Search results

This paper aims to identify key learnings around the concept of “grey corruption” by systematically reviewing the extant literature. The concept is addressed in terms of areas of alleged misconduct often considered “minor” or “borderline” in relation to “black corruption”. Common examples include favourable treatment of friends and relatives by public officials, receipt of gifts, excessive expenditures and pork barrelling, influence peddling through donations and lies and false promises. The focus of this study is on definitions, extent, public perspectives, explanations and evidence of promising prevention strategies.

Relevant sources were sought using systematic keyword searches of major criminological and political databases, a media database and relevant government and non-government websites, up to the end of December 2019.

The main findings were that there is no single accepted definition of grey corruption but that the concept remains useful, practice is often extensive, it is generally at odds with public opinion, opportunity is a key factor in its incidence and prevention requires the enactment and enforcement of clear principles.

Media-reported cases were too numerous to analyse in detail for the present study.

Efforts to improve integrity in government need to take account of the concept. Rules require clarification and communication. Enforcement needs improvement. More experiments are needed in prevention.

This paper captures a range of integrity issues of importance to the public but often downgraded or dismissed by politicians.

This paper is unique in reporting the results of a systematic search of the international literature on the topic.

This chapter asks: How has Donald Trump communicated about COVID-19 on Twitter? How have conspiracy theories influenced his Twitter communication about COVID-19? Utilising critical discourse analysis, it analysed tweets in which Trump communicated about COVID-19 and showed that he used social media to spread conspiracy theories and fake news about COVID-19.

The findings show that Donald Trump uses social media such as Twitter for spreading far-right ideology, conspiracy theories and fake news. He makes use of a variety of linguistic ideological devices. In the context of COVID-19, Trump has spread a variety of conspiracy theories to his millions of followers, which has contributed to the intensification of risks and harms at the time of the worst global health crisis in 100 years.

This chapter addresses the perceptions versus facts divide as the United States experiences an eruption of facts, opinions, and untruths in web-facilitated environments. It addresses how traditional and newer media undermine social justice and political inclusion in ways lingering beyond Donald Trump’s presidency. A competitive environment encouraging journalists to publicize rumor and gossip is addressed. The reliance of individuals on the personal experience of mental models, heuristics, and perceptions to separate fact from fiction is examined. Powerful influences of self-interest and political allegiance are explored. In the context of a deeply divided nation, libraries are seen as having the capability of implementing confidence-building measures to bridge the rift in their communities and organizations. The roles of information educators in advancing democracy through promoting useful theories and effective interlanguages are considered. The value of pragmatism, a philosophy promoting engagement in reformist projects possibly acceptable in conservative and mixed ideological environments is addressed. Economically advanced nations committed to equality and inclusion may find the US experience to be both a warning of potential roadblocks and a guide as to how such obstacles may sometimes be positively addressed.

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.

Political corruption takes many forms across different countries and regions. The types of corruption that occur in American politics are drastically different from the clientelism, nepotism, and corrupt electoral practices that are seen in the developing world. This chapter will analyze three distinct cases of political corruption in Southeast Asian politics: clientelism in Cambodia, nepotism in Thailand, and the 2021 coup d'état in Myanmar. All three cases highlight the unique challenges facing developing democracies and reveal that, while political corruption affects all countries to a degree, distinct regional and cultural differences produce different forms of corruption in Southeast Asia than in the United States.

The 2016 presidential campaign in the United States was marked by widespread interference by Russian agents. The interference was especially prominent in digital media. This indicates the possible need for better regulation. To investigate the problem, I examined the legal and regulatory history of US Federal campaign regulation. While these regulations require various disclosures and disclaimers, and set some spending limits, they do not cover advertising messages. More to the point, the disclosure and disclaimer requirements for digital ads are limited and easily circumvented. Possibly because of this, political advertising in digital media has increased dramatically in recent years. I examine current proposals for improved regulation and make recommendations for changes in Federal regulation and in oversight by nonpartisan groups.

In an April 2018 webinar, the Freedom to Read Foundation asked the question: Do information consumers have the right to be misinformed? Fake news is nuanced, prolific, sometimes malicious, often automated, and has the added complications of emotion, privacy, and ethics. And unfortunately, fake news and its foundational components of misinformation and disinformation (mis/dis), aren’t quickly fixed by learning a few information literacy strategies or media literacy concepts. People are inclined to believe what they want to believe despite training, awareness of critical thinking, and acknowledgement of widely held “objective facts.” Are they less intelligent or information poor because they choose to exist in their own information worlds and privilege their own confirmation biases?

Individuals have the right to seek, avoid, and use information for themselves as they see fit, regardless of whether or not others deem their information deficient, insufficient, or even false. However, this is a very black and white perspective on a much more complex and nuanced moral issue. Even if it is to their detriment, people ultimately do have the right to be misinformed, choosing the information they will and won’t accept. But information professionals should still be compelled to instruct patrons on the importance of seeking, finding, and using quality information and sources.