Podnosh

That’s what I kept asking myself, and I wasn’t alone. Other members of the Birmingham bloggers’ group who’d registered to cover the conference were also considering what they might write, if they should right anything. Why were they there?

I know why I was there. Because I was invited.

It a huge occasion and I’m delighted I went. One blogger has described this invitation to local web folk as a charm offensive. Well charmed I have been. Partly by the warm and relaxed welcome from Rishi Saha, the Conservative’s head of social media, but also by the sheer scale and energy of the event. It is the first conference in Birmingham I’ve found with such a huge fringe. Events leach into the rest of the city centre. One massive conversation, much of it in very high heels.

It is also the only conference where it is not just up to us as a city to make a good impression. Sure we need to be our normal hospitable self, but equally the Tories need to make a good impression on us.

I’ve been to Conservative party conferences before as a BBC political reporter. I’ve covered huge events in Birmingham – notably the G8 conference. That was easy. I knew my job was to tell the overall story – the mainstream consensus. If possible I should also find an exclusive something – but that something still had to satisfy a mass audience – or rather the editors who judge what interests that audience. This time it was harder.

Then it dawned on me why a blogger should got to any political party conference: to write about the things they normally write about.

My niche is that curious overlap between active citizenship, citizen journalism, social media, mainstream journalism and local government.

It is a mishmash of a place and any party conference is riddled with material that fits my normal area of interest. Oddly this only occurred to me late this afternoon.

Tis the fringe stupid: Bloggers are perfectly suited to one particular part of a major conference – the fringe. It is there the fit happens, the wider the range of blogging interests present the greater the depth of coverage we will get from these events.

So tomorrow I’ll be back to share a story or two and hopefully they will be the things my normal readers want to to read.

technorati tags: cons08 conservative party tory party conservative  party conference birminghamuk

I’m late with this but want to mention it anyway. The really imaginative US programme Global Giving is now operating in the UK through GlobalGiving.co.uk. It subverts the big agency model of “give us your aid/charity and we’ll decide who gets it”.

To quote from their press release:

GlobalGiving.co.uk is a website enabling individuals to give directly to hundreds of well-vetted grassroots charity projects in over 70 countries, mostly in the developing world. Donors can also tangibly see the impact of their donations on the communities concerned through regular progress updates from project leaders. Projects range from providing clean water to villages in Morocco, enabling Guatemalan women to set up small-scale businesses, or helping Nepalis produce pedal-generated light as an alternative to dirty kerosene lamps.

The GlobalGiving concept was established in 2001 in the US by two former World Bank executives, Dennis Whittle and Mari Kuraishi. Since then, GlobalGiving.com has generated over $12 million to fund over 1,000 grassroots development projects. GlobalGiving.co.uk now offers the same exciting types of project opportunities to UK based donors.

Charities have long grappled with the issue of giving supporters a sense of the impact of their donations, and avoiding the uncertain feeling that donors often experience after sending a cheque. Meanwhile, outstanding projects struggle to obtain financing throughout the developing world. With GlobalGiving.co.uk individual donors can choose how much they wish to give – as little as £5 – and to which causes. In fact, many project leaders insist that the steady amounts of small donations are the ones responsible for projects reaching their goals.

Similar but on some level more individual than justgiving. For more than just this truncated hello, please see Beth, David Wilcox, Dennis Whittle, and their own blog here.

I’ve got real concerns about this (see the bottom of the post). According to this news release it will:

• establish a comprehensive public information and awareness and child internet safety campaign across Government and industry including a ‘one-stop shop’ on child internet safety;

• provide specific measures to support vulnerable children and young people, such as taking down illegal internet sites that promote harmful behaviour;

• promote responsible advertising to children online; and

• establish voluntary codes of practice for user-generated content sites, making such sites commit to take down inappropriate content within a given time.

This is what Tanya Byron thinks:

“Every parent will know that know that video games and the internet are a part of childhood like never before. This is extremely positive; giving kids the opportunities to learn to have fun and communicate in ways that previous generations could only dream of. But it can also present a huge challenge to parents and other adults involved in the welfare of children.

“That this why we need industry, regulators and parents to work together to protect children against the risks. Setting up UKCISS was a key recommendation in my report and I’m delighted that the Government along with industry, education, law enforcement, and the children’s charities have acted so promptly to make this a reality. “The Council will be a powerful union of some of our key players giving support to parents and guidance to children as they come more and more accustomed to the virtual world – it will also give families, teachers and most importantly children and young people the ability to input experiences and concerns. The UK is a world leader on internet safety for children and I look forward to others adopting this partnership approach.”

I’m worried this organisation will be risk averse, burdened with the pr fear of any internet abuse being laid at it’s door. Already the government has been looking for ways to police the internet.

The country that manages to balance the risk/opportunity that the web represents for young people is the one that will be best placed to enjoy the economic benefits on offer.  Having run a quango once, I know that you don’t create an energetic and imaginative attitude to risk by creating a new quango.

