Can we call it Government 1.9 ?

[Michael Hardner]

Those of you who read my posts in this forum know that I'm greatly interested in how prevalent technologies (today meaning the web) change the political process. Today, it seems we need change more than ever, and as has been observed, technology often arrives just in time to solve a problem. ( Of course, this phenomenon is an illusion but there you have it. )

I have written (alright fine, I have blogged) about the divisiveness that seems to be happening in the political arena today, which is again another illusion. The reason why it seems that we are divisive when we are not is that we have so many more channels for political expression that our small differences are amplified.

If you disagree with me, look into NDP policies on corporate tax during the last election... they don't appear to be the Marxists that some on here would say they are. Also the Conservatives don't seem to be hell bent on sending gays to prison or eliminating welfare.

So the political gulf isn't so very large as one would think, there's just more yelling. This is happening because the traditional channels (press, and TV channels) now include partisan Cable channels and the new web channels, such as this very forum, which appear to reveal even more divisiveness. The web has become TV that yells back at you !

And until now, we've seen what MacLuhan referred to as the 'rear view mirror'. That is, new technology being used as it if were new technology. The web isn't TV, folks. Not even close. Luckily, the natural uses for the web have started to emerge, and are starting to stir the political world very slightly: online fund raising, political blogs and videos are the leading edge of this change.

Being the visionary that I am (ahem, this is a joke people) I can clearly see a future where the strengths of the web (interactivity, and the ability to provide video, text as well as graphs) can be used to actually make democracy's "media mix" function more like the 18th century press did. That is, a media mix that supports more debate, more fractiousness but ultimately a mix that supports discussion and political compromise: a media mix that more closely matches the mix designed to support democracy as viewed by the Founding Fathers. In the 18th century, democracy was more combative, more face to face and more about debating written opinions such as the pamphleteers'. (There was no television in the 18th century.)

The web world is still too immature or fractious to support real democratic dialogue, but it is constantly mellowing, refining itself, and blending into mainstream media. At some point in our lifetimes, it will sprout roots - real political institutions that will supplant Cable television as the medium of choice for political communication.

My problem, though, is that although I can get a glimpse of the future of politics with the web, but haven't been able to see any way to get there until now. How could it happen ? Today - Shawn Micallef writes in Eye magazine about the start of the TTC Riders Union:

http://www.eyeweekly.com/blog/post/82013

This may be what I've been watching for. My problem was that I assumed a technology-centred group would usher in new advances and uses of technology in the political sphere, but I forgot something very important: The Trojan Horse

MacLuhan described a 'Trojan Horse' effect of technology arriving upon the scene with its real qualities hidden inside, invisible to us, and this is what the TTC Riders Union is. Of course, ostensibly, it has nothing to do with technology. It's talked about in the old media press, and as such contains all the touchstones of old media organization and could have existed as a protest group at any point in the last generation. But this union is really a Facebook group that reaches across the technological divide to the larger citizenry.

As such, it offers a hybrid of qualities it could use to mobilize groups that respond to old world and new world (or no world) technologies. Better yet, the new-media aspects of this group will be able to provide a designated intellectual forum where principles, priorities and ideas can be executed efficiently. So, the TTCR Union holds much of the promise of the toronto.ca/open initiative, which as recently lost some momentum in the hands of the new-media-technocrats-and-geeks.

So this is not Democracy 2.0, but perhaps Democracy 1.9. A little less technology based, and a little

more people based. Let's hope it pans out.

[Argus]

Those of you who read my posts in this forum know that I'm greatly interested in how prevalent technologies (today meaning the web) change the political process. Today, it seems we need change more than ever, and as has been observed, technology often arrives just in time to solve a problem. ( Of course, this phenomenon is an illusion but there you have it. )

Technology may be the problem, not the solution. Examine, if you will, the correlation between the degredation of the news industry into what can best be termed "infotainment" and the near simultaneous degredation of the political process.

There was a time when the news media focussed on presenting the news - as a public service, in the case of television, and television is the real culprit here. The News You Need To Know was the axium. News stories were considerably longer, considerably more sober, and focussed on issues considered important to the citizenry. Stern news readers delivered one item after another, and those items were several minutes in length and contained long speaking pieces by politicians.

Now, TV news stories are very short, a quarter what they used to be. The news reader is normally hired for their prettiness, not their intelligence, and the infotainment industry wants upbeat, sexy stories, blood, violence, shock. For politics, it wants very quick sound bytes, hopefully with something outrageous or infuriating in them.

Thirty or forty years ago, a politician would expect that his interview with a reporter would run two or three minutes. Now, at best, he or she will get a few eight or ten second sound bytes in there, with the reporter summarizing what was said - in the reporter's opinion. And the reporter is looking, always looking, for something shocking, scandalous, outrageous, infuriating, something to get ratings, to make people's eyes widen. He's looking for a way to "interpret" or slant the interview so it will get bigger play.

And we wonder why politicians don't speak their minds any more?! What's the point, when the voters won't get to hear them anyway? So politicians hire media experts who teach them how to carefully carft their messages to get the right sound bytes covered, and to not leave their words open to interpretations which will get them in trouble.

