COML 509 was a tough course. We studied Chomsky and Postman and Ong. We learned about technology and its effect on culture. My final paper looked at how Gov 2.0 strategies are changing the relationship between the government and its citizens, and it included a few of the many concerns that we must consider as new technology is injected into our government. Here are a couple of excerpts from that paper.

—————————-

Barack Obama did not have the best pedigree to be president. A first-term US senator with a great speech and a couple of books as his major accomplishments, Obama looked like a long-shot to become the Democratic nominee, let alone push aside a Republican opponent. Yet, on inauguration day 2009, Obama took the oath of office on the west steps of the US Capitol before a crowd estimated to contain more than a million people.

It is an amazing story and one that seems perfectly written for America and its melting pot history. Yet, while Obama’s campaign for president will be remembered for many things, its place in history may be for how it harnessed the power of electronic communications to unite a collective audience and how the internet and social networking tools helped the campaign motivate that audience to action.

The internet was used in every aspect of Obama’s campaign: PR, advertising, advance work, fundraising and setting up organizations in all 50 states. Indeed, the web allowed Obama to mount the first true 50-state campaign in years, rather than just rally the base and focus on a few battleground states, or even counties (Learmonth, 2009).

The theme of internet organization and populist action continued as Obama entered the White House. Based largely on its campaign success, the new Obama administration brought to Washington DC a vision for how government could embrace openness and accountability by developing an emphasis on the social aspects of internet communication between itself and its citizens.

Obama’s people were not the first government types to imagine how the internet could redefine the relationship between government and its citizens, literally how citizens interact with and participate in their government. Since the 1990s, hundreds of state and local government agencies have developed tools and techniques to provide government services electronically, in most cases using the internet. The goal of reinventing government has been primarily focused on improving the efficiency of service delivery. More recently, governments have tried blogs, wikis, Twitter feeds, Facebook, discussion boards, Second Life and MySpace sites, trying to connect with the public online. This effort to expand government’s accessibility and increase its accountability online is called Gov 2.0, modeled after the ideals of Web 2.0, “Web applications that facilitate interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design and  collaboration on the World Wide Web” (Wikipedia.org, 2009).

The growing focus on social networking sites as a part of Gov 2.0 initiatives makes sense since the public seems to be actively gathering there. According to the Pew Internet & American Life project, more than a third (35%) of adult internet users has a profile on a social networking site, up from just 8% in 2005. In 2000, half of Americans were using the internet. Today, eight in 10 Americans are online. Less than one in 10 Americans had high speed internet access in 2000, and now it is six in 10 (Lenhart, 2009).

Now Obama’s administration and government officials at all levels across the country are investing in Gov 2.0 strategies to see if the promise can be applied to government of public participation and activism created by Web sites like Moveon.org or the online public participation shown during Obama’s run for the White House. Can an open and accessible government encourage Americans to participate in the democratic process?

So far, few have tried to define measurements of success for these new tools, and even best practices are barely defined for how government agencies should utilize these tools. Yet, it is likely that the growing deployment of Gov 2.0 strategies is changing the relationship between government and its citizens. Neil Postman, noted author and media ecologist, would offer a warning for government managers and technophiles advocating for an active online government. Postman, who never imagined sending a “tweet” or “friending” someone on Facebook believed that the question, “What will a new technology do?” is no more important than the question, “What will a new technology undo?” (Postman, 1998)

I would forbid anyone from talking about the new information technologies unless the person can demonstrate that he or she knows something about the social and psychic effects of the alphabet, the mechanical clock, the printing press, and telegraphy. In other words, knows something about the costs of great technologies. (Postman, 1998)

Government involvement with its citizens is complex and Postman’s warning is well said. Governments’ efforts toward an online relationship with their citizens may be a natural evolution in a country increasingly at ease with internet technologies and social networking sites, but this new relationship will come with a cost – leaving some Americans behind and raising questions of privacy.

