I agree with this. And I do think expanding our collections --especially in archives for people not previously included--is important.
I would also like to see librarians focus on the issues of the Censorship Industrial Complex. We are missing this new threat. It seems we are not protecting peoples' access to knowledge. That is, if we ignore it, we are complicit. A few days ago, I posted at ALA Connect about an event in London addressing this and the ALA moderator took it down.
Wow. I guess the associations feel the pressure to appear in line with the government's new war against "misinformation." Either things will continue in that direction and new librarians won't remember a time when the profession was any different, or someone like RFK, Jr. will win the Presidency and the profession will shift again.
I recently watched an acrl ebss lightening talk that looked at who gets quoted in the nytimes as experts on mis/dis-info. It was mainly politicians and almost never librarians or teachers. I think the presenter wanted librarians to be there as the "experts" but of course they won't because the agenda is not about info literacy, but info and thought control. Librarians would be better off embracing a critical role (raising awareness off censorship etc) because this is where the profession could actually have an impact, but I think many feel that it is their job to identify and promote "truth" rather than to facilitate impartial access. Librarians will never be the "experts" the nytimes wants because they are not seen as sufficiently elite to set the approved narrative, only to fall into line and promote it.
Also the elite have made it quite clear that they don't want info literacy. Librarians should look at this attitude and see that the nytimes etc (the censorship industrial complex) are not our allies. But I guess the pressure or allure of elite conformity is strong.
It is VERY strong. The push-back against FOI requests and characterization of those who ask questions as "conspiracy theorists" is a soft way to tamp down questions. Few are willing to be in the "out group." and that is what happens to anyone who doesn't go along with the current crowd.
The failure to be true to our stated values makes us moosh into the crowd.
I am seeing anti-fascism t-shirts on sale at the FB Library Think Tank. Librarians "want" to be aligned with free speech, but not any free speech like the shadow-banning via tech that is the less trendy threat.
I hope Younkin isn't describing a vanishing breed of librarian. But I'll have to say that I can't recall every running across a librarian that didn't at least try to follow his principals, although I never stressed one in any political sense. I guess the ones that helped me figure out how to navigate the stacks and catalog systems back in the seventies did a pretty good job of teaching me how to find stuff myself for the most part. They did used to "Shush" people who were talking which I've always immensely appreciated. I was in our local library last week and there were a couple kids running around and carrying on very loudly and Mom, just as loudly but impotently telling them they "knew better than that" which had the zero effect she expected. I kept hoping for a librarian to step up to the plate there, but, alas...
How does one reconcile the imperative to be morally/politically/etc agnostic with the principle of seeking and collecting truthful information? Isn't the very act of making that determination a practice of politics?
It becomes a practice of politics the very second a librarian looks at a work that argues a viewpoint and says "There is no truth at all here and no worthwhile argument being made in it." This determination becomes more political the more contemporary and controversial the matter being covered. Take, for instance, Jack Cashill's "First strike : TWA flight 800 and the attack on America" published in the early 00s. He argues the US Navy shot that plane down, with some evidence. Is it an airtight argument? I don't know. Is it a conspiracy theory? I don't know. Could be. Is it utter, steaming bullshit? I DON'T KNOW. Could be. Even if the thrust and crux of the book is wrong (Navy shot down the plane) he does present some documentary evidence of sleaze and corruption and cover-up in the military-industrial complex. But if a librarian read this book or a review of it or a blurb on the inside and said "We're not collecting (or we're weeding) this MISINFORMATION despite the demand," that librarian automatically sucks at his or her job. That librarian just failed and should be doing something else.
"Truth" is a fantastic (in more ways than one) pursuit. BUT truth doesn't just stand out in neon orange 900 feet above everything else. Lots of less-than-truth has to be sought, sifted, winnowed, tested and DISCUSSED for truth to emerge. Anybody--ANYBODY--who denies that or says "I don't need to have a discussion to know that {MY VALUED VIEWPOINT} is correct and yours is {MISINFORMATION, HATE, RACISM, ANTI-VAX, PRO-EVIL}!" is capital-C Convinced. The Convinced make crap collection developers, researchers and seekers of truth. In other words, piss-poor librarians.
I agree with this. And I do think expanding our collections --especially in archives for people not previously included--is important.
