Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public ... - Blogs Unpad

However, there are also strong arguments
in the opposite direction: that new ICTs have
empowered the state and corporations at the
expense of the individual. The increasing
sophistication and integration of databases,
which now contain a mass of information on
everything from credit history and medical
information to TV viewing has made individual
behaviour open to state and corporate
scrutiny in a way unimaginable some thirty
years ago. Mobile phone technology means
that for the first time very accurate positional
data is available for every caller. The internet
offers immense possibilities for surveillance.
The US government spent $34 billion on the
Information Awareness Office, which aims to
improve national security by using the surveillance
possibilities of the internet and other
new ICTs. 4 Wanting to make use of these new
sources of information for national security or
crime prevention is a common reaction for
governments and can been seen in the United
Kingdom in the Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act (2000). 5
So there is a potential to both empower
the individual and diminish their privacy and
liberty. In practice empowerment is subject
to several qualifications. First, individuals are
only empowered if they have a desire to find
something out. It is tempting to imagine that
with all that information at our fingertips we
must be inexorably moving towards a society
where people are increasingly holding government
and corporations to account and where
the barriers to humans’ thirst for knowledge,
creativity and personal development have
finally been removed. 6 Sadly this optimism is
misplaced.
Developments in ICTs have been accompanied
by other social developments which
tend to work in the opposite direction.
Political participation is declining; many argue
that news coverage is moving away from
serious consideration of policy issues towards
a tabloid obsession with celebrities, ignoring
international news in favour of domestic
news. All the evidence suggests that the internet
has not revolutionized media consumption
but rather built on existing patterns of
behaviour. A combination of cross-promotion,
the enormous power of the existing media
and the search for trust in a environment of
limitless choice means the ‘old’ media dominate
the ‘new’ media: the UK’s most popular
site is that of its most popular broadcaster –
the BBC.
To summarize: the internet empowers
those with a desire to find out. By itself it does
not motivate people. The urge to find out
more or to campaign on a particular issue
comes largely from the same real world impetuses
as ever: personal experience, friends,
family, interaction through clubs, unions or
political parties, and what we hear, see or read
in the mainstream media. If you are already
a shareholder in corporation X, or are an
environmental activist in a field in which corporation
X operates, the internet usually gives
you access to much more information. If you
have never heard of corporation X the wealth
of online information is unlikely to have any
effect.
In practice, for PR professionals this
means that putting information on a corporate
website, desirable though this may be in
terms of transparency, has next to no effect
on the population at large. It will be seen
by those who have a connection with the
organization (whether as enemies or friends)
but it will only get through to the general
public if it is picked by journalists from the
‘traditional’ media, for it is the ‘traditional’
media which dominate the online
world.
© 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters, the contributors