The problem with transparency is that it’s not. It never is.
“Transparency” is yet another buzz word to put those affected by changing processes at ease. When some company or governmental entity wants to say upcoming changes to process, policy, rules or procedures will be transparent to the customer, client or whomever is affected by these changes, giggle profusely. A standard announcement reads something like this:
“The transportation management office will change how it handles all inbound and outbound processing. This process will be transparent to end user and should result in a more efficient process.” Not that I’m picking on any transportation management office. One could insert any number of military functions into that position. Besides, the wording is usually the public affairs staff’s fault.
The result? It’s never transparent. Consumers, clients and customers always know when a process gets changes. They see all the bumps, warts, growths, scrapes, bruises and broken bones it endures along the way.
Sometimes, a different word is encouraged: seamless. The change from whatever was being done before to whatever will be done now will be seamless. In the end, however, once again, they usually see every sewn-together, once-tattered edge ripped by someone who had to have a say in how that “transparent, seamless” changeover would go. There are dozens of them we clients and customers endure along the way.
It is at this point that social media pundits, like me, are crying for government transparency. Apparently, what we want is for you to be able to see into how government works. And apparently, from this light shed through new windows, you’ll be able to help government do a better job than it did before not being so see-through.
Really?
The mantra goes something like this: allow all the government peeps to access social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and the lot, and they will, in turn, tell the government’s fantastic story. And some of that is true, and there are plenty of GREAT stories to be told from the government, especially from my military alma maters, the Air Force and Air Force Reserve.
And then you’ll also get the bitching. Ever seen a good Digg comment thread? Ever spent time in an active online forum of any kind? The praise is there. In spots. But the naysayers, flamethrowers and trolls own these places. Transparency opens the flood gates for all the water, not just some of it.
And if we’re talking about the government, then just how transparent will senators, representatives, their aides, the political action committees, the lobbying groups and everyone else inside the Beltway with a stake in federal government be with that transparency? They like the way they handle their business right now, thank you very much. What exactly do they want exposed in an online venue? They’ll let you know.
One time-tested phrase can always be inserted here, too: the way government business gets done is a lot like how sausage is made. In either case, you never actually want to watch it done.
Part of the reason many of the social media pundits are crying out to give access to military people for Facebook and Twitter is simple: we’re running out of places to tell our stories. Newspapers are dying and could be dead in another three to five years. So, since we can’t be on your doorstep every morning, it’s time for military public affairs people to get into your blogs, your Fan pages and post links on your profiles.
Transparency is a two-way street. You see us. We see you. However, don’t expect anything new. We’re going to tell you the same things we’ve always told you. We’re just placing it into a new medium. And we’ll have governmental ways of responding to naysayers, flamers, trolls and all the rest. Heck, as Wired’s Danger Room blog proved, we already do.
The migration from newspapers and “old media” to Internet and “now media” simply means we’re delivering our message through a new venue. And don’t blast me with the interactivity argument. Newspapers have had letters to the editor for as long as they have been printed. They had email channels after that. TV and radio stations something similar — called “ratings.” Sweeps weeks anyone?
Interactivity in media and government (especially during elections), however, is always a house bet swayed to the side of the house (the media or government), usually about 70-30 or, more likely, 80-20. In other words, we can interact with ESPN, but its mission and vision aren’t going to change because of a few comments someone made on one of its stories. But always figure the house is going to win. You’re the consumer. You’re the citizen. They know you better than you think.
As another aside, a good friend and colleague remarked on his blog how recent activity in Moldova got organized via Twitter and how it proved … something … about social media. OK. So, they wouldn’t have used a mass email before that? An online forum before that? A bulletin board before that? Pirate radio? CB radio? HAM radio? Countless uprisings composed of millions of people were created before Twitter gained a boost in publicity. Tienanmen Square, anyone? The Boston Tea Party anyone? In any of those cases, stop praising the distribution channel and start praising the people who built the uprising.
See, the problem with transparency is that it is not. In 20-plus years of experience, no change is ever transparent or seamless. Ever. No transparency of process is ever as vaunted as those who are most eagerly seeking that transparency (and to somehow profit from it).
Instead of focusing on shifting distribution, maybe we could focus on shifting the communication paradigm. What do consumers and citizens want in their media, and are we already giving it them. Moving into new distribution channels doesn’t conjure up any seachange to how the government could do a better job communicating on every front. Hardly.
Merely, it’s a switch from AM to FM; from cassette to CD; from CD to MP3; black and white to color TV; cathrode ray tube to flat panel.
The music sounds different, but the artist is playing the same tune.
Popularity: unranked [?]
