government « Thoughts of a [wannabe] librarian

More eBooks…..

October 13, 2009 at 6:37 pm | In eBooks | 3 Comments
Tags: Amazon, DRM, e-book reader, e-books, european union, government, Kindle, poll, Sony Reader, tweets, Twitter, VAT

As promised, I thought I would share the results of my recent (entirely unscientific) ebook poll. Much as I expected, the cost of the technology (both for the readers and the ebooks themselves) was the primary concern of many who voted. In total, around 40% of the votes cast reflected the need for cheaper ebooks and cheaper readers. Range was also a factor with 15% of votes counted suggesting that the limited range of titles at present is a hindrance to making the move to the electronic format. A further factor was DRM (Digital Rights Management) with 13% of votes cast indicating that the removal of DRM would be desirable. However, it was encouraging to note that only six votes flatly refused to even contemplate the idea of ebooks – although given that this poll was primarily circulated via Twitter, one has to consider the type of person who was partaking (generally tech-savvy types who would likely give serious thought to purchasing an eReader). Consequently, it is impossible to extrapolate these results across the general population (which makes you wonder why I bothered in the first place!), but it is fair to say that there is a high degree of interest in ebooks and certainly the poll suggests that a number of people could be persuaded to buy an eReader if the price is right. The interest is there, it is up to publishers and manufacturers to meet the demands of the consumers.

Ebooks, audiobooks and VAT

One of the factors keeping both ebooks and audiobooks high in price is the application of VAT at the full 15% rate. Printed books have been zero rated for VAT for sometime now and it is about time that a reduction in VAT was also applied to audiobooks and ebooks. Given that both formats have huge advantages for those who suffer from visual impairments, it seems hugely unfair that they should be penalised in this way. The EU has already voted to reduce VAT on these items, but it is entirely optional as to whether member states apply this ruling. In order to give the government a gentle nudge, there is currently a petition running at the No10 website urging a reduction on VAT on these items. At present there are only 21 signatures and there needs to be over 200 for there to be an official government response, so there is some way to go to reach the target. The petition closes on 20th November so that doesn’t give a lot of time. I would urge people to Tweet about this poll, spread the word and get as many people as possible to sign the petition. These technologies can be of great benefit to those who would otherwise be excluded, so I would urge everyone to support a reduction in VAT on them.

Facebook Group

Finally, I have set up an ebook Reader group on Facebook to share experiences with ebooks in whatever format they come in (including on the iPhone). If you are interested/curious/sceptical about ebooks, feel free to join the group and share your thoughts. With the imminent release of the Kindle over here, ebooks are going to get bigger and bigger and there will be much to ponder in terms of how their growth will affect libraries and retailers in the future.

Web 2.0 Technologies and the Media

May 10, 2009 at 7:54 pm | In Information Society | 3 Comments
Tags: blogs, democracy, flickr, government, information, investigative journalism, journalism, media, protests, youtube

As a long-time blogger, I have been a great believer in the positive impact they can have on the news narrative. I have always believed that they can be a force for good, drawing people’s attention to the stories that the mainstream media overlooks. The growth of the blogging community could (finally) ensure that the stories that are normally ignored by the mainstream media would finally get the exposure they deserve. They also had the potential to create stories in a new and exciting way. In my opinion, blogs had great promise as providing a distinct news narrative from the mainstream media. At least, that was my opinion, until the events of the past couple of weeks.

The revelations concerning the proposed establishment of a website designed to smear opposition politicians grabbed a great many of the headlines recently. What made this story unique was that a well known blogger (Paul Staines, otherwise known as ‘Guido Fawkes’) was key to these revelations getting into the public domain. Cue much excitement in the media about blogs coming of age and actually dictating the news agenda. But was this such a great revelation? Was there actually any real difference between these revelations and countless other similar such revelations in the tabloid press over the past twenty years? Not really. The blog at the centre of the revelations has hardly caused a revolution in terms of the style of reporting. It has merely repeated tactics that have been used by the tabloid press for sometime. The fact that it was on a blog rather than in the print media was the only thing particularly unique about the story. The real story over the past few weeks has been much more interesting than that.

