I'm slightly astonished to be in the situation of needing to come up with a policy on whether or not to talk to a media organ best known for disseminating disinformation. I'm astonished not so much because I've been asked to speak (I'm getting used to that), but because I can't find a clear policy stated by a group such as a journalists association, the UN, or Human Rights Watch. With all the concern about disinformation, where is the guidance for academics?
As a liberal, I don't want to deprive anyone of information. But information is not really just an abstraction, it is physical state and it takes space, time, and effort to transmit it. Academics (and everyone else) have to decide how much time they spend in production of information, and how much in its dissemination. Beyond that, we have to decide what is the most effective means for doing both of those things.
Generally speaking, media attention is sufficiently fleeting and fickle that my policy is to talk to almost anyone when they ask (if I'm not already otherwise engaged), but very seldom to actively seek it, especially since in my experience that's unlikely to work out.
But what if a media channel is routinely purposed by its owners for assaulting the institutional structures of justice that allow us to create and enforce laws, study and disseminate science, hold the criminal accountable, hold the elite responsible to the society that supports the elites' endeavours? It seems to me that I shouldn't actively engage in donating my time and reputation to such a channel.
So here is my position on RT at a minimum, though the list may be longer*. They like everyone are free to read and report on all my academic output (which is freely available on my website), everything in my blog, on twitter, on youtube, anything I say in public. But I'm not going to go into a studio to be on one of their branded programs, because I cannot condone their editorial policies and am not comfortable contributing to their reputation. I am sorry to miss communicating directly to their audience, but then their audience routinely tolerates information that is blatantly false, so it's not entirely clear what my communication there could achieve.
Again, I can't believe an AI ethics person has to come up with a media policy. If a media ethics person would kindly point me towards an agreed policy, I'd be much obliged. Here's an agreed AI ethics policy for you in return.
* I know some would extend this policy to Facebook, but so far I wouldn't. I hope someone tells me that a respected organisation has put together such a policy and an agreed list before I have to make up my mind about Fox or the Daily Mail.
As a liberal, I don't want to deprive anyone of information. But information is not really just an abstraction, it is physical state and it takes space, time, and effort to transmit it. Academics (and everyone else) have to decide how much time they spend in production of information, and how much in its dissemination. Beyond that, we have to decide what is the most effective means for doing both of those things.
Generally speaking, media attention is sufficiently fleeting and fickle that my policy is to talk to almost anyone when they ask (if I'm not already otherwise engaged), but very seldom to actively seek it, especially since in my experience that's unlikely to work out.
But what if a media channel is routinely purposed by its owners for assaulting the institutional structures of justice that allow us to create and enforce laws, study and disseminate science, hold the criminal accountable, hold the elite responsible to the society that supports the elites' endeavours? It seems to me that I shouldn't actively engage in donating my time and reputation to such a channel.
 |
| Me live on the UK's Channel 4 a few years ago, ht Roger Moore |
Again, I can't believe an AI ethics person has to come up with a media policy. If a media ethics person would kindly point me towards an agreed policy, I'd be much obliged. Here's an agreed AI ethics policy for you in return.
* I know some would extend this policy to Facebook, but so far I wouldn't. I hope someone tells me that a respected organisation has put together such a policy and an agreed list before I have to make up my mind about Fox or the Daily Mail.
Comments