Webcasting interactive press conferences- are our expectations changing? Is this virtual Town Hall the White house as Gatekeeper and simply another staged performance or is it participatory Media and government by 'advocacy'?
Is it the same message or different way its put forward that makes it important?
Is it what President Obama says or are the nature of the questions asked more important because its the public asking the questions instead of the media?
Can they discern the central interests of the public via questions posed on the internet?
Is it a 'sense' of participation or is it true participation?
What does the internet offer that network television doesn't? Is this 'transparency' in government?
Does the president risk overexposure?
Based on the Network television election coverage can you make comparisons to our discussion this week on Web 1.0 vs. 2.0?
What can we learn from this online virtual Town Hall experience? Is learning more interactive this way and how can we convert this experience to our own practice as educators?
Watch it on http://www.whitehouse.gov/ and lets hear from you!
What’s the Matter with Ebooks: An Update
7 years ago
I think it's more of the same.
ReplyDeleteThe only difference is that President Obama is the first president to truly embrace technology personally.
While we as the public do not necessarily have to wait for the press to ask the questions for us, we still do not have true "access".
Is is a more transparent process? Not really. Just more immediate and convenient. But the president does risk overexposure as he is always making statements and holding town halls or press conferences.
One more thing...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-MEuVdCLc4
This is access. This is participatory. Why? It got an unexpected reaction to a difficult question. The randomness of it makes it genuine and true, not scripted, studied, and prepared.
Your skepticism may be warranted and I hear you but look at a story from Sunday's NY Times to know there is subversion everywhere...
ReplyDeleteBallot box manipulation was the suspect when questions about legalizing Marijuana shot to the top of the popularity charts in EVERY category at the Virtual Town Hall format News Conference. It seems like advocacy groups like Norml made an effort to mobilize their supporters to swamp the electronic mailbox! So the Times goes on to say "it illustrates the forum's vulnerability to 'smart mobbing' tactics;" much like what happened to some candidates in the 07-08 elections. (NYTIMES 3-29)
Obama's response: 'legalizing and taxing marijuana wold not be a good idea for the economy'
for another article about participatory media this week in Sunday's NY Times check out 3 articles I'll be posting about on our blog: the Wikipedia story from the Week in Review section,http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/weekinreview/29cohen.html?scp=2&sq=wikipedia&st=cse
the one about the fact that widespread anger and collective passivity exist side by side: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/opinion/29venkatesh.html?_r=1
and and the article on Facebook's growing personality... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/technology/internet/29face.html
I have to disagree with EA Poole. I think it's completely different. It goes beyond the fact that Obama is the first president to embrace technology. He is the first president to figure out how to reach the people and let the people speak directly to the government. Remember that the government, according to the laws of this country works for the people, not the other way around. The values upon which this country is based: liberty, opportunity, democracy, equality and unalienable rights, are much more easily addressed through these new participatory technologies. While "Open for Questions" is not quite the same as a live town hall (I'm sure that the President took a look at the most popular questions in advance to be prepared), I do believe it gives a whole new opportunity for us regular people to have a voice. And the popularity ranking system works - if enough people vote for it, then enough people care about it to ensure that it gets addressed.
ReplyDeleteJust my $.02.
Oh, and regarding the YouTube video, I'm not at all disturbed by the Presidents answer that it took him a few days to respond because he wanted to know what he was talking about before he spoke. Makes sense to me. He's got a lot of his plate. I have a lot less on my plate and it sometimes takes me days to respond to customer requests that probably should be quicker. Besides, it's nice to have someone who takes the time to know the facts and not sound like a bumbling idiot. Ok Ok - I realize that this might be a politically charged topic (literally!) so I think I've shared enough of my views...
ReplyDeleteBut, in summation, I love the Open for Questions initiative! I'll probably submit a video question myself the next time! Probably around the topic of technology integration in education and preparing students for 21st century skills!
I think this sits somewhere between “true” participation and ‘sense’ participation. To me it’s like when you let students make the rules for the classroom. The students are participating in making their own rule and they always say they should be allowed to have their phones in class but then I have to shoot it down because the principal mandates that there are no cell phones allowed in school. The people have a voice but it’s certainly contained.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to transparency, I don’t think that this fixes everything in regards to transparency of the government but it at least recognizes that there has been opaqueness in the past and it’s a step in a new direction. Does anyone really want pure transparency? Would pure transparency really be a good thing? Is translucency safe for the average American or is that something the government would like us to think?
I believe this is a good step for Obama in embracing technology and getting closer to the people, especially the younger generation which is using the internet and especially Web 2 technologies the most.
ReplyDeleteHow much the public can have a more direct participation in the government depends on how the viewers' input is going to be used by the government.
I am not sure if much has changed now but this is a step in the right direction.