When Ian Tomlinson died during the G20 protests, there was initially very little coverage of the incident in the mainstream press. When it was mentioned, it was usually framed to imply that protesters had been the main cause of his subsequent death. The central accusation that they had thrown bottles at members of the emergency services who were trying to resuscitate him. The story was sidelined by most of the media and little or no attempt was made to investigate the incident any further. The version of events that was presented to the media was taken to be fair and accurate representation of events on that day, and there appeared no need to investigate the story further. This was pretty much reflective of how the mainstream media have operated in recent years. Investigative journalism is time consuming and, therefore, expensive. In these times of increased competition, costs need to be kept low to ensure that the organisation is competitive. Consequently, investigative journalism is a rare feature of the modern media (although obviously it still happens from time to time). This is not a good thing for democracy as a whole. As one professor in journalism has put it:

Investigative journalism matters because of its many contributions to democratic governance. Its role can be understood in keeping with the Fourth Estate model of the press. According to this model, the press should make government accountable by publishing information about matters of public interest even if such information reveals abuses or crimes perpetrated by those in authority. From this perspective, investigative reporting is one of the most important contributions that the press makes to democracy. It is linked to the logic of checks and balances in democratic systems. It provides a valuable mechanism for monitoring the performance of democratic institutions as they are most broadly defined to include governmental bodies, civic organizations and publicly held corporations.

The decline in investigative journalism means a decline in quality information ‘about matters of public interest’ – a concern for anybody working in the information sector.

Despite the failure of the mainstream media in investigating the incident in question, the story did still develop over the following weeks. However, this was not due to traditional investigative journalism techniques. Whereas the media had failed to fully investigate the death of Mr Tomlinson, the public and modern technology stepped in. Shortly after the initial reports had emerged, a witness had approached The Guardian with filmed footage of what appeared to be an assault on Mr Tomlinson by a police officer shortly before he died. Needless to say, this caused a media storm and suddenly questions were being asked when before a blind eye was turned. Over subsequent days, more evidence began to emerge about what really happened during the G20 protests. Photos such as this one were posted on Flickr. Video footage emerged on YouTube that also suggested that the police were less than even-handed in their dealings with protesters. Suddenly, the media agenda was being led by developments on web 2.0 technologies. Ordinary citizens armed with cameras were able to do what journalists had failed to achieve. This was radically different to anything that had happened before. This was providing a new, distinctive narrative separate from that pursued by the mainstream media. Whereas ‘Guido Fawkes’ was essentially repeating the tactics of many a red-top over the years, this was something new and different and highlighted the potential that sites such as FlickR and YouTube in disseminating information.

The funny thing is that, over the past few years, blogs and the mainstream media have become ever closer. The media mimic some aspects of blogs in order to maintain an audience (see the number of articles that now have comment threads) and blogs (such as Guido Fawkes) have mimicked typical tabloid tactics. In the near future, you will barely be able to distinguish between the high-profile blogs and the mainstream media, such will be the similarities between the two. The consequence of this (particularly in terms of decreasing funds in the mainstream press) is a distinct decline in the standard of information in the public domain. This would, in turn, lead to an ill-informed electorate without the information required to exercise their democratic rights. It could just be that web 2.0 technologies will become an even more important informational tool than was first thought.

Public Libraries and Democracy

February 5, 2009 at 7:42 pm | In Uncategorized | 2 Comments
Tags: democracy, government, information, information divide, Public libraries, recession

I am currently in the middle of reading Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Edward S Herman and yesterday I watched the re-released documentary on DVD. Given the subject matter of this work (Chomsky and Herman argue that as media outlets are run by corporations, they are under the same pressures as corporations leading to what they call the ‘propaganda model’), it got me thinking about our role in the exchange of ideas and information in a democratic society.

I have long been interested in the idea that librarians are a vital element in a democracy. Perhaps never more so than now, in the ‘information age’. An age where there is such a wealth of information out there, it is very difficult for the average person to navigate through it. After all do we really all have the time to sift through the mass of information out there to keep up to speed with current affairs and world events? Not only does this information need to be ’sifted’, it also needs to be evaluated and analysed to determine its accuracy. How can anyone be expected to spare the time to analyse and evaluate the plethora of information that is out there?

And that is, I guess, where we step in (to a certain degree). Acting as a conduit between the library user and the wealth of information out there is a big responsibility. Libraries have an important role in ensuring that all sections of society are brought into the democratic process. Indeed, in 1990, the American Library Association adopted a policy entitled ‘Library Services for the Poor’ which stated:

…it is crucial that libraries recognize their role in enabling poor people to participate fully in a democratic society, by utilizing a wide variety of available resources and strategies.

Former US President, Franklin D Roosevelt, also underlined the importance of public libraries in a democratic society, describing them as

the great symbols of the freedom of the mind….essential to the functioning of a democratic society.

