Trust and Authenticity in Social Media: The Case of the U.S. Military

WHEN: Thursday, November 12th at 3-4:30 p.m.

WHERE: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street, NW, Room 505 (Google map)

The Association of Social Media and Higher Education (ASMH) invites you to a panel on the nature and role of social media in the military. The panelists, who include current and former U.S. military officers, will address the ways social media can be used effectively, efficiently and transparently to connect the military, civilian and veteran populations. The conversation will also address the ways Twitter, Facebook and blogs can:

• offer a more nuanced view of military life;
• generate public support for veterans;
• serve as a support system for wounded soldiers;
• increase transparency through social media;
• build authentic dialog about military issues and defense policy.

Panelists:

- Moderator: Scott Talan (Twitter: @talan), director of communications, National Association Schools of Public Affairs and Administration and adjunct faculty member, GW

- Lindy Kyzer (Twitter: @LindyKyzer, @USArmy), public affairs specialist at U.S. Army

- Steve Field (Twitter: @fieldsteven), former spokesman, Pentagon, blogger, The D-Ring: Where the Military and New Media Collide

- Nicole Schwegman (Twitter: @nicoleschwegman), former Navy Public Affairs Officer

RSVP here: http://tinyurl.com/yc3tb3p

The event is cosponsored by The George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, Graduate School of Political Management and Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet, and George Washington Today, GW’s official online news source.

The Laws that Shaped America: A Book Celebration with Dennis W. Johnson

Monday, November 9, 2009

5:30 – 7:00 p.m.

Alumni House

George Washington University

1918 F Street, NW

Washington, DC 20052

Registration is requested for this event. Register here.

For more information, visit http://www.gspm.org/events/.

Join Arts+Labs & the GSPM’s Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet for

New Media, New Networks: The Evolution of Content on the Internet

With Moderator Richard Wiley (Former Chairman of the FCC)

In wake of the FCC Broadband NOI, broadband workshops on broadband, content and cybersecurity - as well as Genachowski’s recent announcement on net neutrality - several well-respected experts will gather to talk about their viewpoints on network policy - problems, opportunities and common ground. These are the most important string of events centered around this topic in over a year, and we encourage you to take part in the discussion.

WHERE: George Washington University - 1957 E Street NW, 7th Floor – Washington D.C.

WHEN: Thursday, October 29th – 9am to 12pm ET

REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. REGISTER HERE.

AGENDA:

• Breakfast and Welcome (9:00-9:30)

• Panel #1 – Networks for the Future (9:30-10:30) – The Importance of Wired and Wireless Next Generation Networks, deployment, capacity, interactivity, consumer choice and content. Panelists:
  • Bret Swanson (Entropy Economics, WSJ Contributor)
  • S. Derek Turner (Research Director, Free Press)
  • Robert Curtis (FCC Director, Network Deployment)
  • Christopher Yoo (Director, Center for Technology, Innovation, and Competition at the University of Pennsylvania Law School)

• Q&A Session (10:30-10:45)

• Panel #2 – Network Management and Delivering for the Consumer (10:45-11:45) – The evolving role of the networks – better, smarter, faster. Panelists:
  • Richard Bennett (Research Fellow, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation)
  • Robb Topolski (Chief Technologist of the Open Technology Initiative at the New America Foundation)
  • Dave Farber (Distinguished Professor of Computer Science and Public Policy at the School of Computer Science, Heinz College at Carnegie Mellon University)
  • Harold Feld (Legal Director of Public Knowledge)

• Q&A Session (11:45 – 12:00)

· 35 breakout panels (and 5 general sessions) with over 170 speakers.

· 6 elected officials, including Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Rep. Steve Israel (D, NY-2), Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R WA-5), Rep. Tim Ryan (D, OH-17), Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner (Ohio), and Secretary of State Debra Bowen (California).

· Attendees from across the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, France, Luxembourg, Austria, Bahrain, Seychelles, Brazil, Germany, and Venezuela – to name just a few countries.

(By the way, in case you missed any of the panels, we’ll upload them to our YouTube Channel and the conference wiki over the course of the next week.)

