e-government & journalism

e-Government

Before taking this class, I had not even heard of e-Government. This is not surprising as I have marginally benefitted from e-Government. I have paid many parking tickets online but never thought of the transaction as out of the ordinary. Rather, I think it would be unacceptable in this day and age (as my grandparents would say) not to be able to pay a parking ticket online. And, many other e-gov sources online appear similarly basic and transactional. For example, the IRS website allows you to pay your taxes online via credit card. Being able to pay a parking ticket or taxes online is a real convenience that should not be discounted, but I believe it falls short of a greater goal of fostering real citizen participation in e-gov.

Regarding the conveniences e-gov should provide, I think following quote from the article Bringing Government up to Data makes a valid point, “In our personal lives we live in a culture where ‘there’s an app for that’, but for whatever reason we came into Washington, and it still looks like a culture where ‘there’s a form for that.’” Washington is behind when it comes to developing services that take advantage of using the web as platform. The shift toward a more open government (Data.gov, USAspending.gov, etc) uses the internet as a publishing tool. Accuracy aside, these sites still fall short of providing an accessible service that is convenient and easy to use. True it allows individuals to avoid sending a data request, but there is a much bigger opportunity for egov to provide more everyday convenience. See Click Fix is a great example of a tool the government could have created to encourage citizen participation and input to guide government action in very practical terms. Although the government did not create this technology (as far as I know), it is surprising the model has not been widely adopted.

Clearly egov is in its infancy. While creating new positions such as CIO is probably a good place to start, I hope the focus shifts to involve more citizen participation and competition. Developing Apps to better the world should not be limited to Apps 4 Africa. Apps for the FDA, USDA or IRS are also worthy ventures that through allowing citizen participation/crowdsourcing will likely produce technology that will improve lives.

In sum, it appears Washington is stuck somewhere in between the form culture of the past and the app culture of the present. My money is on TurboTax coming out with a practical app to help consumers file taxes well before Washington. While it seems citizens are seeing few new egov conveniences, the efforts to make the government more transparent can not be dismissed. I would rather have more government transparency than an app for my taxes-although it would be nice to have both.

Journalism

Sophomore year I took an economics class on the changing media landscape and its effects on journalism. By the end of the semester I was convinced micro-payments would be the saving grace for the struggling print media business. If the accuracy of my thesis was measured today I would be wrong. Many NYT articles are not yet behind a paywall, and a system of micro-payments for those not interested in paying a yearly subscription is not available…at least not yet. Some things about the current economics of journalism simply do not make sense. Why does People Magazine charge for their iphone application while the New York Times does not? The BBC app is also free. I read most news in the am on my phone and think the newspapers are hurting themselves by not charging for applications that may very well be replacing the need and incentive for individuals to subscribe.

Dan Canover makes some interesting points about the future of journalism in his blog post “2020 vision: what’s next for news” that summarizes many of the points on other articles. Canover believes many local newspapers will not survive, profits will half to 8%, and having a mobile presence is very important. Canover predicts niche publications will thrive over sources that host more “general content.” This concept may explain my seemingly puzzling iphone app example:since People Magazine attracts a niche audience interested in celebrity gossip they are more easily able to charge for content than The New York Times which covers many general news topics.

While Canover closes with the quote, “The current meltdown is just a warmup act” I would not phrase it harshly. Perhaps looking back ten years from you will be able to draw many parallels between the music industry pre itunes music industry and the news media today. While there will be winners and losers as the landscape changes, the winners will emerge from the adapters and innovators. And, innovation is much more exciting and appealing than fighting to maintain the status quo.

Foreign Policy, Digital Diplomacy and the Internet

Writing this post I barely know where to begin. A few months ago I had not even heard of “21st century statecraft.” The following quote is an introduction to 21st century statecraft by Secretary Clinton.

“To meet these 21^st century challenges, we need to use the tools, the new 21^st century statecraft.  And we’ve begun to do that.  We have seen the possibilities of what can happen when ordinary citizens are empowered by Twitter and Facebook to organize political movements, or simply exchange ideas and information. So we find ourselves living at a moment in human history when we have the potential to engage in these new and innovative forms of diplomacy and to also use them to help individuals be empowered for their own development.”