Libraries ensure that everyone can gain access to information and thus partake fully in the democratic process. The role of a librarian is, therefore, absolutely crucial in a democracy. Without this access, the electorate become ill-informed in the actions of their representatives and are unable to partake in the democratic process. This is particularly a concern for the poorest in society who cannot afford books, let alone internet connections. Whilst the affluent can keep in touch with the democratic process with ease, the poor are left isolated and effectively disenfranchised.

Whilst I was having a think about the role of a librarian in democracies, I came across a journal article by John Abdul Kargbo [sub required], a librarian at the University of Sierra Leone. Coming from the perspective of a nation that, at the time of writing (1999), had only recently restored a democratic system and was at the centre of a bitter conflict, it was quite interesting to see the importance that they feel libraries have in such a system. Kargbo writes passionately about how simply installing a civilian government is not enough to create a democracy. As he states:

For democracy to succeed it is crucial that the institutions to support and invigorate the democratic process or ideals must exist.

These institutions, he reasons, include public libraries:

Libraries are powerful instruments of social and political change; they can help in the demands of democracy and the spread of literacy.

He goes on to reflect on just how important equality of access to information is in the democratic decision making process and the importance of the librarians role in that process. I think it is very easy for people in the West to forget just what an important role libraries play in society. Politicians (and elements of the media) have become obsessed with targets and tangible outcomes. The number of books that are issued by a public library has become the yardstick by which many measure the success or failure of a public library. However, the contribution a library makes to local society goes way beyond how many books are issued over the course of the year. There are certain intangible elements that need to be considered that cannot just be assessed in terms of concrete figures.

Furthermore, not only do they provide an important function in democracies, they are also essential in times of economic hardship. During a recession, libraries can support the unemployed in gaining new skills and finding employment. This certainly appears to be reflected in the news that library usage has increased in some authorities. Cumbria, for example, has recently announced that they have seen a 39% increase in new joins between September and December. Even then, however, there was still talk of the authority closing libraries – proof that even when the tangibles are impressive, authorities still consider closure.

Public libraries do play an important role in our society. They help to bring people into the democratic process and keep them informed as citizens about the actions of their representatives. They also play a vital role in supporting the most vulnerable during a recession and provide them with the tools they need to develop their skills and gain employment. In times of affluence these facts are easily forgotten. In times of recession we are reminded of their value to the community. Public libraries have not lost their relevance, maybe some of us have just forgotten what made them relevant.

E-Government and the Digital Divide

November 17, 2008 at 8:27 pm | In Digital divide | 5 Comments
Tags: Broadband, Digital divide, e-government, government, information, internet, internet resources, Public libraries, public PCs, UK, United States

I read with interest today that President-Elect, Barack Obama, intends to deliver weekly updates to American voters via YouTube. Although this is a laudable attempt to reach out to the American people, it will present issues in terms of the growing divide between those that are described as ‘information rich’ and the ‘information poor’. Not only is this a dilemma facing the future US president, it is a dilemma faced in all Western nations as e-government becomes an increasingly popular method for bringing the electorate and government closer together.

Despite being one of the most developed nations on Earth, the United States rather lags behind other countries when it comes to broadband access. According to one estimate, 57% of American households have broadband access (this compares to 65% of UK households) making the United States 15th out of the top 30 industrialised nations. This presents a major problem for countries such as the US and the United Kingdom that are keen to develop e-government. If broadband coverage remains at such low levels, it is hard to imagine how any government could substantially increase the role of e-government in the political process.

The UK government has already introduced a range of services for those that have a broadband connection. Provided you do have such a connection, you can purchase car tax discs, access information on public services at Directgov, interrogate statistics at the website for the Office for National Statistics, watch YouTube clips from Number 10 Downing Street and you can even create an e-petition on the official website of the Prime Minister’s Office. If you do not have broadband (or, for that matter, a computer) then you do not have access to these services, effectively rendering a two-tier system and therein lies the problem with the growth of e-government. There will be a sizeable proportion of the public that do have access to these resources and a sizeable proportion who do not. This is where internet access in public libraries becomes so vital. For many, this is the only way that they can freely access information that is otherwise unobtainable. If the digital divide is going to be tackled, public libraries must be at the forefront of the drive to address the imbalance between the information rich and the information poor. It is only when this divide is suitably addressed that e-government can be successful in bringing government and people closer together.

