer will respond in a very specific way. Information is entered into ‘smart bombs’ and the bombardier expects that the right target will be hit with a minimum of collateral damage. Governments provide information to the populace with the expectation that the populace will react in a predictable and ‘acceptable’ manner. The inputted information can be manipulated in order to control the type of response (or output) wanted – that is if everything is as predictable as a well-functioning computer.

Human beings, however, are not that predictable. People may deviate from the projected norm in society, especially if they have a plethora of information at their fingertips on any crucial issue. This information can give them more choice and thus strengthen their potential to participate more democratically. The development and growth of IT has increased access to information for many in the global family – at least those who can afford to attach themselves to the new technology. Those who cannot avail themselves of this information technology can become, very unfortunately, even more marginalized and victimized in this age of information.

In the power games of our global community, the control of information therefore becomes extremely important. Whoever can control information can manipulate, at least to some degree, the response the information will get from the community. It makes sense, then, that the fight for a monopoly over information and its dissemination becomes so important, not just for profit, but also for political power.

A figure called the Jolly Green Giant appeared on American television back in 1958 to advertise frozen vegetables. Green in colour, he stood high above the valley where, supposedly, he grew his healthy vegetables for children to eat. However in the early stages the huge green giant gave many children nightmares. So he was redesigned to look more child-friendly and then given words to sing: ‘In the valley of the Jolly ... Ho! Ho! Ho! ... Green Giant’. He suddenly became a friendly image and the change was successful. Children lost their fear and begin eating vegetables – especially those advertised by the Green Giant. It takes only a small makeover and a friendly slogan to turn some fearful thing into something that seems benign and acceptable.

Today a new giant, the Jolly IT Giant, hovers over us. That giant is the media conglomerate owned by an ever shrinking number of US-based companies, and more and more controlled by the US government itself. With a friendly face and catchy slogans this giant, which should frighten us all into drastic revolt, seems to be expanding with minimal public outcry and even becoming iconic.

The US continues to advertise itself as the global promoter and protector of democracy. However no democracy can truly exist without freedom of information from a variety of perspectives, for it is information that provides the people with the data they need to make appropriate decisions about local, national and global affairs. The larger the Jolly IT Giant grows and the more it gains control over what kind of information is disseminated, the smaller the amount of democratic space left to the people.

At one time in the US, a vast array of locally owned radio stations, television stations and newspapers made such a variety of news perspectives easily available to people. There were choices to help interpret local, national and global events and to take an educated position on relevant concerns. Those choices are rapidly coming to an end as the large, wealthy corporations buy up smaller companies and leave us with basically one perspective. This leaves us open to manipulation and control.

In 1934 the US government established the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. It is suppose to be a watchdog that helps maintain the independence and freedom of information, preventing the monopoly of information in the hands of a few and protecting the smaller independent media. However, the FCC has become almost totally ineffective in this responsibility over the years.

As one example the Telecommunications Act in the USA of 1996 – essentially bought and paid for by corporate media lobbies – opened the floodgates on media mergers. Ironically, consolidation has been most profound in radio, a medium ideally suited to local ownership and diverse content. The damage to radio diversity is staggering: Over 4,000 radio stations have been bought out since the Telecom Act, and minority ownership of TV stations has dropped to its lowest point since the federal government began tracking such data in 1990.’2 There is no clearer example of the big fish rapidly eating up the small fish.

But big media are still not satisfied. Broadcasters are pushing for an end to cross-ownership rules, which are all that prevent newspapers from being absorbed by the broadcast industry. And thanks to the FCC’s complacency, the rule that bars a company from owning TV stations which reach more than 35% of U.S. households seems to be on its way out.3 Steadily choice of information sources is being eroded.

Media mega-giants, including AOL Time Warner (CNN), Viacom (CBS), News Corp. (FOX), ABC (Disney) and NBC (General Electric), have found a sympathetic ally in the new Bush-appointed FCC chair, Michael Powell, son of Secretary of State Colin Powell. He pressured the FCC to liberalize controls on the media even more, further minimizing the number of corporations that determine what we see, hear and consequently learn about the world we live in.4

According to one observer, ‘The regulators (FCC) do not regulate the industry. It’s the opposite: The industry regulates the regulators.’5 And the industry regulates for the benefit of their profits and the political agenda of those in power. The general public is becoming more and more of a pawn in a world where a small number of people and a few giant companies control the economy, politics, religion, power and social relations of the world.

