*** Democracies Online Newswire - http://e-democracy.org/do *** *** *** *** Up to seven posts a week. To join over 2500 subscribers, *** *** e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in message: sub do-wire ***
A number of interesting questions for our media friends at the end of this COE request for comments (due 31 Jan 2003). The reality around that world is that established media brands are the number one online providers of political news and information - at least in terms of users. Therefore, the future of e-democracy relies in large part on how the media takes advantage of the two- nature of the Internet versus their traditional one-way communication models. The most obvious thing the media as a whole can do is make it easier for technologies that help people contact the journalists who write articles via web forms and/or e-mail. Adapting the NewsML <http://www.newsml.org> standard to make this more automatic, particularly across wire services is a fundamental choice: Yes, and the media is making citizen engagement easier and promoting media accountability. No, and the media is holding onto their old media position of power by maintaining a lack of access to their writers on an industry-wide basis. Of course journalists and specific media outlets should have the choice about whether to utilize a feedback path standard, but a feedback element in media technical standards should exist. Does anyone know what path NewsML efforts have taken since my last post on this topic in 2000 <http://www.mail-archive.com/do-wire@tc.umn.edu/msg00103.html>? Finally, at the _very end_ I have included a piece from the BBC in VoxPolitics <http://www.voxpolitics.com> about their role in e-democracy. My quick comment - shouldn't the media do more to bring together "dislike minds" (instead of like minds) within a context of civil exchange? That is where the heavy lifting is needed. My sense is that people more naturally organize online with those whom they agree, we need public benefit intervention in the major gap areas to help citizens come to better understand the views of others and to ensure that online public discourse has an agenda-setting impact on decision-makers and media itself. Steven Clift Democracies Online http://www.e-democracy.org/do Available in Word, from: http://www.humanrights.coe.int/media/ Strasbourg, 19 December 2002 MM-S-OD (2002) 13 rev [mmsod\2002\7\ammsod13.2002.rev] GROUP OF SPECIALISTS ON ON-LINE SERVICES AND DEMOCRACY (MM-S-OD) Secretariat memorandum prepared by the Directorate General of Human Rights Introduction This document contains an outline position paper on the role of the media in promoting democracy and participation in the information society, prepared by the Group of Specialists on on-line services and democracy. European media professionals, research institutions and other interested parties are kindly invited to comment on this paper, in particular by sending answers to the questions listed in Appendix I to the document, in English or French, to the Media Division, DG II, Council of Europe (see contact details at the end of the document) by 31 January 2003. I. The Council of Europe and e-governance The Council of Europe recently embarked on work concerning e- governance with the aim of defining common approaches to the subject. (1) Against this background, the Group of Specialists on on-line services and democracy (MM-S-OD) has decided to prepare a position paper on the role of the media in promoting democracy and participation in the information society. A first outline was discussed during the 6th meeting of the Group on 6-8 November 2002. At that meeting, it was decided to invite media professionals and other interested circles in Europe to answer certain questions listed in the outline position paper. The aim is to gather information about how they see the role of the media in a changing context and on how the media is reacting to the changes. The information collected may be useful not only for those media which have not yet started to deal with these questions because their countries are less advanced on the road to the information society, but also for public authorities when defining their e-governance policies. Public authorities and Parliaments may, for example, consider whether they should themselves organise public consultations on important political questions, whether this should be left to the media professionals or whether this can be done in partnership between the two. II. The role of the media in promoting democracy and participation in the information society a) Information increasingly offered directly to the public One of the roles of the media has traditionally been to provide the general public with information about the activities of public authorities. Increasingly, however, such information is made directly available to the general public on official web sites. This is at first sight a positive development serving the right of the public to access information. The question arises, however, of what role remains for the media? Once, they used to be a unique link between public authorities and the citizen, while now they may become marginalised. It seems obvious that the media should continue to extract information from the public sector, since there is no guarantee that the information provided by public authorities on their own initiative is objective and exhaustive. Furthermore, it may be argued that the amount of available information makes "filtering" and interpretation even more necessary than before. No one seems to be better placed than independent media to correct misleading official information. The media should therefore act as an independent observer of public authorities and their information policy, highlighting what is really newsworthy and criticising what could be done