Where we point out DCG’s sudden U-turn on matters of blogging and netiquette. Cheers Charles!
Category: Library
Categories
IDEAT Journal – A job well done
The PL’s recently founded think-tank, IDEAT, has just published its first quarterly online journal – Ideat Journal. We might tend to judge a journal by whether or not we agree with its content – which would not be the right way to go about it.
I’ve read through some of the articles and on the whole J’accuse’s verdict is that here is a job well done. This first edition is themed “The Road to Progress” and manages to both critique and expand on the notion of “progressivism” as promoted by Joseph Muscat. Contributors such as Andrew Sciberras do not shy away from criticising the early contradictory signs between message and facts being sent out by the PL:
Incidentally, however,Muscat’s reluctance to go the whole hog on divorce and offer instead a free-vote on the contentious issue has sparked further debate, particularly on a future Labour government’s willingness to adopt this civil right. Whilst one can understand that on moral issues one should not be forced to vote against his or her own personal ethic, it is our firm belief that the current position should be reconsidered, especially in light of the commendable declaration by the Labour leader that the majority must never decide for the minority (although it is highly doubtful whether those in favour of divorce are actually in the minority). After all, Labour did not shy away from decriminalising homosexuality and giving women voting rights even though these measures were highly controversial in their day and age. (Grasping the Progressive Ideal, Sciberras)
What we find throughout IDEAT’s first journal is a willingness to engage and criticise away from the the deceptive spotlight of PR-politics and mud-slinging. It comes as a pleasant surprise that is a far call from the bumbling PL public relations attempts. The PL has so far faltered in the attempt to project a factual impression of being able to shoulder the wave of change that it has hinted in many words but little programmes or facts. This job well done could be a first step to bridging the gap.
In his introduction Aaron Farrugia (IDEAT Chairman) shows that the messages from the blogging world have finally hit home somewhere. We get a first signal of a realisation by a party organ that the new communication tools are not only useful for the marketing propaganda but also to engage in exchanges:
We are now embarking on a new way in how we communicate and reach the general public. Conferences and seminars are a traditional method of maintaining such contact, but new technological tools offer many new options for people to get information and constant updates from our end. (…) Regardless of their gender, educational background and socio-economic status, people, especially the young, don’t bother with newspapers or political periodicals. Sometimes they regard them as part of the political dead wood. It is a fact of life that today, most people get their news off the internet.
As a relatively new political foundation we would like to communicate and engage with You and so we are today launching a new concept in local politics – an online political magazine which will be published quarterly and which can be downloadable for free from our website www.ideat.org.mt
IDEAT are to be commended for this venture into the world of open ideas. J’accuse expects to see an IDEAT online wiki/forum in the near future. In the meantime there might no longer be an excuse for us not to engage on purely political terms.
We expect (yes, we are quite big headed on this count) to see the journal transform itself into (at least) a monthly edition – is one magazine with 5 (local) articles every four months all the progressive movement can come up with? Surely there is space for more debate?
Secondly – a little bad habit I pick up from thesis review days – when quoting liberally from an article it would be good to acknowledge the source – otherwise you risk discrediting the content quite quickly. In Aaron Farrugia’s case there was some “borrowing” from David Miliband’s speech at Demos on the 23rd February of 2010: “Powerful people. why progressive ends need progressive means“. There’s no harm in referring to other movements who have “been there, done that” but acknowledging the source is a definite must.
More frequent, more content but otherwise a job well done. Let’s hope others will follow suit.
spread the word:
Categories
Twits and Tweets
JosephMuscatPL is Joseph Muscat’s twitter name. He has just tweeted the following: “Il-PL jaspira ghal separazzjoni bejn Stat u Knisja b’rispett reciproku”. (The Labour party aspires for a separation between State and Church with mutual respect).
Why?
Yes. That is my question. What exactly am I, a voter, supposed to make of this? I mean how binding is it on Joseph Muscat and what exactly is there to be binding about? This is the same party which produced President George Abela – whose statements were indistinguishable from those of men of the cloth when the Pope’s visited the Maltese islands. This is the same party that cannot call a spade a spade and still backs the hypocritical “free vote” in parliament rather than setting it down in black on white that Labour will introduce divorce in Malta.
Since it is “aspirations” we are talking about Joseph does that mean that you will be revising the “principles” on which our nation is founded. Let’s see. Maybe you would like to change the introductory articles of the constitution – you know the bit about our being a Roman Catholic country?
I’m not sure twitter is the place for that kind of statement Joseph. To be quite honest I am not sure that it looks good on the aspirant leader of a progressive movement to be stating the obvious like that. I should hope that severing any Church/state links would be “taken as read” in the preparation of a clear policy direction for the New Progressives.