The emergence of these unregulated digital media gatekeepers, able to dominate the world’s political and cultural discourse, will seriously challenge the rights of individuals in a free society to speak and receive all manner of communications.6 For example:

Rupert Murdoch’s (owner of News Corp.) acquisition of DirectTV, as noted in News Corp.’s ‘public interest’ filing at the FCC, will greatly expand its global power. DirectTV is the leading US satellite television operator. The document openly touts the ‘efficiencies’ of the merger, since Murdoch already controls key satellite TV systems serving Europe and Asia.7

Clear Channel has also figured in a number of political censorship and ethical controversies, from its notorious list of ‘banned’ songs in the aftermath of 9/11 (e.g., ‘Peace Train’) to its recent sponsorship, in a number of cities, of pro-war rallies intended to counter opposition to Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Monopolies can do that, especially when what they monopolize is the city’s largest platforms and soapboxes.8

And it goes beyond television, newspapers and radio. ‘The Net has been a medium designed from the outset to be open, fostering innovation, competition, and diverse perspectives. But as the Net evolves into a broadband system, its principal access points to the home will be dominated by cable companies and their partners.’9

The FCC has ruled that cable companies can provide Internet access over their broadband lines without opening them to competitors. This increases the likelihood that the Internet will grow to resemble cable TV, where content is controlled by a handful of interconnected firms.10

‘For the first time in recent American history, media has become a political issue.’11 And it is a political issue that not only affects the people of America, but also has become a threat to the rest of the world. CNN and FOX have become household words globally and they use their global presence to present the information they, and the US government, want the rest of the world to know and believe. In the same way they selectively distribute international news locally so that Americans see the world and the US role in it in very narrow terms. This is very useful for US international policy.

• In the end, Americans end up knowing little about the world over which they wield so much influence. Mark Hertsgaard in his book The Eagle’s Shadow, states, ‘Americans not only don’t know much about the rest of the world, we don’t care. Or at least we didn’t before the terrible events of September 11, 2001. Until then, many Americans were barely aware the outside world existed, a fact that both exasperates and amuses foreigners.’12
• It is no surprise that the international community grows more frustrated and angry at the way they are often portrayed in the US media. This is not the way to build a peaceful global community that can exist together in mutual respect and dignity.

How this plays out in global politics can most clearly be seen by America’s war on Iraq. Manipulation of information played a major role in the war machine’s ability to garner local support for a war that still cannot be effectively proven as necessary. With IT systems that make global communications instantaneous, mainly controlled by US corporations, the selection and presentation of information (input) could be designed to elicit very specific reactions (output).

Fortunately systems like the Internet do still provide alternative sources of information for those who wish to seek it out and this helped provide the fuel for large anti-war movements around the globe. Military and economic threats from the US, however, added to the pressure on governments to ‘toe the line’ and some did despite massive people’s demonstrations calling for alternate methods of dealing with Saddam and his alleged weapons of mass destruction.

In our complex and unequal world, democracy does not always win, and when the world’s lone superpower refuses to listen to the voice of the majority – disaster is in the wind. The attack on Iraq began and we were suddenly inundated with real-time coverage of a war thousands of miles away, in a country few of us really knew much about. Our media were immediately filled with stories and visuals of the march of violence across the desert. We were asked to believe that the real-time reports we were seeing reflected truth, albeit from ‘embedded’ journalists who were under strict orders to report only what was acceptable.

Some 900 reporters were embedded with various UK and US military units involved in the conflict. They were speaking to hundreds of military officials, in addition to those based in Qatar, Washington and London. In fact, they were being inundated with snippets of information by the US and UK military officials making it difficult, if not impossible, to build up the overall picture of what was really happening in the war.13 The plight of the Iraq people was hardly touched upon except to show the brutality of Saddam. This is what the Jolly IT Giant processed and broadcast to the world as objective and truthful reporting.

