Is Transparency A Good Thing?

The latest WikiLeaks revelation that much of the American government's secret diplomatic cables read like entries in a mean girls' burn book has got politicians and pundits blathering about how it might affect foreign policy, guessing if/where Interpol could apprehend the group's founder, Julian Assange, and wondering when the next batch of secrets will be released (rumored to be Bank of America emails in which execs come across as, gasp, heartless capitalists).

I'm struck by two things they're not talking about:

1. How the revelations fail to tell us anything we didn’t already know or suspect, and
2. Why unmediated "transparency" destroys institutional authority

Anybody who watches cable news knows that North Korea's Kim Jong-il is a nutjob, if only because of his bad Don King wannabe haircut, or that the smug facial expression of Iran's Mahmoud Admadinejad belies his utter detachment from reality. I could have told you that Merkel has no sense of humor and that Gaddafi absolutely knows how to party. It's no surprise that leaders in the Middle East love their terrorists and want to kill them, too.

What would have been shocking would be if WikiLeaks had told us something we didn't already know, like China secretly committed zillions to support free speech, or Silvio Berlusconi is using his polymath brilliance to negotiate an accord on climate change. I know I'm glossing over details in the cables (Pakistan's "for sale" sign for terrorists shopping for fissile materials is very frightening), but the general takeaway was that there are no real secrets when it comes to how American diplomats function; they think, talk and act like we would.

How disappointing.

Institutions -- whether political, cultural, or commercial -- are supposed to be something greater than a sum of their parts. That's why things like governments are more than loose affiliations of like-minded individuals, and the reason membership in a Facebook group isn't the same thing as real-world activism. Or why a corporate brand isn't solely what consumers say about it (or why they don't really own them).

Institutions are supposed to be something more...qualified by experience, authorized by consistency of operation, credible because of their ongoing responsibility, and required by society to fulfill duties that can't otherwise be crowdsourced. They are supposed to do things that we cannot.

The qualities that drive those actions don't have be kept secret but, conversely, we don't necessarily need to know them in excruciating detail. Negotiating peace treaties or manufacturing complicated technology gizmos is messy, complicated stuff, and anybody who thinks they are inherently qualified to understand and then judge every specific action involved in these processes is a self-deluded fool.

What does need to be shared and understood as explicitly as possible are the bases for those actions: purposes; rationales; intentions, and then open, honest sharing of progress on those actions. If institutions must first gain approval for the minutia after that, I'd suggest they no longer have any authority to act.

How scary.

Yet this is exactly what's happening. Patients armed with the expertise of an Internet search are advising their doctors on prognoses, or their lawyers on precedent. The last few years of political miasma in America has been a celebration of the crowd disenfranchising its representatives in government from taking action on its behalf. Just think how many individual investors lost money over the past decade because they thought they could know more, or do better, than expert financiers (TV commercials are running today that still hype this impossibility).

Unmediated transparency blows up the ideas of authority and expertise and replaces them with fantasies of individual empowerment and responsibility. Sure, there are exceptions (experts are human beings who are capable of missing things or making mistakes) but generally...no, overwhelmingly...putting institutions to the 24/7 test of public vote dooms them to social sterility.

Does the Internet empower us to dismantle institutions and replace them with nothing but our passing attention and volatile opinions?

What WikiLeaks and other revelations show is that this delegitimization is not without cause. Now that I know the U.S. State Department is as chatty and befuddled about world events as I am, I'm less hopeful it will accomplish any good. Once we’re told that Bank of America is out to get money out of people’s pockets I'll feel even less good about my own bank. But these revelations aren't inevitable. We do not have to suffer total, radical transparency, but it would require institutions to rewire their approach to operations and communications.

Institutions don't have a keeping secrets problem as much as a deserving our trust problem.

From a corporate brands perspective, businesses could start telling consumers the truth...oil companies aren't really inventing alternative energy options that'll put them out of business, toys are manufactured in China because it's cheaper, not better, and technology firms aren't as interested in enhancing user experience as they are in raising VC money and getting rich before the founders learn how to shave. Most marketing uses of the social web that promote entertainment and distraction -- the message implicitly that they're not really trying to sell anything, just talk -- could morph into telling us things that matter, are useful, and thereby deserve authority. 

More truth from those in government would help, too, which would mean that it might find a new legitimacy and authority. Tell angry voters why they’ve got their facts wrong, or why happy party members should consider new or difficult issues.

Only then would revelations like those from WikiLeaks stop being so newsworthy because they'd truly tell us:

1. Things we already knew because institutions had already told us, and
2. Things we didn't care about because of the authority and credibility earned by point #1

The alternative is that we all become sausage makers, which I find a sickening thought. I don't want the job.

(Photo credit: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, from AP via The Telegraph)

Comments

[Nir Kossovsky]

Jon,

Again, we are in violent agreement. Populism as crowdsourcing does not have the power of predictive decision markets since the latter's effectiveness depend on each participant having (i) a semblance of knowledge and (ii) acting independently. Populism as crowdsourcing is an element of democracy; but the wild swings in democracy are tempered by institutions. Untempered populism is anarchy.

