Sunday Forum; Community Information Exchange

Good evening and welcome to the Sunday forum. Tonight we're presenting recorded excerpts from a session of the recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science the largest professional scientific organization in the world. The Triple-A us held its yearly meeting in Washington the week of December 25th one thousand nine hundred two. And tonight we'll hear a symposium on community information exchange. The theories and processes behind getting information to citizens and government officials. The discussion recorded by National Public Radio in Washington will focus on a number of points including Who needs community information the most. And some of the physical systems developed to speed the delivery of vital information including cable television and radio telephone networks in the remote regions of Canada. The participants will include Thomas Sheridan of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I'm a Thai and Sione of Columbia University in New York and Richard Gwyn the director of the socio economic planning department of the Canadian Department of Communication. The first speaker will be Chandler Stephens of

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute of Troy New York. This morning's discussion is entitled community information exchange it probably could have been titled A number of other number other possible titles because we don't pretend that what we're speaking to this morning has been settled upon as a certain kind of discipline with a certain particular title. But. We not only want to talk we want to in fact illustrate and demonstrate what it is we're talking about. During the course of the session when the people here in the room will get a chance to respond by means an electronic response system as well as orally. The word feedback suggests some reverse flow which has a controlling force on a major source of power. In our institutions centered society the main source of power seems at the present to be bureaucratic institutions to counterbalance the increasing speed up in communications from institutions to individuals through a one way mass media.

For example as found in manipulative forms of advertising and propagandizing and even in instant news improve communications in the opposite direction seem to be needed. The first needed communication links. We therefore refer to a citizen of feedback to officials a second need a communications link might be called expert feed forward to citizens. It can be represented by a pair running parallel in the opposite direction to the feedback or the word feed forward should imply projection of information both forward to citizens and forward in time so that future consequences of both personal and policy actions can be better understood. The third needed communications link is represented by a two way arrow running between our models two isolated citizens at the bottom of the diagram. This link we say should facilitate community dialogue among citizens because a new sense of community is implied once citizens

rediscover. How to talk to each other again not by such current currently popular communication techniques as confrontation and advocacy necessarily but rather in a spirit of dialogue where learning on all sides is pursued so that not only issues but also basic beliefs and diverse values can be better understood for the type of pluralistic goal that we mentioned at the beginning. There are a number of technical innovations which can be used to build these three needed communication links to build the cars on a link for community dialogue as well as the two vertical links for citizen feedback and expert feed forward. We have relatively new hardware such as remote access to time shared computers various graphic AIDS video cassettes to a cable vision in the future to a print through optical scanning an inexpensive photo copying electronic voting of response systems of the sort that we'll be using here today and various telephony innovations even. Also an increasing number of softer innovations such as urban

gaming interactive modeling societal indicators of your tree sensitivity training and even things such as encounter psychology seem suited to facilitate a non-verbal and non quantitative form of feedback feedforward and dialogue. But hardware and software are not enough these three needed communication links must have support structures consisting of both old and new institutional arrangements and old support structure which is necessary is that much maligned institution known as bureaucracy in spite of some predictions to the contrary. I archaic organizations with irregular relations and coordination channels will continue to be needed for a wide variety of routine functions in society in the future. Hopefully some of their worst features can be dealt with however. First stabilities societies officials will probably still have to continue to drive much of their authority from

their positions within the structure from their positions. In other words within relatively permanent bureaucratic structures. So we add an adjective to our diagram model and henceforth refer to officials as. Bureaucratic officials. But three new institutional structures are also needed both to support our models. Three new links and also to eliminate unnecessary hardships caused by bureaucracies. These three new support structures we call interactive media temporary alliances and buffered experts real estate two of these support structures interactive media and temporary alliances by enclosing them in a single rectangle at the bottom of our two vertical areas of feedback and feedforward and just above the two Rs to a horizontal error depicting dialogue between citizens. That is supposed to imply that interactive media and new structure of temporary alliances. Is needed too. In fact the sellotape community dialogue and particularly the interaction of citizens with officials and experts.

Similarly we die a dramatically close bureaucratic officials along with now what we call buffered experts in what appears to have been originally a single record tangled the top one which now is broken into by newly acquired buffering between experts and bureaucratic officials. As current examples of buffered experts there are few what people might call unbiased product testing laboratories today. Consumers Union a growing number of omens and then Nader's Raiders of very few I think academic based research studies that are directly useful in the form of public information and a growing number of what Washington wearily calls whistleblowers. People who squeal to the press about the misdeeds of institutions which they inhabit. Sometimes with a certain measure of expertise sometimes without. But this would only account for a small portion proportion of the type of buffered expertise that seems to be needed as a source of expert feedforward if it's to be credible if it's to allow a more

informed citizen feedback and community dialogue. The vast majority of present day experts I'm afraid are viewed whether they are not in reality they are viewed as being owned by biased institutions by bureaucracies whose first rule is self survival and a permanent organization to maintain itself must have goals which must appear biased to society as a whole or to any individual unbuffered expertise is therefore judged to be biased expertise. Thus the new institutional arrangements must be created to support the buffered experts needed in community information exchange. R3 New needed support structures are by no means independent of each other. For instance one base of support for buffered experts might be found in another needed support structure. Interactive Media which will be discussed in some detail by other panelists here. All I would like to do now is just clarify the terminology a bit. We mean two way as opposed to one way communications media. We also mean a type of institution which needs to

be financially supported in a manner which necessarily would seem to me to be quite different from the way one way the mass media has typically been supported the mass media draws financial support principally from advertising. As media becomes more responsive to individual inquiries complaints opinions suggestions so information will tend to become more of a basic economic commodity which can be readily bought sold stored transported and transformed. The third new structure needed to support the feedback feedforward and dialogue links in our model is a structure of temporary alliances interactive media can facilitate seems to me a type of peer matching that I mentioned earlier which can bring people into various forms of temporary alliances for learning act civic action even work purposes. Especially the temporary alliances for civic action are needed if in fact the type of influence on bureaucratic officials is to be exerted.

And if an effective drawing on Bufford X parties is is to happen this very brief discussion of needed support structures as been intended suggests that the community information exchange designed to develop in the task ahead involves a lot more than simply the building of technology based communication links. To the extent that the remaining few minutes of my introductory paper allows I will just merely point out three of society's present mindsets which should particularly hamper work in this area. These might be thought of as interference patterns on the communications links that that we've suggested mindset number one. Institutions centeredness can miss direct citizen feedback so that it is used to serve interests of institutions ahead of those of citizens mindset number two societies production orientation can distort feed forward by treating it as if it was factory like schooling to be poured into empty vessels when in fact Like all true learning it requires active even interactive

perception mindset three excessive competition mindedness on the part of citizens can of course hamper community dialogue and other forms of cooperative exchange. In this introductory paper my main purpose has been to give a sense of purpose to our discussion by trying to point out both the value of community information exchange and the vastness of this area for potential research. I will close by suggesting three types of individual attitudes which might be used as measures of research progress in this area. A successful system of community information exchange would be I believe one which D isolates DL in ates and D mystifies individuals. If our ultimate aim is to have more effective communities we might first try to understand feelings of ineffectiveness as felt by citizens in an ineffective community. First the citizens lack a sense of community. They might be said to have a sense of isolation at least psychologically from one another which is what I meant to illustrate when I initially showed that two citizens in our

diagram as removed from each other. Furthermore if they feel unable to effect institutions which affect them they are said usually to have a sense of alienation from the power structure. I plead there's a third sense of powerlessness which should. Be considered here and it's called Mr patient or I call it mystification because often CIS citizens are mystified by officials and experts who tell them that certain issues are too complex for them to understand. I don't pretend to be a sociologist but I am hopeful that sociologists will be able to specify certain kinds of measures of isolation alienation and mystification so that these might be used as reverse indices of progress in the development of a system of community information exchange. This concludes my introductory paper and talking to a group of people in US Scion tific meeting two and

a half years ago in this general area. Tom Sheridan was on the podium with me and we found that one of the main comments we got from that group was if you are moving in this direction if you're concerned with this kind of participatory technology how are you using it in fact in your own work. How are you using it to in fact get others to tell you something about where they think the research in this area and development work in this area should go. So today we'd like to in fact practice a little more of what we've preached in this regards by posing some issue questions at the conclusion of each of the entered the papers that are presented today. And asking you to respond. Those of you have come in more recently if you would join us in the center. You have an opportunity to use a response system initially to tell us your reaction to some of these questions and then

