I’m grateful to Jeff Jarvis for a detailed post on ‘government 2.0’ (although it isn’t a term he used, nor should he have). He points to two recent proposals from the Democrat candidates for the US presidency.
I hadn’t heard Hillary Clinton’s suggestion, back in January, that government should actually be required to blog:
I want to have as much information about the way our government operates on the Internet so the people who pay for it, the taxpayers of America, can see that. I want to be sure that, you know, we actually have like agency blogs. I want people in all the government agencies to be communicating with people, you know, because for me, we’re now in an era–which didn’t exist before–where you can have instant access to information, and I want to see my government be more transparent.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama told an audience at Google:
I’ll put government data online in universally accessible formats. I’ll let citizens track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and lobbyist contacts. I’ll let you participate in government forums, ask questions in real time, offer suggestions that will be reviewed before decisions are made, and let you comment on legislation before it is signed. And to ensure that every government agency is meeting 21st century standards, I’ll appoint the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer.
The concept of universally accessible data formats will/would be music to some people’s ears, of course.
One thought on “'Gov 2.0' in US presidential campaigning”
Can anyone believe that either of those candidates really know what they’re talking about in this field? I welcome the notions of transparency and disclosure though. In the UK we’ve seen so many attempts to register items outside of the ‘freedom’ of information legislation, I can’t see the US being any better, if anything worse. ‘National Security’ anyone…
Comments are closed.