It is not an accident that the Greek Democracy (Democracy 1.0) lasted only 200 years while the Roman Republic got a good 400 years out of the model (Democracy 2.0). "The Romans were much more respectful of tradition in their government, suspicious of innovations, while the Greeks, especially the Athenians, were always quick to question basic assumptions. That's what made the Greeks such brilliant innovators in so many spheres, but it also made them fractious and quick to challenge established traditions and ideas. When they ruled the known world later, under the empire, the Romans recognized this tendency, importing Greeks to teach their young men and women but never trusting them. ("Beware of Greeks bearing gifts!")

Source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071027200131AAi948n

[Jonathan]

Jeff, I'm seeing Jack Nicholson as Col. Jessep in the witness stand in "A Few Good Men"...

"Truth? You can't handle the truth!"

[Jeff Molander]

The answer is clear: Most marketers don't want transparency no matter how much they, or vendors, say they do. They can't handle the truth.

Whenever online marketers have gotten any it's served the same purpose, Jonathan: None. In fact, in confirming their suspicions they've continued down the same misguided path... "like a dog returning to its own vomit."

Online affiliate marketing: Once advertisers confirmed their suspicions -- that Web affiliates were not acting in the brand's interest or their financial interest -- they mostly just shrugged shoulders and kept on keepin' on. At best, they changed the rules up a bit and kept dealing with the "bad actors" spammers, spyware purveyors, etc. And all but held their affiliate networks un-accountable. All while they were sold "we'll protect your brand" from the get-go.

Paid search ads (ie. Google AdWords and AdSense): Look to the insulting "settlements" Google et al have gotten away with. Click fraud? Data data everywhere... breadcrumbs. But what do we know? We know nothing because advertisers choose to deal with fraud as a cost of doing business. It's not because of data overload. They've been happy to accept the fraud -- all while listening to their vendor knowingly lie about how prevalent the fraud is.

Look also at the progression AWAY from fair market auctions. Namely, Overture (now Yahoo Search) once offered actual fair market auctions for placement of search ads. You could buy your way into any position you wanted. They provided the data in easy-to-understand format BUT ADVERTISERS DIDN'T WANT IT so much as they wanted a "black box" (non-transparent) solution to getting their ads served (a la Google). Rather, they accepted this version. Celebrated the removal of transparency.

Transparency = honest truths and honest truths are... well... don't make me quote Alexis de Tocqueville!

[Jonathan]

Q.E.D.

We demand more information and presume authority ourselves because "they" fail to disclose enough information and thus lose their authority. I'm not so sure hamstringing the current institutions is any better for us...or just a different version of bad.

Great, thoughtful comment, tho, so thank you! :)

[Amy]

Excellently put and a pleasure to read.

But… you didn't factor in the reasons behind our thirst for this data (other than "well, they're lying"). The reason that patients are arming themselves with Internet data and confronting their doctors, and the reason that Americans (and the rest of the world) are devouring this evidence of what we could only suspect about world leaders and international banks is…

The experts *aren't* just like us. They're richer, more powerful, lazier, more corrupt, more smug. And they're in control. They don't deserve our trust.

If you've ever had even a slightly strange set of symptoms, you'll know that 19 out of 20 doctors will cut you off after you list the first three that fit some common disorder (like a cold, or depression), and refuse to listen to or consider any other explanation. And the doctors have power over you, because the only thing you can do to help yourself is look for another doctor (or confront them with internet data). When it seems all doctors will treat you equally (wrong), then you feel helpless.

Then when you meet that 20th doctor, and she/he listens to you, you find out that there is a simple explanation that the other 19 should have caught. And then you are filled with rage at how they have wasted your time, money, and caused you pain.

That's how it is with politics and banking, too. You or I could be lazy or slightly corrupt, but it wouldn't rock the whole world. Not so for a president, a senator, or a banker.

To suspect authority is corrupt is different than seeing how blatantly they believe they'll get away with everything. To know intellectually that your parents are fallible is different than finding out they're bank robbing pimps.

You're right that micromanagement by public opinion will hamstring any institution. You're right that it's about trust. And maybe this airing of laundry isn't helping. But the fact is, the truth should be *better* than it is. Certainly none of these secrets make anyone proud, and that's a shame.

We don't want *more* truth from the government -- we want a *better* truth. That doesn't require more communication, it requires *change*.

And until then, we'll devour the truth that confirms our worst suspicions because it's better than suspecting one thing and being told another.

It's like that old exercise -- if you could have just one superpower, would you rather fly or be invisible? Most people choose invisible, which means that they plan on doing things they ethically know they shouldn't be doing. Politicians and bankers *think* they're invisible, so they do things they shouldn't be doing. None of the secrets that have come out have cast anyone in a *better* light than before.

It's possible that this mass distribution of secrets-we-tacitly-knew-anyway will convince politicians that "invisible" is not a choice any more, and they might as well figure out how to make flying useful.

Til then, hamstringing the current institutions seems like a good move.