0
Blogging and politicians
30 March 2007
[indent]I took a few shots today from Scoop's 45-calibre pen over at the East-End Underground for my recent comments posted on this blog. Not the first time I've had my lumps from him. In his comments, Adams says,
I suppose it's up to the voters to decide which is better: having a politician be candid and frank and express his concerns and thoughts openly, or the old-fashioned silence outside the meetings. Which is more desirable: a councillor who makes public where he stands on issues and why he supports or opposes motions, or one who merely comments when a motion or report is tabled during a meeting? Which would voters rather have at the table: a councillor with a forum where one can comment on - and challenge or refute -his ideas or arguments, and engage in a an online-dialogue about issues, or one you only see on TV?
It's my small effort be provide some of that that openness for which others merely provide lip service.
I don't think any other candidate has any similar resource. In fact, outside of my blog, are there any other members at of council who openly communicate with the general population outside the meeting process? No one has ever addressed the basic issue: should politicians even have blogs? Should they comment in a forum like this? Is this level of frankness and openness desirable? Or do we prefer our politicians to be cyphers?
Obviously I side with those who like this new openness and candid commentary.
VOTE sent a questionnaire to all candidates last election and asked how we planned to stay in touch with residents if elected. I said then that I would use my own blog and my forum as one of the resources to keep people informed about how I felt, why I voted in any debate, and about issues and political matters. I am merely living up to a promise I made.
Some of what I write is controversial, even confrontational. That's in part because either the procedural structure of meetings doesn't allow a full debate on all issues, or the mayor restricts discussion on some issues.I don't feel I have the opportunity at the table to always express myself as fully as I'd like, so I turn to another medium. And I am better at writing than at speaking off-the-cuff in a limited time at the table. It's not like being in the House or the the Legislature where there is an active, even aggressive to-and-fro and one can express oneself more openly and freely.
What viewers see at the table is merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg as far as issues, background and politicking go. I try to uncover some of what is hidden by explaining and commenting on the material often below the surface. Of course it's going to be from my perspective, but if other politicians think it doesn't address their concerns, then they should get their own blog and make counterpoint.
And yes, I can be critical and controversial. If people want politicians who play the role of Pollyanna, who act as sycophants or rubber stamps, then they will elect someone in my place next term. I will always say what I believe, what I feel, and I will stand up against what I see as wrongs, as hypocrisy, or as abuse of position. I will speak my mind and speak it freely.
As a former reporter and editor, I have no fear of controversy. In fact I'd rather have people arguing with me over my comments than have no dialogue at all. Bringing issues to the fore for public discussion and debate is part of the democratic process. If I don't get enough democracy at the table, I'll bring my comments here.
But as for 'driving the wedge' between the mayor and myself, as Scoop says, that was done long before this election. We often took differing stands on issues, supported different sides and had different views on what is appropriate behaviour by a politician. That's actually true of most of us, but there isn't as much acrimony or confrontation between councillors in part because we often enjoy a beer or glass of wine after a meeting and socialize. Joking and kibbitzing with one another tends to cool heated heads somewhat.
I think the 'wedge' was driven in inextricably deep by the mayor's 'monitoring' of council's email last December. I think it was hammered down when the mayor made the motion to repeal two democratically-made decisions by the previous council. I think it was further driven home by critical comments and actions in meetings to which I cannot respond at the table, so I turn to this blog.
And unless I can be convinced otherwise by people whom I respect and who supported me last election, I will continue to do so.
If you're interested, look up 'blogging politicians' on Google and read what others think about it... here's one comment from a U of T paper on politics in the blogsphere:
[/indent]
Quote
I guess that just means Monday night will be another wonderful six hours of tension and uncertainty; next week's poll may have to ask the question 'who's driving the wedge deeper: Chadwick or Carrier?'...
I suppose it's up to the voters to decide which is better: having a politician be candid and frank and express his concerns and thoughts openly, or the old-fashioned silence outside the meetings. Which is more desirable: a councillor who makes public where he stands on issues and why he supports or opposes motions, or one who merely comments when a motion or report is tabled during a meeting? Which would voters rather have at the table: a councillor with a forum where one can comment on - and challenge or refute -his ideas or arguments, and engage in a an online-dialogue about issues, or one you only see on TV?
