Information Technology and the Media

from a paraliberal point of view

New Publication Patterns
and Public Discourse

This article has been accepted for the II North Wind conference 'Scandinavian World in Education and Culture of Ukraine', which will take place in Poltava, Ukraine, on May 11-13, 2017. The article will be published (possibly after some revision) in the conference organizers' journal after the conference.

The character of written communication is subject to dramatic changes at the present time, mostly due to the developments in information technology. This includes changes in the physical appearance of texts and in the ways they are communicated, but it also includes changes in the character of the texts themselves. The ongoing shift in the direction of shorter and shorter texts, in newspaper articles for example, is only the most obvious example of this trend.

In my talk I wish to address the likely consequences of these ongoing changes on the public discourse in our society, that is, the exchange of news, facts, opinions, and value judgements that occurs through the daily press, through blogs and websites, and through other text-oriented media. I shall focus in particular on articles that combine factual statements and value statements, and their role in the evolution of values in a modern society.

Besides discussing the consequences of the new technology, I shall also discuss the new opportunities that it offers for improving the public discourse. In this context I shall describe a prototype system and an experiment with these opportunities. However I shall only discuss the publication of written text, so media that transmit video or voice signals will not be included in my topic.

The Merging of Publication Categories

Let me focus at first on the disappearance of a traditional distinction. We are used to dealing with three major types of text in the context of public discourse: newspaper articles that are typically read on arrival and rarely revisited; scientific articles that have an archival status so that they are intended to be valid for long periods of time; and monographs that are also intended to be long-lived, but which are able to investigate a complex topic thoroughly due to their bigger size.

Modern information technology has made it possible for each author to be their own publisher, and this opportunity is being used for all three types of text. Personal blogs may publish articles that resemble newspaper articles, and researchers may put their articles on-line as 'preprints' before they appear in a conventional journal. In several countries it has also become quite easy to create your personal publishing company and to use it for publishing your own books.

However, this very same information technology is also having the effect of eroding the traditional difference between read-once articles, archival articles, and books. As newspapers are made available on-line for electronic subscribers, it is straightforward to keep them on-line for a longer period of time. In the case of Sweden, articles in major newspapers since around year 2000 are usually available on-line in a permanent way, and one major newspaper (Svenska Dagbladet) has put all its articles since the 1880's on line.

In my Infomedia project I have had the occasion to look at selected parts of this large body of articles, and it turns out that a significant number of them may be of lasting interest for serious readers, both because of their topic, and for their style. This suggests that a significant part of 'newsprint' ought to be considered as 'archival', and that one should look for ways of making them not only technically, but also effectively available.

Similarly, the use of electronic distribution relieves newspapers from the constraint of the cost of paper, and we see many examples of how they begin to publish 'long articles', as done for example in The Guardian. We have also seen examples of how a newspaper has published a series of articles which taken together has the character of a book. This has recently been done by Aftonbladet in Sweden, for example.

Finally, as researchers we are aware of the expectation that we should contribute new scientific insights to society at large, and not merely to our colleagues in our own speciality. At the same time, it is notoriously difficult for a scientist to get their article published in a regular newspaper. The use of self-publication of articles that address an audience outside one's own discipline may offer a solution to this problem.

Who are the authors ?

The changes in information technology for publication has had another important effect, namely, an enormous increase in the number of authors. In this case the word 'authors' refers to all those who prepare articles and make them publicly available, in particular using the Internet. Most of them are amateurs, of course, but the boundary between professionals and amateurs is yet another example of a boundary that crumbles under the impact of new technology.

Is this development a good one or a bad one? This question can only be addressed from the point of view of society's interests, since clearly the activity of writing is a source of great personal satisfaction for those who have taken it up. From the point of view of the individual reader, on the other hand, this issue is moot since no one is forced to read anything against their will.

