Government Web Sites Are Not for the Incumbents

Hal Plotkin has a column pointing out a severe deficiency in how the U.S. government handles web sites - they are often designed more to promote current office-holders than to conduct governmental affairs. The practice of using official resources for partisan political purposes is not new - the big rush actually hit about 3-4 years ago - but we could make such better use of the web, if only...

Comments

Re:Forget partisanship -- how about some content?

[elfkicker]

Open Secrets is a great place to find the kind of info you're looking for. Even just a peak here is very revealing.

Content for ya...

[Shalome]

Democracy.org lets you find all your local candidates, their voting records and positions on issues, their addresses and websites, etc.

Why we set up Whitehouse.gov

[Zeinfeld]

I guess I should comment as I was the first person to set up a politics Web site and originally proposed using the Web to the Clinton Gore '92 campaign.

The Web does not need to be simply another channel for PR. With Clinton-Gore the idea was partly PR but also what Mark Boncheck called Disintermediation. What we wanted to do was to have a clear channel between the politicians and the people, clear of press 'interpretation'.

The point is not that people are going to trust the politicians more than the press, they will not. However it does prevent the press from some of its wilder distortions. During the '92 campaign the media made much of 'fact checks', doing a reality check on the statements made by both sides. What they never told the people is that they relied 100% on press releases put out by the parties, this was an innovation of James Carville that the GOP quickly followed.

The point of Whitehouse.gov was that the people should have access to the same information as the journalists. That is why we put every whitehouse press release on the web site and through an email server and onto USEnet from day 1 of the administration. This was originally done at MIT and the site later moved to the EOP itself.

The two people mainly responsible for putting the government online were Gore and Gingrich. Gore genuinely believed in the Web and Internet, that is why the GOP had to invent the lie of his claiming to have invented it - to deny him the ability to discuss a major achievement.

Gingrich had a much harder challenge. The congress is divided in many ways, although the speaker controlls the house floor the committee chairs control their individual committees. Gingrich wanted the whole process of government to be transparent so the people could see what was going on. The committee chairs and the lobyists did not, any such democratising move would threaten their power. It would no longer be possible for last minute changes to be made to a bill in secret before it was rushed through committee. This is how many major legislative abuses take place. During the DMCA the lobyists for the RIAA inserted a clause to steal the returned rights of the artists. This was done behind closed doors without the knowledge of many committee members, let alone the people.

In comparison the UK hansard web site is genuinely open. The site was set up to eventually replace the printing and distribution of 'the vote' which is the collection of papers sent to MPs every day. As such the site has every bill and critically every proposed ammendment at the same time the members get it.

Re:Why we set up Whitehouse.gov

[Zeinfeld]

So just HOW do you suppose the GOP managed to fake Algore blatantly stating to Larry King that he invented the internet?

As has been repeated many times here the story was 'broken' by Declan McCullagh at wired news. He knew that in Senat speak 'took the initiative top create' means 'got the votes for the money to create'. However he chose to put out his own interpretation introducing the word 'invent'.

Then he went off to his girlfriend at the Cato institute for a quote which he then got Gingrich's office to comment on and posted a follow up story which completely omitted his role starting the meme.

It is a classic case of how to create a false story by deceptive interpretation of the facts rather than falsification of the facts. Everyone knows that the sotry is a lie but they can still keep using it as a snide humorous remark.

As for having any regrets working for Clinton or Gore, absolutely not, nor do I have any for the (more limited) work I did with Gingrich's staff. They were all democratically elected which is more than you can claim for his successor. I don't care what a politician screws so long as they are consenting and have no more than 2 legs and don't have feathers. There is no way I would lift a finger for 'President' Harken and 'Vice-President' Haliburton though.

Small correction

[hey!]

41,944 is the median household income, according to the page you linked. Most households have more than person with income.

It's not what a median job pays, for example.

The question of how the typical American is doing financially can't be answered in a simple way. Any single number you look at can and should be subject to interpretation. The median income for full time males is 37K. What about men who can't get full time work? Or men who have to work more than one full time job?