The main reason I was interested in blogging when I was a politician was to provide another way for people to access information about aspects of the political process, and to see if I could get useful feedback from people about some of my ideas and activities. To me, the comments are the most interesting part about blogging, rather than my blog posts. I already know what I think, so I find it more interesting to read other peoples’ ideas (including on other blogs) rather than spend time writing about my own thoughts.
I’m interviewed on this week’s Media Report on ABC Radio National as part of a segment examining how best to encourage the comments on blog and social networking sites to be constructive, civil and worthwhile, rather than inane or abusive. It also features social network strategist Laurel Papworth and The Australian’s George Megalogenis, one of the relatively few mainstream media writers who genuinely try to engage through their blog and make it a process which value adds.
The Media Report goes to air on Thursday at 8.30 am and again at 8pm, and is also streamed and podcast, as well as transcribed – all at this link.
Lindsay Tanner recently wrote a piece on The Age’s blogs saying he was “in the early stages of organising a trial government blog. The purpose of the experiment will be to explore the possibilities for government participation in blogging.”
He poses a number of questions which face any government Minister or agency – or politician – who wants to operate a genuinely informative blog.
Should we set up our own blogs or just pop up on blogs that are already operating? How much leeway should we give public servants to express opinions on behalf of the government? Should we have public servants blogging as informed private citizens or official representatives of government? How much additional resources should be provided to fund government participation? Should our blogging focus on specific areas of government activity?
All valid questions, but none of them insurmountable in encouraging more open government.
Of course, Tony Abbott’s experience this week where he caused himself a fair bit of political grief for giving a candid (and I thought fairly innocuous) comment on a mainstream media blog that he wouldn’t mind a shadow ministry ‘closer to the main action’ than his current portfolio of Family & Community Services & Indigenous Affairs will just reinforce to a lot of politicians that open and honest two way communication just opens up more avenues to weaken ‘message discipline’ and give ammunition to opponents. A shame really.
3 Comments
Andrew,
Keep up the good work.
Eventually the blogging will become more mainstream (ie, RSS feeds to mobiles and the ability to blog from 3G-style phones).
Where George is good (and Samantha Maiden, and the late Matt Price for that matter), is that he responds. Its a dialogue with those in positions of “political” influence.
Regards,
Paul
A policiticians comments on a blog would become and remain a permanent source for media and opposition use and abuse. Thus the comments that could be made would undoubtedly be sterile, heavily qualified and non-contorversial. Thus the conversation would be inane.
Apart from that the politicians blog would become an echo of their daily arguments and spin as issues come and go.
Ex pollies would be much better. How about a Paul Keating, Bob Hawke, Tim Fisher, Peter Reith, John Howard blogging exercise. That would generate enough traffic to shut down the net.
It struck me that the Paul Keating/Janet Albrechtsen stoush earlier this year had many of the hallmarks of a blogwar.
Anyway… in the absence of the podcast, can I ask what your recommendations for bringing about more civil discourse were, Andrew?
It seems to me that (a) it’s very difficult, and (b) there may, in any case, be room for some deliberately “snarky” blogs, if only for the purposes of entertainment.
One Trackback