It's my small effort be provide some of that that openness for which others merely provide lip service.
I don't think any other candidate has any similar resource. In fact, outside of my blog, are there any other members at of council who openly communicate with the general population outside the meeting process? No one has ever addressed the basic issue: should politicians even have blogs? Should they comment in a forum like this? Is this level of frankness and openness desirable? Or do we prefer our politicians to be cyphers?
Obviously I side with those who like this new openness and candid commentary.
VOTE sent a questionnaire to all candidates last election and asked how we planned to stay in touch with residents if elected. I said then that I would use my own blog and my forum as one of the resources to keep people informed about how I felt, why I voted in any debate, and about issues and political matters. I am merely living up to a promise I made.
Some of what I write is controversial, even confrontational. That's in part because either the procedural structure of meetings doesn't allow a full debate on all issues, or the mayor restricts discussion on some issues.I don't feel I have the opportunity at the table to always express myself as fully as I'd like, so I turn to another medium. And I am better at writing than at speaking off-the-cuff in a limited time at the table. It's not like being in the House or the the Legislature where there is an active, even aggressive to-and-fro and one can express oneself more openly and freely.
What viewers see at the table is merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg as far as issues, background and politicking go. I try to uncover some of what is hidden by explaining and commenting on the material often below the surface. Of course it's going to be from my perspective, but if other politicians think it doesn't address their concerns, then they should get their own blog and make counterpoint.
And yes, I can be critical and controversial. If people want politicians who play the role of Pollyanna, who act as sycophants or rubber stamps, then they will elect someone in my place next term. I will always say what I believe, what I feel, and I will stand up against what I see as wrongs, as hypocrisy, or as abuse of position. I will speak my mind and speak it freely.
As a former reporter and editor, I have no fear of controversy. In fact I'd rather have people arguing with me over my comments than have no dialogue at all. Bringing issues to the fore for public discussion and debate is part of the democratic process. If I don't get enough democracy at the table, I'll bring my comments here.
But as for 'driving the wedge' between the mayor and myself, as Scoop says, that was done long before this election. We often took differing stands on issues, supported different sides and had different views on what is appropriate behaviour by a politician. That's actually true of most of us, but there isn't as much acrimony or confrontation between councillors in part because we often enjoy a beer or glass of wine after a meeting and socialize. Joking and kibbitzing with one another tends to cool heated heads somewhat.
I think the 'wedge' was driven in inextricably deep by the mayor's 'monitoring' of council's email last December. I think it was hammered down when the mayor made the motion to repeal two democratically-made decisions by the previous council. I think it was further driven home by critical comments and actions in meetings to which I cannot respond at the table, so I turn to this blog.
And unless I can be convinced otherwise by people whom I respect and who supported me last election, I will continue to do so.
If you're interested, look up 'blogging politicians' on Google and read what others think about it... here's one comment from a U of T paper on politics in the blogsphere:
Quote
Debates over politics within the blogosphere provides important evidence that is relevant to current debates about democratic deliberation.
<snip>
...there are important limits to the political influence of blogs. They are less important because of their direct effects on politics than their indirect ones – they influence important actors within mainstream media who in turn frame issues for a wider public. We see no reasons to expect that this will change in the foreseeable future. Indeed, we expect blogs to lose some of their disruptive impact as politicians and others learn to take better account of them.
Even so, blogs are important to politics, and are likely to remain so. Furthermore, they present a quite extraordinary body of research material for social scientists. Understanding these linkages may require political scientists to develop unfamiliar research skills and statistical techniques. However, as this article demonstrates, the rewards for so doing are very substantial indeed.
<snip>
...there are important limits to the political influence of blogs. They are less important because of their direct effects on politics than their indirect ones – they influence important actors within mainstream media who in turn frame issues for a wider public. We see no reasons to expect that this will change in the foreseeable future. Indeed, we expect blogs to lose some of their disruptive impact as politicians and others learn to take better account of them.
Even so, blogs are important to politics, and are likely to remain so. Furthermore, they present a quite extraordinary body of research material for social scientists. Understanding these linkages may require political scientists to develop unfamiliar research skills and statistical techniques. However, as this article demonstrates, the rewards for so doing are very substantial indeed.