The effects on society are instead being recognized as a reason for concern, and most of the attention has focussed on the problem of 'fake news'. We must notice however that the problem there does not lie in the sheer number of authors, but in a combination of two other factors: the proliferation of unaccountable authors, and the distribution of articles using 'likes' and other similar mechanism for recommendation from person to person. Each one of those factors taken alone could not have had such a strong impact as we have seen them have when they have occured together.

The erosion of quality control for publications

The possibilities of the new technology, and the disappearance of traditional distinctions with respect to publications, are having an effect on the overall quality of the public discourse in the sense that was defined above, and the occurrence of 'fake news' is only one example of this. Another aspect of this development needs particular attention as well, namely, the reduced role of the publisher's responsibility.

When printing technology arrived, it was common in most countries to have a mechanism of government censorship as a safeguard against the publication of inappropriate materials. Later on it was replaced by a principle where publishers could publish their material under their own responsibility, but where they would be taken to court afterwards if they had transgressed the rules of the law. This principle was introduced in Sweden/Finland in 1767, so we are just celegrating the 250 year anniversary of the freedom of the press in our two countries.

The problem that we see today is that the number of 'publishers' has increased dramatically, if by publisher we mean anyone that makes texts publicly available. It would be unthinkable to go back to a system of censorship, of course, but we do not yet have any good way of dealing with this new problem. But we can see, for example, how traditional newspapers that maintain a high standard in what they publish are having difficulty competing with other publishers that do not adhere to the same standards in this respect.

Of values and facts

Many of the articles in the public discourse are concerned with a combination of values and facts. They may report on a recent incident that was contrary to established values in the community, including but not restricted to criminal acts. Such articles may report on acts by an ordinary citizen, or by a politician or some other public figure.

Other articles in public discourse may argue for the revival of certain values that are (claimed to be) traditional ones. Yet others may propose to abandon such traditional values, but in either case the argument must normally be supported by concrete examples. If the application of a traditional value in a situation leads to results that are contrary to another traditional value, then this may be used as an argument why one or the other of these two values should be repealed, or at least restricted.

One interesting case is for articles that refer to a major current problem in society and that analyze the problem as being due to a lack of respect for certain values, traditional or not.

Since this conference shall address the topic of European values, it is particularly interesting here to discuss the role of public discourse in the formation, adoption, and application of values in society. In this context it is important to keep in mind how values interact with facts. The combination of values, however respectable, with 'fake news' can obviously be misleading and have very detrimental effects. But for all the attention that is presently devoted to the issue of 'fake news' as such, we should also be aware of the role of public discourse for the evolution of the values themselves in society. In particular, the convergence or divergence of values within a country is of paramount importance for the peace and the dedication of its citizens.

Is it meaningful to discuss the European values?

The notion of European values may be interpreted legalistically or empirically: it may refer to an officially enacted declaration, or to observed attitudes of European citizens. For the former interpretation it is natural to refer to the Charter of Fundamental Rights that the EU proclaimed in year 2000 and made legally binding in year 2009. The observed attitudes show considerable variation, as one may expect, but they are arguably consistent with the spirit of the Chapter. (See the references at the end of this article).

The idea of discussing the European values may seem odd under both of these interpretations. The Charter of Fundamental Rights has been enacted and can not easily be changed, and people think what they think anyway. However, a person's values can change over time, and the same holds for the values in a nation. What we have called the public discourse is a major factor in that process, and therefore it is important to discuss the role of media -- both classical media and the contemporary ones -- in the formation and modification of values in society.

A possible objection may be that the Charter has been enacted and therefore there is no point in discussing it. However, the statements in the Charter must be seen as general principles, and not as detailed prescriptions. Most of these principles are accompanied by exceptions, and these exceptions may be discussed and modified. For example, 'freedom of expression' in speech and in writing is not unlimited, and most countries have rules against hate speech. Discussion about the actual use and the actual limits of the principles in the Charter may contribute to a better understanding of them, and also to a gradual evolution of their meaning.

