Oz Politics and Technology Forum
I’m a bit disappointed to be on the other side of the world for the inaugural Politics and Technology Forum (sponsored by Microsoft) – there’s the potential for an interesting discussion here.
That being said, I thought there were a few odd things about the forum.
Matt Bai isn’t a bad key-note speaker, though as the guys at TechPresident have noted (here), his book “The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers, and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics” focuses on the US blogosphere’s fundraising clout to the expense of the broader potential of the medium:
(Bai’s) picture of “the bloggers” is far too narrow…… Bai makes the political blogosphere seem like a place “where the mob gathered to make its own demands and mete out its own justice,” as he writes near the book’s conclusion.
I’m not sure how relevant that’s going to be in an Australian context but let’s see.
Further, as Stilgherrian reports, the panellists for Panel 1: “Blogging, social networks, political movements and the media” are:
Brett Solomon from GetUp!; Annabel Crabb from the Sydney Morning Herald; Peter Black from QUT; spin doctor Mark Textor of Crosby Textor, who ran the Howard government’s failed re-election campaign; and the editor of Crikey Jonathan Green.
Some bright people in this group, but isn’t is a bit strange that a panel on political blogging doesn’t include any political bloggers? I appreciate that the embryonic nature of the Australian political blogosphere means that there are no ‘A-list’ political bloggers that can be definitively said to have an influence on the broader political scene, but surely they could have got someone. If Andrew Landeryou is too hot for them, why not Tim Blair. Or Mark Bahnisch for that matter.
Similarly, other than Brett, the panel looks pretty light on in terms of Geekery, but again let’s wait and see.
Since I won’t be able to attend, I thought I’d put down a few Questions on Notice for the panel (maybe Stilgherrian can put them to the panel on the day):
- Why isn’t there an independent Australian politics blog attracting 1.3 million hits a month (the per capita equivalent of the Daily Kos’ traffic)? (more on this here)
Alternatively;
- Why isn’t there an independent Australian politics blog attracting 180,000 hits a month (the per capita equivalent of Guido Fawkes traffic)? (more on this here)
- Is the population pool for political discourse in Australia deep enough to sustain an influential political blogosphere of the US/UK varieties?
- Why does the Australian political blogosphere view its role as a kind of ’salon’ for political debate and discussion (albeit with an ideological bent) rather than the overtly partisan style of the UK and US? Does the Oz Blogosphere need to become overtly partisan to achieve the kind of influence seen in the UK/US?
- Is ‘empowerment’ a necessary precondition for the blogosphere improving the political discourse? Can an ‘elite’ blogosphere (ie one in which already influential voices like politicians, journalists and academics dominate) exert a positive influence on the political discourse?
For Panel 2, “Politics 2.0: information technology and the future of political campaigning” and the panellists are:
Joe Hockey, the Liberal member for North Sydney; Senator Andrew Bartlett of the Australian Democrats; Labor Senator Kate Lundy (ACT); and election analyst extraordinaire Antony Green.
My Questions on Notice for Panel 2:
- How influence are domestic political circumstances (ie political system,
- Is the Westminster political system compatible with the “New Campaigning” pioneered by Howard Dean and Joe Trippi and taken to another level by Barack Obama?
- Does the dominance of the party structure in the Westminster System ie the absence of candidate campaigning discretion, permit the kind of decentralised, organic campaigning currently being seen in the Obama campaign?
There’s the potential for an interesting discussion here if the panels can avoid being side tracked by things like the Vic Libs blogging scandal and the tired old Blogosphere v MSM tropes. Hopefully those who are in attendance will be able to steer the debate in the right direction….
Share This
May 29th, 2008 at 9:00 am
At the risk of appearing overly partisan (but hey, that’s what you asked for, isn’t it ;-)), it might also be worth pointing out that at the same time as this forum, QUT is hosting the “Creating Value: Between Commerce and Commons” conference in Brisbane, which has a significant citizen journalism stream. Confirmed speakers in that stream include Mark Deuze, Margaret Simons, Camilla Cooke, and Richard Allen - and Henry Jenkins as a conference keynote speaker is nothing to sneeze at, either… So, many of us researching citizen journalism and political blogging may choose Brisbane over Canberra!
May 29th, 2008 at 9:23 am
I’d be more than happy to put those very good questions to the panel.
Your analysis of the panel composition is spot on too, I reckon.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Well Axel, speaking as a proud (if distant) Qlder I’d always choose Brisbane over Canberra!
Unfortunate timing here….
May 29th, 2008 at 11:20 am
I am the first to concede that I am hot.
Bill Gates did invite me to attend though, which I thought was very nice.
I think the thing to appreciate Tim is that there’s always a lag with folks like Microsoft and big corporates in comprehending change.
I’m not sure about the whole influence issue, my objective isn’t to do that but merely to do the Reader’s Digest thing, to inform, entertain and inspire. If I can do that on occasion, I’ll be a happy blogger.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
IMO, this comes down to the fundamental change in the electoral landscape that occurs when the voters are legally required to attend a polling place on election day versus the US/UK system of voluntary voting. Seeing as we have to go to the polling station anyway, Australians resent overtly partisan pushes for their vote, whereas in the US/UK they need to be energised to go to the polling place, therefore partisan politics in the US/UK pushes necessary “get down to the polls” buttons.
A partisan message that turns one segment of voters off but gets others down to the polls is a win situation in the US/UK. In Australia it’s a lose situation: all the voters who have been annoyed won’t stay home, they have to go and vote, and they’ll put your candidate last.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
tigtog - I’d agree this is a good explanation for a less partisan approach amongst political actors when pitching to the general electorate, but I’m less sure it’s an explanation for the lack of partisanship (defined as explicit party identification) in the Australian blogosphere.
Given that the blogosphere seems to break down into ideologically delinieated public sphericals, bloggers are generally writing for an audience of fairly like minded individuals. There doesn’t seem to be much need for them to worry about offending people.
The thing that puzzles me is why the Australian blogosphere is so much more issue oriented than in the US/UK. Why it’s more focused on faciliatating debate around issues rather than pursuing partisan interests (as sites like Kos, Guido, conservativehom, TPM, Instapundit and the like are).