Alastair Campbell to advise South Africa

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s chief spin doctor Alastair Campbell on Tuesday said he has noticed a definite tension between government and the South African media.

Campbell has been invited to share his expertise at a two-day Government Communicators’ Forum which started in Midrand on Monday.

He said he will be offering strategic advice.

“I actually met people from the south African government a few years ago in London where they started to explain to me how they did want to try and modernise government communications. They have asked me to give them strategic advice having been involved in processes in modernisation of communications,” said Campbell.

How Internet can ruin your life… or launch a revolution

It did not require theoreticians to answer the questions whether access to information can lead to a revolution or is a revelation. At the India Today Conclave 2011 session, Wael Ghonim, the Internet activist who rallied the tens of thousands that overthrew Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, had one emphatic answer: information is a revolution.

And he said this with the assertion born in the actual cauldron of revolution in Egypt. Corroborating this view, with caveats, were the inventor of the World Wide Web, Sir Tim Berners Lee, and technologist-hacker Joshua Klein. Over video from Cairo, Ghonim recalled how technology not only provided a platform for millions of Egyptians at a time when they wanted their voice heard, but also catalysed a social unity that eventually ended a three-decade-old regime under which people lost their rights and dignity.

“Even before Tahrir Square, we all wanted change, but we disagreed on how to go about achieving this. Facebook gave us a platform on which we began with one simple idea of marching together silently in black for one hour.” In the event, miles-long queues formed and the revolution was well underway.

“But we also used Facebook to democratize the movement,” added Ghonim. “We shared ideas, discussed programmes and voted on how and when to do things.” Ghonim, who headed Google’s marketing in Egypt, felt that the single most important lesson from the events at Tahrir Square was that technology ensures that voices are heard.

It allows communication between masses and between individuals. “There is no mainstream media,” he said, “the media is the people.” Asked by Sir Tim how the Egyptians were using the tools offered by technology to strengthen their new-found democracy, Ghonim first thanked Sir Tim for inventing the WWW that facilitated the revolution.

He then pointed out that the new leaders in Egypt, namely the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and the Army Supreme Council all had Facebook pages. He remarked cheekily that the regime itself had announced the ouster of several ministers of the time on Facebook. “The government is now communicating online with the people.

The common man is in a position to give feedback to the government, while 1.5 million people have submitted ideas on development and economic initiatives post the revolution,” he said to applause. He added that the Internet was a tool that facilitated the collection of ideas and increased political awareness. While appreciating how the Internet was a tool of empowerment, Sir Tim talked about two issues that were crucial to the future of digital information.

He said that while online data and access to it would bring about transparency and could curb government corruption, he also said that it was important to progress towards the idea of the Internet as a neutral media that was not controlled by large corporates or governments or an international court. The Net allowed the user to be anonymous and this was important for a society. “Whistle-blower rights are important for democratic functions,” said.

However, the same right to anonymity could also be abused and used for spying, to control and for commercials gains. Sir Tim felt it was increasingly the need of the people across the world to consider access to the Internet a right as much as any other civil right. “Already, Finland has accepted the right to the Internet as a human right, as has Estonia,” he said.

But he also stressed that the debate of how much and who should control the Net must continue since he had no definite answer to those questions at the moment. Joshua Klein, with a reputation for being able to break down anything and redesign it, spoke about how the digital information came coded with democracy.

The Net allows a two-way communication, but when this flow was impeded by governments or companies, hackers stepped in to destroy such walls, he said. While also warning that anonymity on the Net can be anarchic, he said that “despite these frightening trends, there is a huge opportunity of governments and leaders to leverage technology for the good of the people”.

He pointed out how data made available over the Internet can become the bricks for public service edifices, as happened in New York’s subway system. The company that runs the city rail had no resources to create a system of alerting users to train timings or the expertise.

But once it opened up its data online, several applications were created using this information. Klein was emphatic that spying on the Net and audience intelligence gathering was worrying, but he chose to turn the argument on its head. “They can profile users, but they themselves can also be profiled,” he said. Profiling , therefore, can also be used positively. The Internet compiles information and shares this indiscriminately, said Klein.

And its reach can be used to take specific services to data groups that required them. Also referring to the issue of invasion of privacy, Sir Tim said, “I am okay with my agent spying on my needs and acts, but when someone else, a third party, accesses that information, I am definitely not okay with that.”

Asked how technology can be leveraged to resolve social challenges, Sir Tim said that choosing what to do with technology was a crucial decision. Different places need different answers to how to employ technology for development, he said, citing the example of farmers in Sahel who used information technology to learn how to green their desert fields instead of being herded as a group in a truck to an urban location for training in farming.

Sir Tim brought the debate on whether the Internet should be controlled and by whom to a conclusion by saying that decentralization was the best way forward. Control can be advantageous or a bane depending on the impetus for it, he pointed out. Don’t forget, control can often lead to the nabbing of the “bad boys”, he said.

But eventually a system of checks and balances in a decentralized set-up was what would help the information revolution bring about positive changes in the world, he said.

Some more drama around Cameron’s spin doctors

The cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, has written to David Cameron to ask him to rein in government spin doctors, saying that some have behaved “unacceptably”, it has emerged.

The unusual step came after government sources unleashed an attack on a senior public servant, Jenny Watson, claiming her career was “built on incompetence” and that she was “milking” the taxpayer. The comments last September were interpreted as a sign to other public officials that the coalition was preparing a clearout from the Labour era. But the outspoken and personal nature of the briefing provoked a storm in Whitehall with senior figures – including the chair of the Committee for Standards in Public Life, Sir Christopher Kelly – condemning the language used by the community secretary, Eric Pickles‘ department. The briefing was given by one of Pickles’ special advisers.

Now it has been revealed that O’Donnell wrote to the prime minister following the row. In response to a freedom of information request by PR Week, the Cabinet Office confirmed that O’Donnell wrote to the PM regarding “the role, status or conduct of government special advisers”.

PR Week reported that the letter said: “You will have been aware of briefings to the media regarding Jenny Watson. This behaviour is unacceptable. I trust you will agree with me and take necessary action to make sure that people understand this will not be tolerated.” Labour has written to O’Donnell calling for those responsible to be identified and sacked.

Asked about the letter, the prime minister’s official spokesman said: “Clear rules are in place and we expect people to abide by them. The prime minister is responsible for the appointment of special advisers.” O’Donnell refused to comment.

Last year, the Times reported a source in the communities department confirming that Watson’s position as a board member of the Audit Commission was not being renewed, saying: “She was begging Mr Pickles to stay on but we are not having someone who built their career on incompetence continuing to milk the taxpayer. She is not fit for the role.

“The Audit Commission has lost its way and the last thing we need is someone like her on board. She has no previous experience outside the public sector. We have had a bonfire of the quangos. Now [we] are having a bonfire of the quangocrats.”

The communities department has since refused Ffreedom of information requests to reveal any legal advice it sought after some civil servants reportedly raised concerns that they could be considered defamatory. Watson has not spoken publicly about the row.

The special advisers’ code of conduct sets out their role in developing policy, writing speeches, liaising with the party, civil servants and the press. It says: “Special advisers should conduct themselves with integrity and honesty.”

There have been wider concerns about the inexperience of some so-called “spads” – special advisers to ministers who specialise in media or policy development. Downing Street restricted the number of media spads to one per cabinet minister, promising to reduce the numbers compared with the Labour government. But some senior figures in Whitehall now believe that has left ministers exposed.

Caroline Flint, the shadow communities secretary, said that any advisers making such comments should be sacked. “It would be disgraceful if the prime minister and local government secretary were protecting the identity of someone responsible for smearing a public official.”