we'd like you also to feel free to then use the microphone in the middle aisle to give us your oral comments perhaps to back up what you said electronically with the switch boxes. The voting is anonymous. If you don't want to reveal in fact why you how you voted or why you voted a certain way of course that's your option too. But mainly this is a dialogue technique and I think you'll find that the electronic voting is a good way of breaking ice. And while we'll be posing the questions initially ourselves we'd like you to think about questions on this subject or on other subjects that could be raised in the final half hour of today's meeting. Known levels here in the front will be manning the overhead projector which will display these questions will explain of course these questions

to the radio audience and Gnome is ready to take any suggestions written out on a piece of paper of questions you would like to see pose. Right now though following each of the papers are presented we will pose some questions ourselves and get your reactions to it now. As Tom shared in the speak a moment to the procedure will you use here. Okay thanks Dr. Stevens as well as going further interviews Tom a little more thoroughly than that. Tom is professor of mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and head of the man machine laboratory there and has been very active in communications in this work in several areas but most recently and this area of citizen feedback community dialogue. Tom thanks Terry. As Dr. Stevens has mentioned we are running something of an electronic town meeting right here this morning and I might say that the purpose of this is not simply to get

your votes on questions we pose it's really to facilitate discussion and to get into some personal expressions of the issues after we kind of see how each other feels on some of these things. And finally to have you pose some of the questions each of about 90 chairs in the center of the room here. Is equipped with a small switch box. And by switching to one of 10 positions you will be able to indicate your opinion in response to questions that initially we posed. So I'm simply going to ask those of you that are seated outside of the Center six rows on each side of the aisle and farther back than about the eighth row to come on up and take one of these chairs with a little box in it. That's the only way you can participate. Now in response

immediately after each of these talks come on in and move while I finish my remarks if you had immediately after each of the speakers talks we will pose a few questions that essentially were set by them and then will honor other questions that you may have later on. Now. Well here is the first question on Dr. Stevens talk. Which community link. Most needs improvement. One citizen feedback to officials next to expert feed forward to citizens. You recall both of those were on his his chart 3 community dialogue among citizens who are undecided. That is to say you simply can't decide on the basis of the information you have. 5 You object to this particular question on some grounds or other

and six you have some other reaction. OK. So I'd ask you now to set your switches to one of those. One of those response categories. You can only choose one. Now I know some of you on some of these questions may decide well gee I'd like to combine several of them and if you feel sufficiently strenuous in that differs strenuously in that direction. I would object to the question or you can object to the question on some other grounds. Now following the voting as we have time it will have to go through these fairly quickly because we do have to get on to the other speakers. I will try to probe a little bit and find out why you voted as you did. So please select turn your little knob don't twist it too hard it doesn't turn all the way around and incidentally there are three kinds of knobs that are being field tested you might say three kinds of switch boxes. Some of them have push buttons some of them have a little rotary dials and some of them have

knobs and I would add also that this is strictly experimental apparatus that we've been using in an MIT. Community dialogue project it's not commercial hardware right. Is everybody selected. One of the six possibilities. OK I'll leave yours which is set in for just a moment and I'll push this little button. And we see in response that 14 of you feel that citizen feedback to officials is the community link that is most important. Six of you feel that feed forward to citizens more information coming down the top ten of you feel that community dialogue among citizens is the most important. Nobody seems very undecided on that question. And. There are five objections and one other. Would somebody who objected cared to volunteer why they objected to that question.

We die. You know this is really an opportunity and I. Would like an expression of some kind one or two. Maybe we can't seal them all could you come forward to the microphone here please. It was one two and three. Here's just one writer's listing. Citizens can't be back to the shows without getting some expert intelligible feedforward. And citizens can't feed back to officials nor can officials understand the community feeling without a community dialogue which in turn needs expertise forward to citizens so I think it's unrealistic to choose any one of one two or three. OK. Yes we have another objector here who would like to. Make an expression. Well not an objection sort of a comment on the previous individual I voted for 3 because I felt that if you

in fact accomplish that the other two would have to come as an. Army. I just want to clarify that three is the community dialogue. The radio can improve the community dialogue the other two will be forced to come as a result of that which is another view. I agree they're inseparable. Is that like community dialogue somehow Well well. The if it will settle you're really talking to one another. The initial thing I was going to have to talk he said is that and I might like to add just the one comment that since you have this capability here I think would be far more interesting to fully utilize it and let us vote on our relative agreement and disagreement with the speakers as they're speaking. Now if any I think it will offer the option to the speakers of any of them would care to take advantage of that I find they can only use Yes Isaac what they suggest others

should utilize. So on offering that it's OK that they were being experimental if some of them would like to try that we can or are not. Yes. Let's take one more comment and then move on we've got to couple more questions and Dr. Stevens talk to me this is the main problem with the way the questions are worded in the society that we're living in is that you don't take power into account that you assume I mean normally we would like to hope that out of Number Three you'd get one in two. But in fact the president and all kinds of institutional organizations simply refused to to enter into any meaningful kind of dialogue. The president and officials have just basically disregarded not only the public but the Congress and if they're going to continue doing this and at the institutional corporate level we have found the same thing happens and that what you're really into is a power struggle using tactics. And so that the

hope for dialogue has to face those kinds of power issues and that kind of thing so that you can't it's not sufficient to talk about dialogue among citizens unless you talk about power that's going to force some kind of meaningful exchange. So you're disagreeing with the previous comment that community dialogue automatically feeds back to the air. Yeah I think that's a nice diagram or to the scoreboard but until you face these other issues it's just a little nicer now. I might add internationally that in our use of this technique the nicest thing that comes out of it is not so much the statistical response to the questions but the criticism and the improvement upon there by the questions that are posed. Let's move on to the next one. This one was about community links. Now Professor Stevens talked about support structures. Which new support structure is needed most. One buffering of experts from

biased institutions assuming some institutions are biased. Interactive Media which are economically viable. Temporary alliances. For follow through action. Undecided need more information would be for. Do you object to that question number five. Or six. Something or Other. So please try to select one of the above if you will through your little switches. And any of you have come in late come on up and take a chair up here where there's a little box. OK everyone said we see that four of you feel that buffering of expert from biased institution is the most needed support structure. Nine of you. Are for interactive media. 15 of which is the majority. Are in favor of the temporary alliance. Three were undecided again we

have five objectors. And nobody voted for other. 7 I'm sorry did I say seven. Seven objectors Yes. Now maybe on this question we could entertain a comment or two from the objectors if they would care to make any. As anyone who objected care to indicate why. Yes or say one thing that I feel why I objected you have buffering of experts from biased institutions. I think another important thing to put up there would be the buffering the experts from the public because well you have a lot of feedback between experts and public institutions. It's very rare to find direct feedback between the so-called experts and people in the community. OK thank you very much. Does anyone else care to comment even perhaps about how he voted any of the.

The people who voted for one two or three. Care to say why they did so. As for somebody to explain why they think the overwhelming choice is three and then I think we will have to move on why why is temporary alliance. The overwhelming choice. OK because the other two aren't very good choices. Fair enough fair enough. Let me place you expres B.S. here OK. About 3 0 at the time I think if we could just for illustrative purposes get the other two votes and maybe discuss them a little bit more. OK like so let's move on quickly in the green room. Here we're talking about the aspect which is what Professor Stevens calls current mindset which current mindset will be hardest to

overcome. One institution centeredness focusing attention away from institutions that are decisive poses where the. Accent should go focusing attention away from people. To production orientation emphasizing the worker consumer role. More than than than action three competition mindedness discouraging trust and cooperation among people. And I think we are not going to give you a more chance didn't say you can simply can't choose among these three for number four in this instance. So if you would vote for one of four. Everybody said. I'm still hearing some clicking OK. There we go. And we see that institution centered This is the most popular number one. People feel that we're too institution centered and not sufficiently people centered

both two and three the production orientation and the competition mindedness got eight votes apiece. And no one had difficulty selecting. Or among those let's say Oh I'm sorry yes four was eight Also there were eight of you. In the audience that couldn't select. Among those three. Why don't we go on and take the fourth one. And then we can pick up another comment or two before we go on. Which personal attitude should the system work hardest on by system we mean this new. People communication system one a feeling of isolation from other people. To a feeling of alienation from power structures note the difference isolation alienation. Two slightly different words. Three. A feeling of mystification about issues for you simply can't