I am hopeful that the spread and mass adoption of new technologies for accessing and exchanging information such as Twitter, Facebook, and Google will lead to a more open and informed country and world. But as Clay Shirky points out, the use of new technology will undoubtedly foster more dialogue and help people move in a particular direction, yet this direction is not necessarily toward democracy or toward values we as a democracy value. Technology is neutral, and the policies crafted in the name of 21st century statecraft must keep the inherent neutrality of technology in mind. To be fair, Secretary Clinton does partially address this issue by talking about putting technology in the hands of individuals who will “advance democracy and human rights, fight climate change and epidemics, and build global support for President Obama’s goal of a world without nuclear weapons.” While in theory this strategy seems great, I fear it has many weaknesses. For one, the same technology that can be leveraged by people with good intentions can probably also be leveraged by people with harmful intentions. Therefore, it is important the government continues to closely monitor potentially volatile situations.

But how far can the government tread? Alec Ross made a notable point in class by highlighting the delicate balance the government tries to keep between being open and closed. The government needs to be open and transparent to some degree, yet in order to protect must also remain partially closed. Internally matters are much more complicated than I expected-as discussed in the 20th century roots of 21st century statecraft. The relationship between technology companies and the state department is not entirely clear to me. I understand the argument against the government courting oil conglomerates/powerful technology companies, yet find this argument a bit too critical. While I am not an expert in policy, it is only logical that the government would want to have a special relationship with actors-whether they be companies or individuals- in the position of power. We are living in the information age, and thus is it no surprise that Alec Ross wants to visit Twitter and cozy up with companies and individuals who have a hand in controlling the creation and/or exchange of large quantities of information.

I find the following quote from the 20th century roots of 21st century statecraft to be unfair. “Facebook simply wants to make money on exploiting user data — and dissidents simply get outed as a result. See? It wasn’t so hard. In part, because the government wasn’t watching…” From doing the readings on this topic and listening to Alec Ross speak in class it is clear the government is trying to watch, and 21st century statecraft is only in its infancy. And, from what I have learned so far I am a cautious fan.

Politics and the Internet

I’m writing my senior thesis on social media and political campaigns. From following the current senate races, I have observed using social media has become pedestrian. While social media is still a buzz word, using it in a campaign is far from unique. What is unique however is how social media is used. The message behind the technology is still very important. Gina Glantz summarized this well point well when she says “technology is not a strategy.” Having a Facebook page, a Twitter account, speaking to people on YouTube is not a strategy. The campaign still needs a compelling message that people get excited to promote.

Many of the readings about the Obama campaign point out specific strategies used to fundraise and to mobilize volunteers. I found the following concluding passage from the article “How the Internet Put Barack Obama in the White House” summarizes this point about technology vs campaign message well.

Last winter, I asked if the Obama campaign would turn out to be a model for online campaigning. Clearly the answer would be “yes” — political professionals will no doubt try to replicate his success for years to come. The next question is, do we want it to be? Is this new political machine the way we SHOULD elect a president, or anyone else for that matter? Populism turns to demagoguery faster than you can say Huey Long, and the tools don’t care who uses them. Progressives beware — the next candidate-of-the-people may not have a message that’s as sweet to your ears as the sound of hope.

I believe the message is still the key component of the campaign. And, that it is not just sufficient to use the technology, but a candidate must use the technology with a strategy that is consistent with his/her campaign tone and message. Obama had an inspiring story that in my opinion few will be able to match. The technology combined with a grass roots strategy enabled the spread of this message. In theory, his campaign tactics can be replicated, but I doubt few will be able to do so on such a large scale.

Another thing to keep in mind with politics and the internet is the issue of control. I did not expect Gina Glantz to be particularly insighful when it comes to new media as she has worked on campaigns for some time. However, I think she touched on the most pressing points I have been thinking about for my thesis. One issue I have been thinking about is a question of control. The internet and new technologies transfer a considerable amount of control from the candidate controlling his message to other people. In reference to technology, control and the internet Gina said, “you have to let it go- even though sometimes the consequences might be embarrassing.” This statement brings to mind a quote from one of our assigned book readings “you can’t take pee out of a swimming pool.” A slightly crass analogy, just like pee is a pool, messages on the internet spread quickly and are very difficult to erase. I wonder what the Clinton-Lewinski scandal would have been like if social media and the internet were widely used at the time. I think Obama did a great job with campaigning for the election in ’08, but since then has done a poor job of maintaining momentum within the volunteer base he worked so hard to build.

