Government: When Does Community Support Become Partisan?

As part of digging around for more light to offer around the Seattle Monorail Project, I also keep an eye on various advocacy statements that come up.  I have been following the commentary by Stefan Sharkansky on the Sound Politics site because it was his remarks that woke me up to the need for something more grounded in measurable facts.

Today, Stefen makes some observations about a city department that is involved in civic activities including providing broadcasts on the city's public cable channel: Sound Politics: The Seattle Channel: A Taxpayer-funded Democrat campaign resource.  I don't know if the programming that is offered is that blatantly partisan, but I took the opportunity to explore the web site.  I didn't like it very much.  I think I understand the problem, and I think, for the web site, the public mission appears to be compromised in a number of ways.

I don't know about "balance," although I do consider it very appropriate that Sharkansky hold them to account on objectivity and fairness.

I made use of the "talkback" process of the web site, and that was unsatisfying too.  I felt managed, and I think it is a collision of the open experience that I enjoy as a web logger versus the kind of maybe-paternalistic, or some kind of -nalistic, quality of my experience on the Seattle Channel site.  Your experience may be quite different.  I'd like to know about that.  Meanwhile, here is what I said in my talkback e-mail:

To: talkback@seattle.gov
Subject: Disappointed with the Seattle Channel
This note has been slightly edited to clean up some minor blemishes.  I can't help myself.  [;<).

I saw Stefen Sharkansky's article about the Seattle Channel and I visited it for the first time at <http://www.seattlechannel.org/>.

I don't share Sharkansky's view about equal time.  Just the same, I am a bit appalled by what I see on the Seattle Channel web page.  It strikes me as more public relations than content, especially when it involves press releases from our elected public officials.  Somehow, these releases need to be written with less advocacy or something, but it is clear that there is a point-of-view being expressed, and that makes the Seattle Channel a pulpit.  I don't like that.  What I would like is accountability and straightforward factual material.

I am not sure how to characterize the bad taste this leaves me with.  I think it is about persuasion.  If you can provide something that isn't trying to persuade anybody about anything, but equip them to have information and, where it is relevant, formulate their own analysis, that would be great.  I am tired of the relentless effort to persuade me of things (which is why I don't even have a television and I don't subscribe to newspapers).  I will willingly look at informative and accountable reports, preferably on the Internet.  Maybe that can be found on the Seattle Channel, but the wrappings would suggest otherwise.

With regard to information about public and civic events, I guess my question would be how notices are chosen and who chooses them.  Somehow, I think KUOW and other outlets already do that job, and it would be interesting to see who is the most even-handed.

I think it would be great to have a city government and services portal (and I thought we had one of those).  What does the Seattle Channel do that can't be handled that way?  It is also valuable to know about all of the issues that are being advocated by various groups and individuals and how to follow-up on them.  That could be handled by a guide or directory, with clear, as-neutral-as-we-can-make-them rules for being listed.  I think subtle and not-so-subtle advocacy should not be embedded in the content of the Seattle Channel itself.

I think part of it is the difficulty for elected officials being clear about the role they are playing in conducting their work and then telling us about it.  Maybe it would be best just to televise the meetings and cut out the PR?

I also think that the Talkback mechanism itself is symptomatic of the conflicted purposes of the Seattle Channel web site.  It is one thing to moderate a feedback mechanism for appropriateness (with some clear latitude on the cookie-cutter for appropriateness in the case of a civic site) but seeing someone selected, quoted and perhaps edited is weird.  I am so accustomed to being able to comment directly on web material these days, that seeing the "talkback" (rather than "discuss" by the way) approach was startling for me.  The experience is simply weird.  If I wanted to write a letter-to-the editor and go through that selection process, I know how to do that.  That model seems inappropriate for the Seattle Channel site.

One plus:  The talkback button is for a mailto-address that has my own e-mail client compose this message.  That way I have a copy of what I said.  That's much better than forms-based web pages for feedback, where my own expression vanishes into the cyber-ether, possibly to never be seen again.  Thanks. I think I'll post my copy on one of my places of civic expression.