Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic is an international public
health crisis without precedent in the last century. The
novelty and rapid spread of the virus have added a new
urgency to the availability and distribution of reliable information
to help curb its fatal potential. As seasoned and
trusted purveyors of reliable public information, librarians
have attempted to respond to the “infodemic” of fake news,
disinformation, and propaganda with a variety of strategies,
but the COVID-19 pandemic presents a unique challenge
because of the deadly stakes involved. The seriousness of the
current situation requires that librarians and associated
professionals re-evaluate the ethical basis of their approach
to information provision to counter the growing prominence
of conspiracy theories in the public sphere and official decision
making. This paper analyzes the conspiracy mindset
and specific COVID-19 conspiracy theories in discussing how
libraries might address the problems of truth and untruth in
ethically sound ways. As a contribution to the re-evaluation
we propose, the paper presents an ethical framework based
on alethic rights—or rights to truth—as conceived by Italian
philosopher Franca D’Agostini and how these might inform professional approaches that support personal safety, open
knowledge, and social justice.
Description:
According to Merriam-Webster.com, the term “infodemic” (a portmanteau
of information and epidemic) was coined by political scientist
David Rothkopf in a 2003 Washington Post column addressing the
shortcomings of official responses to the SARS epidemic and other
public emergencies at the time, both major and minor: https://www.
merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/words-were-watching-infodemicmeaning.
However, a 2002 editorial in The American Journal ofMedicine
by Gunther Eysenbach described a new discipline and methodology
called information epidemiology, or infodemiology, that “identifies
areaswhere there is a knowledge translation gap between best evidence
(what some experts know) and practice (what most people do or
believe), as well as the markets for ‘high-quality’ information.” His
article asserts that the first infodemiological study occurred in 1996.
