Bulletin 7:
The
Dangers of “Spin”:
Information, Science, Security and Welfare
The Bush Administration may go
down in American history as one of the most creative, or devious,
(depending on your point of view) in its use or misuse of information.
Other nations can take a lesson from its lethal language. The US public
has been focusing on a basic ingredient of democracy: truth-in-government,
the practice of transparency and full disclosure. In public Hearings
before a special national investigating commission on intelligence and the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the US, the government’s
practice is found wanting as the public witnessed and listened to the
word-games of Administration officials. The entire history of open
information use in the Bush regime is discouraging. The list is long. A
few examples:
Going beyond the Patriot Act,
(which was passed hurriedly by Congress without debate after September 11
and greatly increased national security agencies’ ability to encroach on
civil liberties), the Attorney General
recently got what he has long sought, buried in new legislation: an
extension of the FBI’s authority to get individuals’ financial records
from private organizations ranging from credit card companies and car
dealers to jewelers and the Post Office, without normal judicial review or
showing “probable cause” of a crime. It also imposes a “gag” order
under threat of criminal penalty for anyone who discloses that the FBI has
obtained such records. In addition, the FBI is no longer required to
report to Congress on how often they use this power.
The Department of Defense now
restricts unclassified (non-secret) information on its website, deleting
what it deems is “of questionable value to public” and anything not
“specifically approved for public release”.
The US Iraq Press Office in
Baghdad is basically a Republican Party operation, run by political
appointees who have worked on Bush election campaigns, for the Bush
family, or in the Administration. Its stated task is to communicate to
Congress and Americans the positive side of the invasion, occupation and
reconstruction. It targeted “good news” to US media in selected states
prior to the recent Democratic presidential nomination primary elections.
By comparison, the British press office is staffed by longtime civil
servants, not political appointees, who have specialist regional knowledge
and language skills; the US has 5 staff who know enough Arabic to be
interviewed on Al Jazeera TV.
For 2 years Vice President
Cheney has fought providing information to Congress and the public on the
input of the energy industries in the formulation of the
Administration’s fossil fuel-favored energy policy. The final decision
is awaiting resolution by the Supreme Court, whose Justice Antonin Scalia
recently went on a hunting trip with the Vice President.
The Administration understated
the cost of the new Medicare prescription drug law for elders and disabled
people by $140 billion until after it was passed by Congress, even though
a government actuary had provided it with the true cost, which it refused
to accept before the legislation was written; the actuary resigned in
protest.
Congress’ General Accounting
Office, which investigates policy implementation, cited 21 areas of
Executive authority which abused science information, including
“political interference” and suppressing scientific reports; allowing
misleading science statements by the President; providing inaccurate
information to Congress; altering websites and gagging scientists. The
topics most affected were those on the Administration’s political
agenda, such as abstinence-only sex education; purported negative effects
of abortions; drinking water and food safety, global warming, and
workplace safety.
The Administration’s
approach to information is to focus on threat risks but not on the
benefits of information to Americans’ security. This is erroneous,
according to a new report by the highly regarded RAND Corporation think
tank. It says web censorship is pointless because potential terrorists can
get more detailed material from other open sources. Meanwhile, the
benefits are lost by restricting government information, including better
law enforcement, the spread of scientific knowledge, response to
environmental risks and collaboration among citizens to prevent them.
All of these restrictions on
full and accurate information damage civil liberties, respect for
government, and ultimately the safety and security, the welfare and health
of all who reside in the US, and indeed those in other countries—whether
from false rationales for violence or denial of the science behind
environmental damage, or of the most efficacious ways to deal with such
health issues as HIV/AIDS and birth control.
A prime safeguard against
government half-truths and misleading information since the early US
Republic is an alert, inquiring and assertive media. But since 1989, the
three TV networks’ reporting of foreign news dropped from over 20 hrs to
less than five hours per week by 2003, as was true of most local
newspapers, even though 6 in 10 readers say they are “highly
interested” in foreign news. As a result, Americans are using new
sources, with large increases in the audiences of the London Economist,
the New York Times, Reuters wire service and the BBC.
More worrisome is a current
report of surveys running from June 9, 2002, before the Iraq invasion
through September, 2003, which shows that more than 6 in 10 Americans had
misperceptions of facts about the war, believing e.g., that weapons of
mass destruction were found; that Saddam had ties with Al Quaeda; and that
world opinion favored the US invasion. These erroneous beliefs were
related to people’s primary source of news. The most accurately informed
used NPR (National Public Radio) and read the newspapers; the least
well-informed used FOX TV, owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns SkyTV.
Without an informed citizenry, the kinds of governments and societies we want, the kinds the world respects, can shrivel, reaping disaster on the lives and living conditions ultimately of us all. Those especially in the helping professions who understand the need for truth and openness in government and the relentless search for truth by the media must speak openly for this imperative to states and in the media.
Nancy Milio, Professor Emeritus, UNC-Chapel Hill School of Nursing.
Journal
of Epidemiology & Community Health. Printed
with permission.
