the groundswell in all it’s glory: the good, the bad, and the ugly (Reading Response #5)

The White House is doing a really good job of taking advantage of the groundswell.  Unfortunately, other parts of the federal government aren’t.  I think it’s crucial that other federal departments catch up to the White House’s lead, and quickly, if the President’s push to make government more transparent through the internet is really going to work.

One of the most interesting facts that I came across in the groundswell reading was that watching videos is the most common type of participation in groundswell activities.  29% of online adults watch video content from other users while 28% read online forums or discussion groups and 25% visit social networking sites (p. 42).  So people are still looking for some face-to-face interaction through the net… and video seems to be the best way to reach them.

As I’ve made clear in my previous posts (such as my post on government blogs and my post on creating a Facebook page the U.S. Mission to the African Union), I’m most concerned with how the State Department can enhance its use of online media to reach out to both Americans and foreign publics.  The Department of State is good at putting out frequent videos of Secretary Clinton or Daily Press Briefing by Spokesman Kelly.  However, the White House is definitely trumping State in terms of the ways that they are using a combination of different social media outlets to really involve stakeholders in discussions about policy online.

This summer, the White House started doing citizen interviews, in essence, where a member of the President’s advisory team would answer questions on video as they were coming in through a chatroom.  Here’s one with Van Jones. Great idea!  Given that people like to watch video, but they also seem to have an interest in discussions—videos can sometimes be one-sided—this method combines those two goals flawlessly.

The online video interview also does something brilliantly sneaky—it allows the White House site to screen negative comments or undesirable questions without anyone even knowing they came up.  But in Chapter 4 of groundswell, Li and Bernoff warn that things will go wrong, i.e. people will talk negatively about you or your product, when you turn to online media.  The White House also has a Facebook page, which allows for anyone to post comments or pictures.  Many people use this forum to be critical in a way that is just plain rude.  When critics go too far, I don’t think they even need an answer because it’s so clear that they are acting out for the hell of it…  And often, the mix of supporters and denouncers works itself out without interference: someone will shell out a criticism and then someone else will counter it (or vice versa with praise). (I also like the idea that Ayisha brought up in one of her blogs a few weeks ago that “[t]hose who want to be influenced by supposed narcissistic, doubtful content will always find a way and those who want enlightenment (as they define it) will find their way too” so “viva la bloggers!”  In the end, it’s really about letting everyone have their say and showing that you’re willing to air even the insanely brutal, or threatening, remarks on your website in the name of transparency.)

But what do you do on a public forum when someone sends you a reasonable critique or concern?  There is a letter to the President about multiple military deployments of a close friend on the White House Facebook page.  Now I believe that elected officials are required to respond to all constituents—I know a few people who have written letters to the White House and all have gotten pretty prompt responses.  Charlene Li was recently quoted in a news article saying that when you open yourself up to online media, you have to respond, promptly, to peoples’ comments.  So does the President’s responsibility to respond to constituents extend to Facebook and other online sites?  And should he do it publicly, or privately? If he does so publicly, then he’s really writing to everyone who can see the Facebook page and will have to write a very stump-speech-like answer.  Moreover, since writing Facebook comments is much easier than sending a letter, he opens himself up to a flood of comments to reply to.  If he does so privately, then we don’t see his answer and we never know if he responded or not (potentially making him still look unresponsive to the general public).

So there are still some things that I think the White House is working out regarding its online activity, along with the rest of us… I am interested in seeing how they work it out, because it will lead other federal departments in dealing with the same issues.

Advertisement