While at the State Department last summer, I heard quite a bit about America.gov, the Web site begun at the tail end of Condoleezza Rice's tenure as Secretary of State as a multi-language home base for the United States' public diplomacy efforts. So I was surprised to see this short article stating that America.gov, as of March 31st, no longer exists, as State has abandoned ship and is "refocusing" their resources on Facebook and Twitter, which they call "push" efforts.
Honestly, I am not sure how I feel about this move. On the one hand, yes, Facebook and Twitter are great ways to connect with people all over the world. Absolutely. On the other hand, I can't help but think of Malcolm Gladwell's article, "Small Change," that we read earlier this semester, which takes a skeptical view of the power of social networking sites to effect meaningful political and social change because of their non-hierarchical structure. As he says, "Facebook and the like are tools for building networks, which are the opposite, in structure and character, of hierarchies. Unlike hierarchies, with their rules and procedures, networks aren't controlled by a single central authority."
I certainly understand why State wants to utilize Facebook and Twitter more than they have, especially in terms of individual embassies' and consulates' presence. But I'm not sure they should be totally abandoning the America.gov model either. It looked more official, more like it was coming from somewhere important. And State saw that as a bad thing, I guess. This despite the fact that Secretary Clinton, in the article we read last week, said that "public diplomacy must start at the top." While the directives to use social media do come from that top, I still think the United States needs a central Web site where all of its current information about public diplomacy initiatives is in one place. And I fear that all this jumping on the Facebook and Twitter bandwagon could ultimately have underwhelming results. The "weak ties" that these networks engender, while they may increase "resilience and adaptability," may not be as effective in the long run as more structured platforms like a formal Web site. It's a toss-up, though. Since I can't look at the Web site anymore, I can't say whether it was attractive, well-organized, or full of worthwhile content. If not, then maybe moving to Facebook and Twitter exclusively wasn't a totally bad idea--but why not try to revamp the Web site instead of abandoning the format entirely? This example shows how much work still needs to be done to make real strides in America's public diplomacy strategy.
I'm so glad you brought up the America.gov website. I looked at it extensively last summer and fall because I was curious about the content that was created for it. I thought it was well organized and had some nice little documentaries on it. However, it was definitely focused on somehow proving that the US was a tolerant place. There was one video that highlighted Muslims in America (a fashion designer in NY is the one I remember). It was about that "shared values" campaign that failed.
ReplyDeleteIt is a question - do you you put up your formal PD programs online in this self-conscious way? Do you try to fix it so its better? I was thinking about the Korea.net and koreabrand.net websites and how they are complimented by social media sites and activity. I agree with you that there should be a place for a formal presentation of information, but it does seem like it is mostly for the State Dept itself to have clarity in messaging. Who actually goes to a site like korea.net or america.gov except the PD officers at post or scholars? I do think that completely abandoning one-way messaging may be a mistake as those tools can be useful, even if only as a backdrop for more interactive and effective collaborative efforts.
That is good to know, Willow, thank you! Because I couldn't actually go poke around the Web site to see whether I liked what they were doing or not, it's really helpful to know that it focused at least partially on the whole "shared values" thing, which was not so much a rousing success. I agree, obviously, that maybe a retooling of the messages and using it as a backdrop, as you termed it, on the site would have been better than abandoning it completely!
ReplyDelete