And lost in the hoopla over the stories and images streaming in from the desert was the fact that the military had taken over the television studios as well. Retired general and flag officers exercised full spectrum dominance on cable and network TV as well as on commercial and public radio. Fox News alone had enough ex-military to stage their own Veteran’s Day parade.14 Few journalists seemed interested in asking the hard, important questions, and those who did were often ostracized. For example, Michael Wolff of New York magazine asked Brigadier-General Vincent Brooks whether it was worth turning up for the US Central Command news briefings at the million-dollar media centre in Qatar. He was not allowed to ask any more questions.15

In television studios, computer-generated graphics of Iraq battlespace were created by the same defence industries (like Evans and Sutherland and Analytical Graphics) and commercial satellite firms (like Space Imaging and Digital Globe) that supply the US military.16 Everywhere the military was present to assure that their version of events was the version flowing through the airwaves and being printed in newspapers.

By the end of the first week of war, the only general criticism coming into our televisions and radios and appearing in our newspapers was that the campaign was not following the Pentagon’s pre-script of ‘shock and awe’. Only a few independent reporters who had the courage to seek their information away from the watchful eyes of the military were able to report that the strategy of ‘shock and awe’ was in reality, ‘shock and oops!’ Markets and residential buildings were being blown up. Civilians were dying in large numbers and the advancing troops were not being welcomed with garlands and cheering mobs. However, these alternate stories and visuals found little space in the well-controlled media.17

When the media debate centres on whether the United States has attacked Iraq with adequate troop strength and sufficient lethal violence, the fulcrum of supposed media balance is far into the realm of fervent militarism.18 Where are the news sources that pride themselves in objective reporting? Few seem to exist any longer. They have been gobbled up by the Jolly IT Giant, or, like Al-Jazeera, are being harshly squeezed in an attempt to push them out of the competition.

Advancements in IT have had a tremendous influence on the way NGOs work and in many cases has also had a big influence on the way NGOs relate to marginalized communities. NGOs have aggressively sought to gain knowledge and experience in using appropriate IT and have been rather effective at getting funds to purchase the equipment to avail themselves of these powerful tools. With the ability to search the Internet for information related to almost any topic, they are better informed than ever. Their own information, and that of the communities they work with, can be distributed around the world in an instant. This has been a very effective way of mobilizing international actions on crucial issues and building solidarity for grassroots movements. If we understand IT well, it can, most certainly, be a tremendous help in our work.

But, along with the dangers expressed in the first part of this article, there are a few other cautions that need our attention. As NGOs get involved in seeking and sending information through some of the latest technology, we may tend to forget that the people who really need this good information cannot get it because they often do not have access to the technology required.

In the past NGOs relied on simpler media to provide marginalized communities with knowledge and skills. Creative popular formats for publications, posters, slide sets, etc. were used to help marginalized communities exchange experiences among themselves, share their stories with the broader community as well as learn about economics, politics and other relevant topics. Even though this can be done more efficiently using the Internet, a great many marginalized communities do not even have electricity let alone a telephone line to which they could attach a computer.

NGOs must not get so enamoured with the availability of vast amounts of information and the power they have at their hands to move this information around that they forget those who are most victimized by the economic, political and social structures of our world. We must not further victimize them by isolating them from the very information they need to become empowered.

Information technology provides such a mass of information that it can become extremely confusing to all of us. What information is reliable? What information is necessary? How can all of this information be effectively analyzed and used? If inundated with too much information, marginalized groups may lose interest if they are not provided with the skills needed to critically select appropriate information or to analyze it effectively. This also includes providing knowledge about how IT is being controlled by the mega-corporations and how they will use information to manipulate us if we do not keep ourselves aware.

For example, a vast amount of information concerning Burma is on the Net. Human rights reports, websites containing the latest news reports, photographs, etc are all readily available in very large quantities. But rarely do any of these sites truly contain the voices of the marginalized – other than some interviews in which the people may be more object than subject. And the information is not accessible to those inside Burma, especially the marginalized in the war zones. Serious considerations need to be made about how information can be gotten from and shared back to these marginalized communities in more just ways. We should not let modern IT limit the creative thinking of NGOs in this area.

