democracy – The Democracy Kitchen

Our nation is exceptionally troubled about the events that occurred on January 6 in the nation’s capital. The subsequent fallout is spreading beyond the crime scene and having a substantial impact including a growing suppression of online (free) speech.

The move by many private social media companies to remove content and participants from their online platforms will add another facet and challenge to a movement that’s been underway by journalism and pro-democracy groups and their related philanthropies to improve trust in media and in democracy in the U.S. Much of their work centers on reforms that address the creation and spread of misinformation and their sources. The recent actions by social media companies to remove inflammatory speech and their creators from their online platforms is an attempt to avert further violence blamed on the spread of misinformation and lies — most of it targeting the media and the government.

January 6 was the flash point and wake-up call to take this practice as a serious societal threat. However, suppression of free expression is also a threat to society. Those whose political ideologies fall on the right are feeling victimized by the actions of these companies to censor their online speech and conversations. For those whose ideologies lean left, while they may applaud the redaction, they need to understand the consequences. Both sides have valid reasons for concern.

While most of us did not foresee an assault on the nation’s capital, we have seen indicators in the inflammatory rhetoric and growing polarization occurring within government and among the public that has dramatically increased (but did not originate) with the election of President Trump.

No one can accurately say how this is going to end. But we see where it is heading. And the negative impact of the actions being taken is dangerous. For example, we know what results from suppressing conversations on mainstream social networks where different ideological points of view are common. Those whose opinions and comments are suppressed retreat to other social networks where contrary points of view are all but absent in these filter bubbles where the conversations are more extreme and the participants are more radical. This is not what we want and certainly not a way to bring folks with different opinions together.

The historical public square and the openness of public meetings by our governing institutions were designed intentionally to allow broad public participation in conversations and decisions about issues that affected the whole. Today, the public square is digital, having been taken over by private companies whose priority is to pursue profit, not democracy, which makes sense. However, their platforms are being utilized by both the public and their government institutions to serve as forums for political and policy discussions.

Unfortunately, governments still struggle to replicate the important components of our democracy (public comment and free expression) as they transitioned to the Internet. The broken promise of “Gov 2.0” has been the failure to bridge the chasm between the electors and the electorate that it touted would occur online by improving communication and information sharing and consequently, our democracy.

Instead, private companies, lacking the guardrails that the government operates with, assumed a facilitator role not by design but by default and the potential for revenue. Key components important to ensure informed and engaged dialog like attribution and validation were replaced by anonymity and disparagement. They are called “social” networks for a reason.

We can’t fall back to our bunkers. We have to have more conversations that include representatives from the public, press, and public sector, with support from the GovTech community to collaborate on the many complex challenges. I read a recent blog that stated “…when it comes to building trust, there are no home runs, doubles, or triples — just countless sacrifice bunts.” The change will be incremental, but it can happen. What occurred on January 6th in D.C. has added more urgency and increased the odds of rebuilding trust in our democracy, our news media, and in others.

When the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation announced in March a $300 million investment to improve the quality of local news, it made an important first step to restoring trust in a key component of our society.

The funding decision was spurred by a recent report from the Knight Commission on Trust, Media and Democracy, which explored the disconnect between the public, the press, and our public institutions, notably the government.

Its conclusion: We are in a watershed moment and must make reforms in our media and civic infrastructure.

The report advances a series of recommendations aimed at the news media, civic educators, and the public. And while the report urges “every government official to be open and transparent,” what is missing is a list of reforms required in our federal, state, and local governments to help restore trust.

Instructing government to be transparent is not enough. Restoring trust in democracy through our public institutions must include reforms in all branches to ensure openness, access and accountability.

Knight addresses one area of needed reforms by granting $10 million to the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press to increase litigation efforts to defend access to public information. This is an important and welcome investment to ensure our First Amendment rights.

Even so, building trust in government requires a strong offense as well as a strong defense. The National Freedom of Information Coalition and its state coalitions support a multi-faceted approach beyond reactionary litigation to usher in needed reforms.

Most litigation challenges bad laws that lead to bad policies. But before they were bad laws, they were bad bills. A proactive, holistic approach to needed legislative and policy reforms can prevent these bad laws and poor public policies from being created in the first place.

It’s a daunting task to enact reforms that promote trust in our public institutions in an era where more and more governments, particularly state legislatures, attempt to undermine existing open government precedent, making it harder for journalists and the public to monitor and report violations that diminish access and accountability.

But there are areas that have shown results to increase transparency and accountability of our public institutions and should be instilled in all public institutions across the nation:

· Legislative tracking. Bad bills can be identified and fought early. Yet this is not an easy task. Many state legislatures can bury amendments that dismantle existing open government laws or increase exemptions to existing laws in the text of unrelated bills — hiding them from the public until it’s too late.

· Compliance enforcement. State and local governments across the nation inconsistently comply with their open government laws. Sometimes it’s a lack of training and education. Other times it’s intentional. Enforcement of existing open government laws is critical to discourage violations. Yet violators are rarely charged and when they are, punishment is usually a slap on the wrist.

· Formal appeals processes. Some states don’t have an appeals process when a record is denied, leaving the petitioner no option but to sue, which creates a financial burden not only on the requestor but also on the taxpayer. Independent state open records ombudspersons are a way some states combat this issue. Fee shifting, where the losing government agency pays the legal fees of the prevailing petitioner is another.

· Technology solutions. Open data and online request portals readily provide public access to public records, establish or advance professional standards, and help create best practices within executive branch agencies.

Without public oversight, without creating more professionalism in administering state open government laws and policies, and without an internal culture to punish violators, there will always be inevitable situations where a bad bill is passed, or when a public agency continues to deny access in violation of their state open government laws. And the only option is to sue.

Still, through enacting reforms in all branches of state and local governments, and proactively monitoring and educating the public (and officials of their responsibilities), we can help restore trust in our democracy by restoring trust in our public institutions.

Daniel Bevarly is executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that promotes press freedom and legislative and administrative reforms that ensure open, transparent, and accessible state and local governments. Reach him at dbevarly@nfoic.org.