http://storify.com/digiphile/social-politics-how-has-technology-has-helped-camp.js[View the story “Social Politics: How Has Technology Has Helped Campaigns?” on Storify]
Monthly Archives: February 2012
What is the relationship of social media and politics in 2012?
Don’t just broadcast Supreme Court hearings on TV: stream the video online
While Chief Justice John Roberts may assert with considerable “justice” that the Supreme Court of the United States is the most transparent part of government, the fact remains that hearings are not televised on CSPAN nor on a .gov website.
This week, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11-7 to send a short bill on to the full Senate that would amend the U.S. Code to allow Supreme Court hearings to be broadcast live on national TV.
“Four days ago more than 111 million Americans watched the Super Bowl. No one would have tolerated that game being recorded and broadcast days later or its plays being transcribed and released at the end of the week. The outcome of the Supreme Court argument next month goes to the heart of our democracy and will affect Americans more than the outcome of any football game. Now is the time for the Supreme Court’s public proceedings to become truly accessible to the millions of Americans who will be affected by its rulings.”-Senator Patrick Leahy
Video of the Judiciary Committee session is embedded below, via C-SPAN:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=304338-1
I agree with that these hearings should be made available to the American people through broadcast television. The full Senate and House might consider going one step further, however, and amend the bill to add a provision for a livestream to the Internet.
The Supreme Court did get a new look — and online address — at SupremeCourt.gov in 2010. SupremeCourt.gov does provide access to opinions, orders, docket, Court calendars, transcripts, schedules, rules, visitors’ guides, case-handling guides, press releases and other general information.
The upcoming hearings about the healthcare reform law could make this the year when the judicial branch gets upgraded to be a real-time component of the public sphere of 2012. While oyez.org is a tremendous resource for those interested in hearing audio recordings of hearings, citizens deserve better.
In the age of the Internet, public means online.
UPDATE: An alert — and informed — reader on Facebook commented that Justices Scalia and Breyer weighed in against televising hearings:
“I was initially in favor of televising,” said Scalia, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986. “But the longer I’ve been there, the less good idea I think it is. … If I really thought the American people would get educated, I’d be all for it.” But, Scalia insisted, people would see only brief, illusory exchanges. “For every 10 people who sat through our proceedings gavel to gavel, there would be 10,000 people who would see nothing but a 30-second takeout … which I guarantee you would not be representative of what we do.”
Video of their testimony before the Senate is embedded below:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=301909-1
C-SPAN has a dedicated page on “Cameras in the Court” with the positions of each Supreme Court Justice.
[Update: Per Adam Liptak’s report for the New York Times, that page is now behind, with respect to Justices Kagan and Sotomayor’s stance. (They’ve expressed concerns after joining the high court.) I’ve updated their quotes below.]
Here are their most recent comments, per that page:
Justice Elana Kagan:
“I have a few worries, including that people might play to the camera. Sometimes you see that when you watch Congressional hearings.” – Remarks to the the University of Michigan Law School, September 7, 2012
Justice Clarence Thomas:
“It runs the risk of undermining the manner in which we consider the cases. Certainly it will change our proceedings. And I don’t think for the better.” – Testimony before a House Appropriations subcommittee, April 4, 2006
Justice Sonia Sotomayor
“I don’t think most viewers take the time to actually delve into either the briefs or the legal arguments to appreciate what the court is doing … They speculate about, oh, the judge favors this point rather than that point. Very few of them understand what the process is, which is to play devil’s advocate.” – interview with Charlie Rose, February 6, 2013
Justice Anthony Kennedy
“…But I don’t think it’s in the best interest of our institution…Our dynamic works. The discussions that the justices have with the attorneys during oral arguments is a splendid dynamic. If you introduce cameras, it is human nature for me to suspect that one of my colleagues is saying something for a soundbite. Please don’t introduce that insidious dynamic into what is now a collegial court. Our court works…We teach, by having no cameras, that we are different. We are judged by what we write. WE are judged over a much longer term. We’re not judged by what we say. But, all in all, I think it would destroy a dynamic that is now really quite a splendid one and I don’t think we should take that chance.” – Appearance before the House Appropriations Subcommittee, March 8, 2007
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