It's no better from the print media, of course. Newspapers used to print entire speeches from important politicnas. Now, like television, the stories are shorter, looking to hook readers. The reporter will put in a few actual quotes - maybe - from the politician, while the rest of the story will be their summarizing what they think the politician said, or at least, what they think the politician meant, or what they believe they meant....

The media will devote long, detailed coverage of Tiger Woods infidelity, but explaining a complex economic or budgetary matter is considered boring - a ratings dud - and rarely makes it onto air or into print.

And just how will the internet be any different? Most who start a political blog are loud mouthed zealots. You're not going to get anything there you're not going to get on their party's web sites. It's Fox News from every corner of the political blogosphere, all heavily filtered and coloured to present the message they want people to read.

I have written (alright fine, I have blogged) about the divisiveness that seems to be happening in the political arena today, which is again another illusion. The reason why it seems that we are divisive when we are not is that we have so many more channels for political expression that our small differences are amplified.

I disagree. Our divisiveness can be traced - as I've written before - to deliberate policy on behalf of the Chretien Liberals, who, as part of their communications strategy - appealing to the modern media - set out to get sound bytes by screaming and yelling and calling the Tories names, making wild, often unsubstantiated accusations from the safety of the House (can't be sued) and doing their best to twist everything the then Mulroney government said or did into something nasty so the sound byte would get on the evening news. This effort carried on into the Chretien government's multi terms in office, directed largely against the Reform Party, then the Alliance. It pushed the two into mutually hostile camps which are barely on speaking terms and where there is little, if any respect for one another.

Being the visionary that I am (ahem, this is a joke people) I can clearly see a future where the strengths of the web (interactivity, and the ability to provide video, text as well as graphs) can be used to actually make democracy's "media mix" function more like the 18th century press did. That is, a media mix that supports more debate, more fractiousness but ultimately a mix that supports discussion and political compromise:

And where is this evident on the web now? It seems to me the majority of politically oriented web sites are not about compromise and honest discussion, but more like Rabble.ca, into the open contempt and vituperation of anyone and everyone who doesn't share the party line.

The web world is still too immature or fractious to support real democratic dialogue, but it is constantly mellowing, refining itself, and blending into mainstream media. At some point in our lifetimes, it will sprout roots - real political institutions that will supplant Cable television as the medium of choice for political communication.

More likely they'll respond to the same short attention spans and need for dramatic content as the mainstream media. When you've got a million web sites as competitors, how do you make yours stand out from the rest? Oh, by being the best, sure, but being the loudest and nastiest works too, and it's a lot faster and cheaper.

My problem, though, is that although I can get a glimpse of the future of politics with the web, but haven't been able to see any way to get there until now. How could it happen ? Today - Shawn Micallef writes in Eye magazine about the start of the TTC Riders Union:

http://www.eyeweekly.com/blog/post/82013

This may be what I've been watching for.

Perhaps I'm simply more cynical, but I see these facebook groups popping up here and there over all sorts of silly issues, big and small, and none of them having any real effect. The herd responds in an unorganized fashion, yes, but the manipulators of spin know how to organize them. Just look in the US to those people screaming and yelling with rage because the government proposes giving them health care. Most of them don't know much, or anything, about health care except what they've been fed by the manipulative industry mouthpieces and right wing blowhards on the likes of Fox news. And yet they turn out to express the rage they've been fed. I don't think you're average facebook protest group is going to counterbalance that any time soon.

[eyeball]

I feel overwhelmed by the number of sources of information there are but underwhelmed by the content. It's like TV channels, I have 70 of them but I'm lucky if I can find one or two decent shows to watch at any given time. It's truly a case of looking for the odd diamond amongst a mountain of crap. It's just too tiresome.

As for the Internet allowing greater participatory interaction in the political process I don't see much myself. I can fire off more emails to MP's and MLA's than letters but that's about it.

I don't know if technology will make as much difference as we think. Nothing can make up for a lack of real integrity on the part of the politician and party but by the same token nothing should detract from it either. If the crap is winning out it probably says more about the quality of the audience.

[Michael Hardner]

Technology may be the problem, not the solution. Examine, if you will, the correlation between the degredation of the news industry into what can best be termed "infotainment" and the near simultaneous degredation of the political process.

There was a time when the news media focussed on presenting the news - as a public service, in the case of television, and television is the real culprit here. The News You Need To Know was the axium. News stories were considerably longer, considerably more sober, and focussed on issues considered important to the citizenry. Stern news readers delivered one item after another, and those items were several minutes in length and contained long speaking pieces by politicians.

Now, TV news stories are very short, a quarter what they used to be. The news reader is normally hired for their prettiness, not their intelligence, and the infotainment industry wants upbeat, sexy stories, blood, violence, shock. For politics, it wants very quick sound bytes, hopefully with something outrageous or infuriating in them.

