JEC Hearing: The Future of Newspapers – The Impact on the Economy and Democracy
On Thursday, September 24, 2009 U.S. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, Chair of the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) will convene a hearing to examine the ongoing contraction in the U.S. newspaper industry, the economic impact of the changing media landscape, and the future of the industry at large.
From the JEC website:
Over the past year, dozens of daily newspapers have shut down their presses creating a ripple effect through communities, having consequences for local economies, and removing a critical check on government accountability and corruption. Witnesses will discuss funding alternatives for the print media and the outlook for the industry.
The JEC hearing is entitled, “The Future of Newspapers: The Impact on the Economy and Democracy,” and will take place Thursday, September 24, 2009 at beginning at 10:00 AM EDT in room 210 of the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, DC.
The hearing will be also be webcast live (Windows Media Player required) via this link:
View the Live webcast of the JEC hearing HERE.
Opening Statements:
- Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney, Chair of the JEC (PDF – 133.6 KBs)
Witness Statements:
- Mr. John F. Sturm, President and CEO, Newspaper Association of America (PDF – 66.5 KBs)
- Dr. Paul Starr, Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Princeton (PDF – 22.8 KBs)
- Mr. Tom Rosenstiel, Director, Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism (PDF – 12.6 KBs)
Over on Mashable, there’s an engaging article by Mark Drapeau (and a lively comment stream) on possible alternatives to the rapidly-aging “2.0″ cliché, and some thoughts about what will – or at least might – succeed it.
It’s important to realize that the particular exchange over at Mashable is specifically about language and what we should call things, rather that the specifics of those things themselves.
Personally, I’m all for a new, cliché-free naming convention for all of this 2.0 business. Or, at the very least, a new set of clichés to replace the ones we’re using now.
Besides, if we continue with the Web/Gov/Health/Socks/Goldfish x.0 metaphor, (one that’s been borrowed from software development), there will be those who will be unable to resist the temptation to take the metaphor to its logical conclusion, i.e., incremental upgrades…with predictably illogical – or at least impractical results. After all, if we’re continually improving it, shouldn’t government 2.0 naturally become 2.1, 2.2 and beyond? This, in turn, begs some further questions:
Since this morning, I’ve been especially partial to this gentlemen’s coinage: WeGov.
Other ideas abound: Activist Kevin Bondelli (possibly the Gen-Y/millenial’s successor to Joe Trippi), prefers User-Generated Government.
While my inner geek might pine for Quantum Government, NanoGov or similar such fanciful stuff, my inner communicator wins out: If we’re going to create meaningful slogans and coinages for everyone’s use that represent at least an earnest effort to really listen and really collaborate, then let’s keep ‘em short, sweet and simple.
Ultimately, the particular terminology that ultimately gains traction to describe citizen-centric, responsive government at every level pales in importance, compared to the people and policies – and, yes, the social technologies necessary to undergird it. We’ve only just begun.
More to come…