My prediction for the 2012 presidential election is social media will be taken more seriously as part of the campaign strategy, yet may amplify a potential scandal and cause politicians to think twice before blindly jumping on the technology bandwagon without fully understanding what is going on.

 

On Wikipedia

When first asked to contribute to an article on wikipedia, I did not think it would be too challenging. I was wrong. First I checked the pages of organizations in which I am involved: UNICEF, The Skating Club of Boston, and Adams House Dorm. I was surprised to find the pages for all these organizations were pretty comprehensive. I spend the next week wikipedia-ing topics that came to mind, checking if I might be able to make a contribution. No luck. At 21 I am not really an expert on anything, and wanting to make a meaningful edit rather than being the grammar police turned out to be more challenging than expected.

The breakthrough came while talking to my boyfriend-probably the biggest Red Sox fan in NYC. He suggested I update the wikipedia page on the 2010 season. I did not immediately jump at this suggestion. Once I checked the page, I realized I had finally found somewhere to make a contribution. My boyfriend has been trying to get me to learn more about the Red Sox for some time. I am a casual fan to say the least and I enjoy going to games (and getting an ice cream helmet around the 7th inning). I know some of the players names, but not most of them.

I began researching the Red Sox season, and compared the current entry to the entries of other teams 2010 season wiki pages. Although I am far from a Red Sox expert, I am confident I can make a meaningful contribution. The current page received a C rating on wikipedia, and contains little updated information from the season. November, December, and January are covered extensively with commentary, while the pre-season is not mentioned, and the actual is described with only a few statistics.  No information about the about the plague of injuries or highlights from the season are discussed.

Eager to get the hang of wikifying, I tinkered around with the page, making a few small changes. Unfortunately, I unsuccessfully added a reference and have not been able to figure out what I did wrong. Curious to see how wikipedia works after reading and hearing so much about it, I promptly tried to undo my changes, and have yet to correct the page…. I will ask for help tomorrow as it is late and I may be missing something obvious.

My contribution is still a work in progress, but I have pasted a draft of my addition below. I would like guidance organizing the page as it is a mess right now. The bullet points are hard to follow. I would like to combine november, december, and january commentary under off season. The preseason is not covered. I would like to organize what little commentary exits on the season, as well as highlight key points. Below is a description of the additions I would like to make.

The last time the Boston Red Sox opened and closed the season at home against the New York Yankees was the 1950. With a 2010 record of 89 wins and 73 losses, the Red Sox finished 3rd in the American League East and failed to advance to the playoffs.

==Off Season==

November, December January

==Spring Training==

On February 10, 2010, eager fans gathered at Fenway Park to kick off the Red Sox preseason by celebrating Truck Day. Truck Day is an annual event which marks the Boston Red Sox’s truck departure to South Florida for Spring Training. The first full team workout of the preseason took place on February 24th, 2010. Playing other teams in the Grapefruit League, the Red Sox had 17 wins, 14 losses, and 1 tie during spring training.

==2010 Season==

Opening Day

The Red Sox kicked off their 2010 regular season on April 4th at home against the New York Yankees. Trailing the Yankees for most of the game, the Sox began to make a comeback when Kevin Youkilis made two consecutive outs and Jorge Posada crossed home plate, pulling the Sox ahead. The final score was Red Sox 9, Yankees 7.

Highlights

General manager Theo Epstein set the tone for the regular season by characterizing  it as a “bridge year,” referring to the next wave of key talent that will be ready to take the field in 2011 and 2012. For the 2010 season, Epstein brought in new additions: Marco Scutaro, Adrian Beltre, Mike Cameron, and John Lackey.

Over the course of the season, 19 players spent 24 stints on the disabled list. Starter players Jacobe Ellsbury, Dustin Pedroia, and Kevin Youkilis suffered season ending injuries. Due to the abundance of injuries, a number of players within the system emerged to have increased visibility on the team.

This post needs some more work, and I will complete research by the lab on Wednesday.

My wikipedia page link can be found here.