“I think what bothers many people, at least me, on the other side, is that if it were in the Supreme Court, I think it would become a symbol for every court, and therefore it would be in every criminal trial in the country. And when I start thinking about witnesses, [sic] I don’t want them thinking how they look to their neighbors…And I do think about the O.J. Simpson case. And I think I’m not certain I would vote in favor of having it in every criminal trial in the country. And then I also think a problem in the appellate court is that when we decide something, it’s decided for millions of people. Of the millions of people who will be affected, only two or three are actually there in the form of parties… A decision of this issue, this kind of issue, which carries with it threats to that institution as well as benefits, should be decided after really pretty serious research and study, and not decided on the basis of something that happens to strike somebody two minutes in a conversation. And that goes, by the way, for me as well as for everybody else.- American Bar Association Rule of Law Symposium Panel on The Role of the Judiciary, November 10, 2005
Justice Stephen Breyer:
“I think there are good reasons for it and good reasons against it. The best reason against it is the problem that we could become a symbol since we are the Supreme Court, and if it was in our court, it would be in every court in the country, criminal cases included…When you have television in some, not all, criminal cases, there are risks. The risks are that the witness is hesitant to say exactly what he or she thinks because he knows the neighbors are watching. The risk might be with some jurors that they are afraid that they will be identified on television and thus could become the victims of a crime. There are risks involving what the lawyer might or might not be thinking…Is he influenced by that television when he decides what evidence to present? So what you have in me and the other judges, is a conservative reaction, with a small “c.” We didn’t create the Supreme Court…But we are trustees for that reputation, a reputation of great importance so that government will work fairly in America…And not one of us wants to take a step that could undermine the courts as an institution.”
“…I hope eventually the answer will become clear, that either those who are concerned about the negative effects are shown wrong, or they’re shown right. But at the moment I think it’s quite uncertain what the answer is.” – Interview on C-SPAN’s Q & A, December 4, 2005
Justice Samuel Alito
“I had the opportunity to deal with this issue actually in relation to my own court a number of years ago. All the courts of appeals were given the authority to allow their oral arguments to be televised if it wanted. We had a debate within our court about whether we would or should allow television cameras in our courtroom. I argued that we should do it…The issue is a little different in the Supreme Court. It would be presumptuous for me to talk about it right now, particularly since at least one of the justices have said that a television camera would make its way into the Supreme Court over his dead body. I will keep an open mind despite the decision I took in the third circuit.” – Confirmation Hearing, January 11, 2006
Chief Justice John Roberts:
“There’s a concern (among justices) about the impact of television on the functioning of the institution. We’re going to be very careful before we do anything that might have an adverse impact.”
– Remarks at the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ annual conference, July 13, 2006“Well, my new best friend, Senator Thompson, assures me that television cameras are nothing to be afraid of. But I don’t have a set view on that. I do think it’s something that I would want to listen to the views of – if I were confirmed – to my colleagues.”
– Confirmation Hearing, September 14, 2005
This post has been edited and updated since its initial publication, including additional content, links and quotes.
Networks of Networks: What Defines Power Politics in the Age of Google? [VIDEO]
The Web changed Washington in one of most powerful uses of the Internet as a platform for collective action the world has ever seen. What does that mean for the future? This afternoon, a powerhouse panel of of big thinkers will talk about the implications of the networked protests that halted the progress of the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act in the U.S. Congress. Susan Crawford, Nicco Mele, Elaine Kamarck, Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian, and the editorial director of TechPresident, Micah Sifry, will speaking at Harvard University at 4 PM ET today. The panel will be moderated by Alex Jones, director of the Harvard Shorenstein Center Director. The livestream is embedded below. If you’re interested, video of Clay Shirky’s 2011 lecture on journalism and free speech is looping on the channel.
Watch live streaming video from shorensteincenter at livestream.com
Hat tip TechPresident.
From analog to digital diplomacy: a snapshot of the evolution of the tools of the diplomat
A display at the U.S. State Department in Washington, D.C.
If you’re interested in public diplomacy in the age of social media, I hope you’ll join me (either virtually or in person) at the New America Foundation next week, where I’ll be moderating a discussion on how the latest connection technologies are being applied to statecraft in the 21st century. Who’s participating and why? What have been some lessons learned from the pioneers who have logged on to listen and engage?