Thirty or forty years ago, a politician would expect that his interview with a reporter would run two or three minutes. Now, at best, he or she will get a few eight or ten second sound bytes in there, with the reporter summarizing what was said - in the reporter's opinion. And the reporter is looking, always looking, for something shocking, scandalous, outrageous, infuriating, something to get ratings, to make people's eyes widen. He's looking for a way to "interpret" or slant the interview so it will get bigger play.

And we wonder why politicians don't speak their minds any more?! What's the point, when the voters won't get to hear them anyway? So politicians hire media experts who teach them how to carefully carft their messages to get the right sound bytes covered, and to not leave their words open to interpretations which will get them in trouble.

It's no better from the print media, of course. Newspapers used to print entire speeches from important politicnas. Now, like television, the stories are shorter, looking to hook readers. The reporter will put in a few actual quotes - maybe - from the politician, while the rest of the story will be their summarizing what they think the politician said, or at least, what they think the politician meant, or what they believe they meant....

The media will devote long, detailed coverage of Tiger Woods infidelity, but explaining a complex economic or budgetary matter is considered boring - a ratings dud - and rarely makes it onto air or into print.

And just how will the internet be any different? Most who start a political blog are loud mouthed zealots. You're not going to get anything there you're not going to get on their party's web sites. It's Fox News from every corner of the political blogosphere, all heavily filtered and coloured to present the message they want people to read.

Well said. I urge you to read 'Amusing Ourselves To Death' - a book that influenced my thinking greatly - if you're interested in a deep analysis of the information sphere that we live in. There are interesting descriptions of colonial political meetings, contrasted with television news of the recent era.

I disagree. Our divisiveness can be traced - as I've written before - to deliberate policy on behalf of the Chretien Liberals, who, as part of their communications strategy - appealing to the modern media - set out to get sound bytes by screaming and yelling and calling the Tories names, making wild, often unsubstantiated accusations from the safety of the House (can't be sued) and doing their best to twist everything the then Mulroney government said or did into something nasty so the sound byte would get on the evening news. This effort carried on into the Chretien government's multi terms in office, directed largely against the Reform Party, then the Alliance. It pushed the two into mutually hostile camps which are barely on speaking terms and where there is little, if any respect for one another.

I respectfully disagree. The slide has been pretty much constant - led by the US and Canada - since television became a potent political force around 1960. Even radio paved the way for the degeneration, although that's before my time. I base that opinion on LBJ's pioneering radio ad campaigns and political comments of the 1940s that eroded the discussion of issues, and increased the bulls**t factor.

And where is this evident on the web now? It seems to me the majority of politically oriented web sites are not about compromise and honest discussion, but more like Rabble.ca, into the open contempt and vituperation of anyone and everyone who doesn't share the party line.

This site is, IMO, better and that is because the posters here hold a wider spectrum of views, and value the debate itself more than individual posters and opinions. To me, it's a closer match to the colonial-era pamphleteers that created a laboratory of ideas for democracy.

More likely they'll respond to the same short attention spans and need for dramatic content as the mainstream media. When you've got a million web sites as competitors, how do you make yours stand out from the rest? Oh, by being the best, sure, but being the loudest and nastiest works too, and it's a lot faster and cheaper.

Nobody can stand having a million web sites. A few will thrive and dominate based on whatever superior evolutionary traits that they hold. I was on several boards before this one, and I have now been here about 7 years.

Perhaps I'm simply more cynical, but I see these facebook groups popping up here and there over all sorts of silly issues, big and small, and none of them having any real effect. The herd responds in an unorganized fashion, yes, but the manipulators of spin know how to organize them. Just look in the US to those people screaming and yelling with rage because the government proposes giving them health care. Most of them don't know much, or anything, about health care except what they've been fed by the manipulative industry mouthpieces and right wing blowhards on the likes of Fox news. And yet they turn out to express the rage they've been fed. I don't think you're average facebook protest group is going to counterbalance that any time soon.

You're absolutely right about facebook groups, but as with websites - there will be one or two standing at the end of it all. If those groups don't serve both sides of the political spectrum, then they will be 1/2 as popular, right ? Also, my point about the TTC facebook group is that it is only a facet of a larger political action group. They *use* facebook, but it's not just a facebook group. That's why this particular group has more legs than a purely facebook group.

I appreciate your thoughts on this, sir.

[Michael Hardner]

I feel overwhelmed by the number of sources of information there are but underwhelmed by the content. It's like TV channels, I have 70 of them but I'm lucky if I can find one or two decent shows to watch at any given time. It's truly a case of looking for the odd diamond amongst a mountain of crap. It's just too tiresome.

As for the Internet allowing greater participatory interaction in the political process I don't see much myself. I can fire off more emails to MP's and MLA's than letters but that's about it.

I don't know if technology will make as much difference as we think. Nothing can make up for a lack of real integrity on the part of the politician and party but by the same token nothing should detract from it either. If the crap is winning out it probably says more about the quality of the audience.

I agree with what you have written. We're reaching the upper limit of how many channels, websites, etc. we can pay attention to. Honestly, electronic media is now as prevalent as the written word. I don't pick up new magazines, pamphlets, papers or books that I'm interested that often either.

I thank you - these posts are making me think more about this topic.