Abstract
Aeron Davis’s newest book strangely has a question mark at the end of its main title, when the subtitle essentially answers that question and the book, as far as it goes, does not leave much doubt. He might just as well have titled the book, How Free Markets Destroy Everything They Touch.
The book does not offer a succinct definition of “public knowledge,” but one could develop one from the examples written about in the book: public media content, content of privately owned media that prioritize quality over profits (including but not limited to business/economics coverage), what is taught in schools from kindergarten through doctoral programs, legal aid to the poor, public library collections, and public knowledge about corporations, government and health care. Most chapters are about the United Kingdom, but some also are about the United States, South Korea, Greece, or New Zealand.
Davis, a political communication professor at Goldsmiths College, University of London, recruited a diverse group of scholars writing about a diverse set of case studies, some citing far fewer references than others. With 18 chapters, a general introduction, introductions for each of four parts of the book, and a conclusion all crammed into 249 pages; the chapters are short. They are all one-sided and generally not based on fresh social scientific research. They also all assume or argue that the availability of public knowledge was better before than it is now, without getting into the past’s shortcomings. (In the United States, for example, one could easily argue that more public knowledge of many kinds is available now than 65 years ago because of state and federal open meetings and public records laws and related court decisions.) Finally, the book entirely avoids the issues of how much available public knowledge the public demanded, consumed, or retained.
The book is far more relevant to UK readers than elsewhere, as some parts, to be fully understood, require context that is not provided. For example, outside the United Kingdom, who knows what “Reithian education” means (p. 61)? Many will argue that in many countries, even some liberals would not define “public goods” as including all of the following: sound currency, a non-corrupt judiciary, a medical database, a common language, flood controls systems, lighthouses and street lighting . . . impartial news system, public service broadcasting, free and accessible higher education, a well-funded public library service and non-proprietary digital networks that are free . . . (p. 244)
Davis’s conclusion chapter outlines seven “conditions” that facilitate public knowledge: independence, diversity, universality, plurality, redistribution, transparency, and accountability (pp. 246-247). However, he makes only seven policy suggestions, which don’t even begin to fix all of the identified problems; three suggestions are merely net neutrality, broadband as a public utility, and protecting privacy/data. The fourth one is “taxes and levies on the profits of private information intermediaries to support non-profit knowledge producers—for example, new forms of public interest journalism, public education, specialist legal support and digital content creation” (p. 248).
Despite the book’s limitations, it makes a strong case that corporations and market- and corporation-oriented governments have strong incentives to limit public information/knowledge about myriad topics. Davis finds other culprits, too: the Internet, government budget cuts and austerity economics, how quickly knowledge is developing, and economic inequality and corporate power, even a lack of courage among doctors, although only budget cuts and corporate power are detailed.
Davis’s book could be used in any number of ways in journalism and mass communication courses, such as sociology of news/journalism, communication law and policy, business journalism, media analysis/criticism, or media and society. It is a wake-up call that news media are only one of many institutions of information, ideas, and analysis; that news media are more important than ever when the other institutions are faltering; and that news media are sometimes as much a problem as a solution for the public to obtain or understand. The short, focused chapters should prompt debate about their one-sidedness and prompt faculty and students to find out more.