better. The advice of media professionals can also be valuable when it comes to deciding how information on public web sites is structured. Public documents should for example be presented in a transparent and easily accessible manner facilitating the work of media professionals and others who follow the activities of public authorities. b) Collecting the views of the public It is commonplace to say that the media reflect public opinion. New technical possibilities allow the media to collect the views of the public in a much more direct way than before. Conducting an on-line vote with the help of the Internet is technically fairly easy and many on-line media invite the public to voice their opinion on certain topics, for example by simply clicking a "yes" or "no" button in answer to particular questions. The question arises, however, whether the media have developed any guidelines on how to conduct and present the results of such on-line votes. For the sake of fairness and transparency, the media might, for example, provide information on the composition of the sample which would allow the audience to judge to what extent it is representative.(2) Furthermore, it might be interesting to know if the media present the results of such votes to decision-makers, requesting a reaction. c) Engaging the public in a discussion about public affairs There is nothing new about the fact that the media offer the public the possibility of engaging in a discussion about public affairs. This has been done in the past in the form of letters to the editor, talkshows on radio and television, etc. New technologies open up new possibilities in this respect. Many on- line media invite readers to comment on stories or to provide input in chat-sessions or discussion fora on topical issues. Several questions can be raised in this respect. Firstly, whether the media should issue any guidelines to participants in on-line debates regarding respect for the law and ethical principles. Secondly, whether the debates should be moderated and, in the affirmative, whether they should be premoderated or postmoderated.(3) Premoderation may, in particular, be necessary when sensitive topics are being discussed(4) or where children are encouraged to take part. Thirdly, whether participants should be allowed to hide their identity. In addition to these questions, which the media will first and foremost decide for themselves, there is the issue of legal responsibility for content of on-line debates.(5) Over and above these issues, which are immediately linked to the organisation of on-line debates, there is the question of what is done with the results. Is there an attempt by the media to draw conclusions from such debates and present them to decision-makers? This might add a new sense and increased importance to participation in the debate. d) Promoting democratic practices The media may have an important role to play in promoting democratic practices. This can be done, for example, by encouraging participation in elections and referenda and devoting special attention to such democratic processes. This could also involve providing information to voters about the democratic system that they belong to. In the context of the information society, this would mean that the media follow closely new developments aimed at increasing democratic participation in decision-making about public affairs. Where no such developments are taking place, the media could furthermore enquire why this is the case. The media may also pay special attention to the phenomenon of diminished interest in public affairs and suggest ways for public authorities and politicians to involve the general public to a greater extent than before. More public interest and involvement will also ultimately be beneficial to the media themselves, at least as regards the sustainability of serious reporting about politics, the economy, etc. e) Drawing attention to the views, concerns and situation of excluded parts of society The media should, furthermore, pay special attention to the views, concerns and situation of marginalised or excluded parts of society. Such a moral obligation is to be found in many ethical codes and is respected in practice by a large number of media professionals. This may be particularly urgent in the context of the information society, where new forms of social exclusion may arise. People without access to the Internet or lacking skills in using the Internet may effectively be worse off than before from a democratic point of view. Appendix I Questions 1. How do you see the role of the media in the new context where information about public authorities and their activities is increasingly directly available to the general public? What could public authorities do to help the media fulfil this role? 2. What is the experience of the media with using new methods to collect the views of the public? Are there any guidelines on how to conduct on-line votes and present the results? 3. What is the experience of the media with on-line fora, chat and other such new tools and frameworks for public discussion? What are the main problems? Is it a goal that the debate leads to a consensus and if that is the case, what can be done to facilitate such a result? How have questions of legal responsibility been resolved? Is the outcome of such debates being presented to decision-makers and what are the results? 4. How can the media best fulfil the role of promoting democratic practices in the context of the information society? 5. How can the media fulfil the role of drawing attention to the views, concerns and situation of marginalised or excluded parts of society in the context of the information society? 6. Do different types of media (in particular public vs. private media) have a different role to play in the context of promoting democracy and participation in the information society? 