choose among those three. OK go ahead and so on. And we see that nine of you feel isolated from other people. I'm sorry not one of you feel the system should work hardest on the isolation that's slightly different. Pardon me. The majority of you 13 feel that alienation from the power structures is the thing that the system should run. Well the plurality OK. We're getting a pretty good spread actually seven feel mystified. I'm sorry feel the system should work on the demystification I suppose that really means education. And I know if you feel you can't choose among these. A comment from one of the nine. Oh well here the answer. Take the mike if you would please. Just like the all the other questions. I think it's as a gentleman back

there said it's too simplistic. I don't think we should ask questions like this anymore. But the question should be far more complex and take these and perhaps other things into consideration. Let me make a comment on that I think I agree with you in a sense but you have to start somewhere. And. We found if you start with very simplistic questions that people jump on you get into realistic meaningful discussion faster than if you start with something that is so tightly worded and and takes so long to read through that people are turned off. But you know but of course you're right you know I use that comment though as an invitation to do what we suggested we would do to complete the three presentations and the questions that go with them will then go into using questions that are given to us from the floor. And so if anyone would like to take the opportunity either now or in the next hour to put down the type of question that you

feel could be used for dialogue purposes on this subject please send it up here to the front of the room and if they suddenly on any of these questions you feel it by rephrasing it slightly we could get a completely different profile of votes. Please suggest. That we can write right over the transparency modify the question take a revote. You see that's the easiest thing in the world to do. Yes or rather. I think those four questions three questions three alternatives which are just offered. The response relates to the presentation in a sense rather than the information content. I see the three key words isolation alienation and mystification isolation an alienation are our words that everyone is concerned with mystification you don't want to feel you're mystified. But on the other hand people are concerned with issues and frequently issues more than what the power structures like they

like they're their issues aired so they're the response of people I think is very much related to the words that were used in asking the question. Well I'd like to I could suggest that we move on for now. We will be willing to continue the interactive format even beyond the regular period if need be in order to get in to some of the questions that we've encouraged you to pose. But I'd like to take us from this rather more general outline of some of the territory that we're concerned with here when we talk about community information exchange and then introduce you now to someone who has been in well as you might say. As I said I think in music man the person who knows the territory quite well for he is been doing a considerable amount of work in this area. Our next speaker is Professor Amitai Etzioni is a professor of sociology at Columbia

University director of the Center for Policy Research in New York City and author of the act of society a professor at CNET. Dr. Stephens I'd like to devote most of my time this morning to report about some of the findings the preliminary first findings of the project the undertaking funded but and National Science Foundation trying to see under what conditions we could get a large number of citizens to put taste participate regularly in electronic electronic town hall meetings. The notion is. To do basically what you have seen here. For the last minutes on a

somewhat larger scale. I was the kind of opportunities which we have a fair to but we didn't have a chance to practice people participating in the first formulating dad genda and then Dow tentative to be discussed then in discussion itself and then leading up to a vote did it first maybe I should a dialogue be closed I extended and then to vote on the issues themselves. Actually since these meetings can be very easy to reconvene maybe meeting a meat week later to find out what happened. I have a report of the elected official and dialogue with them again. The turning point which may allow us to do that on a larger scale and I choose my words carefully I say may because I'm a very of some of the issues been raised as to who is going to control those instruments and I'll come back to them. The new opportunities which of eyes which may or may not be

utilized. I basically do this out of technological developments and this possible new such a logical techniques. What is happening as I'm sure you realize it is slowly introducing into most homes another fire. I mean we already have that across the telephone coming into most homes by now 10 percent of the homes have kind of a said via coming in bunks the television signal on a cable or other den over there. Now I you wouldn't dare to put ject how many homes are going to be fired by the year 2000. There are some people who. Are very comfortable with doing this so I'm very uncomfortable with predicting anything beyond the next three years. But if most homes would be that way and if the cable would be laid in such a

vague that it could carry signals to various other then just down form the broadcasting center to the home. They would have one basic technology which you would need for people to stay at their homes. And being able to participate in community dialogues using their television set as a tool of a instrument other than being bought cost of debt be able to dialogue visit each other and visit whoever they choose to. Community leaders are our elected officials. Movement leaders whatever. In a similar vein the telephone system may fit equip some additional equipment like the kind of professor Sheridan has before you here or some other ones. Well some combinations may also be able to do that. Actually the technology which is available right now but only very rarely used because it's not possible and that is there are conference circuits.

The are able not to allow groups of up to 30 people to dialogue on a telephone very much like if they have ever been in the same home and so have a useful unit in for so many purposes and they've been running a large number of experiments of both kinds the first combine of two of a caber groups and a second call and using telephone conference records to get smaller and larger groups of people to dial 0 9 the moment our turn to report simply a large number of findings what happens when you do that. I'd like to explain some of the background a little better than I did so far. In this country at this moment the telephone is obviously what's called a public utility but in effect is a private monopoly and so when ever we want to conduct an experiment there are hints of the troubles of the telephone company to take a very simple example of we have a tele POTA unit which counts these votes at us a quarter of a second a vote.

Actually we can convert much faster than that but it's a quarter of a second is enough to cause a problem of why. Because the telephone company takes 3 seconds to charge you before you commit acts that a charge and if the form quote is completed in say quarter of a second you made a phone call without being charged and if you make a long distance call to call some register your vote as has been done for instance for the problem of the advocates some of you may have seen a channel search on public television. Then the not only is there no local charge but as a long distance judge and I don't think I'd be Tabriz of surprise you'd be terribly surprised I report you to the telephone company doesn't enjoy that at all. S at a conference circuits the talk we are seeking to automate them so you could. Dialin in effect a new telephone exchanges you can do that. I don't think most of you heard about that means if you do people talk to each other on the most advanced telephone

exchanges you can dial in a third party just you know I had to press 6 and then get the third party to gender dialog and a fourth party. Now if you would like to see something like this just up so you could dial in any group you want without needing a manual operator. As long as you need a manual operator if you ever tried to place a conference call you know it takes to operate at maybe half an hour to set it up to define all the people all the offices and as a consequence is very expensive and is not possible. That's basically the reason the telephone company which is still in business is the same is discouraging very actively the development of conference circuits. It is still a problem and even if some days most years this cable television there's no guarantee at all that cable TV's will be late two days actually very often they're not played. So David I provide for today's service.

Even more important the pattern you laid a cable's determines that density of your community for dialog purposes so just to give an example you can lay cables and such of it that either crisscross Holland and divide parts of Manhattan. Or you could make each of the each one of them a sub network you could have a sub network a Spanish Harlem subnet for black column a sub network for let's say the Columbia University area. To be even more specific to Sanchez given by New York City to the cable corporations required and so nice up networks communication networks of 20 all over Manhattan. In effect so far they have not provided any of those at all. So the question how to caves are laid. How do I stop divided. Under what condition you can piece them together are very important for the question at hand. Even more important almost critical is if channels would be available only for commercial purposes so we would get not only our local laffin but also the

locking of the next community the whole. We can get lean ons of love. I Love Lucy and bombing Germany again and again all our day be available for the kind of things we have to talk about here today are both determined by such mundane things as ownership and management. And at this point more than 90 percent of the cables laid up privately owned by commercial firms. Actually I should add does if you're interested in the distinction of is in deprived sector that most of them own but not very forward looking business. You see there's a difference between Xerox and let's say Penn Central. So if you have to go to business most of the cable companies are undercapitalized backwards companies you forgive the term and as a consequence they often introduce poor quality Tabor's poor quality amplifiers and poor service. That's aside from the question it's the best way to introduce this new utility by putting it completely into private hands.