I would also like to see librarians focus on the issues of the Censorship Industrial Complex. We are missing this new threat. It seems we are not protecting peoples' access to knowledge. That is, if we ignore it, we are complicit. A few days ago, I posted at ALA Connect about an event in London addressing this and the ALA moderator took it down.
https://www.racket.news/p/report-on-the-censorship-industrial
Wow. I guess the associations feel the pressure to appear in line with the government's new war against "misinformation." Either things will continue in that direction and new librarians won't remember a time when the profession was any different, or someone like RFK, Jr. will win the Presidency and the profession will shift again.
I recently watched an acrl ebss lightening talk that looked at who gets quoted in the nytimes as experts on mis/dis-info. It was mainly politicians and almost never librarians or teachers. I think the presenter wanted librarians to be there as the "experts" but of course they won't because the agenda is not about info literacy, but info and thought control. Librarians would be better off embracing a critical role (raising awareness off censorship etc) because this is where the profession could actually have an impact, but I think many feel that it is their job to identify and promote "truth" rather than to facilitate impartial access. Librarians will never be the "experts" the nytimes wants because they are not seen as sufficiently elite to set the approved narrative, only to fall into line and promote it.
Also the elite have made it quite clear that they don't want info literacy. Librarians should look at this attitude and see that the nytimes etc (the censorship industrial complex) are not our allies. But I guess the pressure or allure of elite conformity is strong.
It is VERY strong. The push-back against FOI requests and characterization of those who ask questions as "conspiracy theorists" is a soft way to tamp down questions. Few are willing to be in the "out group." and that is what happens to anyone who doesn't go along with the current crowd.
The failure to be true to our stated values makes us moosh into the crowd.
I am seeing anti-fascism t-shirts on sale at the FB Library Think Tank. Librarians "want" to be aligned with free speech, but not any free speech like the shadow-banning via tech that is the less trendy threat.
Lol please don’t take anything you see in ALA think tank seriously, EVER. That’s a pro-tip from someone who’s been around for awhile.
I hope Younkin isn't describing a vanishing breed of librarian. But I'll have to say that I can't recall every running across a librarian that didn't at least try to follow his principals, although I never stressed one in any political sense. I guess the ones that helped me figure out how to navigate the stacks and catalog systems back in the seventies did a pretty good job of teaching me how to find stuff myself for the most part. They did used to "Shush" people who were talking which I've always immensely appreciated. I was in our local library last week and there were a couple kids running around and carrying on very loudly and Mom, just as loudly but impotently telling them they "knew better than that" which had the zero effect she expected. I kept hoping for a librarian to step up to the plate there, but, alas...
The Big Tech Censorship Machine Is Running in 2024
LinkedIn and Instagram have already suppressed Vivek Ramaswamy and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
(free link)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-censorship-machine-is-running-in-2024-ramaswamy-rfk-jr-election-campaign-linkedin-meta-twitter-462f8aae?st=a9tt3ie4djzm7w4&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
How does one reconcile the imperative to be morally/politically/etc agnostic with the principle of seeking and collecting truthful information? Isn't the very act of making that determination a practice of politics?
It becomes a practice of politics the very second a librarian looks at a work that argues a viewpoint and says "There is no truth at all here and no worthwhile argument being made in it." This determination becomes more political the more contemporary and controversial the matter being covered. Take, for instance, Jack Cashill's "First strike : TWA flight 800 and the attack on America" published in the early 00s. He argues the US Navy shot that plane down, with some evidence. Is it an airtight argument? I don't know. Is it a conspiracy theory? I don't know. Could be. Is it utter, steaming bullshit? I DON'T KNOW. Could be. Even if the thrust and crux of the book is wrong (Navy shot down the plane) he does present some documentary evidence of sleaze and corruption and cover-up in the military-industrial complex. But if a librarian read this book or a review of it or a blurb on the inside and said "We're not collecting (or we're weeding) this MISINFORMATION despite the demand," that librarian automatically sucks at his or her job. That librarian just failed and should be doing something else.
"Truth" is a fantastic (in more ways than one) pursuit. BUT truth doesn't just stand out in neon orange 900 feet above everything else. Lots of less-than-truth has to be sought, sifted, winnowed, tested and DISCUSSED for truth to emerge. Anybody--ANYBODY--who denies that or says "I don't need to have a discussion to know that {MY VALUED VIEWPOINT} is correct and yours is {MISINFORMATION, HATE, RACISM, ANTI-VAX, PRO-EVIL}!" is capital-C Convinced. The Convinced make crap collection developers, researchers and seekers of truth. In other words, piss-poor librarians.
A pleasure and relief to read. There is sanity remaining--revenant?--in our profession.