September 22, 2017

A Unified Voice: Confronting an Assault on Information | Editorial

RebeccaWebEdit2015I wrote recently that the rate of media illiteracy is the information crisis of our time (“Faked Out”), but now that very real issue has nonetheless been trumped by a deliberate assault on the flow of information—from journalism and scientific research to dissemination via social media and traditional channels. There is no such thing as an alternate fact, but there is certainly an alternate reality: a chilling, censorial, obfuscating one being offered as a threatening new normal by the new federal administration in the first days and weeks of 2017.

These encroachments are sparking vocal outrage from many. They should have everyone in the library community on high alert. Information, and the ability to share it without risk of retribution, is central both to our work in libraries and the democratic process as a whole.

These events should clarify things for anyone who doesn’t see the library connection. This is not a partisan issue; it is about information access and defending a culture that celebrates and benefits from the robust discourse possible only when information and ideas can be shared openly. That seems so obvious that the need to state it is disturbing to me. Our work to protect freedom of inquiry and expression is never done, but it is more critical than ever in this heated and rapidly evolving environment.

As was apparent at the Town Hall held at the American Library Association (ALA) Midwinter Meeting in Atlanta, librarians want ALA leadership to step up and advocate for the core values of the profession. I agree. This era demands more responsiveness and calls into question the viability of the slow pace that can be a signature of decision-making by committee. What mechanism must be created to foster a more nimble, reflexive, responsive, and even proactive national voice?

If ALA does its job in this regard, librarians and members will be supported and can better focus on the work ahead in their local settings. To that end, ALA should also look to provide practical assistance for affected libraries. First, there is the work of reference and research to bolster. Basic information flow is being compromised in an unprecedented way. As a frontline librarian, how do you confront the interruption of trusted information from previously verifiable sources? What are the strategies to ensure you are finding the best information in a world in which official sources are no longer trustworthy and the unofficial work-arounds (such as rogue Twitter accounts) are shrouded for self-protection in ways that make verifying them difficult? Beyond that, the systemic contempt for the idea that facts have objective reality, apparent in the appalling concept of “alternative facts,” brings even more urgency to the need for media, information, and digital literacies.

Beyond streamlining its internal mechanics, ALA should be more vigorous about getting the library perspective into the mainstream conversation to campaign for free expression. Librarians have always been defenders of this key right. Now there are assertive allies (particularly scientists) that are making eloquent efforts to raise awareness of the risks of censorship and the chilling effects of inappropriate oversight. For example, the new administration clamped down on the social media channels of the national parks and the Environmental Protection Agency and threatened to insert politics into the research process with a political body reviewing scientific output before public release. Each such trespass must be confronted and rejected. James LaRue’s statement from ALA’s Office of Intellectual Freedom was a good start, but more needs to be done. [ALA released this statement after this editorial went to press.] Librarians are the natural champions of this cause. We must find a way to make our voices heard in the rapidly evolving discussion of the 24-hour news cycle before it moves on without us.

The urgency of the moment calls for leadership, and ALA and all our associations should engage. If they won’t or can’t, though, librarians must do it without them. Librarians have always been willing to go rogue in the defense of intellectual freedom; it would be so much easier if the field were able to present a strong, timely, and unified voice.

RMsignatureWEB

Save

This editorial will be published in the February 15, 2017 issue of Library Journal.
Rebecca T. Miller About Rebecca T. Miller

Rebecca T. Miller (miller@mediasourceinc.com) is Editorial Director, Library Journal and School Library Journal.

Share
Integrate Multiple Literacies Into Your Strategic Plan and Library Initiatives
The editors of Library Journal and School Library Journal have convened some of today’s leading advocates, thinkers, and doers on literacy programming in public libraries, including speakers from the March 2017 Public Library Think Tank in Miami, to discuss in actionable terms how public librarians are redefining literacy. Our Literacy Redefined online course will address literacy in its widest sense—digital, media/information, civic, reading readiness, visual, multicultural, and health literacy—and will identify tools for leveraging partnerships to fuel programming and funding.

Comments

  1. Thank you, For stating the feelings of many people, as a volunteer at Project Gutenberg and Distributed Proofreaders working for the conservation and public availability of free eBooks I heartily support the work that libraries have done and continue to do.
    This is, by the way, not just an American issue. Libraries throughout the world are under threat your general support is much appreciated.
    Kindest regards,

    Brian.

  2. Alex Khan says:

    I love libraries and defend free speech. Yet librarians are humans subject to human limitations and experiencing temptations. Some I have known are heroic, in defense of information. They have curated and granted access to education and learning to all members of communities I have lived in.

    Others have allowed fashions and fads to subvert their judgment. They have gutted rare historical reference book collections, dumping rare first editions valued at hundreds of dollars each as ‘weeded out’ books entwined in bundles for 25 cents each. Examples included Beard’s history of Egyptian Dynasties, Churchill’s, Trevelyan’s, Macaulay’s, and Hume’s, histories of the English, and the world’s, peoples, allegedly to create shelf space for rental-of-the-month fiction, when shelf rows lay empty. They have labelled actual factual histories as ‘Fantasy’ on their spines and shelving, because they objected to the events that were described as outside their own preferred narratives.

    (Examples: Arthur and Douglas MacArthur’s histories of the Russo-Japanese War, and Manchuria, and histories of the American-British expeditionary forces in Russia, and Vietnam, and Liddel-Hart’s, Thayer-Mahan’s, and Possony’s essays on the conduct of conflict. I appreciate the argument that slim local resources should scarcely be taxed to duplicate what is available on Project Gutenberg. Yet research browsing is a field of discovery, rather than a computer search for what Mr Ochs famously memorialized as ‘merely printing the known facts about what is already common knowledge’.)

    What some librarians now fear is a turnabout against their bias by those persons they opposed.

    Did these works reflect the inherent bias of their cultural context? Of course.

    Were their rich contents replaced by alternate sources of equal or higher quality?
    No replacements were made.

    These Librarians acted as soldiers in a culture war, which libraries best stand above. Instead, keep all books, and all critiques. So, I ask you to expand your call to access objective information to include a call to include all information that presents as authentic, independent of any party line. Freedom to access all information exists to support our freedom to think critically, and librarians do better service when they resist the temptation to become censors of fact. Censorship murders the value of literacy.

    To increase diversity and education, increase access to diversities of perspective and facts. Censoring only blinds into ignorance. That is a cost beyond what libraries and the public can afford.-Alex Khan

Comment Policy:
  1. Be respectful, and do not attack the author, people mentioned in the article, or other commenters. Take on the idea, not the messenger.
  2. Don't use obscene, profane, or vulgar language.
  3. Stay on point. Comments that stray from the topic at hand may be deleted.
  4. Comments may be republished in print, online, or other forms of media, per our Terms of Use.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through (though some comments with links to multiple URLs are held for spam-check moderation by the system). If you see something objectionable, please let us know. Once a comment has been flagged, a staff member will investigate.

We accept clean XHTML in comments, but don't overdo it and please limit the number of links submitted in your comment. For more info, see the full Terms of Use.

Speak Your Mind

*