Lies with Long Legs. Prodosh Aich
Читать онлайн книгу.
information that thrown at us?
The communication network is global and extensive. The quantity of “information” increases day by day and its transmission becomes more and more complicated. Due to the speed of technological developments in the field of data transfer the flow of „information“ is becoming more and more unmanageable. Global “information” is provided unbelievably fast, 24 hours a day. We spend precious time learning to use the latest technical gadgets. Do we realise that we are caught in the “information trap”? Can we spring this trap and be free? How?
We don’t have any standard recipes. If we had found any, we would not have presented them here. That would have been contra-productive and irresponsible. But we are surely trying hard not to get caught in the “information trap”. We trust that our mutual efforts and the continuous exchange of experience would keep us away from this trap. We build our research on that perspective.
We do not know exactly where “information” about people, places, institutions etc. is produced and which pieces of “information” are distributed and reproduced. Why are they produced and why are they made available to more and more people? Do we have any idea about the total amount of „information“ that is produced? Or which parts are factually made available to us? Are we able to judge the quality of „information“? In our daily life we are swamped by „information“. We can see the flood coming, we are able to foresee the impact and yet we cannot escape it even if we really wanted to. And if we escape once we still find ourselves caught in the flood—indirectly. Why should we buy this “flood of information” and waste our resources and precious time? And don’t we know that each piece of „information“ is produced with an objective? Don’t we really know that?
And what is „information“? Is “information” everything that is supplied by the “media”? Does it differ? In it’s content, and quality? How can we learn to differentiate, to evaluate “information”? Is „information“ just “news”, an “answer” to a query, an “instruction” or even an element of “knowledge” or a mixture of everything? Where are the answers? The vendors of the information-industry won’t give the answers. They have no intention of doing so. We can turn to “references”, of course. Are they helpful?
What are the “sources of reference”? Are they all the same or are they different perhaps? Since when are they available? Who are their publishers? Who compiles the catchwords? Are all possible catchwords included? Are there omissions? What is omitted? And how can the authors of the “references” be sure that their knowledge is correct? Are they independent or do they have to depend on saleability only? Which are the sources of their knowledge? Do they check the quality of their sources? How do they know whether the assumed sources are dependable or are they just set up? Are the “makers” of “sources” related to the “information-industry”? Or even a part of it? We do not presume to find answers to all these questions. But we do think that we all should try to search for answers. We all together. Is there any alternative to fighting the very present danger of becoming an irresolute tool, a virtual robot of the “information-industry ”?
“Information” does not drop from heaven. It is produced and then offered to us for use. The range of the carriers, usually called “media”, is wide. So it seems. We have maintained earlier, probably without provoking the slightest contradiction, that „information“ is canalised. The network of the „media“ is becoming increasingly dense. And this density is labelled as progress. The denser the “Communication” of a country, the more “advanced” its society. This is the message and we tend to accept it. We normally do not give many thoughts to the messages, to their carriers, to the media. We fixatedly accept the prepared contents; debate them with meticulousness and passion. That’s it. We are seldom strong, curious and persistent enough to reflect about the carriers, their routes, their producers and the “information-industry”. And what would happen, if the „information“ was devised, false or forged? Wouldn’t we be mislead intentionally? Who would gain from misinformation, who would lose? What about “power”, about exercise of “power” by “manipulation”? Who administers “power”?
The increasing rush of our “jet age” life seldom gives us enough time to first check the sources, the quality of the sources of “information” and only then look into its contents. According to our research this has become common practice everywhere—at universities, in publishing houses and in the editorial rooms. It is believed that “reliable” human beings or institutions interact with “reliable” counterparts only. And we are all trustworthy people! Aren’t we? Should there be any room for scepticism then? What is more: should we go around doubting everyone and everything? Where would such an attitude lead us? Nowhere? Would there be no movement, no progress? Movement seems to mean progress. Movement is a must. And we all know that only “a rolling stone gathers no moss”. Nobody in a “modern” society would like to gather moss.
So we have learned to internalise values based on trust and intuitive wisdom. We know that there are serious agencies and there are other agencies. There are serious sources and there are other sources. There are serious reference books and there are others. There are serious scientific publications and there are others. Who spreads this philosophy? How does one differentiate and identify the serious ones? Do we have time to put such rudimentary, superfluous and silly questions? Doesn’t everybody take for granted, for example, that the German Press Agency (DPA) is more serious, more dependable than non–German Press Agencies, like Tass, Tanjug, Terra and others?
There are a few other agencies, almost as reliable as the German one, of course, like Reuters, AP, AFP perhaps. Naturally they co-operate, exchange information and reports, (unverified of course). For economic reasons there is a concentration on certain geographical areas, as well as a division of work and labour. Rationalisation is unavoidable. Serious News Agencies must earn enough money to maintain serious staff. Consequently, one has to be very practical and wise. Agencies, which belong to „us“, are serious and reliable. If they were not serious and reliable, they wouldn’t belong to “us”. A simple equation. The same equation applies to all areas worldwide. Well-known reference books must be serious, otherwise they would not really be known. Renowned publishers are, well, we already know. Scientists publishing extensively must also be wiser. This is the basic equation. The one who fails to accept, will “gather moss”.
As mentioned above, we are being bathed in, almost drowned by an unmanageable quantity of “information” at an increasing speed. And there seems to be no end to it. Though mankind experienced quite a number of “quantum leaps” in regard to exchanges of observation, experience and opinion – the invention of the script, printing, film, telegraphy, radio, telephone, television, internet, digitalisation – do we still have a chance nowadays to distinguish between a forgery and the original? Do we reflect on an issue like this? Can we spare the time? Has it not become increasingly difficult to track back and determine the reliability of a source? To separate the wheat from the chaff? Are we conscious of our malady? We are unable to cope with the status quo. Therefore we try out unusual tracks and put unusual questions. More and more questions. We are searching for answers and getting almost none. Not in the reference sources, not in the so-called scientific books. We do not know whether we shall ever get reliable replies to our queries. But this fact alone, that we have began to formulate unusual questions, is helping us to decrease the pressure put on us by the machinery of the “might-media-manipulation”.
*****
Obviously, before the “script” was invented our ancestors did mutually exchange observations, experiences, findings and opinions. How dependable were they? The “Linguists” and experts of “Communication” do not tell us anything about this question. How can they find out? There is no “evidence”. And after all, it is a non-question for current scientific discourses. We are not to “gather moss”. Fortunately we live in a highly advanced age, with the highest developed culture of all times. Shouldn’t we “be happy and don’t worry”?
In comparison to the times of letters and printing the diligent “scientists”, however, fail to tell us anything about the reliability, the accuracy of knowledge transfer in that pre-script age. But we too have not yet raised this question unambiguously. And the rule