In(form) The Public Interest

Wikileaks is at the centre of an international storm of power brokers. Governments condemn, Paypal and Mastercard cut-off, hacktivists attack, courts subpoena, Twitter squawks, journalists blush, pundits pronounce and editors select. Or so it seems.

To my mind this highlights the relationship between information and power and the essential tension between opposing forces that is crucial for democracy: governments versus opposition versus media versus voters, prosecution and defence. To allow one faction to dominate is rarely in the public interest.

"Watergate" is a prime example, one of many, where journalists have taken on governments, but Wikileaks operates beyond democratic boundaries. It is shining a light on an international game of poker.

In a democracy, who decides what's in the public interest? Based on what information?

Boosting Newspaper Sales

It seems that newspaper sales in the UK are falling and the trend is accelerating. Will Interactive Democracy boost demand for news? I think it could. The idea is that empowerment of voters generates its own demand for information.

There may also be an opportunity here for newspapers to sell political advertising. Interactive Democracy may cause a wholesale change in political financing as those advocates with money can focus their resources on specific issues, instead of political parties, perhaps by spending on advertorials in newspapers.

More from The Guardian here and here.

Free the Data

Tim Berners-Lee was appointed by the government to oversee data.gov.uk, a new venture to provide government data on-line with the objective of facilitating new ways of utilising the information. The idea is that if it is available to a freedom of information request, why not put it on the Internet. This also has the potential to enhance debate, involvement and Interactive Democracy. More here from the BBC.