Whilst it is encouraging that the future President sees opportunities to use modern technology to bring the people closer to the workings of government, one wonders how those who do not have access to the internet will benefit. According to the previously quoted statistics, 43% of Americans do not have access to broadband and, therefore, will be unable to view these broadcasts. Instead, they will rely on rather more traditional ways of receiving such information (newspapers, broadcast media etc) which tend to be filtered and lack the personal nature of an internet clip. As the future President also plans to

put videos of government meetings online, have officials hold online ‘town hall meetings’ and create an accessible internet database of government spending so that the public can track their tax dollars themselves, [Guardian]

it is vital that the digital divide is addressed if e-government is to be a serious proposition. If not, the divide will be entrenched and a considerable percentage of the population will be excluded from the political process. Public libraries can play a massive (and vital) role in addressing this imbalance, but it also requires action taken by government. Only then can the digital divide be closed and universal e-government can be a reality.

Question Time

November 14, 2008 at 9:55 pm | In Non-Library | 3 Comments
Tags: BBC, government, iPlayer, politics, Question Time

I have been a regular viewer of Question Time (QT) on the BBC for a long time now. Quite why I do so is open to debate as my wife often worries that I will burst a blood vessel every Thursday evening. However, I watch it anyway and use it as a chance to ‘blow off steam’ and have a good healthy rant. Well, last night was my chance to do so in person, an opportunity I had been waiting for for some time!

It all started a couple of weeks ago when I was watching the US election special and heard that QT would be heading to Dover (which just so happens to be close to where I live). After watching the broadcast I visited the QT homepage and filled in my details on the application form….then promptly forgot that I had done so. Then, out of the blue, I received a phone call at work from the BBC inviting me to attend Thursday night’s recording. The caller from the BBC then checked through the details of my application form and asked me what political events were on my mind. Conscious of the fact I was at work in a public area, I kept my answers equivocal so as not to cause consternation amongst our borrowers. Not an easy task, but I had a damn good crack! I spent the remainder of the day (and the following day for that matter) babbling excitedly to all those that would listen (and many of those who would not if they could help it) about my debut on national television….I should really get out more.

Once I got home from work I had an email giving me the details of the venue and instructing me to email a question that night and prepare a further one to present upon arrival at the set. I chose a question on the economic situation and hoped that it may be picked. My hopes were raised that evening when the central point of my proposed question was discussed on Newsnight. Did Paxman sneak a peak?? Maybe not but it’s a nice thought!

On the day of the broadcast I was required to arrive between 6-6.30pm at the Western Docks in Dover. Upon arrival I was greeted by security men waving those scanner things over my person (which always makes me feel uncomfortable. Why? I have nothing to hide.) and was ushered into a reception area where I was given a list of panel members and a card to write a further question. The panel for that evening were:

After waiting around for about 45mins, the legend that is David Dimbleby came out to speak to us all and explain how the program worked as well as sharing a little of his past experiences with Dover. I have to say, he was exactly as he appears on TV. Calm, considered, charming. If anything, my opinion of him went up after watching him live. The very definition of professional.

After another 20 minutes or so we were led through into the ’studio’. When we had taken our seats the floor manager asked for five volunteers to act as panel members whilst the test the lights/sound/pictures. The volunteers were promptly chosen and a debate was mocked with each volunteer acting as a substitute for the panel members that were due to arrive later. I got so involved in proceedings at this stage, I completely forgot it was just a test. When the topic got onto rudeness amongst the young, I piped up with my frustration at the negative portrayal of the young in the media and was relieved to receive a very loud round of applause by the audience. Bouyed by this, I went on to attack those calling for national service by questioning whether it was a good idea to train ‘youths’ that are supposedly ‘out of control’, how to use a gun. That went down well also. I felt confident that when the time came, I would raise my voice and get my face on telly.

After another small delay, the panel came out and we were nearly ready (by this time those that were asking questions knew that they were to do so). The first question was a ‘test’ question designed to double check that everything was ready to go. The test question was on Obama and his recent election victory. After a few people had their say, I once more plucked up the courage to pipe up and was spotted by Dimbleby who then asked me to speak. Having spoken, I was rather disturbed to find the Tory on the panel responding directly to me and, shockingly, agreeing with me. I must have made a mistake somewhere!

Once the test was done we started filming for real. The filming began at around 8.30pm and was recorded as live. Apparently, they only remove anything if there is any swearing (‘Jonathan Ross style’ as Dimbleby put it). What we saw was what we got. At this point I realised that if I spoke out (again!) i would definitely get on TV. What an incentive!