I personally favor a public ownership of the cable on in some towns such as prata California. Yeah preserved as a minister public municipal facility on which the local authorities did release some of the chance for private use and make the rest available to citizens. It's about I'm going to go ahead now to discuss what happened in our particular runs. I didn't want to disagree out to questions over who owns this system and what its technical features are. Now what they did they moved in three different ways. First the event to seven high rise buildings in an unknown east coast Metropolitan City metropolitan area. And the awesome people in those seven high rise buildings all together. Twenty five hundred families. If there's any he would like to talk about to each other. It turned out they had a tenant association anyhow and they had meetings anyhow of the tenants. He's a high rise buildings

all owned by one of the Lord. And I wanted to talk about I think you'd be absolutely surprise about a topic they want to talk about crime in their building. And because it suggested to Dan that David provided for Devon opportunity to do so on a cable and telephone circuits. Now if you wish to lead a discussion carried out be happy to see explained it. Endless technical problems because the technology is the opt in kind of model one Model T type kind of thing and and as I think you have to simulate because you cannot be ready to dismiss it provide a full part of type. But if you are for moment to gloss over those technical problems. What happened was that after daemon citizens dialog for a while and took a position they asked them in effect do you know of a good basic question you have been to tense meetings you have been to our electronic town hall meetings which everybody stays home and dialogues over the circuits which

you like better. Actually to be honest but didn't say I was because that would be loading it just so you know you've been to both kind of meetings which ones work better and they said they preferred day electronic meetings today regular ones 52 percent to 31 30 percent have no preference. Now that means you know more like that than the regular meetings that came in slightly surprise as a slight surprise to us and them like most findings you can interpret them half a dozen days. One plausible interpretation is that's a new thing and people you know I talk to by the novelty. You could also argue the opposite that if to get more used to it to refine it more accommodating but we asked them for their reasons and I think once I give you two reasons you see why it's not that surprising that more than half the people prefer a meeting to do a natural one and only a third preferred the regular to the electronic one. 84 percent said

what I like. Let me say that I didn't have to leave their home and these are liberation days at least in eastern cities and indeed all pattern even a kibbutz but of a in which I live for a while only one of the two can often go to the meeting in a private eye has been a device used device I'm afraid stays home to babysit you know. We didn't use a system that has been invited over to people living together combust but disappeared in a meeting is out having to get a babysitter and that's a very simple reason. Many people gave why they enjoyed at a client meeting over I mean they have to go physically and attend to this second thing they like about it. Somewhat different ages 79 to 21 was the fact that they could discuss the issues lies in the meeting. There's each

other before the meeting concluded in the lobby of the regular town hall meetings. You had a once a month. You have them in a kibbutz once a week but it still means is that you go to a meeting and issues been discussed and voted upon usually in that it's not just to keep it for a long period of time. And at a clinic town hall you can write in effect at least said by I mean to put in a little melodramatic way by flipping a switch. It takes a little more than that but not much more. So what we did in this particular case you're on one part of Monday night and the next bottom says the night. It allowed people in between to think about it talk to each other talk to their they have for all captains talk to their fellow captains before and I wanted to vote was taken but before they second POV the meeting took place and it was a second feature. The participants signaled as something that they benefited from.

Did different parts not not all participated and if the drop out rate differed are get to display so now the oddness of the other question we asked them Is it to feel that they had a chance to air their position without That's a problem in our mass meetings of course that even if you're on a very long or not everybody has a chance to talk and especially not as much and as often as long as he wishes. And so all meetings of catatonic are regular to some degree guided by Chairman by olds or even just by the U.S. listeners in the group which effect. This speaker. And so we tried to find info from that viewpoint it was a difference between doing and atomic meetings and their regular ones and we asked them and they felt that let's see.

Those people who participated in both the Monday innocence day section. Only nine percent of them felt the depositions were not where they represented. I'd like to explain what we use the term represented to mean either spoke themselves actually. Forty nine tenants took the floor. Or they found that one of the representatives of the counsel spoke represented a viewpoint which is in again to Vegas works and atomically Oren and I got a meeting not everybody gets to talk but people identified as one of the person who talked and say yes that person spoke to my viewpoint and what do you want to secure in a large meaning is not necessarily that everybody will get a chance to talk exactly as long as he wants to but he that he will fear their judgment made it his viewpoint was expires and according to this and 1 percent of those who

participated felt the dev you points did not reach the floor. 43 percent fact there was no difference from this you viewpoint between the two kind of meetings and 48 percent felt the depositions are better aired or represented and then a 20 meeting. Finally the asked him what if defected if there was no face to face interaction of all the kind you have you can see everybody hard at moving what they're doing. You can see people on the television set but you kind of see everybody at the same time you can see one face the source and the person who speaks but you can see like you can see a kind of scandal home and see what everybody kind of nod their head and looks unhappy. Well these the newspapers and so I asked them if they felt that they missed that entire personal contact. And 61 percent felt that go back was not important all 28

percent said it was somewhat important 11 percent thought it was very important. So by and large somewhat to our surprise this was not as mixed as we expected it to be. Now the question was raised as to how many people dropped out and the from the first segment the Monday segment. Eighteen percent dropped out by the end of Says day 44 percent dropped out. Now that's a very sizable number of people and indeed first meeting vested of a tendency and I think now it has. And honestly households if you have been in this particular envy could not tell the difference between various members of the household and that's something that I have to collect obviously that's not a satisfactory photo future.

Twenty six hundred and eight households now. This is a bit of a twice as many as ever attended attended meeting attended meetings as some of you may know are not extreme even at the occasions not probably. But our concern here is getting people to stay and they read difficult to know and we did not realize the day they had divided up out a second meaning so heavily. One thing we have to check for what wasn't out the channels you know it was a football game or what. Thursdays are more competitive than Mondays. And from this you point. But I'm afraid there was a reason which is a whole lot of and to what we're talking about in an even more intimate way is v

showed. Monday I want to keep a larger proportion of the meeting time was devoted to a very structured discussion of the four major viewpoints as to what should be done and then be open to for or two people to speak from the floor so to speak I mean from their respective homes. In the second section on Thursday we had almost only tenants speaking their mind and only to over the end did we get back to the structured discussion and discussion Asli times longer then on Monday. Two hours of just people talking and I think most citizens are not too used to describe a situation they're used to are something very streamlined in very structured and isn't very important for the future of the system should be to question their people as they might expose to get used to it. That if you mean to have a democratic system in that basic

sense of a large number of people speak for it is speaking their mind is out of regulating it tightly. If you're going to get exactly what you would expect somebody is going to make a very argued case. The next leap participants are going to are repeat each other and express themselves in Vai's which are irritating rambling. You make points which I think gentle to the major issue and day is kind of a trade of curve between having kind of a regimented discussion of each need to progress on one point today either and quickly moves to motion in the resolutions and discussion which has more of the Navajo democracy or village touched it that people speak and the main gain is for them to feel they have participated but a discussion on too strongly in an of a complicated vey matures to overdrive as Aleutian be deliberately and dis on bended they find a direction of allowing as many people as possible to talk as long as

possible with a little moderation in the sense of guiding discussion as possible in if in a future I'm going to use different mixes and will see also what happens when you make the movie 9 to 16 and move on to see if people can get use to this more open ended less on edge amended form of community dialogue. But I skip some of the findings here to turn to the second batch of findings in which we did something quite different. Aside from this what you call a highrise village of on the. Well I'm now a large number of groups of nine persons on the telephone conference circuits. This is to save someone a group's good dialogue. Clearly each one staying in their own home. But if a vibe that is not our interest interest is in it's use for public affair and participatory purposes.

This should be of some interest to the temple a s very exciting committee and they meet once every three months in between as a full time staff member and everybody from Mark's very Brawn demonstrated what happens when you have a committee of people flying for weekend one Eversley month and you have a full time staff member. Now if you would have to make decisions in between just Lehman's meeting points and you could by putting a little IBM card into your telephone get a circuit to activate it and then we all would be available. All our phones were doing and we could talk for 10 minutes to each other like 15 or 20 without having to fly to Washington from some people come from Seattle. Some people come from the south some to come from Boston. Then I think we would delegate fewer things to the chairman to the staff member and dialogue more often update each other more often. Similarly if the government agencies or citizen groups

who have caused country af or existed on have to have a convention each time they want a dialogue at least their representatives to each other. That would increase the Democratic zation of the effort. But in those nine go meetings united them under different conditions. He first gave them that actively easy task to talk about the found that they work very effectively very easily. 81 percent of them. That discussion was eager. The demo not all the same groups was a much more difficult topic to reach agreement upon and be stacked against agreement. What we did the topic David dialoguing upon was Should Halloween be legalized and to be sure we get enough of a debate. We interviewed the

participants ahead of time Mr. depositions and made sure that the groups included for people of a favor and for people of a against. This very thought we can put a heavier load in the system and see if it still could work. What we did get the heated discussions but we did not get a feeling that the technology prevented people from dialoguing. Basically deleting the measurements as dissatisfaction is the system then more conflict prone topic was used. There are practically identical slightly less favorable then to the data area. Easy topic which I do believe is crime prevention. We then on this same a number of groups do the same kind of subjects which made out a table just humid and in one home visit under same conditions other than they didn't use it at all logical circuit and back by and

