ABSTRACT
There is a diverse group of commentators on the ‘information society’ who, while conceding that there is a lot more information in circulation nowadays, are rather unenthusiastic about announcements of the ‘information age’. Such commentators tend to regard this information as being tainted, as having been interfered with by parties that have ‘managed’ its presentation, or that have ‘packaged’ it to ‘persuade’ people in favour of certain positions, or have ‘manipulated’ it to serve their own ends, or have produced it as a saleable commodity that is ‘entertaining’. These thinkers lean towards the view that the ‘information society’ is one in which Saatchi and Saatchi’s advertising campaigns, the Ministry of Defence’s ‘disinformation’ strategies, Ford’s public relations ‘expert’, the Parliamentary ‘lobbyist’, the judicious ‘presenter’ of government policy, and the ‘official leak’ from ‘reliable sources’ close to Downing Street all play a disproportionate role in the creation and dissemination of information. In its strongest versions, this interpretation suggests that the democratic process itself is undermined due to the inadequacies of the information made available to the public, since, if the citizenry is denied reliable information, then how can the ideal of a thoughtful, considered and knowledgeable electorate-a genuine democracy-be achieved?
