Government and new media
I'm on a panel this afternoon speaking to the 2007 Conference on Public Administration in Chapel Hill. Here's the first sentence of the description of the topic: Saber-tooth tigers, oil, polar ice caps, and newspaper control of news -- all may be gone soon, if not forgotten. So how does a government handle overwhelming demands for information and participation on the new frontier of journalism?
Well. They got the verb tense wrong. "Newspaper control of news" is long gone.TV saw to that years ago. And you can make a strong argument that it never was. But that's another post.
Here is the list of questions the moderator is going to use to spark discussion, although I have no expectation that we'll need more than No. 2 to do that.
1. We have recently seen high profile conflicts between media and politicians/bureaucrats here in North Carolina. Many of these conflicts center around interpretations of the Public Records Laws. Where do you see these laws and their interpretations going in the future?
2. The blogging world has been referred to as the "fifth estate." This implies a certain level of importance in the balance of government branches and citizens. Do you think blogging has such a substantial role, and if so, is it a healthy or unhealthy influence?
3. Bloggers are sometimes accused of being less subject to laws and ethical restrictions than mainstream media, primarily because they do not have assets at risk. Please comment on this perception.
4. What suggestions would you offer government officials for dealing with inaccurate blog postings?
5. There is some pressure for professional government employees to create and maintain blogs. It may be hoped that this would shorten the time lag in government response to the people on issues. Given that the time lag is often the product of a need to review records laws, etc., what advice would you give to appointed government officials regarding this suggestion?
6. Most newspapers and television stations (according to recent reports have added blogs to their repertoire, including The News & Record. How do you see this merger affecting news coverage?
7. What are the implications, professionally and ethically, of government employees posting information to blogs? Given the ability to make such postings anonymous, an option generally not available in letters to the editor, what impacts might their ability to share inside information have? Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
8. How do you see the speed and anonymity of web-based news ultimately affecting the democratic process?
Most of these questions are the wrong ones, it seems to me, coming at the topic from the wrong angle. As the world of news and information moves from the one-to-many model of mass communication to the two-way model of the Web, then hand-wringing about whether that move is good is irrelevant. It simply is.
I wrote about my initial talking points here. Now that I have the questions, anything else I should add?
The need for greater transparency in government will be a key addition. What I've learned is that when people aren't given full and complete information, they often fill in the blanks on their own, creating a version of reality based on some facts, some assumptions and some biases. It has little to do with "new forms of media," which is the title of the panel. People have always done that. The difference now is that the people have a voice of their own on the Web. As with everything else, some of the voices will be cranky, mean-spirited and off-point. Others will be relevant, insightful and helpful. It is what it is.
What else?
Comments (1)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
The point I would make to this crowd is not to get hung up on the technology. Yes, everyone has heard of a blog now. Yes, the speed of the news cycle is every increasing. Yes, there are more people demanding access to various bits of information.
But there have always been conflicts between pols and 'crats. There have always been ethical questions for newspapers (and TV, radio, etc...) about their coverage. There has always been for government workers a conversation about how much is the right amount to disclose. And frankly, there have always been anonymous folks participating in the conversation, although not so directly.
The conversation is really one about how open and accountable government - in whatever its incarnation - is going to be. There are those, like us, who think everything should be on the table. There are those, obviously, who disagree. But that's the real philosophical point.
Once you answer that - or at least have it as the subtext for the conversation - you can talk about how corporate media, independent bloggers, government officials, etc... use blogs and other methods to accomplish the philosophical goal. In the end, it's not how you distribute the information that counts, it's the quality, context and conversation that's meaningful.
Here ends my sermon.
Posted on November 1, 2007 10:44 AM