White House open to dialogue with public. PR stunt or useful to Administration policies?

By | January 11, 2010, 1:18pm PST

Summary: Say what you want about President Obama’s administration, the President is trying to open the lines of communications to the American public. Senior advisors and directors of agencies are doing podcasts, live interviews with chat, and opening up information that is unfiltered by any outside organization prior to its release.

Say what you want about President Obama’s administration, the President is trying to open the lines of communications to the American public. Senior advisors and directors of agencies are doing podcasts, live interviews with chat, and opening up information that is unfiltered by any outside organization prior to its release.  The role of the Press Secretary has not changed, but the sheer work load of information has. No longer is it possible to filter and source government information through a single outlet.

The dialogue is not without its drawbacks, as opponents of the President attempt to drown out any or all of the questions or statements the White House are attempting to get out.  The use of internet video technology is widespread and  blogs are common outlets for each department.  Video clips, past records of meetings and plenary sessions are happening almost daily. Of particular interest are question and answer sessions with the public - the questions asked and answered are not scripted, leaving few options for Administration officials to prepare for the questions asked.  Rapid fire Q & A is on the table and so far, the Administration is taking it all on - without complaint.

It’s debatable if such dialogue is of any value to the President, but does move the yard stick on accountability, openness to criticism, asking hard questions on constituents own terms and allows a small window of one on one with senior government managers.

Will such interaction via the internet influence how government creates laws for the people? Time will tell.

Poll

Is the White House effectively using Internet technology and blogs?

Poll

Do you think the information and dialogue is useful?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Disclosure

Doug Hanchard

http://government.zdnet.com/?page_id=5774

Biography

Doug Hanchard

Doug is the principal of Rapid Response Consulting, an advisory group that integrates ICT solutions. He has worked at some of the largest telecommunications firms in Canada, including Bell Canada, Telus and AT&T and is a guest lecturer for several universities and associations. He serves on several advisory boards in Canada and the United States.

Starting with a new national ISP in 1993 in sales, positioning internet access, web sites and network services began the path of telecommunications technologies from the early Bulletin Board Services (BBS) to the first web pages for commercial clients.

Became the National Data Network Service Manager for Frame Relay and Internet access for AccTel Enterprises which was acquired (after 3 mergers already) by AT&T Canada. Interested in how marketing could expand service availability, he moved to Telus to become the Frame Relay / ATM Product Manager and expanded the network across Canada. In 2002 he went to Bell Canada becoming a Solution Architect to get back to his passion for technology working with enterprise clients. In 2006, became the Director of R&D and Senior Solution Architect for Bell Canada Security Solutions Inc, developing I.P. based physical and logical security platforms and ICT services.

This position created new commercial concepts such as Crisis and Disaster technology solutions required for emergency use after an event occurred. He designed interoperable technologies and application combinations allowing any to any I.P. service through landline, broadband, satellite and wireless technologies to be deployed anywhere

16
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

The Constitution is not a guide to policies
doug.hanchard@... 12th Jan 2010
Policies of an administration are only passed into Law through concurrence and votes tabulated by the only thing more powerful than the Executive arm of the government: The House of Representatives. That process makes it legal and there's nothing you can do about it.

The only thing that could ever overturn a Law is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. I hope you have a tonne of money for litigation. Might be more expensive than just paying health care premiums. In your suit, you would likely find that the Supreme Court wouldn't even hear your case based on a Constitutional arguement.

So I fail to understand your statement of why the Constitution is even brought into your arguement about Health Care Reform - let alone the actual topic of the post of Administration dialogue and is it effective or just a public relation stunt.

If anything there is plenty of precedent Law that DOES suggest it is in fact Constitutional. At the top of the list, mandatory tax filing (federal and state), must have a driver's licence to operate a motor vehicle, etc.. thus governments have the right to make some things mandatory whether you like it or not.

There's even a town that makes it mandatory to have a working firearm and ammunition in every home within town limits in Kennesaw, Georgia.

It's unlikely that will ever be Constitutionally appealed either or enforced. But many legal scholars has suggested that the town's ordinance is Constitional (State and Federal)

Needless to say, I think your arguement (if I understand it correctly) is flawed. Thus, it is the decision of this kangaroo ZDNet court, your suit / appeal / hearing is denied.

Thanks for writing!
0 Votes
+ -
The way government engages public
LBiege 11th Jan 2010
Take job stats for example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKuup71_aaM
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong
doug.hanchard@... 11th Jan 2010
You are implying that this video is authored by the White House, which is a) not true and b) not relevant to the topic.
0 Votes
+ -
government engages public?
twaynesdomain 12th Jan 2010
Care to explain how/why you think that's anything more than a sour grapes satirical look at somethign completely off topic? There are so many opportunities to get real data these days, especially lately, you really missed the boat; any boat.
0 Votes
+ -
Seriously...
Selvarin 11th Jan 2010
...this White House is hardly open and transparent. Take a look at the HealthCare issue, as an example. CSPAN was offered 1 hour at the WH (essentially a dog-and-pony show), not access to the actual debates in Congress or within the WH--even though POTUS promised that the public would get to see what was going on.

And that's just one. The list would grow if I were to add more examples.