Value communities

In order to think constructively about these issues it is useful to use the concept of value communities. A value community is defined as a group of persons whose values are sufficiently similar that these persons can have a useful and constructive discussion about them.

A value community can be useful for its members since it facilitates the application of values to concrete situations, and since it can effectively convey a set of values to young members of the group. But in addition, a value community can also be a forum for the gradual evolution of values in the face of new realities. The arrival of new publication technology is an example of a development that may lead to a revision of established values, in particular with respect to copyright.

These aspects of a value community work best if there is a moderate variety of values among its members. If all the members have exactly the same values then they will not be discussed there, but only used for judgements. If the members' values are too dissimilar, on the other hand, then both discussion and common judgements become impossible.

In line with this, I think of values - including European values - as something that is in perpetual change in a society, although usually slow change. If a value community is not able to question, discuss, and revise its own values, so that they instead become a fixed doctrine, then such a community is not capable of adapting to changing circumstances.

In the same vein, if one sees a need to improve the consensus about values in a society, then the way to do that is to make sure that everyone is engaged in the ongoing discussion about values. Just telling people what values they should adopt does not lead anywhere. But by 'everyone' I mean not just 'every individual' but also 'all the existing, small-size value communitities in the society'. And when I say 'discussion about values' I include the discussion about concrete cases where values are involved. Discussing the values in themselves is sometimes a hot topic, but discussion of what values shall apply in actual situations is also important. In the long run such discussions may contribute to the revision of values as well.

Private discourse and public discourse

Let us return then to news media and the public discourse. What can be the role of that discourse in the application and the evolution of values in a modern society? After all, if you think of a 'value community' as a group of people that exchange views about values and their application, this brings to mind a family, a group of friends, or a group of colleagues that are working together. It is in such groups that the combination of values and facts are often debated. But is it also possible to form a value community that communicates through the media and using written text?

Again we have to be aware of how things are changing. Traditionally there was a difference between the public debate and the private debate, where the former was conducted by a limited number of 'opinion formers' in public media, and the latter was conducted in social contexts of limited size. The ordinary citizen was a spectator for the former debate, and an active participant in the latter one. This distinction is also being eroded, along with the other borderlines that were mentioned above, and for the same reasons: the use of information technology has made it possible for many more people to make their contributions to the public debate.

But although the number of 'authors' has increased dramatically, they are still a minority in the total population. And for those who are not authors even in this sense, there is still a difference between their private 'value community' of family and friends, and the national or at least public community that they adhere to. The former is an environment for exchange of opinions; the latter is for them an environment where they listen to the public discourse.

The crucial question is then: how do the contents of the public discourse influence the private one? And one important part of this question is: what can the public discourse contribute that improves the quality of the private one?

Three answers come to mind for this question:
-- providing a broader perspective that can involve new concepts and ideas,
-- providing additional facts,
-- contradiction and correction of false statements that may have occurred in the local discourse.

It is often said that the contemporary forms of discourse tend to create 'opinion bubbles' where the persons that inhabit a bubble only receive information that supports the opinions that they have already. The proposed remedy for this condition is usually that people must learn to be critical, and to check the sources in order verify that the information they receive is in fact correct. (See the references at the end of this article).

This is not a realistic proposal, unfortunately: we can not expect the ordinary person to retrieve and interpret the source information. In the next section I shall describe an alternative approach which has some similarities with the safeguards for correctness that are used in the scientific literature.

Outline of a discourse publication infrastructure

The following is a preliminary scetch of how quality control can be organized for the written documents that constitute public discourse. The following basic principles are adopted:
-- to create standard formats whereby authors (still in the broad sense) are able to include references to sources in any text that they write;
-- for on-line documents that may be of interest as sources in this sense, to create a mechanism whereby such documents can be labelled as 'verifiable' and as 'endorsed';
-- to try to create an attitude among readers whereby they will only trust and rely on texts that do contain references to source information in the form of verifiable and/or endorsed documents;
-- to create means for the validation of sources, as well as text display software whereby references to unreliable sources are accompanied with warning flags.

