Comments on: Being a Citizen Shouldn’t Be So Hard! Part 2: Beyond Government

By: Jay Taber

Jay Taber — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:37:56 +0000

Your phrase “too little support for timely, effective citizen participation” says it all. When I conducted a national survey of political researchers in 2001 on the topic of community-based research, their conclusion was that 1. almost no one does research, 2. useful research is rarely found on the Internet or in the media, 3. individuals who do research are usually not activists, and 4. independent research applicable to effective citizen participation is practically never supported by the communities that could use it.

In my subsequent report, Research as Organizing Tool, I elaborate on these findings for the benefit of those who often feel adrift in a sea of useless information and propaganda. In my essay, The Public Health Model, I explain that the reason useful research is held in such low regard is largely due to the ineffective models of engagement the politically illiterate bring to civic affairs.

By: Peter Shane

Peter Shane — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:03:16 +0000

Amy, I really love this discussion, but have to offer one amendment. You state that the Knight Commission is starting with the question, “What kind of information do communities need?” This is not quite right. We are starting with the question, “What are the information needs of communities in a democracy?” The difference is that the Commission is tending towards the view that “information needs” include not only information per se, but also structures, processes, and enabling conditions through which people can turn information into community empowerment. To elaborate that view, we need, of course, to understand better what constitutes the information infrastructure of geographically defined local communities. Within such communities, all of us undoubtedly do rely, inevitably, on a host of information intermediaries to clue us in to the overwhelming majority of what we regard as our daily knowledge acquisition. The issue, as I see it, is how to maximize the likelihood that our networks of information intermediaries, formal and informal, will be as inclusive, relevant, and trustworthy as possible.

Best, Peter

By: Peter Comings

Peter Comings — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:39:45 +0000

…perhaps we need more journalism that recognizes and supports this development…

Thanks Donica. That’s the point I tried to make in Part I. And while Amy’s comment remains true that “We’ve largely shifted to (third parties/journalists’) shoulders most responsibility to clue us in when something is brewing in government,” it’s not for no reason that’s happened.

Maybe as a journo I’m just too inside the forest to see anything but the trees. There can be other, more direct ways to connect users to information, but with increased transparency in journalism we can offer more of those connections without inserting ourselves as filters.

…They’re doing this by starting from the question “What kind of information do communities need?”

Sounds right.

By: Donica Mensing

Donica Mensing — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 04:32:47 +0000

In my own experience, few people think they suffer from lack of information. Only in very specific instances (unexpectedly high bills from sewer hookups, for example) do most people actively seek more information than they are already getting.

If we believe the problem is citizens not getting the right information or it not being delivered in user-friendly ways, we’ll have to make a convincing argument about why and how more information is going to make a difference.

One model of democracy assumes people are interested citizens who seek information to develop rational opinions about public affairs. Other models show that people form emotional and personal interests in a subject and then seek information — not the other way around. As Schudson describes it, they use the media for monitorial purposes — turning to the news when something of high personal interest happens but otherwise paying only enough attention to know if the world is blowing up or not. This sounds a little like the “democracy radar” you describe.

I wonder, given the evolution of networks and groups, whether speaking at the level of “communities” and “people” is specific enough to be useful anymore. It sounds a little like the mass media model, assuming a public “out there” that we only imagine but doesn’t really exist. If publics are becoming more fluid and responsive to specific issues, perhaps we need more journalism that recognizes and supports this development.

By: Being a Citizen Shouldn’t Be So Hard! Part 1: Human Nature — contentious.com

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:31:10 +0000

[...] NOTE: This is part 1 of a multipart series. More to come over the next few days. See Part 2. [...]