Everything 2.0

Government 2.0, Medicine 2.0, Telco 2.0, Travel 2.0, Medicine 2.0, Classroom 2.0, Social Network 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, P.R 2.0, Publishing 2.0, and the list goes on…

It seems like you can tack on “2.0″ to the end of anything today in order to communicate your service is operating on the highest level of technological sophistication. Before reading Tim O’Rielly’s essay “What is Web 2.0,” I didn’t have a firm grasp on the concept although I have heard “2.0″ used many times. I doubt most people have a true understanding of “2.0″ and have recommended the essay to many of my friends.

Tim O’Reilly’s Essay on Web 2.0 describes the technological changes of web-olution from 1.0 to 2.0. By explaining what has changed, O’Reilly does a fantastic job of not only describing what makes Web 2.0 unique, but also orients the reader to have an educated understanding of Web before 2.0. Many concepts already covered in class such as the permalink, open-source software, the long tail, and importance of collecting user data were stressed in the essay.

So what did I learn? Most importantly Web 2.0 is only possibly because of user contributions. While I had a grasp of this concept before, I mostly thought of user contributions in the terms of producing user generated content-posting photos, blogging, etc. Web 2.0 is about more than people interacting with each other via the web. Rather, it is also about how the web interacts with users-mainly how user data is collected and leveraged. For example, Google is expanding data collection within Gmail by allowing users to upload and use their individual cell phone numbers to make calls.

In order to further acquaint myself with Web 2.o, I tried to visit some of the sites O’Reilly mentions, www.writely.com. O’Reilly describes writely as a site that enables “wiki-style collaborative editing.” Interestingly, www.writely.com redirected me to my gmail documents. Suspecting that Google acquired Writely, I did some digging. I found an article in Open Source Magazine that describes the acquisition 0f Writely by Google in March 2006. Beyond describing the acquisition of Writely, the article articulates the changes of the new emerging web. In 2007 Microsoft was scheduled to release a new version of Office. The article highlights Microsoft’s dilemma in facing the threat of “software as a service” web applications.

Microsoft is a typical Cathedral style program. Office is developed under a closed source-programming model and operates within a set release cycle. Google documents is a Web 2.0 application, in which the program updates without set releases, there is no need to buy a physical, packaged product, and the exchange of user generated content is encouraged. Although not specifically mentioned in the article, the clash between Web 2.0 concepts and the tradition model describes only the beginning of challenges institutions like Microsoft are facing today.

Switching gears, since this is a course on government, I googled the term “Government 2.0.” I found an article published by Fortune magazine on October 1, 2010 most interesting because of the following idea describing the possible results of Government 2.0.

“In one direction lay true, sustainable, change where government operates more transparently, more efficiently, and in deeper cooperation with citizens. In the other direction we have business as usual with great promises and poor results.”

From following the current Senate races on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, it is apparent to me business has a new usual. Most candidates have devoted resources to maintaining a Facebook page, Twitter account, and a YouTube channel. While one may argue social media is most relevant for campaigning, I counter by pointing out social media is a fantastic tool for politicians to leverage once they are in office. For example, President Obama continues to engaging with supporters from a base built during his campaign. To be fair, the end goal is likely reelection. But, the transparency and deeper cooperation fostered by the new medium can not be overlooked.

Jacqueline Boltik 2.0

Googled

I really enjoyed reading Ken Auletta’s Googled, the story of how two Stanford PhD students forever changed the internet and produced a tidal wave that has washed away traditional media practices. The book chronicles the backgrounds of founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, as well as highlights the stories behind key additions to the Google team. In addition to brief backgrounds on individuals, details from the interview process are also disclosed. Learning the inside story of how Google grew from an idea, to a startup, to a massive corporation within the span of a decade was quite inspiring.

As with his column, the Annals of Communication, in the New Yorker, Auletta gains command over reader interest and does not let go. Even as the book concludes, Auletta leaves readers wondering what will happen next-”No one can predict with certainty where Google and the digital wave is heading” (Auletta, 336).  For now, we will just have to keep our eyes and ears open (and wait for his next book).

In February 2007, I met Larry Page. Google was big, but in retrospect the wave was still growing. Larry was speaking to an audience filled with scientists and engineers. Few of my fellow students would guess today that I was a serious science nerd in high school, but it’s true. I attended the annual convention for the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) as a senior in high school. I had been invited to speak about my research that had been recognized by Intel earlier that spring. The crowd drawn by the high school presenters was humble, but the experience AAAS provided for us was amazing.