large. The productivity measures attention measures the legitimacy of the chairman measures are not superior and in some cases inferior to the groups on the telephone circuits which lead us to the conclusion that indeed that technology can be used can be used effectively for dialog purposes. Dent tried to imitate what Tom shared on his doing on a build a little box box a slightly different but it's basically the same idea we have on the box a little button you push which indicates that you wish to talk is the equivalent of raising your hand when you enter the room queuing to Chairman you want to floor next. So that allows you to be in your home and if it is attached to a telephone you touch that little button and I guess this is under moderator or chairman switchboard in Vegas does that you want to be the next to talk next to that is a little switch if you push it up

gives a quick beat of light which expresses your disapproval and if you put it out of a it gives us a low signal which exposes your program so at any time during the dialogue people can do what they do with their faces during a meeting. Express their pleasure and displeasure and each participant has a little panel of his two lights for each other participant so you can see at any point in time who asked the floor to debate you do in a meeting and you can see what all the lights are doing I DO PEOPLE favorable or unfavorable. Defining is not very pleasing from my viewpoint and event it gave everybody does panels and they all played with them and pulled a switch is a festival going on into technical difficulty as they always do to push the speech very briefly and you could tell the difference between approval and disapproval. You see just give a little like you know and you have to find him if you want to use again and add lies but the manufacturer makes the money in one color and in a disc at a

photo of anybody who ever built a system show you know his face but one of these days you're going to if you do it to use two different circuits you know you get to many lights and to many viruses you know this kind of focus and I just played those more serious problems that people just didn't want to use them and they preferred to use their voice as an instrument and actually learn very quickly to make by modulating their voice. What it cannot do is desk faces and hands and so they communicate and guard displeasure by human bullying and such and I didn't need that instrument too. 5 a test. You are mistaken in the assumption that these instruments may be useful. We did what we did here today. The event to a larger group because in a group of 9 it is part of a group the most basically needs for some technical reasons and I like to explain that if the One Nation is broken up into groups of 9 and deal on them

in batches of 8 hours you can have every citizen participate of 8 hours that's a little mathematical trick. You can figure out if each group of nine selects one person to talk on the next level undead dialogue going over eight hours you can have everybody dialoguing or his representative down now. Death leaves me interested in the basic unit of nine. You don't really care for groups of study that much. It doesn't eliminate many levels when you go from 9 to 30. Surprisingly. But then we go from 9 to 30 and we did too and so far best of all the technical problems multiply by actively the conference or could get signed. But more important at that point dialog becomes difficult without a technical aid. At that point to do quests for those boxes where you can express yourself is out capturing differ or seems to increase. And so our tentative conclusion is that vital to small groups of mind

10 12 may not need any technical assistance beyond what we have this minute telephone conference circuits and can dialogue of a effectively without leaving the homes across the nation across the city. The larger groups and we don't know exactly where they sound barrier or dialog barrier is best. The suspect is somebody tossed a teen may need to such an assist and of course when the larger like we have 90 boxes here that become extremely useful. At last we have been developing this tele Paul or as we call it a unit which allows people to call in to votes and their tentative day apathy. Again if you or I just take a 30 second aggression here before we start building it. We kept hearing rumors that these units exist some other place in the country. Indeed spend a

surprisingly large amount of time trying to find a very is that place that somebody has already debt instrument instrument I mean it seems such an obvious thing to have you know we take so many surveys we vote so often it is someplace somebody has built a thing you know people can call and double it in a constant and it turns out that there was one unit once in Oakland but it no longer exists and the problem which you saw from having signs of retrieving information you know it was really very illustrated by this exercise you spend in a silly month. Tracking down the rumors because there is no place you can go as far as I know. And each pair tell you you know it is always not a certain instrument available and for I know by the time this meeting is over somebody told me that I spend public funds and our limited energy in Wayne because someday you know. Bice I never heard about you know this thing exist but as of a month ago we gave up on the detective job and went into the engineering job and RV have the

first prototype. And as I mentioned already ever count a vote in say a quarter of a second pair unit but the units are smaller than those boxes and you can't buy cereal thinking you can live next to each other as many as you wish. They're vain expensive they cost less than $10 apiece so if you need to count more votes all you have to do is put more of these units next to each other. And engage him in Syrian regime so to summarize what the move may be moving on say 11 trying to arrange a community dialogue trying to arrange for small group dialogues on electronic circuits one kind of another and trying to develop some of the hardware. They'd have to go there is advancing these technologies on Exxon is going to be a state wide one in New Jersey in which 10000 people are going to participate in one to six small communities and then Dan I presented to doubt that I'm going to next level to see if you can move to still larger units to see what are actually going to be

hard at how they're going to feel about attentive Vai's of getting him together. And again if you can get more and more citizens to dialogue there's each other. These are leaders in the hope of making this system of participatory and maybe one of the things we should dialogue about is who should own and manage the technology on which Dad dialoguing. What we have here. Several questions which Professor. That's the only group prepared in relation to his talk. Imagine a weekly current events TV programmes of the sort at which Professor Stuart professor at the army spoke. You could dial in your opinions in one way or another. Somehow national and local or local summaries would be published that is

you would each participant would would learn. Something of the statistical results of these meetings. The first question is Would you participate. Just imagine that situation. Would you participate. And please indicate your response in categories 1 for very often. Which means essentially I guess every time there was such a show that you could possibly come to often three sometimes four or rarely five Never. Six undecided that is you simply can't answer you need more information to make a decision. 7 You object to that question. 8. Something other. We have a thought house as a response. So would you indicate please one of the eight. Everybody said. OK. Here's our tally. Twelve of you would indeed would would participate very often.

17 voted for often. Three four sometimes. Two for a rally. Nobody for never. Six of you were undecided and one of you objected to the question. And one of you said something other. When the person who voted for other like hed. Like to indicate. Why he or she voted that way how about the object or. The object or care to make a comment yes come up to the mike please. But I wish to. Say and to ask is the following. If society where to have this technology and where to have no other system of communication. I imagine that I would be left. To participate in this way. But this presupposes that personally I accept this.

Now this gentleman. His findings indicate that. Technology does not. And you apparently speeds up communication and facilitates it. But I wonder. In the light of what is happening here. For instance you will remember that at the beginning of the meeting. There was a question in which. Seven objections. Were be sent. And you know for those to be expressed only one person came to the microphone. Why didn't the seven come out to the microphone I asked myself. Is it because we are shy. Is it because we are intimidated by this whole set up. Is it because we cannot face each other. The light of that I asked myself is really technology going to help us communicate to each other.

And so doing I would like to point out. That perhaps time considerations. Would have not allowed you to hear seven objections. And. This house is an expression of something that I have been away at about technology for some time. We experiments with new systems in this case new systems of communication. Yet I wondered if the studies I did really to hear the content of what we have to say. Or do are just one more system. Of. Having things work in a certain way which really are not of our concern. I guess that eventually in the discussion figured I would like to hear what he's feeling right. He had to know about the system that supposedly will allow us to communicate with you.

Yes do that in fact some of you would like to help us phrase the question you'd like to put to yourselves I'd appreciate that. Now as I indicated before I'm collecting other questions that we would like to ask if we have time. And we've got two already. There may be some others but I think I'm stunned that this question is obviously of fundamental importance. No I mean no question about it it's almost the most important question that could be asked. I'll tie it back to Professor at the end I think are common many amazing that you can be patronized. One of the name is not to recognize serious disagreement is one. I like answered your point I think you may want to hear it and I think in this particular case there is a fundamental difference. And I don't think we should kind of you know. Make it sound like there's a minor. Question of. Two ways of looking at everything. What you heard here in my judgment a very elitist viewpoint is very similar to the viewpoint as people say I want to hold Martin for myself you know I don't want anybody else to be

on it. You know that that's what we call a chanter nature. If every citizen is to have a full opportunity to say all he wants and if everything is going to be given that right. And it's not going to be just a slogan. For you know five intellectuals then everything else will have to stop. And it will be at a few minutes if you don't know all the issues everybody will have to say all people possibly saying there would be no chance of the vote to be counted as seven objection will not find out whatever you object as then it will not have a workable system. People asked for this are they people who are not getting stiffed seriously. Except. The mass society they're going to want for themselves the opportunity to speak at great length hopefully discounting the all the other millions. What I'm interested in is a system where everybody would have an equal chance which Libyan No one is very similar to the allocation of the medication of it and we will not all be African middle classes. And so the same thing here the

