The journalists followed the nowadays trend on getting the news. Not searching, but getting. Searching is too old-fashioned. Nowadays the mountain comes to Mahomet, via Facebook and Twitter. The same way the EP news came to you this week.

Haiku goes global ©nobuojp

Monday: you find out on Facebook that the Bulgarian commissioner-designate will be evaluated by the Parliament. If approved, she will be in charge with development and she will be expected to take action on Haiti. If you have time to check the fan’s comments you read that she is an economist and was vice-president of the World Bank and that people trust her. Later in the afternoon you read that last year’s Sakharov prize laureate, Oleg Orlov, leader of Memorial, was arrested in Russia, and that the EP’s president called on the Russian authorities to “cease the heavy-handed treatment of peaceful demonstrators”. The fans comments inform you that Mr Orlov is the second Sakharov laureate to be jailed, after Lyudmila Alexeyeva was arrested on New Year’s Eve . On Twitter you read that the Balkans are “still suffering” from Yugoslav wars, and if you follow the link you will be able to read an interview on this subject with the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Tuesday: you probably already knew that the European Parliament regularly examines the candidate states’ readiness for EU membership. But you can find out the citizens’ views on enlargement in the 200+ fan comments. The day’s bad news: we may have to raise taxes in the next years. If you don’t click on the link you don’t find out that the MEPs asked for the pensions’ reform. On Twitter you read that bankers have lost their friends in Davos and that MEPs ask support for small firms while tackling the crisis. If you are a fan of the EP president on Facebook, you find out that he paid his first official visit to a founding EU Member State – France.

In late afternoon you cannot believe you eyes: the Parliament’s communication team published on the EP official website the comments on enlargement from their Facebook fans.

Wednesday: you are informed on Facebook that the hearing of the Bulgarian commissioner-designate is broadcast live. Unfortunately not on Facebook, but on the EP website. So, follow the link!

Thursday: first news on Facebook: Parliament members look at how cooperation in organ donation could help to overcome shortages. In late afternoon you cannot believe you eyes: the Parliament’s communication team published on the EP official website the comments on enlargement from their Facebook fans. On Twitter you read that the commissioners’ hearings are over, and you can see the atmosphere caught by our photographer in a photo gallery on Flickr.

Friday: On Twitter you find a link to the verbatim reports of the commissioners’ hearings and another one to the parliamentary committees’ evaluations of the candidates. On Facebook you read that during the following week MEPs meet in plenary in Strasbourg. The video proposed in the link shows you the main points on the MEPs agenda, among which the controversial transfer of European banking data to the American authorities.

Did you miss any information by not reading the official news? Find out yourself on the EP “Headlines”!

So our response was straightforward: don’t worry, all comments will be moderated before publication.  Not censored, mind you, moderated, an entirely different thing.  We would not allow obscenity, racism, personal abuse, etc.  There was no question of political opinions being a factor. Nods all around the room.  Yes, it’s the only way to go.

We knew it wouldn’t be as straightforward as all that of course.  We would inevitably quickly be targeted by the highly active eurosceptic online community, who invariably home in on sites they see as propagating pro-EU ideas.  So be it, we thought, these are legitimate political opinions, supported indeed by a not-insignificant number of MEPs, therefore no question about publishing them, as long as expressed in civilised language.

And they duly came, and they were duly published.  Even where their view of MEPs is less than flattering.

However, things got trickier when we asked the public to comment on the question of whether or not EU countries should assist President Obama in his desire to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp by taking in former detainees who could not return to their countries of origin.

The subject was a good one.  It was on the agenda of the EP during its session in Strasbourg and there were strong opposing arguments expressed by the different political groups, not just on the fringes but within the mainstream. We wrote an article quoting some opposing positions in the parliament, and invited our readers to join in.

Socrates: moderation – (cc):bencrowe on Flickr

Suddenly that nice distinction between moderation and censorship didn’t seem so easy to draw.  We received dozens of comments, as it happens almost all from men in Denmark, expressing very similar views, boiling down essentially to “no, we don’t want those Muslim terrorists here, there are already more than enough.”  The difficulty came from that typical and utterly unfair elision between “Muslims” and “Muslim terrorist”.  Some comments simply complained about the number of Muslims in Europe, while others objected more specifically to the idea of those specific Muslims who had been in Guantanamo coming to Europe.  While it is quite easy to perceive (but can we assume?) the same underlying racist attitudes in these two categories, we  did not feel we could treat them equally for the purposes of moderation.  Where the sentiments expressed were based purely on an attitude to Muslims (e.g. “there are already too many of them in Europe”, “Muslims out!”, etc.), we decided that this was beyond the pale, or as we rather formally put it: “expressed views advocating discrimination on grounds of religion, views in contradiction with the fundamental principles of the EU …etc).  So we did not publish. Where however the comment objected to, say, “those participating in a war between Islam and the West”, or “Muslim terrorists from Guantanamo”, we felt that, however contentious – and for many objectionable – the sentiments, it could be considered an expression of political opinion.  So we published.