None of which would have been possible with the participation of our many sponsoring organizations:

• Linkfluence - www.linkfluence.net
• GMS Consulting - www.gmsconsulting.org
• CMDI - www.cmdi.net
• Rally Congress - www.rallycongress.com
• MSHC - www.mshcdirect.com
• NGP - www.ngpsoftware.com
• Politics.com - www.politics.com
• Intermarkets - www.intermarkets.net
• Care2 - www.care2.com
• MetroStar Systems - www.metrostarsystems.com
• Design for Context - www.designforcontext.com
• Wired for Change - www.wiredforchange.com
• Resonate Networks - www.resonatenetworks.com
• Political Media - www.politicalmedia.com
• NCTA - www.ncta.com
• Broadnet - www.broadnet.us
• Democracy Data - www.democracydata.com
• Advomatic - www.advomatic.com
• New Media Firm - http://www.youtube.com/user/newmediafirm2008
• iStrategy Labs - www.istrategylabs.com
• Sunlight Foundation - www.sunlightfoundation.com
• Capitol Advantage - www.capitoladvantage.com
• AT&T - www.at&t.com
• AAPC - www.theaapc.org
• Advertising.com - www.platform-a.com
• Verizon - www22.verizon.com
• Google - www.google.com
• Huffington Post - www.huffingtonpost.com

We couldn’t have done it without their support for innovative events in the technology and political spaces, like the Politics Online Conference.

The notion of engaging the people — whether it’s in one-way communication and finding ways for people to engage — is what is happening online now in this Administration, and it’s a first step. The first time citizens saw Google Maps with pins inserted for every piece of earmark spending and where that money was spent, they started to ask Congress, “What’s that for.” And Members of Congress had to respond. That transparency, which was done to Congress, begat more transparency. Technology is a disruptive force to Washington’s Golden Rule: he who has the gold rules. 

Putting information on the web isn’t the same as having a full conversation.

I relished the opportunity to speak with lobbyists because they helped me synthesize information more clearly and cleanly. Not all lobbyist information is nefarious. In the end, the public is not best served by prohibiting it.

Lobbyists and government do themselves a disservice for not recognizing the role of money in elections, and they too should be lobbying for campaign finance legislation. Lobbyists will be better information provides if they also make cleaning up elections a priority.

There are valuable ways for them to influence the system. There’s a lot of money in the system, and elected officials may be inclined to help those who “help me.” But Members of Congress are the ones who can create the laws and change the system.

 

The Administration’s stance on ethics and lobbying is the equivalent of building the airplane while they are flying, and it is going to crash on the people.

We subscribed a notion of the public interest as transcending special interest. To a notion of the public interest that is informed by the sense of obligation that we feel every day to the voters who called for change. There is a very wide-spread sense that Washington does not operate in their interest … 

We ought to define the rules of fairness and justice of society by stepping behind the veil of ignorance described by John Rawls. We ought to embark on a contract with the American people that we will not be subject to the influence that have waylaid good policy, but will attempt to be guided by that notion on the horizon that represents the best thing for the country.

Today’s first panel on The Lobbyist Problem discussed issues of perception, politicking, and policy at the GSPM’s forum on Special Interests and Public Policy.  

Professor Jonathan Turley (GW Law) gave what turned into something of a rebuttal. Like the first set of panelists, Turley is interested in addressing the whole problem, for which lobbying represents a part.  

Turley finds the roots of corruption and the problems our country is facing within the corridors of Congress — not along the corridors walked by lobbyists but within the Members of Congress themselves.  

The last eight years have been disgusting to watch because of the level of corruption … This city is floating on a sea of corruption, and it’s killing our political system …  

The first step on the road to recovery is to admit you have a problem. I honestly am terrified of what has happened in the last eight years. This city is no longer functioning. There is an incredible amount of disconnect between this city and the rest of the country. People around the country feel that the system no longer serves the interests of the majority and our elected officials are destroying the country. The system has no interest but the interests of the politicians in their own future. We’ve never seen so many problems in this country. We’re digging into the marrow, and lobbying is part of the problem …  

We can’t address the problem in symbolic ways. We complain about the rain, but we don’t look at the levee, which is Congress. Congress holds our Madisonian system together. It’s designed so that those things that divide us go through an implosion. We encourage factional interests to come forward, and they implode inwardly before Congress …   

There is a tendency to deal with things in more insular ways, instead of addressing the problems … 

 Total transparency will only get you so far. The lobbying rules are ridiculous, and frankly the Obama plan is ridiculous. It’s not going to solve anything …  

 The problem is that Congress is captured by the industry and they owe their allegiance to something other than their constituents and they know that. . . . and lobbyists are part of that. Unless lobbyists come forward and say they’re part of the problem, the last eight years were a mistake, then I don’t know why we’re here.  

