Trust...dialogue...transparency
at 5:42pm on Wednesday, 18th April 2007
Reading the Freedom of Information blog today you might come across a couple of interesting quotes. One of them is from Tony Blair who was talking, broadly, about freedom of information in the context of trust in politics:
"...the question for us is how do you then get this more sophisticated and profound dialogue about politics today and political issues, and it is very hard...we introduced the Freedom of Information Act. And you would think that people would be saying...'isn't it wonderful that the government has been so open.' (But) I think the basic problem is...(we) spent a lot of time setting up this notion that somehow by an Act of Parliament, or a new initiative, or a different type of engagement you could get this different dialogue which is the only way to encourage greater trust, and I think it is a lot tougher."
It's interesting that here is an acknowledgement that the FOI Act itself won't change the way we talk about politics.
That isn't to say, of course, that it isn't a great tool to help us do so. I have noted before some of the proposed changes to the Act - here for example - and how damaging they could be to the spirit of openness. A bit of good news recently - the consultation period was recently extended until July as the DCA accepted the terms of its original consultation may have been too narrow (in fact, they were way too narrow).
But I think the really interesting point follows something else the Prime Minister said:
"when we talk about soundbite politics we talk about it as if the politicians were desperate to give soundbites and the media were desperate to report them, actually both of us are just working within the reality which is if I say to you 'here is my three minute answer to the question you asked me', you are not going to use it and I am not going to get on the news, so that is the reality."
The reason this spirit of openness - which the FOI Act is a part - is about more than finding out about taxi receipts, and is more than just the concern of journalists, think-tanks and politicos, is that it can also be part of short-circuiting the damaging relationship between politicians and journalists. That's part of a different way of doing politics, which we're right in the middle of thinking about, which doesn't consider politics, or democracy, to be something done there (Westminster, by politicians) and consumed here (by everyone else). Along with the new ways that people share, discuss and debate information - mainly using online tools - transparent government is part of that change.
This transparency is a basic principle which becomes really powerful when coupled with the vibrant linkages and connections of social, online media. Lots of people have been talking about this, often calling it 'radical transparency' - a few example articles about this: here, and here, and here's a wikipedia page on it.
I'm not sure if he mean them to, but Tony Blair's comments highlighted to me how much we need to see through traditional political communication.
We're thinking about how citizen journalism and new media are having, and might have, an impact on political communication, and on traditional journalism, having developed some ideas with John lloyd at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Get in touch if you'd like to know more or want to get involved.
"...the question for us is how do you then get this more sophisticated and profound dialogue about politics today and political issues, and it is very hard...we introduced the Freedom of Information Act. And you would think that people would be saying...'isn't it wonderful that the government has been so open.' (But) I think the basic problem is...(we) spent a lot of time setting up this notion that somehow by an Act of Parliament, or a new initiative, or a different type of engagement you could get this different dialogue which is the only way to encourage greater trust, and I think it is a lot tougher."
It's interesting that here is an acknowledgement that the FOI Act itself won't change the way we talk about politics.
That isn't to say, of course, that it isn't a great tool to help us do so. I have noted before some of the proposed changes to the Act - here for example - and how damaging they could be to the spirit of openness. A bit of good news recently - the consultation period was recently extended until July as the DCA accepted the terms of its original consultation may have been too narrow (in fact, they were way too narrow).
But I think the really interesting point follows something else the Prime Minister said:
"when we talk about soundbite politics we talk about it as if the politicians were desperate to give soundbites and the media were desperate to report them, actually both of us are just working within the reality which is if I say to you 'here is my three minute answer to the question you asked me', you are not going to use it and I am not going to get on the news, so that is the reality."
The reason this spirit of openness - which the FOI Act is a part - is about more than finding out about taxi receipts, and is more than just the concern of journalists, think-tanks and politicos, is that it can also be part of short-circuiting the damaging relationship between politicians and journalists. That's part of a different way of doing politics, which we're right in the middle of thinking about, which doesn't consider politics, or democracy, to be something done there (Westminster, by politicians) and consumed here (by everyone else). Along with the new ways that people share, discuss and debate information - mainly using online tools - transparent government is part of that change.
This transparency is a basic principle which becomes really powerful when coupled with the vibrant linkages and connections of social, online media. Lots of people have been talking about this, often calling it 'radical transparency' - a few example articles about this: here, and here, and here's a wikipedia page on it.
I'm not sure if he mean them to, but Tony Blair's comments highlighted to me how much we need to see through traditional political communication.
We're thinking about how citizen journalism and new media are having, and might have, an impact on political communication, and on traditional journalism, having developed some ideas with John lloyd at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Get in touch if you'd like to know more or want to get involved.
LOGIN to add comments
Comments