Defining Information Objects

In 1991, Information Science Scholar Michael Buckland argued that information can be defined, in part, “as (a) thing,” in other words, a tangible good used as evidence in learning. For Buckland, this included objects such as fossils, texts, and documents based on their use as information. Buckland referred to informational objects that are actively processed, produced, and summarized based on earlier evidence, such as books and summaries of knowledge, as “representations.” Drawing on Buckland’s proposition that information (as representations) is formed and constructed by people, I argue that information inequity can occur based on how the information in representations is constructed. Further, I suggest the information inequities created through how information is produced can be magnified by how contemporary digital platforms distribute this information. To illustrate my argument, I draw on the example of journalistic information production and digital sharing in the U.S.

Information (In)Equity In Information Objects

The information presented in U.S. news is a text constructed based on criteria determined within an institution predominated by white, wealthy men. Journalists produce news information by deciding which events or social issues are “newsworthy” enough to become news. Whether an event is deemed newsworthy depends on whether it encompasses certain characteristics like geographical location, timeliness, cultural relevance, novelty, and surprise, to name a few. In large, mainstream newsrooms, whether or not an occurrence has the characteristics to be considered newsworthy is not only determined by an individual journalist’s subjective evaluation but also by institutionalized organizational norms and routines. Since mainstream U.S. news organizations, and in turn, their norms have historically been (and continue to be) dominated by white, middle and upper-middle-class men, these determinations of newsworthiness typically do not account for those characteristics of a story that may be important to historically marginalized communities.

The Case of Journalistic Information

The information presented in mainstream U.S. news also tends to refract information about newsworthy events in a way that privileges the perspectives of those with ties to sites of social, political, and economic power. As Gaye Tuchman argues, the people journalists have been trained to consider “expert” sources to talk to about events are often individuals with ties to the state and political establishments, such as mayors and police officers. Additionally, due to the way the journalistic norm of “objectivity,” or the presumption that journalists should report from no particular perspective or subjective positionality, is put into practice, journalistic information gives equal weight to “both sides” of an issue or event. This practice has historically created a false equivalency between two unequal perspectives, such as anti-racism and white supremacy. Finally, the advertising business model traditionally utilized by U.S. news organizations leads news outlets to focus on information tailored toward people in society who are perceived to have more money to buy advertised goods and avoid subversive topics that may alienate socially conservative viewers. Collectively, these practices produce public information that tends to deprioritize marginalized peoples’ informational needs and concerns.

Amplifying Information (In)Equity through Online Platforms

Additionally, the increased use of digital platforms, such as search engines and social media platforms, to share and search for journalistic information can further amplify these inequities. First, the scale at which digital platforms distribute information amplifies the reach of inaccurate news narratives. Second, how these platforms distribute information incentivizes prioritizing and sharing information that can harm marginalized communities. Online platforms make money through advertisers who pay to advertise to their users; the longer companies keep users on the platform to engage with the information they offer, the more money they make. To keep users on the platform, engineers design these platform distribution algorithms, or the digital processes that decide what information users see, to prioritize more engaging or potentially “viral” information, which studies have shown tends to be sensational, divisive, or controversial. These practices can lead to the increased sharing of mis-and-disinformation, unintentionally or intentionally untrue information, respectively, which, similar to viral and highly engaging content, tends to be sensational and controversial. Mis-and-disinformation has been used to increase political divisiveness and target racially marginalized groups by sharing inaccurate information intended to cause inter and intra-community divisions, further limiting marginalized peoples’ access to helpful and relevant information they could use to advocate for themselves.

The Importance of Addressing Information (In)Equity in Information Objects

Through critically attending to the information production and distribution practices that may further information inequity, I argue information science scholars can more thoroughly address this pressing social issue. In the case of journalistic information specifically, this may include using non-advertising-driven business models, reassessing the characteristics used to evaluate newsworthiness and determine expertise, and adjusting digital information-sharing platforms to de-incentivize the sharing of sensational information. However, more broadly, being attentive to the practices through which information objects are produced and how they are shared can aid information science scholars in more holistically addressing information inequity and the larger social inequities it helps sustain.

This article is based on the following paper: Peterson-Salahuddin, C. (2024). From information access to production: New perspectives on addressing information inequity in our digital information ecosystem. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 75(10), 1134–1151. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24879