After a while I found an opportunity to contribute to the debate. Now, we were told before the recording to ensure that if we put our hands up we kept them up until the topic moves on or we are picked. If you put your hand down you weren’t chosen. Sadly, in my case, I had my hand up for a full ten minutes (with very hot lighting beating down on me and sweat pouring off me) and was beginning to think my arm was about to drop off when suddenly, as if by magic, I was called upon (much to the annoyance of the old chap in front who had his hand up almost as long as me!). Sadly, my comment was met by absolute silence. But still, I did my bit so I was happy. The remainder of the program flew by and, before I knew it, it was time to leave. Incidentally, when the panellists were leaving the set, Shirley Williams drew loud cheers of support from a number of women in the audience. Upon hearing the cheers she seemed a little puzzled about what was going on but she obligingly gave a little wave in acknowledgement. I don’t always agree with what she has to say, but I do have a certain amount of respect for her. And I think she would be a rather lovely grandmother!

After leaving the set, I rang my wife and my dad to let them know that I would definitely be on that night’s QT. As I started driving off, I came to a bit of a tricky junction at the terminal that meant I couldn’t see what was coming. Luckily, a certain Brian Moore was walking past and he waved me out to indicate that it was safe to pull out. Having been on the receiving end of his courtesy however, I miserably failed in doing the same in return. Even though he was clearly walking to wherever it was he was going, and it was chucking down with rain, I failed to even ask if he wanted a lift. What an idiot. Now, I hate rugby, but imagine Brian Moore sitting in your passenger seat. That would have been pretty cool. Ah well.

So anyway, that had nothing to do with libraries whatsoever, but hey, who said it was exclusively about libraries anyway¹? If you look hard enough there are messages about access to information and the digital divide. No, really. Somewhere in there. Honest.

If you are interested in seeing the broadcast, you can do so via the BBC’s iPlayer here.

¹ Incidentally, I never intended my politics to emerge on this blog, that’s not what it is for. However, I’m sure you can forgive me for posting about this. Can’t you?

Stuck in the Dark Ages

October 9, 2008 at 8:43 pm | In Public libraries | 8 Comments
Tags: blogs, criticism, government, library modernisation, Public libraries, public PCs, The Independent, traditional

It would appear that someone at The Independent is firmly stuck in the past. A fellow member of staff brought my attention to an article in today’s Indie, and managed to irritate me beyond belief. The article follows statements by Andy Burnham regarding the future of libraries. The article is awash with dismay over the move to allow library users to eat, drink and, heaven forbid, actually talk. Interestingly, they talk about the ’silence rule’- a concept that is completely alien to either myself or just about any other person I have encountered who works in a public library. There is also criticism of the fact that libraries have computers, principally because, apparently, nearly everyone has a PC with internet connection (although little comment is made about whether people can actually use this resource effectively). There was even an odd little statement like this:

“The clientele is bound to consist mostly of “regulars”, if the library is open only two days a week between 10am and 4pm.”

I will be amazed if there were any town centre libraries that were only open between 10-4pm. The norm, certainly in my authority, is 9-6pm and even, in some cases, 9-8pm. And ‘two days a week’??? Where is this mythical library??? Perhaps someone at the Indie ought to visit one.

As well as the ill-informed nonsense from the ‘journalist’, there are the usual ignorant comments posted on the website. Seriously, I am beginning to doubt whether this idea of putting comments under articles is actually a good idea. It seems to be nothing more than an excuse to post the first thing that pops into their head. If these people have their way, the public library would be nothing more than a physical manifestation of all that was bad about the 1950s. Time moves on, society changes, customers needs change. Libraries must, therefore, change. It is essential for their survival.

Now, I am not saying that Burnham is spot-on with all he says about the future of libraries, and I am not saying that his critics have it all wrong. However, one thing is for certain, things need to move forward. There should not be enforced silence (we don’t and it certainly isn’t noisy, despite what the critics might assume), there should be an attempt to make the library a cool place to hang out (being able to buy a coffee and flick through the paper would be a very positive move), there should be computers with internet access (isn’t the internet the primary information source, and aren’t libraries the primary conduit for information retrieval?) and, above all, the library should be open and welcoming to everyone, regardless of who they are. Elitism will kill the library service. Eradicating the old-fashioned perception of libraries might just save it.

Broadband ‘failing customers’

September 3, 2008 at 11:47 am | In Broadband | Leave a Comment
Tags: BBC, Broadband, Digital divide, government, information, internet, internet service providers, Ofcom

Been a bit slow to pick up on this report by the BBC on the problems associated with poor service standards amongst internet providers. Of course, this is a very serious problem in an age where more and more people rely on the internet as a primary source of information. It is up to Ofcom and the government to ensure that information is accessible for all, as well as ensuring that internet service providers are censured for failure to deliver their contractual obligations. Without putting meaasures in place, there is a very real danger of an increased divide between the digital haves and the digital have-nots.