————————————-

Despite the drawbacks and concerns, government has arrived as an active online participant. Gov 2.0 utilizes social networks, blogging and multimedia web sites to engage the public in conversation and to improve service delivery. The January 2009 Obama memo, and Orszag’s open government directive, would undoubtedly concern Neil Postman, who commonly warned about embracing technology without asking some tough questions. What problem is being solved or addressed by government involvement in social media? What is being lost in its solution?

Gov 2.0 tools are intended to facilitate more efficient service delivery, and an expanded opportunity for public engagement. These appear to be goals of convenience rather than necessity, since government services are still available offline. I am not yet required to have a computer to engage as a citizen with my government.

Obama’s vision for an open and accountable government is laudable, but it comes at a high cost. Postman said that we always pay a price for technology (Postman, 1998). The greater opportunity for engagement between the citizens and government comes in exchange for greater exposure to violations of personal privacy, a digital divide, a sense that the government has a growing ability to influence our lives.

Gov 2.0 efforts will move ahead. As the people go online, so goes the government. Yet, advances in these technologies should come with a great dose of skepticism because, as Postman argues, technology creates ecological change. Once technology is introduced, it cannot be taken back. “It changes everything and therefore it is too important to leave in the hands of Bill Gates” (Postman, 1998). Postman had no way of knowing that Bill Gates was just the beginning, that Facebook would have more registered users than there are citizens in this country; that “tweet” would become a word; or that thousands would follow the president on Twitter, even though Obama has never sent a Twitter message in his life.

A government that is responsive to its people, open and transparent is worth working toward, and Gov 2.0 is intended to help create that vision. But Postman would undoubtedly caution that Gov 2.0 is also too important to let go without significant questions on the part of the citizens, and political leaders, who embrace it.

References

Lenhart, A. (2009, January 1). Adults and social network websites. Retrieved December 7, 2009, from Pew Internet & American Life Project: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Adults-and-Social-Network-Websites.aspx

Lipowicz, A. (2009, November 16). Gov 2.0: Transparency without accessibility. Federal Computer Week. Retrieved December 7, 2009, from http://www.fcw.com/Articles/2009/11/16/POL-accessibility.aspx

Narro, A., Mayo, C., & Miller, A. (2008). Legislators and constituents: Examining demographics and online communication tools. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 13(3/4), 153-165. Retrieved from http://proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=36435874&site=ehost-live

Obama, B. (2009, January 21). Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies [Transparency and open government]. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transparency_and_Open_Government/

Postman, N. (1998). Five things we need to know about technological change. Talk delivered in Denver Colorado. Denver, CO. Retrieved from  http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/materials/postman.pdf

Rennie, E. (2006). Community media and direct representation. Presented at the Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany. Retrieved from http://proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=27203949&site=ehost-live

Sifry, M. (2009, February 1). A see-through society: How the web is opening up our democracy. Columbia Journalism Review, 47(5), 43-47. Retrieved from http://proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=36124330&site=ehost-live

Smith, A., Lehman Schlozman, K., Verba, S., & Brady, H. (2009, September 1). The internet and civic engagement. Retrieved December 7, 2009, from Pew Internet & American Life Project: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/15—The-Internet-and-Civic-Engagement.aspx?r=1

Sweeney, A. D. P. (2007, June). Electronic government-citizen relationships; exploring citizen perspectives. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 4(2), 101-116. Retrieved from http://proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=36288949&site=ehost-live

USA.gov. (2009, December 7). Social media and web 2.0 in government [Definition of government 2.0]. Retrieved from http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/technology/other_tech.shtml

Wikipedia.org. (2009, December 7). Government 2.0 [Definition of government 2.0]. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_2.0

Wikipedia.org. (2009, December 7). Web 2.0 [The definition of Web 2.0]. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

Winsvold, M. (2007, November). Municipal websites in the local public debate: Supplying facts or setting agenda? NORDICOM Review, 28(2), 7-23.