Turley’s suggests that we:

• Put 75% of the responsibility of the current political crisis on the members of Congress.
• Go back to core principles of what we are trying to achieve in order to fix the system. Go back to Madison’s idea of democracy. Force the factions that divide us into the open. Create systems that prevent back room dealing and special deals that are hidden from the public. Part of the solution is to reform Congress, instead of trying to reform lobbyists.  
• Force Congress to get rid of the things that cause temptation. Get rid of all gifts, other than symbolic gifts donated to the office they serve. Get rid of earmarks. Require total disclosure of all family members who work for lobbyists.
• Address the fact that the system is too detached from its constituents and that incumbents have all the power. This city loves the fact that Congress doesn’t change, but it’s killing this country. This includes allowing other parties to rise in the political system, changing the electoral college, and reforming the way primaries are held.   

Join us in person the rest of the day at GW’s Jack Morton Auditorium, 805 21st Street, NW. We’ll be here until noon. Or follow @JulieG and @GSPMgwu on Twitter. We’ll make sure the panelists, like Turley, hear your questions.�

How much of the debate on global warming is already tainted by money in the system?  

That was the question the Is There Really a Lobbyist Problem panelists addressed during the opening panel of today’s discussion on Special Interests and Public Policy at the GSPM (you can join us throughout the morning at GW’s Jack Morton Auditorium, 805 21st Street NW, Washington, DC). 

Panelists included Bob Edgar (Common Cause), Butler Derrick (Former Member of Congress, D-SC), Joel Jankowsky (Akin Group), and Dave Wenhold (American League of Lobbyists). 

Addressing the “Perception Problem”  

Today’s panelists agreed that the lobbying industry faces a perception problem — the perception that undue influence channels legislation in the wrong direction.

More than one panelists felt that “the whole lobbying community isn’t bad just because one or two of its members are.” 

Most Americans don’t realize that they have a lobbyist looking out for their interests. Girl Scouts have lobbyists. Welders have lobbyists. Every American should participate in the system.

The government is doing something to you or for you every day, and that’s why you need a lobbyist.”  

Further, the panel argued, “Any lobbyist worth his/her salt has no problem putting his/her work in front of anybody. We all need to be registered, transparent, and open.”

The entire system isn’t bad just because one or two of its members are.  

Former Congressman Butler Derrick argued that during his tenure in public office, the biggest influences on him weren’t lobbyists but the family and friends closest to them.  

Money and Elections 

The problem doesn’t begin and end on K Street or in Washington, DC. Its roots  entwine throughout our entire electoral system — beginning in the states. 

Several members of the panel argued that the rhetoric of campaigns has poured over into the rhetoric of governing — and that a root of the perception problem exists in the way campaigns run.    

The perception problem starts with campaigns. If a political candidate were a product, Americans would never buy it because of all the negative things that happen as part of the campaign process.  

The panelists suspected that this perception problem will be exacerbated as long as Senate races cost $36 million.

Public financing is the only way you’re going to cure the problem.

Creating Policy that Increases Openness and Transparency 

How do you address this issues? A few panelists felt that the problem will be partially solved through policies that create public financing of federal elections.

Most panelists felt that the Obama Administration’s Executive Order on Ethics Commitments is a good start because it promotes dialogue and discussion about lobbying and ethics.

The executive order represents the DNA of Obama. He watched the system as a legislator. He understood how money works in politics. It’s his first reaction to address the issue of access. What the lobbyist is looking for is access. People are buying access, and the people with the most money buy the most access.   

 The panel, however, felt that what the country needs is increased disclosure — not complete prohibition of lobbying.  

Money plays a pernicious part of the system, but an executive order shouldn’t prohibit a citizen from petitioning the government the way he or she chooses. Prohibiting that means that we’re going too far.  

For example, said the panel, a system in which lobbyists disclose everything is far less corrupt than a system in which the CEO of a major corporation can have a private conversations with his or her Senator to talk about his or her industry after donating $50,000 to a campaign.  

In order for a lobbyist to have a seat at the table his/her views must be strong. Money shouldn’t be part of the process. Increased disclosure on stimulus bill.  

As a first step, the panel recommended full disclosure of the stimulus bill, including completely open meetings.

The discussion will continue throughout the morning. For details, visit http://www.gspm.org/events/.

Push back? Questions, ping me at @JulieG on Twitter, and I’ll make sure we put your questions in front of the speakers.

�

A. Too often we design solutions, tools, and applications for people who look like us and think like us. If we’re a bunch of white, male well-educated software engineers, then you probably create REALLY COOL THINGS for people who are white, male, software engineers. The trick is to figure out solutions for all people — especially people who think, act, and behave differently. (Stop rolling your eyes because I happen to use the example of white, well educated men here. It could be any grouping of us.) And we can apply this concept to anything — not just software. To policy. To life issues. To environmental catastrophes.