I’ll be talking with the following three representatives from the U.S. Department of State, each of whom will share case studies and professional experiences gleaned directly from the virtual trenches:
Suzanne Hall, Senior Advisor for Innovation in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Ed Dunn, Acting Director the U.S. Department of State’s Digital Communications Center, U.S. Department of State
Nick Namba, Acting Deputy Coordinator for Content Development and Partnerships, U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP), U.S. Department of State
If you have questions for the panel, please submit them and vote for others on Google Moderator. Of course, I’ll also be monitoring the hashtag for the event (#SMWdiplomacy) on Twitter during the event, along with comment threads on Google+ and Facebook.
http://widgets.twimg.com/j/2/widget.js
new TWTR.Widget({
version: 2,
type: ‘search’,
search: ‘#SMWDiplomacy’,
interval: 30000,
title: ‘What\’s happening with’,
subject: ‘Social Media and Digital Diplomacy?’,
width: ‘auto’,
height: 300,
theme: {
shell: {
background: ‘#005780’,
color: ‘#ffffff’
},
tweets: {
background: ‘#ffffff’,
color: ‘#444444’,
links: ‘#ad0000’
}
},
features: {
scrollbar: false,
loop: true,
live: true,
behavior: ‘default’
}
}).render().start();
SURVEY: 85% of American adults who use social media say people are “mostly kind” on the sites
A new survey report on “the tone of life on social networking sites” from the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project found that 85% of American adults who use social media say people are “mostly kind” on those sites:
These attitudes will naturally be of great interest to people who work in practices that span open government to education, in terms of practitioners considering the use of social media for public engagement, civic participation, and deliberative democracy, along with grist for digital ethnographers of both the amateur and professional variety.
More stats, excerpted from the report:
“A nationally representative phone survey of American adults finds that:
*85% of SNS-using adults say that their experience on the sites is that people are mostly kind, compared with 5% who say people they observe on the sites are mostly unkind and another 5% who say their answer depends on the situation.
*68% of SNS users said they had an experience that made them feel good about themselves.
*61% had experiences that made them feel closer to another person. (Many said they had both experiences.)
*39% of SNS-using adults say they frequently see acts of generosity by other SNS users and another 36% say they sometimes see others behaving generously and helpfully. By comparison, 18% of SNS-using adults say they see helpful behavior “only once in a while” and 5% say they never see generosity exhibited by others on social networking sites.”
Celebrating science with the Geek in Chief at the White House Science Fair
Today in Washington, President Obama hosted the second annual White House Science Fair. Video of his comments is embedded below, along with a storify of exhibits and students from the day.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf
“The young people I met today, the young people behind me — you guys inspire me. It’s young people like you that make me so confident that America’s best days are still to come. When you work and study and excel at what you’re doing in math and science, when you compete in something like this, you’re not just trying to win a prize today. You’re getting America in shape to win the future. You’re making sure we have the best, smartest, most skilled workers in the world, so that the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root right here. You’re making sure we’ll always be home to the most creative entrepreneurs, the most advanced science labs and universities. You’re making sure America will win the race to the future.
So as an American, I’m proud of you. As your President, I think we need to make sure your success stories are happening all across our country.
And that’s why when I took office, I called for an all-hands-on-deck approach to science, math, technology and engineering. Let’s train more teachers. Let’s get more kids studying these subjects. Let’s make sure these fields get the respect and attention that they deserve.
…
Now, in a lot of ways, today is a celebration of the new. But the belief that we belong on the cutting edge of innovation — that’s an idea as old as America itself. I mean, we’re a nation of tinkerers and dreamers and believers in a better tomorrow. You think about our Founding Fathers — they were all out there doing experiments — and folks like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, they were constantly curious about the world around them and trying to figure out how can we help shape that environment so that people’s lives are better.
It’s in our DNA. We know that innovation has helped each generation pass down that basic American promise, which is no matter who you are, no matter where you come from, you can make it if you try. So there’s nothing more important than keeping that promise alive for the next generation. There’s no priority I have that’s higher than President — as President than this.
