Maybe it’s inevitable that the Information Age, having brought amazing technological benefits, should also create astonishing ethical problems. Another one surfaced last weekend, when congressional Democrats called for an investigation into an apparent info-squelch by the Bush administration.
The issue goes back to last fall’s contentious debate on Medicare. On December 8, President Bush signed a new Medicare law, but only after the administration had assured Congress that the costs would not exceed $400 billion over ten years. On January 29, however, the White House announced that the price could actually be $534 billion.
Now comes word from Medicare’s chief actuary, Richard S. Foster, that his own estimates had put the costs at between $500 billion and $600 billion — and that he was threatened with termination by his superiors if he dared to share that estimate with Congress.
If true, that’s egregious. Democracy depends on the free flow of information. Yet in an odd way it’s unsurprising. The central issue here is not simply Medicare. It is whether the nation is getting and using the information it needs — whether, in fact, information is being handled honestly and accurately.
That’s the issue, after all, that plagues the intelligence community here and in Britain over last year’s statements concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But it’s not a partisan problem: Remember that the same challenge plagued the Clinton administration as well, causing highly respected Cabinet members to affirm publicly — based, it turns out, on deceptive information — that the president had no sexual relationships with Monica Lewinsky.
The need for an information ethic goes well beyond politics. What landed Martha Stewart in trouble? Insider trading — the illegal use of privileged information — and the attempt to cover up that use. Of what does Enron’s Jeffrey Skilling stand accused? Insider trading, enriching himself because he knew what the public did not. How did WorldCom’s former CEO, Bernard Ebbers, amass his personal wealth? By spinning a tissue of deceit to hide the financial condition of his company.
Nor are the watchdogs exempt. Consider the wholesale fabrications of New York Times reporter Jayson Blair last May. Having resigned from the Times, he’s back in public again with his hastily assembled book, Burning Down My Master’s House: My Life at the New York Times — which seems to conflate career-ending fraud and factual deceit with mere movie-of-the-week antics.
The Information Age has made one thing apparent: Information, more than ever, has immense power. In general, the public is clear that power, wielded unethically, produces enormous evils. It is less clear that information can have disastrous consequences. We have a ready supply of terms — fibbing, stretching the truth, telling little white lies — meant to soften the consequences of dishonesty. The fact that we have no similar supply of palliatives on the power side of the equation — nobody talks about “little white tyrants” — suggests we’re clearer about the dangers of corrupted power than of perverted information.
That needs to change. We need an Information Ethic. It should be rooted in the five core moral values that, as this column has noted so often, are found in every culture where we’ve done the research: honesty, responsibility, respect, fairness, and compassion. Obviously an Information Ethic needs to center on honesty and truth telling. But as the examples above make clear, being accurate and candid may not be enough. Needed, in addition, is:
- A proactive sense of responsibility in dealing with information, ensuring that it gets where it needs to go and is defended from distribution to those who shouldn’t have it.
- A respect for the power of information, as well as a humility in the presence of knowledge far larger than any single individual.
- A fairness that is deliberately blind to the political persuasions of the recipients, but is committed to the proposition that information must be freely shared on all sides.
- A compassion as to the sources of the information that seeks to protect from harm those who provided it, assembled it, and analyzed it.
Easy to accomplish? Hardly. So we need to cut ourselves some slack. The industrial revolution created seismic changes in social, economic, and ethical conditions that took more than a century to sort through. The Information Age is creating similar shifts. No wonder we need a new ethic — and no wonder we’re only just getting there.
(c)2004 Institute for Global Ethics