B. While, as Pincus put it in his slide presentation, technology often reinforces interlocking dimensions of oppression, the very same social media tools that we use every day can result in collaborations that help us overcome those diversity and create solutions to software, policy, and life problems that reach a multitude of different people.

Both of these points are precisely why organizations like Social Media Women of Color and events like Women Who Tech (which will be held via international teleconference on May 12th) are so important.

I first found about about Social Media Women of Color while following one of my favorite people on Twitter, @digitalsista, and a few others. She started tagging entries with the hashtag #woc, and I was curious. The site highlights women of color involved in social media in order to gain more attention for some really amazing women working in the online space.

I heard about Women Who Tech, which is in it’s second year, similarly — from one women to the next online. Women Who Tech brings together talented and renowned women breaking new ground in technology and social media who use their tech savvy skills to transform the world and inspire change. It provides a supportive network for the vibrant and thriving community of women in technology professions by giving women an open platform to share their talents, experiences, and insights.

This year, Women Who Tech will beheld on May 12th. And you can attend anywhere in the world at http://www.womenwhotech.com.

Both organizations highlight cutting edge innovation. Both introduce us to the creators behind really cool tools, applications, and solutions. And to be honest, both make technology and politics a lot more intellectually stimulating. More, please!

· Is there really a lobbyist problem?

· How can legislators and executive branch officials craft government policies toward lobbyists?

· What limitations are appropriate?

I’ll live-tweet (#GSPM) and live-blog (www.ipdi.org/blog) the event, but if you’re in the DC area and interested, I hope that I’ll see you there. Here are the details.

Special Interests and Public Policy: The Right to Petition and Restrictions on Lobbying

Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Time: 8:30am – 12:30pm

Location: The George Washington University, Jack Morton Auditorium, 805 21st Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20052. Foggy Bottom-GWU Metro Station (Orange and Blue lines)

RSVP: theethicsforum@gmail.com

Agenda

8:30 – 9:00 AM

Registration and Coffee

9:00 – 9:10 AM

Seminar Greeting

Howard Paster, Co-chair, GSPM Council on American Politics

9:10 – 10:15 AM

Panel 1: Is there Really a Lobbyist Problem?

Moderator: Al Hunt, Bloomberg News

Bob Edgar, Common Cause

Butler Derrick, Former Member of Congress (D-SC)

Joel Jankowsky

10:15 – 10:45 AM

Appropriate Limits and Constitutional Protections

Jonathan Turley, Professor, GW Law

10:45 – 11:15 AM

Bringing Real Change to Washington Policy Making

Representative(s) from the White House invitations extended

11:15 – 12:30 PM

Panel 2: Crafting Appropriate Government Policies for Lobbying

Moderator: Steven Roberts, GW – SMPA

Leo Wise, Office of Congressional Ethics

Ellen Miller, Sunlight Foundation

Melanie Sloan, CREW

Ron Christie, Christie Strategies

About the Forum

Both presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain focused a significant amount of attention on the role of lobbyists and their potentially corrupting influence on the policy making process. Since taking office, President Obama has severely restricted the ability of lobbyists to be appointed to positions in the administration and limited employment possibilities in the lobbying arena for former administration officials.

In addition to the Obama administration, the press has also been a source of much criticism of lobbying. A string of egregious corruption scandals surrounding the lobbying community has led the media to question how lobbying is conducted, and their coverage and commentary has only intensified during the new administration. The forum will explore why more attention is now being focused on lobbying and whether it has been objective or biased.

Through a series of discussion colloquia, The Forum on Ethics and Leadership in Public Life at The George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management will explore ethical issues affecting those who work in political and public service. Bringing together prominent individuals from public life with faculty, advisors and students of The Graduate School of Political Management, The Forum will bring to the forefront issues of ethics and professional responsibility in politics to stimulate greater understanding of and thought about the serious dilemmas facing American democracy. It also will explore both systemic and institutional problems and the behavior of individuals who work professionally in all aspects of public life. The Forum on Ethics and Leadership in Public Life is funded in part by the Paul O’Dwyer Fund for Ethics in Politics, a gift of Brian J. O’Dwyer.

Register for this event by email at theethicsforum@gmail.com.

About the Graduate School of Political Management

GW’s Graduate School of Political Management offers graduate programs in political management, legislative affairs, public relations and PAC management, as well as international programs in Latin America and Europe. The school seeks to improve politics by educating students and professionals about the tools, principles and values of participatory democracy; preparing them for careers as ethical and effective advocates and leaders at the international, national and local levels.

For more information, visit http://www.gspm.org.