And I can’t think of a better way to spend a morning than with the young people who are here doing their part and creating some unbelievable stuff in the process. So I’m proud of you. I want you to keep up your good work.-President Barack Obama
Photo: President Obama demos @Joey_Hudy‘s Extreme Marshmallow Cannon @ the #WHScienceFair wh.gov/0qf twitter.com/whitehouse/sta…
— The White House (@whitehouse) February 7, 2012
http://storify.com/digiphile/celebrating-science-with-the-geek-in-chief-at-the.js[View the story “Celebrating science with the Geek in Chief at the White House Science Fair” on Storify]
Later in the day, Bill Nye, “The Science Guy,” Neil Tyson Degrasse and Tom Kalil participated in a live Twitter chat:
http://storify.com/whitehouse/science-fair-office-hours-2-7-12.js[View the story “WH Office Hours: Science Fair 2/7/12” on Storify]
Will ESRI allow public GIS data to be fully open government data?
As has been true for years, there’s a robust debate in municipal information technology world around the use of proprietary software or open source. An important element of that conversation centers on open data, specifically whether the formats used by companies are interoperable and “open,” in the sense of being usable by more than one kind of software. When the license required to use a given software application is expensive, that requirement can put budget-strapped cities and towns in a difficult position. Last week, former New York State Senate CIO Andrew Hoppin weighed in on the debate, writing about proprietary software lions and bears in the Civic Commons marketplace, a new online directory of civic software.
http://storify.com/nickgrossman/proprietary-lions-and-bears-in-the-civic-commons-m.js I believe the Civic Commons Marketplace will ultimately save US taxpayers billions of dollars in government IT spending, while accelerating the propagation of technology-driven civic innovation in the bargain. I’ve believed this for a while. Thus, it’s a debate worth having; the Marketplace deserves attention, and critique.
In order to realize its potential, from my perspective as a recovering government CIO, I believe that the Civic Commons Marketplace must give equal billing to all software used in government, regardless of the software license associated with it.
Nick Grossman, the executive director of Civic Commons, chronicled the debate that Hoppin described in a Storify:
http://storify.com/nickgrossman/proprietary-lions-and-bears-in-the-civic-commons-m.js[View the story “Proprietary Lions and Bears in the Civic Commons Marketplace” on Storify]
I talked with ESRI founder Jack Dangermond in September 2010 about how he was opening up ESRI and the role he saw for mapping in open government. My sense then, as now, is that this is an issue that’s deeply important to him.
There are clearly strong feelings in the civic development community about the company’s willingness to open up its data, along with what that means for how public data is coded and released. If you’re a GIS developer and have an opinion on this issue, please let us know in the comments.
Why don’t Google and Facebook use ChillingEffects to mitigate censorship like Twitter?
At the request of the government of India, Google India and Facebook have removed content from Blogger and the world’s largest social network after a court order. As Alex Kirkpatrick reported at Mashable, “Indian prosecutors are suing a host of Internet companies on behalf of a Muslim religious leader who has accused them of hosting content that insults Islam.”
If Google and Facebook used Chilling Effects like Twitter, we’d know what content they had censored in India For context, consider Twitter’s stance on censorship and Internet freedom.
While Google’s Transparency Report for India is laudable and impressively visualized, it doesn’t show what content was removed.
As far as I know, Facebook neither posts data of content takedown requests by region nor the content itself. If you know of such data or reports, please let me know in the comments
As CNN and Fox News fail to put #Syria on TV, Twitter and the Internet spread the news
I’m seeing upset from Chris Sacca and others on Twitter about a disconnect between what’s on CNN now and the violence that many outlets are reporting in Syria.
https://twitter.com/sacca/status/165838171261767680
It feels like 2009 the #IranElection all over again, when the world finally awoke to how the real-time Web was disrupting mainstream media by driving conversations and coverage of an historic event that the producers of cable news had failed to cover.
In the context of that disconnect, I couldn’t help but think back when I met Ann Curry at the first #140Conf and watched her respond to the volcanic surge of upset in the audience about the issue. What’s happening in Syria now deserves that coverage, with reports in the New York Times that hundreds of Syrian citizens, including women and children, have been killed in Homs. Thankfully, in 2012 we don’t have to depend upon CNN to cover a debate in the United Nations. We can share the news that matters on our own, including a link to a livestream of the debate in the UN.
Update: At 2:01 ET, CNN did put the news from Syria and the UN on the big screen. Fox News covered today’s election results from Nevada. And at 6, Fox News led with the news of “deadly chaos” in Syria.
The White House released a statement from President Barack Obama strongly condemning the crackdown in Syria and calling on the U.N. Security Council to “stand against” the “relentless brutality” of the regime. Russia and China subsequently blocked action. Following is the text of the statement released by the White House.
