Information is an essential commodity in a democratic society.

Without information a democracy cannot properly function.

However, that information needs to be accurate and reliable, which is certainly not always the case.

And information - or misinformation - often becomes a weapon wielded for political purposes.

Two categories of information are most relevant to our public aff airs: government information and political information.

Let’s fi rst consider government information.

The issue of what information should be made public has long been debated.

There is an inherent government tendency - regardless of who is in charge - to control the fl ow of information, particularly information that’s securityrelated.

The Obama administration is under fire on two information-related issues - in one case criticized for making too muchinformation available, and in another too little.

The White House is accused of leaking sensitive national security information after press reports on U.S.

cyber attacks on Iran, drone strikes against al-Qaida operatives, the successful search for bin Laden and other secret operations.

Some critics charge this information has been revealed to enhance Obama’s image.

Investigations about sources of some of this information are under way. The president said suggesting his White House would purposely release classifi ed information is “off ensive.” Attorney General Eric Holder points out the Obama administration haslaunched more prosecutions for leaks than all previous administrations combined.

Holder is at the center of another controversy, this one involving information related to a botched government gun-running operation known as “Fast and Furious.” U.S. Rep.

Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who is head of a House oversight committee, has conducted an 18-month investigation seeking information about the administration’s handling of this issue. Holder says he has already testifi ed eight times and the Justice Department has submitted more than 7,600 pages of documents.

That’s not enough for Issa, who has insisted on getting more information. That led Obama to invoke executive privilege, which in turn quickly led House Speaker John Boehner to say this meant top administration oftcials were involved in withholding information and misleading Congress.

These examples demonstrate both the premium placed on information and the use ormisuse of information as a political weapon.

Speaking of politics, this election cycle has already brought us a deluge of information and misinformation. The air is thick with dubious and misleading claims.

This tendency to distort is exacerbated in the cyber age as falsehoods and fabrications run rampant.

And too many of us are content to rely on media reaft rmation, depending only on sources that reinforce our prejudices and predispositions. Recitation of partisan pre-packaged talking points by cable commentators and talk-show swellheads provides little in the way of trustworthy information.

This year already has brought a cavalcade of campaign ads and assertions of dubious validity. Claims about the nation’s fi scal problems are subjected to serious spin-doctoring.

Mitt Romney’s record on job creation is described as either the worst or best in the nation. The massive budget deficit is blamedon Obama, ignoring all the runaway spending that preceded him and failing to acknowledge government revenue is low by historical standards, with tax cuts a contributing factor. Likewise, opponents’ positions on Social Security and Medicare are regularly distorted.

Some unsubstantiated claims are repeated so often they become accepted as truth, a good example being the claim by Romney that Obama “spends a lot of time apologizing for America.” There’s no record of Obama doing any such thing.

The presidential campaigns and their supporting groups will spend millions on campaign ads in the coming months and much of the information they contain will be bogus, intended to persuade rather than to inform.

Some of the most pernicious and unfounded attacks and fabricated information is found on the Internet and social media, where often there is little or no accountability.

With the declining infl uence of traditionalmedia, especially newspapers, accountability is in short supply.

As Leonard Downie Jr., former executive editor of The Washington Post, wrote recently, “the impact of digital media and dramatic shifts in audience and advertising revenue” undermined the fi nancial model of news organizations that supported investigative reporting during the last third of the 20th century.

Thoughtful scrutiny and analysis of campaign claims is important and accountability is imperative. Some independent organizations such as FactCheck.org are performing a valuable service, as are some of the remaining bastions of the traditional media, but they get limited exposure.

The information battle goes on. The challenge for information consumers is to be careful about accepting uncritically that fl ow of information.

HOYT PURVIS IS A JOURNALISM AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PROFESSOR.

Opinion, Pages 19 on 07/01/2012