7. Are there other aspects of the issue that you feel should be dealt with in the Council of Europe position paper? Please return your answers, by 31 January 2003, to: Mr Pall Thorhallsson Media Division Directorate General of Human Rights Council of Europe F-67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX Tel: 00 33 388 41 23 29 Fax: 00 33 388 41 27 05 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Footnotes 1. See http://www.coe.int/t/e/integrated_projects/democracy/ 2. The BBC Online Editorial Guidelines (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/online/) state that care has to be taken that on-line expressions of opinion are not translated into anything that could be construed as an accurate representation of public opinion as a whole. 3. "Premoderation is where material cannot be accessed by visitors to the site until the moderator has seen it and decided it is suitable for placing on the Internet. Postmoderation is where the moderator sees the material, and decides whether it is suitable to remain on the site, after it has been posted (quoted from the BBC Online Editorial Guidelines)." 4. The French newspaper Le Monde announces, for example, on its website that the on-line debate on the Middle East is premoderated (see http://forums.lemonde.fr/). 5. In Finland, a draft law which would clarify questions of liabilty for content of on-line bulletin boards is being discussed in Parliament, see http://www.helsinki-hs.net/news.asp?id=20021216IE5. >From the VoxPolitics December 2002 newsletter <http://www.voxpolitics.com>: ++ SECTION TWO: OPINION - POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT. +08: THE BBC AND E-PARTICIPATION. by Sian Kevill [EMAIL PROTECTED] A major reappraisal of BBC political coverage has led to the development of a new online and interactive political service. The project seeks to build on the BBC's reputation as a trusted guide to encourage people to participate in democracy. Research found that rather than being apathetic, many younger people are becoming more assertive about wanting a more transparent political transaction. They have become a new group of people who can be described as 'consumer citizens'. It seems that people who now play an active part in securing their rights in consumer life, are chafing at their lack of power over their civic life. They want information which is not defined by party politics but by the issues which interest them. They want to be able to judge what a politician promises and, if they disagree, they want to register this more than once every five years. Interestingly the research also found a small but significant increase in engagement with public life - for example, letter writing, consumer boycotts and signing petitions - though this is not seen as 'politics'. We also conducted some specific research on internet-friendly groups which showed that the two main reasons for passivity are that people don't know where to start or believe they can't make a difference on their own. The BBC hopes to enable people to overcome these hurdles by engaging people in an interactive community where people can make a difference in civic life. The initial aim is to foster communities which connect people who are interested in the same issues. They will be helped to attract and channel support for their issues and achieve broadly defined outcomes, ranging from making contact with people like themselves, to gaining coverage on the BBC and even influencing legislation. To help make civic life easier to navigate, we'll provide a database of democracy which people can use to find out who they have to contact on any given issue. We want to provide people with the opportunity and means to participate in democracy, at local and national levels, not simply observe it. This will be a service designed for action, not talk or 'chat'. It will also be highly interactive with users being encouraged to shape the website and its agenda by rating, voting and posting their own material. There will also be link-ups with broadcast programmes which will cover the most compelling stories that emerge from the site and give people the chance to influence the broadcast agenda. We believe the BBC is well placed to become a key facilitator in this emerging e-democracy world using its strong, trusted brand combined with its ability to attract audiences through both its online and broadcast output. But there are dangers for the BBC which will need to avoid, not least the absolute imperative of retaining our impartiality and not being perceived as part of any given campaign. Also, for the project to work, there need to be responding changes in other institutions. If larger numbers are enticed into the civic arena through the net, those on the receiving end need to be equipped with the right technology and culture to cope. At the BBC we recognise that opportunity comes with risk: In this case a failure could mean we add to the cynicism of a generation which already feels politics is unaccountable and out of touch, undermining the democratic potential of the internet before it is even realised. NOTE: Sian Kevill is head of the BBC New Politics Initiative. ^ ^ ^ ^ Steven L. Clift - W: http://www.publicus.net Minneapolis - - - E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota - - - - - T: +1.612.822.8667 USA - - - - - - - ICQ: 13789183 *** Past Messages, Discussion http://e-democracy.org/do *** *** To subscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** Message body: SUB DO-WIRE *** *** To UNSUBSCRIBE instead, write: UNSUB DO-WIRE *** *** Please forward this post to others and encourage *** *** them to subscribe to the free DO-WIRE service. *** *** Please send submissions to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