The difference between 'verifiable' and 'endorsed' would work as follows. A document is 'verifiable' if it is associated with a debate facility where users can file objections and contrary arguments to what is claimed in the document. A document is 'endorsed' if it is associated with positive recommendations from qualified sources.

In such a publication environment, each prospective source document and each endorsing institution should be seen as an identfiable entity in the information world, and the web of objections, responses to objections, and endorsements should be a publicly available structure. This would provide the infrastructure that could provide the warning flags that were described above.

This design requires a number of openness conditions in order to work properly. It requires that the identifiers for all documents in the structure are freely available, and unambigous, and that the documents themselves are freely available and that they are guaranteed not to change over time. It also requires that the facility for objections and debate about an information item is administrated correctly, and that it is tamper free.

One very important condition is that the facility for objections and debate is separate from the individual author and publisher, and also that it is a general-purpose or 'world-wide' service.

Some other conditions must also be satisfied. One possible way of disrupting the system would be to flood it with irrelevant contributions, for example in the 'objections' facility. One step towards preventing such disruptions may be to require debate contributions to be 'well founded' according to the same rules as for entire articles.

An experimental prototype

A prototype system for experimenting with these ideas has been developed in my Infomedia project at the Department of Computer and Information Science at Linköping University in Sweden. The system is basically conceived as a tool for a person who wishes to contribute to the public discourse in a particular area. It centers around a website that is called 'Arguments and facts', or www.argumentochfakta.se and that has two major parts. One part is a forum for articles in the website's area of interest; the other part is a clipping library or 'cliplib'. The latter is basically a catalogue of links to newspaper articles and other useful documents that are available on-line on the Internet. Each document is therefore described by its title, author, date and place of publication, and an identifer that can be used for referring to this document from other ones.

The clipping library contains more than 1600 articles at present, most of them in Swedish but many also in other languages (in English, German, and French, and in other Scandinavian languages). The major reason for having this clipping library is that the items there shall be effectively usable as references in articles. The fact that each article is associated with a unique identifier provides a starting point for the discussion and validation facilities that were described above.

The importance of references

This has been an outline for an infrastructure for public discourse. The major goal for that design is that it should facilitate the use of cross-references between published documents. With modern technology such cross-references can be made using clickable links, and not merely with a list of references at the end of an article, which greatly increases the chances that the reader will follow them up. And there are several important uses for such links: from an article to its sources; from a debate article to earlier articles that it argues against; from an argument in a discussion to an earlier argument that it refutes; and many other uses.

The widespread use of such a publication style should be very beneficial for both the public and the private discourse. The use of 'clickable' links in articles and other documents is important in two ways: by its sheer convenience it invites readers to track sources and other related information, it also encourages readers to check contrary arguments and points of view, and finally it makes it possible to have automatic means of assessing the credibility of sources and of documents. Since one must assume that information from the public discourse spreads into the private one, this style of publication should have positive effects on the complementary private discourse as well.

Several factors must be present for this to happen. There must be transparent, universal system for referring to earlier documents or parts of documents. (Merely using a web address (URL) is not good enough). Authors must have an incentive for including references in their articles. Readers must have an attitude of disregarding articles that do not contain adequate references. Finally there must be software support that administrates the 'web' of cross-references and uses it for assigning quality marks on published 'documents' both large and small.

The decisive one among these factors will be the attitude of readers. If readers will only be interested in articles and notes that contain references and whose quality has been validated, then authors will provide them in order to be read, and the required software will appear. The demand from the readers will be a necessary condition for this development to occur.

References

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: See the Overview and Key Points or the Full Text Also the Perspective of the European Parliament

Wikipedia: Source criticism

Källkritikens dag (The Day of Source Criticism) .path http://kulturhusetstadsteatern.se/ForumDebatt/Evenemang/2017/Kallkritikens-dag/
A translation of this page can easily be obtained using Google translate.