After listening to Page speak to the convention, we were invited to a special session where students were encourage to ask questions. My impression of Page from his speech was that of a dreamer with his feet in the clouds. Page seemed to view the word from an upside down vantage point: he spoke of a future where people fly to work wearing jet pack suits, and a resulting world that had no roads. His goal to make books available online sounded progressive, and more practical.

My grandmother would call Page a real “mover and shaker.” Not only a prominent figure, Page was and continues to “shake-up” and challenge the status quo.

While Page and Brin are often portrayed as anti-corporate idealists, it is important to  note that their staunch aversion to paid advertisements (which once distinguished Google from competitors) is now the key driver of revenue. What other compromises are Page and Brin willing to make? Will the ever consider selling consumer information? We can only hope that Page and Brin hold public good above corporate profits as Google amasses detailed information about each of us.

Personally, I find it surprising and scary that the collection of such detailed information is not moderated by the government-both for protection and policing. We can only hope that Google will not sell personal information to make profits-a situation Facebook has confronted on some level. If Googled shared query history with the government, the government might be able to target suspicious activity around terrorism by following query trends; but where to draw the line regarding right to privacy would undoubtedly be very messy.  Only time will tell what kind of a world lies beneath the waters of the Google tidal wave.

Here Comes Everybody

Summary

In his work “Here Comes Everybody” author Clay Shirky argues how the internet is changing society, focusing on the resulting effect on institutions. Once limited to a unique set of stakeholders, the power to publish has now become universal and seamless (thanks to the internet). Human communicative capability is at an all time high as groups and individuals are now able to easily converse and exchange information in real-time. This efficient exchange of free-flowing communication and information often challenges the structure of established institutions.

One example of this phenomenon that Shirky touches on is the Catholic Church. In 1992 the Church was able to keep news about its sex abuse scandals relatively local.  In 2002 the stories took the national stage, in part due to this new technology. The internet not only spread information quickly, but also helped to form support groups for victims.

Shirky introduces a multitude of mini arguments-ranging from how a stolen phone became NYT worthy news, to why Wikipedia is not empty or filled with junk-in order to illustrate why and how society and groups are changing.  His arguments are supported by quotes, illustrative examples, and theories often viewed through a unique lens.

Evaluation

The book is an easy read full of thought-provoking arguments. Shirky does a good job of addressing why society is changing-pointing out that social tools merely remove obstacles to collective action, and that innovations become interesting to study when the once novel technology has become ubiquitous.

Yet, with the introduction of many ideas and theories, the argument intended to illustrate how group dynamics are changing jumps  frequently from one example to the next. Theories are sprinkled in, but no one theory is flushed out to a great degree of detail. To the author’s defense, he is attempting to illustrate how new media has effected institutions/society. This argument is broad and necessitates touching on many examples. Overall, the book is interesting and packed with anecdotes and concepts applied in interesting ways.

One example of a concept applied in such a way is the power rule. Shirky claims this concept applies to participation rates for Wikipedia-a small group is very active, while the majority of users contribute just once. While the argument makes sense, I would be more convinced if it were backed up by data, or cited an academic article.

Synthesis

I am taking this course in order to learn more about new media for my thesis. I am a sociology concentrator and my thesis is about how new media has changed political campaigns. I especially enjoyed reading Shirky’s analysis of bridging vs. bonding capital as it relates to Meetup. I know Nicco worked on the campaign, and I am interested to hear feedback on Shirky’s analysis in class from someone with fingerprints on the campaign. Although the book can jump around to various topics, this quality has helped to expose me to a number of experts on new media. The books serves as an overview to help me explore many angles through which the rise of social media can be viewed.

If I were reading this book for pleasure I would probably be disappointed at the books ADD tendencies. Shirky’s argument seems to wander rather than to head toward an “ah haha” realization. In Shirky’s defense, my very wise high school english teacher said the best answer is always “it’s complicated.” Shirky struggles throughout the book to describe how institutions are being effected by new media, tying historical examples in to illustrate sub-points. In sum, his multitude of his arguments and examples relay a simple message-”it’s complicated.”