adaptation of communication opportunities precisely intense and occasionally we need to tell you both. And I then give speeches. There is no other way of doing it and it also entails. The use of technological devices there is no way there is no way it can be a continental my town hall meeting and then noticed that instead we have country clubs radical country clubs in which people come and hold each other's hands. Ah very meaningful solutions football selected few who want to have kind of an ox what system for themselves. At least one other viewpoint on this area do you want to call it. Let's see we've heard from you. All right why don't we give someone else a chance. Yes they're back there. I'd like to try to address the same point that this man who just spoke into this microphone tried

to address what I'd like to try to approach it from a different angle and take account of Mr. Ed Sheeran nice comment. One thing Mr. Johnny said that was that there was a problem in the experiment that he described in that if you want to try to. Give everyone present in a large meeting the opportunity to talk. Then you run into difficulties like people running off the topic or running their own agenda. You have one person who might give a very organized presentation and. Said a problem or an argument and then you have four or five other speakers who veer off the topic and who are interested in hearing themselves talk and so on. I recognize certain everyone does from their own experience that this is a real problem. Now I gather from the way in which he approached that problem or from the way in which he talked about it that. He was interested in finding a way around that difficulty. He was interested in setting up perhaps some other technology or some

even more clever way of using radio and television to try to get around that peculiar difficulty that people find themselves in when they are in a large meeting. And it seems to me that that is. If that is true then that seems to me a way of trying to solve the problem by by bypassing it. It also seems to me that you wouldn't be using the technology for. The work that it really inherently seems to have. Why not instead try to use the technology in order to help people organize themselves better and overcome just that behavior which is disruptive to. A larger group working together. In other words it seems to me that instead of bypassing the problem the thing to do is to turn the technology inward into the problem and help people. Learn how to work together effectively and learn how to speak to each other actively and run a meeting together effectively. And if that takes in the case of that high rise building with

3000 people if that takes five years to do then I think that is the worthwhile experiment to simply engage in that and do that and expend the time and resources know the help that particular group of people which finds itself living and working together to live and work together effectively rather than trying to reach toward yet some other technological improvement that essentially really bypasses the problem and never fundamentally addresses what eventually does have to finally be faced namely people will have to somehow work and organize together. With care and effectively. OK thank you very much. It's interesting to note that something along the lines of the viewpoint that I thought you just expressed was reflected in the way the vote was taken earlier where people opted more for the temporary alliance facilitating temporary alliance formation as opposed to some of the other

options in an earlier question. And there's really a lot of questions that Mr. Etzioni touched on when he talked about the people who are going to control cable systems and the fact that it's going to be supported by shop at home. And I think if anyone has seen it to be worth their while to go out to the capital readout to see the Miter exhibition which is a practical exhibition of two way cable television where you shop at Home voters get access to information at home. And this technology like all others can be you know to great benefit or great harm just like nuclear technology and we're developing very fast without looking at the possible side effects. And what's happening is that companies like Time like Columbia Broadcasting System teleprompter buying up all these systems. Now when we have want to have town meetings or public access or any of these things we're going to have to rely on their benevolence or we're going to have to rely on franchise ordinances that

force them to open up channels. But still the question is who's going to decide when Town Meetings are called what the content of the town meetings are going to be who's going to be allowed to be on those forms that we see on the screen who'll be excluded. Well the frustration of nonparticipation actually increase as people rely more and more on this technology or will it decrease. So these questions you know we're not touching on and they really have to be examined in a broad way. You know we found in actually experimenting with public access and doing public access work in various cities is that. Very quickly losing ground we have to say. The people I work for a grant for forty thousand dollars to do a health communications network public advocacy for cable television and various other projects where the people where working against government agencies the Federal Communications Commission teleprompter have millions and millions of dollars.

To represent the corporate interests. So my feeling is very quickly the public interest going to lose and that we're going to be beggars at the corporate doors and we're not going to have any more success there than we have with broadcast television. And I think we should talk about how we're going to control this technology before it's controlled by the same people. The remarks that were just given are very good in terms of the lead in to this to our next speaker before we do we want to see if we can bring up a couple of questions that have been posed by people from the floor that I got that I'd like to just very quickly like to pose. One gentleman asks Do you believe that the availability of the means this and these new means of participation. Must be interpreted as a right to equal access for all regardless of the economic cost. In other words. Regardless of the cost to everybody have equal access and I'm simply going to ask you to vote on that one. Yes everyone should

have equal access. No they shouldn't. Three are undecided for you if you object or you can't respond. Let's have your response to that. Equal access to all regardless of cost. OK. You can participate if you come forward you can't participate back there are plenty of chairs with response boxes here. OK. Thirty three of you are in favor of participation for everybody regardless of the economic costs for no three undecided two objectors. One of nation's was lazed who's going to decide and of course you know this is very much has to do with the question who's going to decide a future to come to you know other areas I don't think we're going to have a separate social system for cable television and everything else going down the vein but I see the particular arrangement we're not trying to decide for a bipartisan approach which for my day would be for

you to try to introduce them to the main antenna teams and then let them vote on which pattern they want to work by. OK so that's just one point I want to make clear. It's for a five year concern and runs. Into community status has to decide by visual means it's once so dialed up. The second and last point such as you use illustrate a principle which I think is very interesting and the longer I work with my colleagues are engineers the more I mean questions of significance what I learned from them working with them is that any change environ unit switching has a social meaning the days do these things which look like you know you just by this that they have an ounce of age or six rascals lives or lead lives all make a difference and I trust that is but one thing that happened here is that as Tom explained earlier want to not live her simple once you see the

talent. Well that's one of ever learning a social system of a clear way what happens in the typical meeting this summer vacation. I want to point you care about is you lay your hand and you scan at the same time. Because human beings be members of groups they have their own opinion but they also like to do good. They may go along with that they may seek to oppose it but never to the CEOs of the social field vision now so you see often the meaning people raise their hands. And I there is a bandwagon effect everybody has them. Christie also raising their hands or something putting them down or something changing their mind. Now this technology is more individualistic. At this moment now informs that he can flip a switch and make it their own way. But whatever venue flips the switch has a subset of consequence which is that one day we have an individualistic system which does not allow people to change their mind and a good question on a good proposition.

Dalam Yeah I wan disfigured out of it. You get in a different direction and I think what I like to believe is you Hans much more generally get in contact to the argument of Technology has no face is just a tool. It can reflect whatever system that Anyhow it has no consequence of its own and I'm suggesting that it is in a state in a much bigger way. It's whatever you do if you don't have a satellite beaming at once to all the nations of the world the Russians and all of that about that because you're going to penetrate into the curtain you're going to have eight satellites each beam into a different part of the country. Whatever you do what technology does have social consequence and I think of a miniscule but not to emulate it was illustrated here in this particular system. Thank you professor at Sanin I'd like to say that the type of discussion we've been having I think quite appropriately it leads

into remarks of our next speaker who comes from Canada to us and it's been my experience that in Canada the federal government there. Has taken a more active role in studying the relationship of some of the new communications technology to the citizen and to the question of developing a sense of community. And I believe he brings to us a number of important insights that relate to several of the questions that have been raised here. Richard Gwyn is director general of the socio economic planning section in the Canadian Department communication in that position has been supervising quite a variety of studies and in this area that we're concerned with here today of community information exchange.

He has a background as a journalist and has also authored two books on Canadian politics. So at this time I'd like you to hear from Richard Cohen. I was certainly I was very honored very pleased to be invited here. I was on it because the implicit assumption was that Canada might have something to say of some interest to you in a field of information technology where the United States is so clearly far ahead. In the world but 80 percent of our information technology comes from the United States 20 percent comes from Japan. I was pleased because it means I'm in Washington and not in Oslo where the temperature is about 5 below. I want to make one semantic quibble the description of my address in the agenda speaks of communications

and citizens in Canada and national commitment the word commitment. Harry's been too generous. Commitment is what it sounds like is commitment and there isn't any such formal political commitment. There is however I would use a softer would prefer a softer wood endevour a national endeavor. I think there is an endeavor on a quite substantial scale in this area of. Trying to use communications technology in a direct way to aid citizens and communities to breakdown mass communications into citizen communications and community communications. There are only two countries which are substantially involved and that's the United States and Canada. The Canadian scale is Byock spends quite considerable. I have a struct some weeks ago reading an article in The London Sunday Times on the front page of London

Sunday Times describing a new BBC programme called called open door and the Sunday Times in its lead described it as a revolutionary step forward in participatory television. One open door will consist of is 40 minutes a week at which any representative group in the country may come on and do its thing may come directly on the camera and do its thing on national television. And I was struck I thought was that ironic that this would be described as a revolutionary step. In Canada three hundred sixty odd CATV systems 60 at the moment are doing five and a half oz a week average of community television community programming another sixty nine a doing a five and a ha ha's a week of local programming. The distinction between local programming and community programming particularly when you get out to small communities is pretty arbitrary because the cameraman is likely to be a member of the Kiwanis or YMCA or whatever it is the group that's that's going on.