There is also a serious danger that NGOs, without intending to, further exploit the marginalized by taking information from them and then using it for the benefit of the NGO. Several communities inside the war zones of Burma have, in the past, complained to me that ‘outside’ people have come to them for interviews and taken many pictures and video. When the villagers later asked for copies of this information it was refused because the information had been sold to a news service and was now copyrighted. Who, these villagers wanted to know, received the money from their information and their photos. Modern information technology has made information a commodity and the marginalized may easily become the cheap sources for this commodity without being able to even access it.

As the ‘middle level’ between information technology and the marginalized, NGOs have an important role to play in making certain that this IT does not further marginalized and victimize the oppressed. We must be very sensitive to the growing gap between IT and the marginalized, we must keep our feet firmly planted on the ground with the marginalized, and we must be more creative in seeking ways to effectively get information to the marginalized and help them find ownership of their own stories.

1. The churches must find ways to effectively confront the Jolly IT Giant and alert communities to the dangers it poses to the development of democracy.

2. The churches must help develop appropriate means for the marginalized to get the information they need and help them develop the skills needed to look at that information critically and reflectively.

3. The churches should develop alternative information programmes that sift through and analyze data available and then get it to the marginalized in forms that are appropriate to the marginalized.

4. Perhaps the churches need to make more effort to create their own radio stations and newspapers devoted specifically to getting a broad range of useful information to the marginalized. This should include critical analysis of the news produced by the mega-corporations. This is one way to start getting back control over information.

5. The churches need to help the marginalized become owners of their own information by helping them become more aware of the power of information and how they can control the information they have so that it is used in ways that most benefit them the most.

6. The churches must challenge the mentality that ‘bigger is better’. This is one way of confronting the growing monopoly of a few corporations over information technology and the information that technology disperses around the world.

Paper presented at the workshop on ‘The Impact of Cybernetics on (Human) Life: The Political Economy and Ethics of ‘Convergent Technologies’, organised by the World Association for Christian Communication and the Advanced Institute for the Study of Life, Jirisan, Korea, 20-24 June 2003.

1. Norbert Wiener’s Animal/Machine, http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/frame2/articles/borg/wiener.html

2. ‘Speak out for Media Democracy’, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, http://www.fair.org/activism/fcc-factsheet.html

3. ibid

4. ‘Media Industry Efforts to Eliminate and Weaken the Ownership Rules, relcaimthemedia.org, http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/stories.php?story=02/05/21/5279173

5. ‘FCC Rejects Public Interest’ John Nichols, The Nation, June 3, 2003

6. ‘Media Industry Efforts to Eliminate and Weaken the Ownership Rules, http://www.democraticmedia.org/issues/mediaownership/oldIndex.html

7. ‘Rupert Murdoch’s Digital Death Star’ by Jeffrey Chester, www.alternet.org

8. ‘Whither Democracy?’ by Geov Parrish, June 3, 2003, www.workingforchange.com

9. ‘Media Industry Efforts to Eliminate and Weaken the Ownership Rules’, http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/stories.php?story=02/05/21/5279173

10. ‘Speak out for Media Democracy’, http://www.fair.org/activism/fcc-factsheet.html

11. ‘FCC Rejects Public Interest’ by John Nichols, The Nation, June 3, 2003

12. ‘The Eaglels’s Shadow, by Mark Hertsgaard, page 10

13. ‘Cutting Through Iraq’s ‘Fog of War’’, Joseph Winter, BBC News Online

14. ‘Who’s Embedding Whom?’, James Der Derian, Principal Investigator, InfoTechWarPeace Project, http://www.watsoninstitute.org/infopeace/911/

15. ‘I Was Only Asking’, Michael Wolff, The Guardian, April 14, 2003,

16. ibid

17. ibid

18. ‘The Thick Fog of War on American Television’ by Norman Solomon, http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15554

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites