Comments on: Strategic Communication for an Administration-in-Transition http://comops.org/journal/2008/11/10/strategic-communication-for-an-administration-in-transition/ A Journal of the Consortium for Strategic Communication Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:02:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: drgilpin http://comops.org/journal/2008/11/10/strategic-communication-for-an-administration-in-transition/comment-page-1/#comment-158 drgilpin Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:24:55 +0000 http://comops.org/journal/?p=650#comment-158 Following up on my previous comment, I must say I was very pleased to see the new change.gov feature, Join the Discussion. Currently, citizens are being asked to <a href="http://change.gov/page/content/discusshealthcare" rel="nofollow">provide input on healthcare</a>, but presumably more topics will be added in the future. While not quite as user-driven as a traditional discussion forum, that's probably for the best: a little topical guidance helps keep the site focused on government and current public issues. However, it does mean that the administraton-elect maintains control over which issues are addressed, rather than allowing citizens/users to set the agenda. From what I've seen (although I confess I haven't read all 1635 comments currently posted), the general level of discourse is fairly high. The site is obviously moderated, which is only logical, but there are also a number of dissenting comments. It will be interesting to see how this feature evolves in use, both by the administration (particularly after Obama takes office) and by commenters. Following up on my previous comment, I must say I was very pleased to see the new change.gov feature, Join the Discussion. Currently, citizens are being asked to provide input on healthcare, but presumably more topics will be added in the future. While not quite as user-driven as a traditional discussion forum, that’s probably for the best: a little topical guidance helps keep the site focused on government and current public issues. However, it does mean that the administraton-elect maintains control over which issues are addressed, rather than allowing citizens/users to set the agenda.

From what I’ve seen (although I confess I haven’t read all 1635 comments currently posted), the general level of discourse is fairly high. The site is obviously moderated, which is only logical, but there are also a number of dissenting comments. It will be interesting to see how this feature evolves in use, both by the administration (particularly after Obama takes office) and by commenters.

]]> By: drgilpin http://comops.org/journal/2008/11/10/strategic-communication-for-an-administration-in-transition/comment-page-1/#comment-147 drgilpin Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:15:27 +0000 http://comops.org/journal/?p=650#comment-147 I agree completely with all of your suggestions, and that is why I was so excited to see that change.gov went live within about 24 hours of the election. I had been wondering how Obama was planning to continue to harness the power of the incredible communication machine he built during the election, and it seems he already had a program in place. The site gives him a convenient platform from which to address all of those concerns you mention. Although change.gov is set up for two-way communication by soliciting input from the public at large (in the form of personal stories, suggestions, etc.) it remains asymmetrical. I would like to see more symmetrical communication implemented, such as in the form of weekly YouTube "fireside chats" responding to citizen concerns submitted through the web site. I am also expecting to see some forms of strategic community building ("multi-way" communication). The real strength of Obama's campaign organization resided in how it allowed people to take initiative locally and communicate with each other on- and offline. This is not only the kind of operation that gets candidates elected, but it also raises support for all kinds of initiatives--including the potentially unpopular kind that might be needed during times of crisis. I hope Obama and his staff are planning to take full advantage of this opportunity to stimulate grassroots action, in much the way they did during the campaign. I agree completely with all of your suggestions, and that is why I was so excited to see that change.gov went live within about 24 hours of the election. I had been wondering how Obama was planning to continue to harness the power of the incredible communication machine he built during the election, and it seems he already had a program in place. The site gives him a convenient platform from which to address all of those concerns you mention.

Although change.gov is set up for two-way communication by soliciting input from the public at large (in the form of personal stories, suggestions, etc.) it remains asymmetrical. I would like to see more symmetrical communication implemented, such as in the form of weekly YouTube “fireside chats” responding to citizen concerns submitted through the web site.

I am also expecting to see some forms of strategic community building (“multi-way” communication). The real strength of Obama’s campaign organization resided in how it allowed people to take initiative locally and communicate with each other on- and offline. This is not only the kind of operation that gets candidates elected, but it also raises support for all kinds of initiatives–including the potentially unpopular kind that might be needed during times of crisis. I hope Obama and his staff are planning to take full advantage of this opportunity to stimulate grassroots action, in much the way they did during the campaign.

]]>