Gov 2.0: A Message from Hollywood to the Beltway

When asked by Alan Silberberg to speak at this past weekend's Gov2.0LA unconference, Bill Grundfest, a television producer from Hollywood, asked an important question: What the hell is Government 2.0?

Government 2.0 serves as an umbrella term for the variety of projects and platforms coming from both the public and private sectors that have the goal of bringing government into the 21st century and getting citizens engaged. Yet, when you ask people in the space what it means, no one seems to have the same definition.

In a panel on Language Standards for Government 2.0, Grundfest, the former producer of TV sitcom Mad About You, spoke about the concept of Government 2.0 from an important perspective that is often forgotten in the space: people. Forthright in his admission that he knows nothing about technology and transparency, Grundfest pointed out that he did understand that the way that Government 2.0 evangelists are currently communicating their message to their target audience is clearly not engaging.

Congratulations. You are all in show business.

Grundfest began the discussion by recruiting the entire Gov 2.0LA audience into show business. Government 2.0 evangelists are self-promoting and advertising themselves to the world through social media like Twitter and Facebook. Those who are introducing Government 2.0 communications and projects to government entities and citizens are much like the writers that create a new pilot for a TV show: they are pitching new ideas, some of which will capture attention and others of which will fail. Just like you have to test a pilot to see if an audience likes it, Government 2.0 innovators must test their new platforms with their intended audience members, citizens. It is this testing that will help the space figure out how they can truly serve citizens and get them engaged. It's about finding out what people really want.

Lessons: Engage & Humanize

Government 2.0 needs a narrative that anyone can understand. The "schlub" with the pothole in front of his house wants to know how he can fix it. He realizes he can use a mobile application like CitySourced or SeeClickFix to report it to his local government. It gets fixed. Whenever explaining Government 2.0, it should be in terms as simple as that. When people realize that technology can help solve the government problems that affect their daily lives, they will become more engaged.

While it is almost second nature for people in the Government 2.0 space to use jargon (even by using "Government 2.0" as a term), the use of jargon, as Grundfest points out, is inherently an anti-democratic thing to do. Grundfest is right, because it creates an "in crowd" as well as just contributes to the existing echo chamber, drowning out the voice of the average citizen. Anyone who considers themselves to be a part of the Government 2.0 space should make it their responsibility to translate concepts like transparency and open government for the masses of people who do not run in these policy and technology circles.

Using Hearts to Change Minds

The most important lesson from Grundfest: those in "politech" need to use hearts to change minds, not "minds to change minds." A compelling story, an interactive video or a personal conversation can go a long way in recruiting citizens to the cause. Even if the government cannot fix all our problems, it still can provide space for citizens to be heard. That really is the half the battle. There are many people who simply feel like they do not count, whether at the local level when that same pothole does not get fixed or at the federal level with a national debate like the one surrounding health care. Government 2.0 has to be about conversations and connections, not just open source code and policies.

 

Follow Christina Gagnier on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gagnier

Comments

[Noel Dickover]

I think in any community of practice where detailed concepts are expressed and debated, jargon will emerge, and this is probably a good thing. This just doesn't happen in government. The problem as Gweynne (and Grundfest) points out is that when trying to disseminate the message past the Gov20 "in" crowd, the jargon becomes a massive barrier.

Translating Gov20 to the rest of the country is essential if there is ever going to be significant participation in open government. I love the idea of communicating open government through stories and videos, etc. And I definitely agree with Jed that any agency that brags about its social media to the detriment of providing services is missing the boat. Part of this again is an Agency talking to an internal community with the same site they use to talk to the rest of the world.

Messaging is important. I think Christina's post captures the sentiment wonderfully. And if we all start doing this, perhaps the conversation will broaden past the jargon-filled tech discussions taking place right now.

[Mark Drapeau - Huffpost Blogger]

Nice post. But I have two major problems with this idea.

One, the current audience for Government 2.0 conversations is currently not the American people; it is the tech and government elite. For better or worse, that's mainly who's interested in contributing blogs, attending events, and so forth, and so that is what the conversation reflects. This might change in the future, but currently these are the people who care most about data.gov, who the next CTO will be, and so forth.

Two, if there is one niche in society that has tons of incomprehensible jargon, it is government. Hello. The notion that somehow people working on Government 2.0 use too much jargon, yet the rest of government is immune from this criticism is ridiculous. Jargon isn't great, but it is a fact of life in government. Further, every field has its own jargon. Surely, Grundfest wouldn't deny this is true of Hollywood itself, where jargon rules the land, with no attempt whatsoever to make it comprehensible to the average Mad About You viewer. And why should they? Point one - the viewer is related to the topic but not the intended audience for the discussion.

[Gwynne Kostin]

Mark, I disagree on your #2. Grundfest is absolutely RIGHT regarding jargon. Jargon is a barrier. It isn't required or a necessary fact of life. Communicating in plain language is not just doable, but critical to breaking down barriers. A government can't be transparent through a film of jargon.

The Hollywood idea of telling stories in ways that people can understand isn't new for government. (see the history of the plain language movement http://www.plainlanguage.gov/whatisPL/history/index.cfm). What is new is that new technologies are bringing people closer to government. Now is not the time to turn them away with governmentese, but to communicate in the places they are and in the language they can understand.

[Jed Sundwall]

Mark and Gwynne, I disagree with both of you. ;)

Grundfest pointed out (as I have: http://www.slideshare.net/jedsundwall/finding-your-social-media-voice/14) that jargon is not bad per se. It's perfectly appropriate, and more efficient, for geeks to speak to each other like geeks. I'd argue that jargon is a necessary part of life—linguists call it "register," and it's how we use language to identify our own kind.

That said, much Govt 2.0 activity is expressly dedicated to reach people far beyond our geeky/wonky circles. While we've built a decent govt geek community over the past year, it will all be moot if we fail to explain our value in plain terms that make sense to the people we're trying to serve.

I bristle every time I see an agency scream "look at our social media!" as if citizens know or care what social media is. They should be saying "ask us questions" or "get updates from us" or "help us make this better."

I loved Grundfest's session. His insights were right on and I'm glad that Christina and others are reporting on it.