Suddenly that nice distinction between moderation and censorship didn’t seem so easy to draw.

I confess I remain unsure, but we had decided on a liberal moderation policy precisely because we had to avoid any accusation of censorship.  Moreover, we all know that attempting to silence extreme voices often has exactly the opposite effect. What, however, does worry me is the phenomenon whereby a small group with similar opinions can target and dominate an open debate and leave a very one-sided impression. It would be nice to have more contrary  views, (such as the Thinkaboutit blogger who suggested – I paraphrase – “six per country and it’s fixed”). The fact that our debates are time-limited may also be a factor.  I have mentioned in the past the tendency of online debates to “self-correct” over time.  But we, for many good reasons, close our debates after a few days.  It is possible that this means that only the most motivated, thus frequently those of extreme and/or self-reinforcing views, will be quick enough to have their say.

At a deeper level, one could say that the problem is always the same, on and off-line, that all political arguments tend to be between those who feel strongest about an issue, with the relatively unengaged and often more moderate majority remaining silent.

So is this sort of interactivity a good thing? Have we bitten off more than we can chew? First, we are doing it because we were asked to. Second, we were asked to because it has been understood that successful communication via the web requires this – we cannot afford not to do it.  Third, we knew there were risks and that we would be confronted with this problem at some point. Last, it doesn’t always have to be this way – other debates have been more balanced.

So we have to keep trying.  We are committed to the idea that Parliament’s site has to be open and interactive.  But moderation is no panacea, it cannot answer all the questions that will arise.  

Perhaps our brand of moderation needs a little help from another form of moderation, one predating our kind by many centuries, the kind which says a man “must know how to choose the mean and avoid the extremes on either side, as far as possible”. 

I would love to know what readers of this think about all this.

For the record, Parliament voted 542 v. 54 against and 51 abstentions in favour of taking in ex Guantanamo inmates if asked.

I leave you with a EuroparlTV report on this matter – this predates the Strasbourg vote.

(CC) Photos: bencrowe on Flickr.

But as from last Wednesday, the yawling from the next room tells us that we have a younger sibling, usurping our status as brat-on-the-block and focus of well-meaning parental control.  I speak of course of EuroparlTV, the new web TV service of the European Parliament.

As with any new family arrival, attention has been lavished on the new baby.  My google alerts have been laden with opinion on the subject from across the globe, right round to the antipodes and back.  Opinions are mixed. Some are (rightly) impressed at the sheer ambition of the undertaking (there is nothing else like it… anywhere), others praise the commitment to transparency it represents, while others again fear it as a exercise in propaganda cynically deployed by devious eurocrats (yep, them again) to brainwash a general public they obviously consider too feeble minded to cope.  My favourite today was a US-based website which saw it, alongside papal web TV, as further confirmation of biblical prophecies about plots for the re-establishment of the evil Holy Roman Empire! (Check it out, it gives a most flattering impression of our power to influence European public opinion…)

But this is not actually about EuroparlTV, it is about the older sibling.  Everyone knows that a young child cannot help holding slightly ambivalent views about a new arrival in the house.  Jealous?  Us?  Of course not!  No mixed feelings as our new colleagues are upbraided for their follies of youth, as they try to assert themselves with brave new editorial ideas in the weekly editorial committee?  Well, it’s true we kind of liked being the ones pushing the limits, challenging the status quo, though it is also not totally unpleasant to watch some-one cast in the role of the naughty one for a change.  Ambivalent?  You got it! 

The trick now of course is not to allow ourselves to be cast in the role of the mellow older sibling.  We have to join forces with the newcomer, discover all the things we can achieve together.  We are in reality natural allies, the internet generation, with a lot to offer each other (take a look at our teaser banner campaign to see how much we actually do love the new baby).  Look forward to the era of the terrible (web) twins!