Less twitter and more substance Joseph… the clock is ticking and you are very very far from even beginning to convince the intelligent part of the electorate that your party is worth considering. Unless of course you are still banking on winning the election solely on the basis of the votes of the disgruntled – I wouldn’t blame you since the system is perfectly geared for that eventuality.
spread the word:
Categories
The Digital Election
Still observing the UK Election from the Web angle. J’accuse brings you another possible tool – direct Q&A with the leaders. Of course this entails meeting the leaders of the political parties and that means that they have to accept answering questions but just look at what the use of Youtube and Facebook combined manages to contribute to an election debate.
The Youtube page in question is Ukelection, and there you will find that following a poll with Youtube and Facebook users, a set of questions were put to the three UK party leaders — Brown, Cameron and Clegg. Their answers were available for all to see, compare – and significantly – vote upon.
You can visit the Youtube site now and see the result.This was the original promo ad for the debate.
and here is a sample answer – chosen by biased j’accuse: Nick Clegg commenting on the electoral system:
spread the word:
Categories
Brown's Viral Blunder
In the time it takes to consume a heavy, unhealthy lunch at the canteen (should I say restaurant) at the ECJ we get sufficient proof of the value of Web 2.0 in internet elections. Gordon Brown was caught off guard this morning after an exchange with a Labour voter.
Having shielded her questions for what might have seemed an eternity (and after having discovered that she was after all on his side) Brown quit the scene but failed to notice that he was still being recorded. It was at this moment that his description of the voter as a “bigoted woman” was heard. The MSM might have hooked on to it and online newspapers are already carrying the news but not before it has already reached viral proportions on the net.
Twitter (#bigotgate), facebook and more… it’s really gone viral. Poor Gordon.
The Reactions
Gordon Brown Apologises on Sky One Hour Ago
spread the word:
Categories
Internet Elections?
An interesting article by Iain Dale in the online Telegraph queries whether the UK is really having an “internet election”. Dale comments that:
This was supposed to be the election when internet politics came of age, when the blogosphere and social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook had a real impact on the campaign. But it hasn’t turned out like that: far from being an important player, the internet has become all but an irrelevance. So why has the web been the dog that hasn’t barked?
But has it? Dale’s analysis turns out to be mostly party centered -one that seems to expect party politicians to be using the internet as their main medium. We made the same assumption with The Malta Chronicle when we started to monitor politicians’ blogs in the last national election in Malta.
In a way it is a justified assumption to make – here’s the tool to send information and so we expect those who have been channeling one-way information to just take their seat at their keyboards and do the same – only with a much faster, much more easily accessible medium than your average TV (expensive time slots), newspaper (controlled by editor) or radio (last seen at crime scene – suspected murder by video).
Follow politician’s blogs, tweets or facebook pages and you will reach what should have been an obvious truth. The class of politicians that has become pampered at controlling the message and its delivery (with the conniving assistance of the PR folk) are loath to engage with an audience that can react in real time. The most poignant example of this was GonziPN’s personal blog. Aspirant Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi set up a blog with comments disabled. Not a blog. Not a medium of interest.
At most politicians will pander to the Big Brother use of the internet. Cue the “days in the life of David Cameron” youtube stunt and things of such trivial sort. Not exactly mind-boggling debate over policy. So what use for the internet? Dale uses the words “echo chamber” to describe the twitter and facebook effect. Propaganda thrown into the cacophony of voices will be crunched and retweeted – to the point that it might not recognise itself at the end of it. Webb 2.0 is the crudely powerful New Media enhancing the grapevine, the bar chat and the streetwise cracks by a zillion.
And what of the promise of interactive debate? Well, there is the battle of the blogosphere that has been resolved in some way. Dale’s take is interesting. He believes that the blogs (or at least those that count) have been taken over by journalists:
Will the internet recover its voice after the election? I hope so – but it is also possible that we have seen a high water mark in terms of new media’s influence. Yes, the mainstream press calls on bloggers such as Tim Montgomerie, Will Straw and myself to play the role of political pundits. But the fact that so many bloggers are, effectively, professional journalists creates the impression that we’re not online insurgents, breaking down the gates of the Westminster village, but just another part of the establishment. It’s rather like a scene from Animal Farm: “The voters outside looked from blogger to journalist, and from journalist to blogger, and from blogger to journalist again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
I wonder if there is some truth in this assessment. Or could it be that a “successful” blogger still gets validated the moment he becomes a MSM journalist? The debate is open. Change is happening and this too will be of considerable importance in the next election in Malta.
***
Addendum: Cheers to Iain Dale for featuring this post on his blog’s The Daley Dozen.
