Reviews of the "Controversy" and "Biotech Knowledge Centre" websites by Lynton Charles and Thom Cooper
About the awards
The New Statesman's New Media Awards were launched last December to promote the effective use of the Internet in government, the private sector and related organisations as a tool for enhancing democratic and social inclusion. The New Statesman is keen to ensure that individuals and organisations that use the Internet to encourage civic participation and public debate, and to provide greater access to public information, should receive the appropriate recognition. With a panel of judges drawn from national and local government, industry and the press, the New Statesman plans to highlight - and reward - the best current work in new media, and to explain the role of new media within the political process.
Nominations for the awards have now closed but a complete list of nominations is available on-line at http://www.newstatesman.co.uk.
Lynton Charles reviews the "Controversy" website
http://www.controversy.net/blair.html
Can I first just say that the government, spurred on by the Prime Minister himself, has always placed an immense priority on developing Internet literacy among all our citizens, from those at school to those, er, not. Like many MPs I have a website, where browsers can access some of my speeches, press releases, photographs of my constituency, biographical details, publications and favourite links. Including the once-again fashionable King Crimson fan pages.
Today, however, I have been asked to review the "controversy/blair" website, maintained by a young TV journalist called Danny Rosenbaum, which - as far as I can tell - is a sort of sceptical shrine to The Master, er, the Prime Minister. And frankly, while the tone is a little unsettling and the concentration on ephemera such as Drapergate a little childish, there is a great deal of unusual information here. For example, I learn from Elaine Quigley (BA Hons MBIG Dip Hon Vice-Chairman, British Institute of Graphologists) that she has analysed the PM's handwriting and concludes: " There are some indications of a slightly unpredictable social attitude. His writing reveals signs of obstinacy in communication." That's not what the voters seem to think, Ms Quigley!
We are also indebted to young Danny for reminding us of The Master's Desert Island Discs, especially the obscure "Cancel Today" by Etio. I wish I'd mugged up on this before my last encounter. But I am less impressed by the anagram section, which informs us (whether we wish to know or not) that rearranging the letters of "Labour Prime Minister" gives you "Slimier rent-armpit". Frankly, I did not need to know that. Some think that the great joy of the net is this arbitrary information access. I am not so sure.
Thom Cooper reviews the "Biotech Knowledge Centre" website
http://www.biotechknowledge.com/
The growing importance of the Internet as a means of influencing public opinion has persuaded many large corporations that a well-designed website is a good way to get their message across. For Monsanto, firmly positioned in the public mind as the company behind genetically modified (GM) organisms, the web gives a chance to prove that the company really wants to promote debate and share information. And it has chosen to do it through sponsorship of the "Biotech Knowledge Centre", a collection of articles and press releases from all sides of the GM debate.
The aim of the site may be laudable, providing access to everyone's point of view, but the implementation is sadly lacking. The site introduces itself as an "evolving collection of news items, technical reports, fact sheets, speeches and other documents", but apart from links to three or four recent articles on the home page, the only way to find material is by using the search engine. If you want to know what the latest hot issue in the GM debate is, then you're stuck: there is no way to find the most recent material. If you don't know what you're looking for, you're lost. There is no attempt to put the material in context or to guide readers through it.
This sort of site gives Monsanto good press coverage, but few people will actually visit it, so most readers will believe that it really does contribute to the debate. But in reality it's a poor substitute for engaging in a serious discussion with the corporation's opponents.
Monsanto knows how to build a website: the main corporate site (at http://www.monsanto.com/) is a beautiful example of how a multinational corporation can make the Internet work. Curiously, though, it doesn't have a direct link to the Biotech site, perhaps because this is still largely a European argument and there is no need to trouble US readers with it.
Thom Cooper is an Internet consultant
Meet the judges: Janet Rutherford
While Westminster initiatives get a lot of attention, most of the really important work on ways to use new communications technologies to promote the democratic process takes place at local level. Cambridge, Lewisham, Bradford and many more local authorities are trying out on-line information systems, discussion groups and even web-based services.
Janet Rutherford, director of policy and research at the Local Government Association, knows a lot about the issues facing local government and is well equipped to judge the quality of the many local government websites nominated for awards. She co-ordinates the LGA's research and presentation of policy, and has been closely involved in issues raised in the Local Government white paper and the Better Government white paper.
Her expertise is not just at the policy level, either. Prior to the LGA she worked for many years in social services, eventually becoming director of social services for Berkshire County Council, so she knows what it is really like inside local government.
Bill Thompson, Nexus
Post this article to
Post your comment
Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website