Thirty years after his father massacred tens of thousands of innocent Syrian men, women, and children in Hama, Bashar al-Assad has demonstrated a similar disdain for human life and dignity. Yesterday the Syrian government murdered hundreds of Syrian citizens, including women and children, in Homs through shelling and other indiscriminate violence, and Syrian forces continue to prevent hundreds of injured civilians from seeking medical help. These brutal killings take place at a time when so many Syrians are also marking a deeply meaningful day for their faith. I strongly condemn the Syrian government’s unspeakable assault against the people of Homs and I offer my deepest sympathy to those who have lost loved ones. Assad must halt his campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now. He must step aside and allow a democratic transition to proceed immediately.
The Syrian people demonstrated in large numbers across Syria yesterday to participate in peaceful protests commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Hama massacre. They labeled the protests, “We are Sorry, Hama – Forgive Us.” We owe it to the victims of Hama and Homs to learn one lesson: that cruelty must be confronted for the sake of justice and human dignity. Every government has the responsibility to protect its citizens, and any government that brutalizes and massacres its people does not deserve to govern. The Syrian regime’s policy of maintaining power by terrorizing its people only indicates its inherent weakness and inevitable collapse. Assad has no right to lead Syria, and has lost all legitimacy with his people and the international community.
The international community must work to protect the Syrian people from this abhorrent brutality. Earlier this week, our Arab partners called on UN Security Council members to take action to support a political solution to the crisis in Syria and stop Assad’s “killing machine.” The Council now has an opportunity to stand against the Assad regime’s relentless brutality and to demonstrate that it is a credible advocate for the universal rights that are written into the UN Charter.
We must work with the Syrian people toward building a brighter future for Syria. A Syria without Assad could be a Syria in which all Syrians are subject to the rule of law and where minorities are able to exercise their legitimate rights and uphold their identities and traditions while acting as fully enfranchised citizens in a unified republic. The United States and our international partners support the Syrian people in achieving their aspirations and will continue to assist the Syrian people toward that goal. We will help because we stand for principles that include universal rights for all people and just political and economic reform. The suffering citizens of Syria must know: we are with you, and the Assad regime must come to an end.
It’s not clear to me what will happen — or should happen — in the stricken country next, although this Foreign Affairs analysis of what it will take to intervene in Syria offered some clarity.
To be fair, CNN is covering what’s happening online, with reports from the front lines, links to the UN debate and stories on the veto by Russia and China. Anderson Cooper talked to a Syrian activist about 200 Syrian killed. CNN reported that the UN Security Council was to meet yesterday. And 5 of the last @CNN tweets about been about Syria.
Similarly, Fox News has reports of unrest in Syria at the top of FoxNews.com, with 2 of the last 10 @FoxNews tweets covering the story.
Syria just isn’t on television right now.
In 2012, we the people can now choose to focus attention upon news that matters around the world if we choose, regardless of the choices of producers in the control rooms of television stations. This is precisely the kind of conscious consumption that I believe Clay Johnson describes in his excellent new book, “The Information Diet.”
I hope that, as the hype grows in the lead up to tomorrow’s Super Bowl, we use our collective influence to raise awareness by sharing “what’s happening.”
UPDATE: As several people quickly pointed out to me, Al Jazeera English’s strong coverage of the Middle East shouldn’t be forgotten nor go uncited. Unfortunately, most American citizens do not have the option of tuning in AJ English, although people with broadband Internet access can stream it to their computers or iPads, via their app, as I did during the height of the Egyptian uprising in Tahrir. Here’s their report on the media blackout in Syria:
http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1
UPDATE: Reuters social media editor Anthony De Rosa highlighted (via Twitter, appropriately), Reuters has been reporting on Syria this week as well. While Reuters does not have a cable news network quite yet, they are moving strongly into online video and social news, with the introduction of Reuters Social Pulse. De Rosa liveblogged the UN vote and shared a link to this video reporting on escalating violence in Syria:
UPDATE: Below is video of the statement of U.S. U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to the Security Council. And yes, the video is hosted on CNN.com, though I have not seen it broadcast on either CNN or Fox News today.
UPDATE: Mark Follman, a senior editor for Mother Jones, shared this “explainer” (again, via Twitter) of what’s happening in Syria. The post includes a lot of links to learn more.
E Pluribus Unum 