However it is easy to carp.  I think UKCCIS should start with teachers. If we can warm them up to the possibilities that come with an open attitude to the internet, rather than a closed or mistrustful one, we then have a hope of encouraging them to teach children to manage risk rather than run from the slightest suggestion of it.  Until teachers have high levels of digital literacy we’ll struggle to have schools that are anything but freakishly fearful of the web.

courtersy weirdogenius

Beth Kanter has been in touch to ask me to spread the word about an American competition which this year is open to applicants from the UK. The Digital Media in Learning Competition has a deadline of October 15th and allows bids from $30,000 to $250,000.

The 2008 Digital Media and Learning Competition theme is Participatory Learning. Participatory Learning includes the many ways that learners (of any age) use new technologies to participate in virtual communities where they share ideas, comment upon one another’s projects, and plan, design, advance, implement, or simply discuss their goals and ideas together.

It’s funded by the Macarthur foundation, who’s spotlight blog falls short of some of he principles it is trying to encourage (no trackback – lots of hurdles to joining the conversation). Having said that the MacArthur Foundation has been working long, hard, patiently and  intelligently at pulling together the threads of how we must understand digital media and learning.

It’s a brilliant opportunity, so whether you are the School of Everything or the North Birmingham Social Enterprise – go Britain, get the dosh.  Quickly mind, no faffing.

Free Debates is an important democratic movement. They are demanding that a condition of a network getting to screen presidential debates is that they make the material available with open source/creative commons licensing, so it can be rehashed and mashed etc.

It is a great idea and any public sector broadcaster like channel 4, ITV, BBC  here in the uk should be delighted to make the resources available for what could be a blossoming of political engagement. So David Cameron, Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg just imagine citzenship lessons where people are mashing video of political debates.

This is their open letter to Barack Obama and John McCain:

Dear Senator McCain and Senator Obama,

We are a coalition of people and organizations across the ideological spectrum asking you to make this year’s presidential debates more “of the people” than ever before by bringing them more fully into the Internet age.

Specifically, we ask you to embrace these two “open debate” principles for the 2008 debates:

1. The presidential debates are for the benefit of the public. Therefore, the right to speak about the debates ought to be “owned” by the public, not controlled by the media.

During the primaries, a large coalition asked that media companies release rights to presidential debate video to ensure that key moments can be legally blogged about, shared on YouTube, or otherwise shared without fear of legal repercussion.CNN, ABC, and NBC agreed to release video rights. But one media company threatened legal action against Senator McCain for using a debate clip to spread a message. Such control over political speech is inconsistent with our democracy.

We therefore call upon both candidates to commit to a principle that whenever you debate publicly, the raw footage of that debate will be dedicated to the public domain. Those in charge of the video feed should be directed to make it free for anyone to use.

2. “Town hall” Internet questions should be chosen by the people, not solely by the media.

The two campaigns recently said of the October 7 debate, “In the spirit of the Town Hall, all questions will come from the audience (or Internet), and not the moderator.” We agree with the spirit of this statement. In order to ensure that the Internet portion of this debate is true bottom-up democracy, the format needs to allow the public to help select the questions in addition to asking them.This cycle’s YouTube debates were a milestone for Internet participation in presidential debates. But they put too much discretion in the hands of gatekeepers. Many of the questions chosen by TV producers were considered gimmicky and not hard-hitting enough, and never would have bubbled up on their own.

This “bubble up” idea is the essence of the Internet as we know it. The best ideas rise to the top, and the wisdom of crowds prevails. We’d propose debate organizers utilize existing bubble-up voting technology and choose Internet questions from the top 25 that bubbled up. We ask you to instruct the October 7 debate planners to use bubble-up technology in this fashion.

This is a historic election. The signers of this letter don’t agree on every issue. But we do agree that in order for Americans to make the best decision for president, we need open debates that are “of the people” in the ways described above. You have the power to make that happen, and we ask you to do so.

Thank you for your willingness to take these ideas to heart. If you have any questions, please contact: OpenDebateCoalition@gmail.com

Sincerely,

Lawrence Lessig; Professor, Stanford Law School, Founder, Center for Internet and Society

Glenn Reynolds; Professor, University of Tennessee Law, and founder of Instapundit.com blog

Craig Newmark; Founder, Craigslist

Jimmy Wales; Founder, Wikipedia

David Kralik; Director of Internet Strategy, Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions

Eli Pariser; Executive Director, MoveOn.org Political Action

Adam Green; Director of Strategic Campaigns, MoveOn.org Political Action

Mindy Finn; Republican strategist, former Mitt Romney Online Director

Patrick Ruffini; Republican consultant, Former Republican National Committee eCampaign Director

Arianna Huffington; Founder, Huffington Post

Markos Moulitsas; Founder, DailyKos.com

Jon Henke; New media consultant, including for Fred Thompson, George Allen, and Senate Republican Caucus

Mike Krempasky; Co-Founder of RedState.com

Matt Stoller; Founder/Editor, OpenLeft.com

James Rucker; Executive Director, ColorOfChange.org

Robert Greenwald; President, BraveNewFilms

Kim Gandy; President, National Organization for Women

Carl Pope; Executive Director, Sierra Club

Micah Sifry; Co-Founder, Personal Democracy Forum and TechPresident.com

Shari Steele; Executive Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Josh Silver; Executive Director, Free Press

Carl Malamud; Founder, Public.Resource.Org

Roger Hickey; Co-Director, Campaign for America’s Future