As I said there'd be no commitment. Mr. Trudeau when he became prime minister in 68 one of his platform planks was participatory democracy vague concept one that had suddenly become fashionable and one that we then knew very little about and we spent a lot of time learning about it. I think. At that time we were not aware of the consequences all the implications of the inherent contradiction in participator democracy. It was an idea that's being seized on by liberal intellectuals. Almost all of whom would be appalled if the Archie Bunkers were to decide by majority vote. All public policy decisions. Now I think that in a philosophic level you could define three strands of three objectives.

What we're trying to do the first is to use communications channels as a means to recreate the sense and the reality of community and this community can be geographic demographic. It can be communities of interest people one of the great effects of mass communications is being that of a margin isolation and the destruction of community sense of community and the reality of community. The irony is that one is now trying to use communications to compensate for to rectify that which was the product of communications mass communications of which we were once so proud. I think that I don't think another philosophic. Objective is to provide individual citizens citizens groups representative associations institutions with the capability to deploy a POS through complexity. Probably it seems to us is not. There isn't a great deal of information around as more information

around as it will be in that speech and we've got a greater capacity to process that story even etc.. Much of this information is propaganda. Much of it is simple noise and much of it is detail in other words it has no explicit meaning to it. Here again is an irony in the use of information technology because much of Scituate current condition of information overload is a direct product of use of information technology. And one is now trying to find ways to apply information technology to again risk straw imbalances to rectify the some of the destruction in effect caused by information technology. A third philosophic objective which the government can hardly enunciate is to make institutions work. This is one of the core problems of our time. Institutions don't work or the thought not to work which is the same thing. The thoughts to be commonly are self centered as

Stevens outlined. They do not want to involve or take account of a broad scale of human input simply because it is random it is uncontrollable. As a result they make decisions which in our present political climate a kind of productive because they raise opposition. Now this technological capability. Coincided with. The development of a desire by people to produce their own messages. Create their own messages create their own programs and the capability to do that because the technology is so simple and easy to use. One part of the equation that's missing is whether an audience exists. Most all of the experiences in community access cable television to be highly disappointing audience is a minuscule person's mother and so on.

I think at the same time as as this conjunction of supply and demand is taking place there was the recognition of what I referred to early on in the diseconomies in the Mass Communications quality of alienation that they were inducing because they were one way quality of homogenizing. One thing that happened again in Canada was that we had reached the stage by the late 60s with about 96 percent of the population had television and 90 percent radio. And we're now engaged in a program to extend that last four percent that lost 2 percent in radio and wanted to kill instruments we're using is Anik the domestic communications satellite which was launched in last November. This type of programming is going into the remote regions where one potion of the population is Native Indian or Eskimo. And that

aroused of course a very considered severe concern about the socio cultural impact of Southern style white television upon native populations. And that forced us. That was one of the political issues which forced us to re-examine our approach off a la city and mass communications. One of the condition in Canada one circumstance in Canada which prompted the scale of effort was that the first substandard attempt that was made in citizens. Communications or community communications in Canada was a success. This was done back in 1966 started in 66 essentially completed in 71. But that time which was previous. That is what was remarkable about it was Michael about the foresight of people involved. Is that before all of the talk then of citizens communications and Committee communications.

They instinctively understood that they had to cut across the grain of communications of grain of communications being across to send messages over long distance and to a large number of people and they were deliberately setting out to send messages over short distance to few people. This project which I have one tape on and I just like to describe it very briefly. It's called a full go process f o g o. Island is a small island. Off the northeast coast of Newfoundland off our eastern shore Newfoundland is our poorest parlance most back problems and photos one of its most backward areas. It's an island about 12 by 10 miles with a population of five to six hours and up they have a winter about six seven months along. Almost all the people in show fisherman which meant they had about fifteen hundred dollars a year in 1960 75 percent of the population of FOCO was on able bodied relief 85 percent of the male population was own

able bodied really full go was almost a microcosm of what all of New Finland at one speed and Newsnight has been progressively changing and the influence of communications transportation education and so on. But a community in which the individual villages were totally isolated. We're separated from one another by the lack of Rose be by different religions so that on an island like Fogo and I'm sure I like full go 10 to 12 miles in area. Of those nine communities you would have people in one community who had never visited another community three or four miles away on a single island because they were of a different religion. It was also a very tight concensus community as rural communities are just one in which there is no public discussion of political issues. A group from the National Film Board and a more University's Extension Service went there in

1970. With this new concept of using film as a tool for community development the short in all 28 films was striking about his first films is that they were short about people or about events events in the community. They were not shot about issues. They did not ask about issues. And the object was not to create controversy but to open up channels of communication to get people talking about themselves and to hear each other talk for the first time in their lives. Everyone who was interviewed. Had was the first person to see the film taken off it had he or she had a right to it anything they wanted before that film could be shown to anybody else. Film was then shown to other people. After a community a village had seen the Compazine film the village or community had the right to it if any piece out of it they wanted and then the film was shown to another community. Finally the films after they had been bicycle through the through the nine communities

in little villages in FOCO were shown outside for the first time shown to the decision makers various politicians and bureaucrats in St. John's which is the capital. That comments were filmed and sent back to the people for the first time you had a dialogue inside focal between the little communities and between Fogo and the decision makers of the first time people in photos saw the civil servants all the politicians who are making decisions that affected their lives. Now a full go the result I'm told has been quite remarkable today less than 5 percent of the people on welfare. Cooperative is being studied since 67 of which more than 85 percent of the fishermen and members is operating a called the fish building. Sorry fish. Shipbuilding plant. This is after five previous attempts at cooperatives have failed and they're laying plans for a quality fish plant absent most dramatic change is the installation of a non-denominational high school in the center of the island.

Was important because it was excess is a success I think for two reasons. One it was a professional project. The National Film Board had three capable filmmakers but more University included people of very extensive background in cooperative development and secondly it was sustained it began in 67 and it went on to 71. It was not a one shot pilot project experiment. Now. After this period after full go and sort of through about 69 70 I think that sort of phase in Canada. I think we went through what I would like to call it what I have I generally call a blue sky period. We became some of us at any rate became enraptured our namak by the capability and the glamour of communications in Canada US communications which Id always been trying to find a

resting point on the academic respectability scale somewhere about journalism in the post McLuhan era became if not academically respectable at least glamorous. Which is a good useful substitute. We had there was the discovery by our engineers and engineers elsewhere that this same cable that brings cable television into a home in Canada we have mostly because Canadians like American football football about 30 35 percent penetration of cable in our urban areas. Now the discovery that this actual cable a quick kind of course be used to send down any type of signal and provide a whole range of services. And we had a lot of very futuristic and I'm realistic lists of services wide city services and we were flooded with watch City type articles. We also got in the period when Access became a word that you could hardly read newspaper without

coming up on remember reading somewhere that Nicholas Johnson said if he could access one small screen I felt very much like that except I was using Access myself a lot. It was and this was it was postulated citizens access a community access to cable television came almost partially to just a certain precursor of fundamental political change. As I said what we didn't know about the conjuncture supply and demand was whether the audience existed we don't in the door not many many people came in. As a result we went through a period of reappraisal. One of the elements obvious reappraisal. Was the obvious one that systems are not very important to people and human beings and human emotions and institutional behavior and social behavior is what ultimately determines the success or failure of any project. We learned a lot of Fairmount about the question of raising expectations.

