I say the “happy position”, because it is great (and easy) to be the cool guys constantly bidding for an idea and able to moan virtuously when the ol’ fuddy-duddies didn’t get it. Trouble is, they did! 

We are on MySpace!

What changed? For us, three factors. First, the world changed (not just for us, but for us too). The internet became what it is, technology moved on and we entered an era where NOBODY could ignore strange phenomena like MEPs’ speeches getting a million views in two days on YouTube or improbable Scottish singers becoming 50-million-view sensations…

Second, Obama happened. Politicians everywhere saw tangibly, and in the highest-stakes democratic contest in the world, how clever use of the modern internet for political communication can mobilise and motivate in ways hitherto unsuspected. Rightly enough, suddenly all politicians want a piece of that particular action.

How many times have we girded our loins, prepared our pitch, convinced that our latest scheme for something dangerously hip on the internet would be a tough sell to our flinty-eyed superiors, only to find the door wide open and be told to get a move on?

Third, the European elections loomed. Let’s not beat around the bush, EU people are worried that turnout could decline once more and the elections fail to receive the attention they are due. So the moment is propitious for trying new ideas, heading in new directions. Turnout is not determined by EU communications campaigns, but the cry went up nonetheless “we have to do whatever it takes!”

So, in a short space of time, we have an environment where suddenly the seemingly impossible, or, better, unimaginable, became urgent, where ideas which had hitherto been pushed in vain sailed through with barely a squeak. It was disconcerting: how many times have we girded our loins, prepared our pitch, convinced that our latest scheme for something dangerously hip on the internet would be a tough sell to our flinty-eyed superiors, only to find the door wide open and be told to get a move on? Will it last? Maybe not, but these are good times for innovation and it is hard to imagine how the internet genie can now be persuaded back into the bottle.

So why a hint of nostalgia for those sunny days when we banged our heads against a wall of seemingly implacable web-scepticism? Well, we’ve gotta do it now, haven’t we! 

Someone once said be careful what you wish for… I sympathise. Once upon a time, the web team of the EP spent its days researching and writing articles for the headlines page of the EP website. It was a full time job, done well. It still is.  (A full-time job, done well). But today your friendly web editors have one or two other things to keep them out of mischief:

+ moderating comments for our interactive features on the elections website

+ administering a MySpace profile, blogging, posting videos and photos, making friends, moderating comments

+ from today, very much the same for a Facebook page

+ managing a Flickr account, uploading photos, responding to users (and a separate “Guest photographer” photstream)

+ blogging on this blog (no, that’s a pleasure!)

+ getting out there, spreading the word, linking, commenting, posting, networking

+ and (soon) managing a new YouTube channel (part of EUTube)

Meanwhile, we’re not out of ideas yet. More projects are in the pipeline, but  a degree of suspense about those for the moment.

It’s great, of course, and there is SO much more to be done (as a rather intimidating encounter with a man from the UK Central Office of Information recently brought home to me), but it’s also rather a lot of work in the meantime. It’s all very well to set up cool new social networking sites, to finally “get it” (thanks Nosemonkey), but once you’ve started there’s no going back. Social networks, by definition, need daily input, a truth the EP web team  is discovering by doing.

So sooner or later, recognising a reality that public administrations traditionally feel hard to deal with, our strategy will have to be as much about what we are going to stop doing as about all the new things we can find to keep us busy. Just for now though, those elections continue to loom, all hands are on deck and there are seven weeks to go (it says so on MySpace) and, dammit, we’re enjoying it!

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.