My Photo

May 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

Search this Blog


  • Society for New Communications Research


Hub Headlines

« Delivering the New PR in London | Main | Making Decision-Making Public »

May 15, 2006


Simon Collister

Hi Elizabeth

I had been down to attend the Demos event, but couldn't due to work commitments.

Shame I missed out but thanks for the notes.

Philip Young

There is a great deal that deserves attention here, Elizabeth, but for now, one small comment. You use a Wikipedia definition of transparency which contrasts it with 'privacy'. Surely a more accurate binary is 'secrecy.' Most of us accept there are areas that can be kept from the public gaze; the problem is when decisions are secret, ie only known to a certain number of people who have an obligation to keep the issue outside the public domain. I am trying to suggest there are areas which any individual may legitimately wish not to see discussed; there also areas which are kept from public scrutiny for illegitimate reasons.

Elizabeth Albrycht

Good point Philip.

Karen Russell

Just now got around to reading this post, which I am assigning to my students for a discussion on social media.

What struck me was how your thoughts connect with Jurgen Habermas' "ideal speech situation," which says that even though groups are not equal in power, in order for ethical communication to occur they must be equal in conversation (i.e., anyone can initiate a conversation, anyone can change the subject). Habermas called the ideal speech situation "improbable," but he didn't anticipate Web 2.0.

Great post.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter
    AddThis Social Bookmark Button
    Blog powered by Typepad