One thing we learned was this that Colin Lowe was the filmmaker of the National Film Board involved in the folk process made the point of the seminar held last much. He said Bill filmed BTR do not by themselves effect change. You can only effect change in the hands of skillful animators. Communications can speed up a process it can create opportunity for dialogue. But it can only carry that far. You need some delivery structure need some support system. One critical individual we've identified is that of communications and in a project which I want to describe briefly there is a communications and field work in each community where we're operating. The point about this communications and access is that his or her commitment is to the community rather than to the project. There's a grave danger I think

in experimental projects where everybody involved in the project is really concerned that the project itself become a success in terms of output in terms of subsequent funding or whatever the case may be. Communications. Is a split personality. That is somebody hired by the project but who's whose first loyalty is to the community to the success of whatever it is that happens as a result of the project of the experiment. I think we learn to develop some crude type ologies of communication the citizens communications we learned which is obvious that there is a dramatic difference between applying some of these techniques in urban areas as opposed to rural areas in urban areas you get a high degree of political polarization you get very high comp competition with established media in rural areas the simple appearance of a hockey video tape which somebody's image on it can cause excitement novelty can attract a crowd going to talk to tension. There's much less political polarization and we also learn to make a sharp

distinction between rural areas which are white and those which are native. We learned also I think we started to try to develop a type policy in terms of objectives. Well is the use of communications as propaganda by a group by an institution by an association when they do that in other words when they put propaganda on cable television. They have to recognize two things happen. Everybody doesn't agree with and usually switches off when he's very selective viewing or reading capability. And secondly of course they create opposition to their message. We identified use of communications one of our absolute prime points of emphasis is the use of communications to create consensus either to create it within a community ability to develop new types of consensus or to expand existing consensus.

During this period a reappraisal one other thing we came upon was a recognition of the importance of data processing. The Canadian government is never had any policy on computers any moldings had a policy on typewriters which another instrument of information technology. But our only policy of Anonymous to worry about IBM and realize it was much we could do about it anyway. We have now started to develop the elements in the foundation of a policy on computers we had a major study published this year on computer communications. We had another study in which I was involved which was published early this month on computers and privacy the issue of personal privacy and data banks. No I'd like to describe briefly three activities within the department of communications. Which try to lead on from the reappraisal and some of the lessons we have learned. One project which is kind gentle to the main area

discussion which was touched on by professors at CNN I was very interested in his comments. Is one a multidisciplinary research project into teleconferencing the use of telecom of telecommunications systems or do you audiovisual supplemented by capability of production of hard copy to bring groups together for various types of decision making and information exchange purposes. Here are clients in terms of research project is the Canadian government its agencies with the need for teleconferencing is considerably heightened by the by the fact that we have a policy of decentralisation both in a physical sense and in a policy sense. In a second phase we hope to examine the utility of these types of systems for non-governmental groups including the kind of citizen involvement or institute of trans continental institutional involvement the Professor Etzioni was talking about. The second project is something called the Northern pilot project and this is

concerned with trying to determine the impact of various types of communications upon native groups who are going to have communications in large quantities for the first time shortly. And second to identify those kinds of communication systems which are best suited for the needs of the native people the Eskimos and Indians. The system is being examined by deliberately all of us simple type. There is the basic videotape. There is radio telephone networks dedicated radio telephone networks which would be owned by. Native communities Third there is community radio broadcasting we've developed a cheap FM 20 watt transmitter unit with all the associated studio equipment for twelve hundred dollars. And this is the kind of low cost equipment that we're looking for. Some elements of this community of this northern part of project I might describe well the systems will be community

owned and controlled. And occupancy owned and controlled at the moment to radio telephone networks. One in the Kuwait district of the Northwest Territories which is Eskimo one in North Western Ontario which is Indian operation. And the first radio station will go into operation in the Eskimo community of bacon late. In mid February. Second in each area we have communications and in my field work there. Their ideas their. Injunction is to do themselves out of a job to do the job and do themselves out of a job. To do the job means to bring to the people an understanding of what communications can do for them how to run it how to operate how to make programs how to structure themselves in an administrative sense and then for the communications and access to leave the communities for these communications out of

Natchez. And once when I was looking I think for a type of realistic idealist last person you want is an idealist nice person one is a realist and want some combination of the two. I've been a number of painful discoveries personal self discoveries tend to go in with them all a stereotyped liberal viewpoint. They realized for instance that in Indian communities is a very rigid hierarchy of decision making structure. They realize that in Eskimo communities they are totally noncompetitive and they have almost no decision making structure because the making a decision means that somebody almost inevitably if a community makes a decision some individual will be on the losing side of the herd. And there's enormous reluctance among Eskimos to hurt. One element of the northern part of Project program which is unusual which is different from the full go is that we have started out with a and

extensive evaluation program both at the technical level and we're looking for low cost low maintenance technology and at the administrative level in terms of all the red tape that is necessary. But most perhaps most important the behavioral level we've set out to take photographs in effect on the communication channels in the community before the system went in during its operation and some some of the communication channels created can already be identified. Terms of the radio telephone networks it was the simple Over and out type of networks. In North Western Ontario that was one of the main results has been the development of a political consciousness consciousness among very widely separated Indian communities. Previously outside bureaucrats would come into the area and see a chief in a particular reservation. And say I have seen the two other chiefs and I have discussed within

this proposal and they like it. What do you think the answer would be yes. And then a month or six months later he would discover that of course he was the first person that the bureaucratic come to see. Now through this dedicated radio telephone network the chiefs of the various communities discussed their problems simultaneously with the arrival of the outside experts the outside official. One particular element of political consciousness that is interesting is that the two tribes up there object for the first time these two groups started to get a sense of a common Indian identity. Although in fact of course Korea is much different as English and French or whatever it might be. A final project which I'd like to describe. More directly relates to what the two previous Because students and artists uni were concerned with are involved in and study and this is

the development of what we call citizens information networks and this is what I referred to earlier as an attempt to define ways to use information technology to make sense out of the surplus the information overload created by the use of information technology. Here we. Are still very much at the planning stage conceptualizing stage an association the Canadian Consumers Association has done a study which is called the power to communicate a revolution in information sharing which will be published early next year. It consists of a survey on. Citizens or community information centers which are sprung up in large numbers throughout our cities as they have throughout yours comprise also a preliminary attempt to identify ways. Unfortunately it's a very generalized attempt to identify these ways in which information technology might be used to enable those information centers to do their job market actively.

We're given a second contract to the CAC the Consumers Association a candidate to do a more detailed study identifying specific needs and specific uses of information technology in support of the work of community information centers. We plan next year demonstration project. We've had. Great difficulties in this one is trying to develop a general purpose information system which by definition is impossible. The information needs of citizens are so varied so differentiated that some of the early sort of proposals with even limited hindsight come out as very naive. You know putting the new civil statutes into computer what's the point of an ordinary citizen being able to punch out the relevant section in the civil statutes that mean nothing to him. We're trying to take up a much more pragmatic approach the kind of database we're looking at for instances. I'm used as a show you always have an oral themselves becoming conscious of the need for two way communications

developed at a variety of mechanisms to do this the highlighting letters to the editor and inviting. It's quite common for the have invited columns once once a day. A number of them have actual line columns which are a very good source of. Effective solutions of practical citizens problems. We see this is one source for our database. We see also that another area in terms of developing an information system that could aid information senses providing index to sources of information. A study done by. A toss forced on citizens communications set up by that upon the communications in a couple of other departments in which we're reporting probably about a problem which is concerned primarily with the use of citizens groups and associations and institutions of hopping to videotape a CCTV radio did a survey asking a variety of organizations social welfare organizations

citizens organizations. The problems in securing information. Interestingly enough the ingenue came out highest was the oldest one of all. They didn't know who to communicate in the various bureaucracies that scored much higher than red tape and various other perhaps more obvious problems. So that covers what I wanted to sketch out. I would like absinthe finishing up to go back to my starting point which was what we tried to do. We're trying to use communications to recreate the sense of community in the reality community. Of course it is striking that the the roots of the two Woods community communications is identical and we try to use information technology in a way that would compensate for the dysfunctions created by the use of information technology.

And the third one is to make institutions work. Tonight the Sunday forum has presented recorded excerpts from a session of the recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science the largest professional scientific organization in the world. The trip last held his yearly meeting in Washington the week of December 25th one thousand seventy two. And tonight we heard this symposium on community information exchange. The participants included trendier Stephens of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute of Troy New York Thomas Sheridan of MIT. I'm a tie it's the Oni of Columbia University and Richard Gwyn the director of socio economic planning of the Canadian Department of Communication. We invite you to join us again next week at this time for the Sunday forum.