So....I vote 'PR Stunt'. This WH is myopic and has no real interest in transparency or informing the public. If the WH cared they'd push for more accurate numbers AND push Congress for a pork-free stimulus package. Or at least get out of the way. Currently a number of businesses are holding back on hiring because they can't calculate the true costs of employment. Why? The new health care bill doesn't have a final figure on what it'll cost businesses.

PR PR PR PR.
0 Votes
+ -
Not perfect by any means...
jpdemers@... 11th Jan 2010
... but a 100,000% improvement over the Bush/Cheney Whitewash House.
0 Votes
+ -
SMB's are smarter than that
doug.hanchard@... Updated - 11th Jan 2010
To hinge economic recovery on health care costs is a feable excuse at best. Health Care reform simply offers options for those that are already covered and for the less fortunate that have none at all.

If a business is thinking of expanding and health care is the only thing holding them back, then that company has bigger problems than expansion and should consider how it is staying in business as it is. There is a counter arguement to be made, but it is a very small segment of the national U.S. economy and generally surrounds union negiotated health care programs that have never been sustainable from the outset.

Look at Ford, GM and Chrysler,all with some of the most expensive health care programs in the world. GM is now owned by the Union's health care program, Chrysler is on life support and likely to still fold and Ford said it either gets concessions or we'll close and they got what they wanted, serious health care reform.

But health programs in the U.S. auto sector are not the reason why business does not expand.80% of the economy is driven by Small, Medium Business (SMB) and are not forced to have expensive health care programs. If the health care reform act does pass both houses, then they'll be able to attract quality employees if anything because for the first time it will be affordable for SMB to offer it.

The one issue I do agree with you (and have writen about already) is pork spending, better known as earmarks and that has to stop.
The WH may be "open to dialogue" as you put it, but it is quite apparent that they are not listening to the dialogue. Over 80% of the public is satisfied or very satisfied with the current system; over 60% is opposed or strongly opposed to the current plan to "reform" health care; if the WH is truly interested in what the public thinks, they will discard the current plan, and start over-perhaps starting with tort reform, to bring down the outrageous cost of malpractice insurance. No, wait-that would hurt their buddies the trial lawyers' lobby.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't know which it is for sure, but ... you appear to think because the active masses disagree with your own attitude that it's, uhh, shall we say, no good? Why post it here? Why not be one of the ones that are heard. And maybe listened to?
I don't believe the President wants input from anyone, he has an agends that will not change. Isn't this evident with health care, we can't afford to give free medical care to others by taxing the hell out of people who have worked long and hard for what they hoped to enjoy apon retirement. Who gave athority to our government to steel from the people? the government give's themselves raises they dont deserve, and a health care plane no one else has. You will not stop until we the people force you out of office, which I believe will happen starting this year.
Can you please point out where in the Health Care Reform Act is says it will offer free health care?

Here are some links for you to research :

http://www.healthreform.gov/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/Issues/health-Care
0 Votes
+ -
Where is it constitutional ?
rparker009 12th Jan 2010
I still can not find any where in the US Constitution where any of what the White House is trying to do is constitutional.
0 Votes
+ -
The Constitution is not a guide to policies
doug.hanchard@... 12th Jan 2010
Policies of an administration are only passed into Law through concurrence and votes tabulated by the only thing more powerful than the Executive arm of the government: The House of Representatives. That process makes it legal and there's nothing you can do about it.

The only thing that could ever overturn a Law is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. I hope you have a tonne of money for litigation. Might be more expensive than just paying health care premiums. In your suit, you would likely find that the Supreme Court wouldn't even hear your case based on a Constitutional arguement.

So I fail to understand your statement of why the Constitution is even brought into your arguement about Health Care Reform - let alone the actual topic of the post of Administration dialogue and is it effective or just a public relation stunt.

If anything there is plenty of precedent Law that DOES suggest it is in fact Constitutional. At the top of the list, mandatory tax filing (federal and state), must have a driver's licence to operate a motor vehicle, etc.. thus governments have the right to make some things mandatory whether you like it or not.

There's even a town that makes it mandatory to have a working firearm and ammunition in every home within town limits in Kennesaw, Georgia.

It's unlikely that will ever be Constitutionally appealed either or enforced. But many legal scholars has suggested that the town's ordinance is Constitional (State and Federal)

Needless to say, I think your arguement (if I understand it correctly) is flawed. Thus, it is the decision of this kangaroo ZDNet court, your suit / appeal / hearing is denied.

Thanks for writing!
0 Votes
+ -
I don't think so. I doubt they spend a lot of time on fanatical people; get somethign sensible together and go open a dialog; be pro-active.
The survey was a good idea, but ... it left no room for gray areas or "don't know" entries. Yes/No is usually an ineffective results pool without at least one opt out, so the response doesn't go unnoticed. e.g. "I don't know yet" would have been great and encouraged a lot of those just learning about it a way to respond and have given you some PR for your own survey, probably upping the numbers. Never limit a survey to black or white only!
0 Votes
+ -
Has merit
doug.hanchard@... 12th Jan 2010
I agree. The one thing U.S. politics is not, are two answers and no other options. Yet, in reality, there appears to be fewer people picking a sliding scale or degree. And given the polarity in American politics lately, it seems that there is little room for "maybe" answers. In the future I will carefully consider the suggestion you have made.

Thanks,
Doug
I think it's a great opportunity and if properly fostered will result in something good.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix