-
An Open House Project “Success Story”
POSTED BY
At the Open House Project, Joshua Tauberer, proprietor of GovTrack.us and colleague, writes about “a real success story.” He recounts how he stumbled into, via WebContent.gov, a project of updating a Web site on best practices in the Executive Branch for making data available. Josh worked with two federal workers, one at the U.S. Geological Survey and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency, to update a site that provides best practices. He drew on the Open House Project Report for his recommendations.
Check out his full post here.
-
Congress May Fix Web Site Rules
POSTED BY
Earlier this year, David All and I wrote a section of the Open House Project calling for the House to review and rewrite arcane franking regulations as applied to member Web sites. According to Roll Call, it looks like this is actually going to happen. If you’ve ever been to a congressional Web site you’ve probably noticed the lack of interactivity, multimedia, and linking that is common in today’s Internet. That’s because of unwritten, nonspecific, arbitrary rules that are unevenly applied across member Web sites. Members can’t post YouTube videos, link to MySpace, ask people to Digg something on their site, or have a blogroll. All of that may be changing soon:
Regulations prohibit content that can be construed as an advertisement or as purely personal information, such as links to fundraisers or support for partisan causes. Now, the new phenomenon of social networking sites — and the increasing use of them by Members — is testing the application of such rules in a multimedia world.
House and Senate officials say several Members are not in compliance, though none apparently have been disciplined. It’s time, they say, to update the rules to match the technology.
The House Administration Committee has been drafting possible changes for months, as has the Senate Rules and Administration Committee.
“The Internet increasingly has become a more effective means of communication,” said Salley Collins, spokeswoman for House Administration ranking member Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.).
“Technology is continually evolving. Therefore, the rules themselves need to evolve so Members can utilize technology to the fullest,” Collins added.
Turning official member Web sites into actual interactive portals to engage constituents and talk to the member’s office is the next wave in change in the member-constituent relationship. Member Web sites have made leaps and bounds this year alone as hubs of information and they beginning in integrate interactive elements and break the boundaries of these now irrelevant rules. Here are a few numbers concerning what’s going on on member Web sites:
At least 44 members have blogs, 30 of which have been updated in the last month. Three of them have blog rolls.
At least 7 members use YouTube for the videos on their Web site. At least 8 members use Google Maps on their Web site.
And a few other members link to other sites like Flickr, Facebook, MySpace, Eventful, and iCal.
All of these tool should be approved for use. Member Web sites should also get rid of the ridiculous requirement to have a jump page if they link to a non-governmental Web site. People have been on the Web in large numbers for over a decade now. It is common sense that a link may take you to another Web site. We don’t need to be warned.
I eagerly anticipate the release of new rules so that members can finally engage with their constituents through their Web sites.
-
Debate Transcripts; Delicious Links
POSTED BY
(Cross-posted from the Open House Project blog and Google Group.)
One theme running through what we’re doing here, in my mind at least, is to blur the line between the explicit and the implicit, or, put differently, to make evident those things which were only implied. Effective data availability is certainly a case of this. Every time there is government information that is publicized in that satisfying-due-diligence, html, doing-as-we’re-told, this-is-the-full-extent-of-our-authorization, only available in a reading room at 2:30 PM on Wednesday sort of way, well, that’s an example of the implied. That data is only public by implication, since there is a significant barrier to it’s effective use, reuse, access, or timely updating.
I’m loving the conversation about debate transcripts that Josh just posted about, because it’s a great example of information becoming increasingly public, even though it was in plain sight all along. All public televised debates are, by their nature, quite public. The transcript or video/audio, however, has been less available, so much that the battle over their fair use continues even now. Despite this struggle, innovative presentations of this most hotly contested, most scrutinized of public appearances are popping up with increasing frequency. Josh’s post took the speaking time from the NYT and calculated the statistical correlation between candidates’ time speaking and their poll ranking. I just came across this tool (application?) that allows for all sorts of user-defined analysis of the debate transcript. You can see, explicitly, how many times the candidates said a term of your choice, and the text from the transcript is available right along with it. This is the sort of thing that we’re lucky enough to witness developing, as long as the data that drives this sort of innovative presentation stays open and available. (more after the jump.)
~
Whenever I come across something like this that I’d like to share, I’m confronted with a paralyzing set of choices. I can email those people that I think would appreciate it, I can tag it on delicious, I can link to it on twitter/facebook/jaiku, I can share it on facebook, I can send a link to someone through AIM or google chat, I can write a blog post on one of several blogs I sometimes write on, or if I’m really impressed, I can physically use my mouth to discuss it with someone (again, by phone, by ichat, or by physical space.)
One of the reasons that the Open House Project has been successful is that it started, and has functioned primarily through a thoroughly public interactive space. By gravitating toward the public and the collaborative, we’re inviting input from unknown sources, who always seem to be listening. This also builds trust and approachability, which is clear as people have often approached me to discuss things they wouldn’t necessarily write to the whole list (which I gather can be rather intimidating).
This is exactly what we want Congress to do more often, and better.
The form that this will take will probably continue to evolve, just as stenography made a Congressional Record possible, telegraphy encouraged wire services and revolutionized the press, and TV and C-SPAN made hearings and floor speeches public in a new way (thanks in part to the spectacle of McCarthyism.) Evolving technology is also responsible for the permitting lawmakers to go on blogs like redstate or dailykos, soliciting input or even in sprited confrontation.
As political Web use struggles to get its footing, I’m still wondering in just the same way what the best forms are for how we share our awareness of the goings-on online. I recently discovered delicious, or maybe I recently adopted delicious in earnest, and now I love it. I can easily create a public space of links made up of things I found to be notable, find others with similar interests, and tag my links for easy retrieval later. Also notably, delicious has RSS-feeds galore, which means that one can transform or subscribe to tag, an person, or specific person’s tag.
This is particularly interesting to me because it may present the best way to share Open House Project related links with a broader community without constantly deciding whether to blog, email, etc. I think there must be a way to set up a portion of my delicious account so that every time I tag something with "ohp", it appears in a public way. I’m sure we could add a section to the sidebar that lists the most recent delicious entries with that tag, but I’d like to also give others the ability to add links to that tag. Is the best solution to use a public feed, like ohp? It seems that that would be insufficiently specific. Anyone have a suggestion for a collaborative link-sharing space, preferably delicious based?
-
Tranparency in the Election Spotlight
POSTED BY
From OMB Watch:
Popular thinking tells us that for any trend, fad or heavily pursued activity, the pendulum will eventually swing back the other way. As we approach the 2008 elections, this may well be the case for government transparency, which, after years of increasing government secrecy, appears to be getting greater attention than ever before.
Elections often seem driven by the hottest or "sexiest" issues of the moment, too often involving more rhetoric and sensationalism than substantive issues of government policy. Most years, government transparency is considered far too dull an issue about the mundane day-to-day operations of government to attract much attention from candidates or voters. But as the presidential primaries approach, there are several indications that this year could include a much higher profile for government transparency as an issue.
The Reason Foundation has spearheaded an effort involving more that three dozen public interest groups to get presidential candidates to sign the Oath of Presidential Transparency. The oath commits signers to running the "most transparent Administration in American history," should they be elected, as well as fully implementing the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) of 2006. Thus far, three candidates signed the pledge - Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Sam Brownback (R-KS), and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), though Brownback recently announced that he is dropping out of the race. Obama - who co-sponsored the FFATA legislation, which requires a searchable database on government spending - stated, "Every American has the right to know how the government spends their tax dollars, but for too long that information has been largely hidden from public view."
In the 10Questions Presidential Forum, a new experiment in online democracy sponsored by MSNBC and bloggers in cooperation with the New York Times, transparency has become a top issue that site users want asked of presidential candidates. The site allows users to submit video questions for presidential candidates and then has visitors of the site vote on which questions are most important to them. A user-submitted question on transparency is currently among the top two questions receiving votes.
Interest in transparency also extends to Congress, as demonstrated by the Earmark Transparency Pledge. The pledge, organized by the Americans for Prosperity, commits signers to voluntarily disclose online a "regularly updated list of every earmark and/or targeted tax benefit that I request." The pledge effort is supported by the Sunlight Foundation, Taxpayers for Common Sense and OMB Watch.
Participation and follow-through in such transparency efforts by members of Congress could play a larger roll during the next election as some voters pledge to cast their votes for members who vote to make Congress more transparent. Joshua Tauberer of GovTrack.us began a Transparency Vote campaign, in which participants agree to "pledge my vote to my senator & representative in 2008 if they vote for or sponsor a transparency initiative recommended by The Open House Project." The campaign has 273 pledges and seeks to reach 10,000 by January. The Open House Project, a collaborative effort by government information experts, congressional staff, nonprofit organizers and bloggers, has developed attainable reforms to promote transparency in the House of Representatives.
The Hill reports that two incidents of electronic voting malfunction, including the aforementioned controversial under-vote, in the past month have infuriated lawmakers. Aside from the under-vote on August 2 the voting machines blacked out the very next day. Frank Ryan, the former head of the House Information Systems (since renamed House Information Resources), voices surprise that these machines, which he helped install in 1973 have not been upgraded since. Count me as one who is not surprised. Technological changes and adoption in Congress have always required political will and strong personalities for any thing to happen.
Just take a look at the history of electronic voting, the origins of which do not begin in 1973 but in 1869. A young Thomas Edison came to Washington in 1869 to offer Congress the use of a new invention of his, the automated voting machine, which he felt would help reduce from hours to minutes the amount of time spent on each individual vote. Congress rejected Edison as they felt that automated voting would reduce the ability of the leaders in Congress to corral the necessary votes to form winning coalitions. Numerous attempts were made over the years to institute some form of electronic, or automated, voting system to no avail (most notably in 1914). Electronic voting did not come to Congress until the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, a massive bill that required intense political pressures and passions, mandated that the House create an electronic voting system.
It’s great that these malfunctions (if that’s what occurred) happened to make Congress reevaluate its spider-webbed technological infrastructure. Congress, however, will always make excuses as to why they shouldn’t do anything, as they are with upgrading the voting system, without heavy pressure from both inside and outside. The Open House Project, along with other groups both partisan and nonpartisan, are making technological change in Congress politically possible by showing that the need exists and constituencies care. There are definitely champions of technological innovation and improvement working inside of Congress as well. Changing congressional technologic doesn’t happen overnight; hopefully this time it won’t take 130 years for them to upgrade it.
Sunlight Collects Value Added Information Resources
Where can I find information on the contracts awarded to Northrop Grumman Corporation? Once I’ve found that information, where can I find the campaign finance and lobbying information for Northrop Grumman Corporation? Have members of Congress have accepted private travel from Northrop Grumman Corporation or a related association? Is there a profile of those members of Congress? Can I edit that profile with what I might find? Did that member say anything about Northrop Grumman Corporation in the Congressional Record? Are they mentioned in a committee report? Did they benefit from an earmark?
Web sites presenting different kinds of political, civic, and legislative information are distributed throughout the internet. While broad Web searches can be effective, they can also be time consuming and lead to sites of questionable reliability. With the debut of Sunlight’s Insanely Useful Web sites page (always listed in the tabs at the top of every Sunlight page) we're developing a collection of value-added government information databases on the Web.
We're going to be reviewing these sites to help you understand how these databases work and what they offer to the amateur researcher and the experienced Web geek. Our reviews, and the feedback that you give to us, will be given to the developer as feedback to help make these sites even more insanely useful.
Insanely Useful Web sites seeks to bring together on one-page links to government information databases that provides visitors data presented in an open, dynamic fashion. This will not only enable researchers a one-stop shop for all their needs, but will also help demonstrate how government information can be presented in a Web 2.0 world.
All of the sites listed are created to offer information in a new way and utilize the technologies and tools used across the Web today. There is a wiki for Congress; databases with open APIs and RSS feeds on bills and votes; campaign finance information mashed-up with congressional voting data to highlight the connection between the two; searchable lobbying information; a user-generated database for executive branch e-mails related to the U.S. Attorneys Purge scandal; a site, chock full of interactive functions, that tells you how much each individual bill will cost you; and many more. Ultimately, these Web sites enable citizens to be able to better connect to their government through better and more accessible information and through the ability to interact with that information.
Considering the exploding nature of government information of the Web, we fully expect this list of Insanely Useful Web sites to continue to expand. Some of you out there are creating new Web sites that utilize government information in ways that no one has thought of yet and we'd like to know about it. Do you have a wiki, a database, or a mash-up that uses and presents government information in a new fashion or enables citizens to engage with the data? Send us the Web sites you are working on and maybe your work will wind up in the Insanely Useful Web sites, too.
Whether you're working with Congress to create robust public information access online (perhaps by participating in the Open House Project, independently designing your own Web sites, or working for a government agency, we'd love to hear about your work with government information sources. Surveying the landsape of political information resources online fits perfectly with the Sunlight Foundation's mission, since Internet technology will clearly play a fundamental role in creating a more transparent and accountable government, and these Web sites demonstrate the transformative potential of information techology in the world of government.
Written by Paul Blumenthal and John Wonderlich
George Miller Taps Web 2.0
As David All and I have written, the rules governing member Web sites are not fit for the 21st Century Web. If the rules were enforced with any regularity, instead of used as a scarecrow to keep members from innovating, then some of the best practices by members on the Web wouldn't be happening. Case in point: Rep. George Miller (D-CA).
Today, George Miller announced a new campaign, called "Ask George," calling on citizens to send videos, through video sharing sites like YouTube, to Miller's office regarding the War in Iraq. Miller's office describes "Ask George" as a "distributed, virtual town hall". Miller also suggests that participants in this conversation "tag" their videos "askgeorge" so that his office can go and find the questions. This way, Miller is the one going out to seek the conversation rather than the citizen or constituent who is usually the one seeking out the congressman.
This is exactly the type of activity that allows members to communicate more effectively with their constituents, and Americans in general, about the issues that matter. As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) asks people to send YouTubed questions for him to answer, to which he responds in kind. Miller's use of YouTube to engage in a conversation with citizens goes a step further though. He has worked with Splash Cast to create a Facebook application for the "Ask George" campaign and will be hosting an "Ask George" Facebook page for citizens to discuss with the congressman, and amongst each other, the War in Iraq.
This is by all accounts the first time that a member of Congress, in their official capacity, has gone to a social networking site to connect with citizens. The innovative use of social networking and video sharing sites by Miller's office is astounding considering the restrictions that members are told they have to abide by. It's time for more members of Congress to start communicating and connecting to people online as George Miller is. The barriers created by congressional Web use rules will cease to exist if members and their staff simply ignore them.
George Miller is one member of Congress leading the way in using Web 2.0 technologies to connect with constituents and citizens. This only enhances his ability to do his job. It's time for more members to lead with him.
A Modern Congress Needs Modern Web Sites
The Hill newspaper ran an Op-Ed written by David All and myself on Tuesday in the Open House Project Op-Ed series. We run down the reasons why member Web sites are often just polished brochures, accessories to the actual functions of the office. First and foremost is the rule regime governing member Web content. These rules date from the early to mid-nineties and do not reflect the current nature of the Internet in the 21st Century. David and I advocate for these rules to be changed and for the Committee on House Administration to create a bipartisan panel to solve the problem. I've been blogging about member Web sites over at the Open House Project blog this week. So far, I've covered Ben Nelson's Google Map of his Iraq CODEL, Jack Kingston's dynamic member site, and the attitude on Capitol Hill in regards to member Web sites. Below the fold I've included the Op-Ed that David and I wrote.
Modern world, ancient websites
by David All and Paul Blumenthal
June 19, 2007
Technology and politics are rapidly intertwining in the new millennium as presidential candidates adopt sophisticated online operations to raise money, get out the vote and connect to new voters. Social networking, blogging and online video technologies have taken the political world by storm. But in Washington, members of Congress are forced to watch this race for online superiority from the sidelines.
It’s not their fault. While candidates for office can do as they please with their websites, members of Congress are heavily restricted in the kinds of activities they can partake in on their official websites, because they are governed by Franking Rules. These rules were created decades ago to restrict the use of mass mailings sent to congressional districts at taxpayer expense. Franking Rules, modified to apply to the Web in 1994 and last updated in 1996, state that members may not use non-congressionally provided services for their website, nor link to any site of a personal or political nature.
Due to such restrictions, most member websites function as little more than online brochures, when they could better serve as a place to share information about the member’s activities in Congress, or even as a vital community center. Under these rules, members cannot use Google maps to provide visuals for district information important to constituents. Neither can members use non-congressionally provided blogging tools, nor link to other blogs that may be deemed to be of a political nature.
Therefore, members of Congress cannot partake in the important conversation happening online, while any citizen can start a blog, contribute to a wiki and generally engage in unfettered online debate.
Congress should recognize that the Internet is a vastly different communications medium than any that lawmakers have used before. The open-source era, known widely for its Web 2.0 programs and websites, allows citizens much greater capacity to control who they talk to, what news they receive and what new portals they might use to better distribute information throughout the entire world. Lawmakers have to be able to participate in the same manner.
The onerous restrictions placed by Franking Rules may lead members of Congress to neglect the greater potential of their websites. According to recent reports by the Sunlight Foundation and the Congressional Management Foundation, most members only present a small part of the information that would be useful for constituents. Too few member websites list bills they sponsor, the earmarks they secure or the votes they cast. Even fewer post members’ daily schedules or the various disclosure forms they are required to file each year. Lifting or at least clearly codifying the restrictions on member websites will make robust public access more easily attainable and will allow members to take full advantage of technology developments to better connect with constituents.
Given the rapid development of online communications, the time has come to re-imagine the world of the wired elected official.
In 1994, a House-appointed special task force created new rules to govern House Web use. These rules may have been appropriate for the Internet of 1994, but they are unacceptable for the open-source era.
The Committee on House Administration should, therefore, convene a bipartisan task force of members of Congress, congressional staff and citizens to better identify the intent of the current rules and regulations that are effectively prohibiting smarter use of congressional websites to communicate with constituents and present information.
People Powered Politics or People Powered Governance?
I’d be remiss to fail to mention Liza Sabater’s pre-PDF Conference blog post, “The Cluetrain Manifesto for People Powered Politics.” In her post Sabater aims to do for politics what the Cluetrain Manifesto did for the business community. Writing, “Gone are the days in which engagement is only mediated by an elite ‘entrusted’ by the masses with every single policy and political decision making that will end up affecting their lives,” Sabater highlights a point that I find to be instrumental in understanding the changes that an Internet-enabled open and transparent government will enable. While Sabater focuses on the realm of elections, I’d like to take a look at her “Manifesto” in terms of governance. “Constituencies are conversations,” and they can be empowered to affect the legislative and governing process as well as direct the political process.
Citizens are online using government information to do their own watch-dogging, to make their voices heard on important legislative issues, and to create new ways to understand legislative and government information that not only aids other citizens but aids the governing process as well. One example connects directly with one of Sabater’s points:
“76. We’ve got some ideas for you too: some new tools we already use, some better services we’ve already produced. Stuff we’d be willing to pay you to use. Got a minute?”
Created by 20 Daily Kos users, the DOJ Documents database allows users to search through the enormous amount of e-mails relating to the Attorney purge investigation handed over to the House Judiciary Committee by the Department of Justice. This was made possible by the House Judiciary Committee posting the e-mails in large pdf files on their Web site. The committee understood that opening up the oversight process to citizens would provide additional labor at no cost while simultaneously making citizens feel like they have power to act in their government and can make a difference.
Dozens, if not hundreds or more, of citizens perused the documents and commented on them at blogs like TPM Muckraker and Daily Kos. The information that they uncovered enabled new conversations and new information to reach into the mainstream of American politics. The only problem these muckrakers discovered was the inability to search the documents. But this is the Internet and now we have a searchable database of these e-mails; a resource that is used by bloggers, journalists, and I presume could and has been used by staffers on the Judiciary Committee.
“87. We’d like it if you got what’s going on here…”
NZ Bear created a great tool to analyze, discuss, and dissect the “Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007.” Readers of the bill could access any section of the bill through hyperlinks created for each section. Each hyperlinked page allows for readers to comment and discuss the particular section of the bill. Imagine if every bill could get a public mark-up along with its committee mark-up. Citizens want to help you craft legislation that works and that will help you out when you come home for your district work weeks. Don’t explain your vote or bill to us after the fact, explain beforehand and let us talk back.
“63. … We want to talk to you.”
Utah State Rep. Steve Urquhart learned this by using wiki technology to bring his constituents and the people of his state together to discuss legislative issues. He gave them a space for conversation where they previously could only speak in one direction to their representative. Instead of complaining before an issue is understood or after a vote citizens could discuss, with their elected representatives, the merits of legislation or register their desire to see other legislation pass.
Really it’s true, we do want to talk to you. But we need elected representatives to get what’s going on here. We need more information and more data. We need it in a better format so that we can help you help us. What we need is for this information to be transparently available and open for all citizens to use, manipulate, and innovate with. And we need fewer restrictions on how you can talk to us.
The Open House Project is working towards this goal by advocating new ways to open Congress and creating new pathways for information flow. The recommendations of The Open House Project embrace fully the idea that politics is a conversation among constituencies that should not be closed off with improperly formatted information, elite barriers to information, and archaic restrictions.
John Wonderlich, the Open House director, lays out a similar argument in this post today. John also asks for readers and Open House participants to explain “what is it we’re trying to make possible?” What will transparency policies achieve?
Transparency reforms are essential to creating the networked politics and governance that Sabater and others are advocating. Transparency policies do not create good government through added restrictions, but rather by increasing public participation in the process. Good government occurs when people have a stake in what takes place, at the political level and the governance level. It occurs when citizens and politicians talk to each other and exchange information. It happens through conversations.
The U.S. Patent Office is a perfect example of an organization opening up the conversation. According to Beth Simone Novick, the Patent Office is utilizing these new networks created online to allow specialized citizens to review patents.
On June 15, for the first time in its 200+ year history, that process will be open to public participation. This will also be the first such social software experiment to connect directly to our legal and political institutions.
Not according to a traditional agency paradigm of indirect comments made by legal professionals nor by selecting professional scientists as peer reviewers but by setting in motion a social network that will connect directly to the legal decision-making process and allow self-selected experts – with or without any professional qualification – to submit information into the decision-making process.
So what we are able to do, for the first time, is to open up the patent examination process in an experiment – what are calling Peer to Patent – to allow an open community of self-selected experts to research, submit and rate information to be sent to the patent office.
Peer to Patent is premised on the idea that wisdom is not at the center, but in the crowd. While the people contributing to IMDB or Wikipedia might or might not be PhDs or CEOs, they are members of a community – empowered by the new tools for collaboratively managing and editing content online – to engage in the common pursuit of pooling knowledge into expertise. The structure to produce that expertise can be embedded in software and made real and useful to the “crowd.”
The Patent Office is not the only place in government where innovation is occurring. The Department of Health and Human Services recently unveiled a blog to focus on preparing for a pandemic flu outbreak. The blog brings together 16 experts from the business, health care, religious, and local level communities to discuss how government, individuals, and organizations can coherently respond to a possible pandemic disease outbreak. By getting the public involved in the conversation at an early stage the consequences of such a disaster could be mitigated to a greater degree than by creating a policy kept within the government. The conversation makes government work better.
Congress needs to adopt changes that open its walls and free its information so that people can participate in the conversation.
Already there are millions of conversations going on about how citizens can impact their government; how they can have a role in the process. Web sites are starting; databases are being created; doors are opening; walls are coming down.
“95. We are waking up and linking to each other. We are watching. But we are not waiting.”
For more of the 95 theses read Liza Sabater’s “The Cluetrain Manifesto for People Powered Politics.” And don't forget to visit The Open House Project to see ways that Congress can enable citizens to become empowered in the governing process.
Online Journalist Ejected from Press Gallery
Citizens and journalists are taking to new mediums to report on Congress. These new mediums, however, are not recognized by the U.S. Senate Press Gallery. Today, ConsumerAffairs.com reports that it's Congressional reporter, Joe Enoch, an award-winning investigative journalist, was ejected from the Press Gallery after he was denied renewal of expired credentials because he wrote for an online venture. According to the Senate Press Gallery, ConsumerAffairs.com is not a "legitimate journalistic enterprise." This is a shining example of what Rob Bluey pointed to in his Hill op-ed and in his Open House Project recommendations to create a credentialing to bloggers and citizen journalists. The right to report is not limited to those employed by elite media institutions. ConsumerAffairs.com founder and editor in chief James R. Hood puts it best when he says, "The Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of the press to everyone; it does not establish a legitimacy litmus test."
Not only does the Senate Press Gallery reject journalists because of the medium in which they write but they also operate in a completely non-transparent manner. We don't know exactly why Enoch was denied a renewal of his credentials. All that we know is that this institution has declared that ConsumerAffairs.com, and along with them every other journalist/blogger writing for a non-elite web site, not a "legitimate journalistic enterprise." We don't even know what standards the Press Gallery sets for defining a journalist's employer as a "legitimate journalistic enterprise." What constitutes legitimacy? Who decides what a journalistic enterprise is or is not? The sheer opacity of the Press Gallery is infuriating.
If you think that journalists and bloggers should be able to exercise their First Amendment rights and report on the U.S. Congress just like the elite press than head over to the Open House Project and check out our recommendations to open up the House to citizens.
(hat tip: commonsense)
