Convergence of the Spheres on a Venn Diagram: Ethics, Data and Information

On Saturday our MLS class in Reference Resources discussed various levels of “information.” The levels were listed as: data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. Members of class were asked to list two descriptors under each heading, and we then discussed the significance of each class of “information.” It was clear that data referred to raw alpha/numeric sets and images. To move from data to information required manipulation and interpretation. For instance, how data sets were analyzed by a particular statistic provided a level of interpetation on the part of the researcher. Thus, tables, charts, and graphs all convey a level of interpretation, and therefore bias. It was noted human communication carries bias, and that it was neither good nor bad; we just needed to be aware that it was present.

The class also discussed the obligation of the librarian to provide information that was as neutral as possible and to allow the user to interpret the data. This sentiment was echoed by a panel of professional librarians who answered class questions about library ethics. In one example, a librarian working near Lincoln had been called by prisoners on multiple occasions, and had been asked to supply the address and phone number of particular individuals. Most of the class stiffened a little bit upon hearing that request. There have been stories in the news about prisoners harassing witnesses and plaintiffs from their trials. Can you imagine supplying that kind of information? However, the librarian explained that this information was already public, being printed in phone directories, and no ethical situation was encountered by giving the prisoners free access to this data.

Near the end of the session a student raised a question about Republican vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, who as mayor of a small Alaskan town asked the head librarian if she would consider censoring the town’s library collection. Well, that animated the class! A lively discussion would have ensued had we not run out of time. But, I thought, this was very germane, not only for our discussion on library ethics, but also because I had been reading the republication of press reports on a major library journal’s webpage.

Journalistic ethics, as well as American’s sense of fair play, used to require that reporters verify facts, and not just allegations. And if an allegation were printed, in the effort to inform the public, it would not be repeated without verification of the facts. Now, it seems in the case of Gov. Palin, that the media, who sent hundreds of reporters to Alaska to investigate her, has continued to repeat the allegations in stories, even though they have not been able to learn anything further. Their verifications are: yes, someone has alleged this impropriety; not: yes, this is a fact.

As poor an example of journalistic prudence as the media’s behavior has been, I am absolutely appalled that a major library journal would link to, or republish, these allegations. It should be noted that no further action was taken by Gov. Palin. She asked once, never again raised the subject, never presented a list of books, and let the matter drop. There has been no evidence to suggest that the subsequent resignation of the library director was linked to any harassment on the part of then Mayor Palin. The fact that the press has not been able to learn anything further, in a small town where everyone knows each other’s business, suggests that there is nothing of significance to the story. Thus further dissemination of the unsubstantiated allegations has an obvious aim to harm to Gov. Palin’s candidacy.

Whether or not we prefer a Democratic administration to a Republican one in 2008, we should not be mixing our personal preferences with our professional duty as librarians to disseminate complete and accurate information. Where is the journal editor’s ethical behavior in these decisions? Is this the example our professional leaders would like new librarians to follow? And more so, where are the other professional librarians who should be taking the journal to task for its unethical behavior?

Or, perhaps electing Sen. Obama by any method is more important than maintaining our professional ethics. Do we agree, then, with Machiavelli that “the ends justify the means?”