Forum Replies Created
July 20, 2010 at 12:24 am #105906
I will give you my take on what we’ve been doing at DoD since we began with the development of the New Media Directorate in 2006. I must caveat this with the disclaimer that these are my opinions based on my observations and the work I’ve been doing in New Media for DoD since 2006.
1 – What is the official practice of the White House and key government departments as it relates to online media, internet radio, bloggers and other media organizations vis-a-is traditional journalists, news.com
A1. As it stands right now at DoD there is no “official” practice and the lines have been blurring ever more quickly as traditional journalists are now blogging. What has been the traditional practice is that a journalist would need a letter from their editor or publisher to obtain a Pentagon press pass. But these are for entering the building when the Pentagon or DoD would have to expend resources in order to facilitate access for the press conference. With limited resources it is necessary to use some discriminating factors by which you allocate resources. By using verification from an editor or publisher, there is a determination made that this person understands the proper decorum surrounding the event and will conduct him/herself appropriately for the benefit of all. The procedure for requesting a Pentagon Press Pass are posted here: http://www.defense.gov/news/press_passes.html
We started the DoDLive Bloggers Roundtable to facilitate other discussions that the traditional journalists were not interested in or had no space to publish. We were talking to a smaller, interested audience about things that were adding context to the headlines. These were discussions with people the traditional journalists had access to if they would ask, but on topics that were not necessarily “news.” By having these smaller discussions with bloggers we added contextual information into the public debate and thereby added more information to a reporter’s information pool when doing research on stories that were “news.”
2- Do these organizations receive the same treatment as legacy media as it relates to press releases, web casts, etc.?
A2. Yes, we’ve always treated bloggers, online journalists, new media journalists, et. al. the same as traditional journalists. On the Bloggers Roundtables, the intent was not to exclude traditional journalists, but to include non-traditional journalists. We were giving the non-traditional journalists access that they were denied previously. In my early discussions with bloggers in 2006 I asked them what I could do to help them, what did they need from me; and unanimously they told me “give us access and make information linkable.” They operated by the basic rules of debate: 1) what is the authority of your source? 2) what is the strength of your argument? 3) what is the power of your ideas? I noticed that they were linking to and discussing what was in the traditional press and linking to traditional outlet websites and other blogs but NOT to our website or using any of our information. This was due in part to the fact that the CMS we, and most other government websites, were using was not search engine optimized. Search engines like MSN, Yahoo, and Google could not read and therefore did not see our information. It is a digital economy and links are the currency. For bloggers, if there is no link, it did not happen. We changed our CMS and started developing avenues of engagement, like the Bloggers Roundtable, where we could allow access to bloggers and online journalists.
3 – How does the White House/ key government depts decide which new media folks are allowed into the White House/government press conferences?
A3. While I cannot speak for the DoD Press Operations it is my opinion and observations that at DoD we’re still working this out but our Pentagon Press Pass requirements still stand. We still don’t have a good answer for this question, as far as I know. One of the things I noticed from our DoDLive Bloggers Roundatbles was that the bloggers were not so much interested in “breaking news” as they were in “breaking understanding.” Most did not really want to be at the traditional press conference because they didn’t want to be “part of the herd” as one blogger told me. Many bloggers made names for themselves on our roundtables by listening to the questions asked of the participants at the traditional press conferences and then asking the questions that were not asked when they had their chance. Many times this added the lacking context to the story.
4 – Is there any definition that the government has for “bona fide digital news media” i.e., the orgs’ web site must reach a certain hit rate/ # of page views before they are recognized as a news organization (and therefore given the privileges enjoyed by such)?
A4. In the beginning of our New Media effort, and even still today, there is no “bone fides” defined. What I did for our roundtables was search for who was writing about us, read what they were writing and if they wrote well, cited sources, and appeared to be doing “source” reporting, I invited them to join us. We started with a few dozen this way and then grew from the community we were engaging as they started suggesting others to invite. And many times they wanted to invite other bloggers who were arguing the other side of the question. I heard many times from many different bloggers: “can we invite so-and-so? I don’t agree with him/her most of the time but they always make for a great discussion.”
January 14, 2009 at 2:11 pm #64932
Wow, great stuff, Alice. Thanx. And you start with two good questions that I want to explore. When I ask for the “first high-speed” I’m looking at the first indication of an advance in the speed of communication. I would like to posit that the “first, high-speed” internet was the Roman all-weather roads. As with ARPANET, the hard-surface Roman roads were built as a measure to advance Roman national security. It allowed the military to move more quickly from the garrisons to the front lines and ensured that messengers from the frontiers could more reliably and more quickly cover the increasing distances to deliver their messages allowing commanders, governors, and resources to be more quickly informed, decisions to be made, actions taken and resources moved. It shortened the Roman OODA loop.
I bring this up so that we might examine how people have adopted, adjusted, and accomodated these changes in communication technology to better understand what we might, can, should be doing now in our time. As an example, the Roman roads gave rise to the planning of communities and the development of street addresses which gave rise to the first postal system. What similarities do we see today as we move from email exchanges to social networks? What does this mean for government communication with the public?