|
I think I need that damned Mavis Bacon refresher! Thanks for trying to translate what I said into English! You mostly were successful and yes, you got my essential point - I was suggesting online forums as a substitute for face time forums. For all its faults, at least it gets the thing started.
The forums (non political) in which I participated and also presented used some pretty cool software. One was a hybrid wherein one logged into an online site for the sole purpose of submitting questions to a moderator. All participants were also connected by voice (old fashioned telephone set up as a supersize conference call). The moderator and presenter were always heard. The audeince was set for 'listen only'. The mod could allow any listener to be heard also (so questions or discussions could be heard, complete and live, since the website's control panel, seen by the mod and presenter(s) identified each caller by phone number and all questions submitted were id'ed by phone number). Alternatively, questions posed by typing into the web site were read by the mod and answered by the presenter. This was the system employed when I was a presenter. I was at home, the mod in another city, and the participants were, literally, from all over the world. We never allowed listeners to be heard live, but that was because of language; some of our people's spoken English was so tentative they did not want to be heard by others so we chose, for fairness, not to use the voice option.
In the other forums, they used different software. The presenter and mod construct was also employed, but both were carried by video in windows on the hosting website. If others had web cams, they could be added to the feed, but there was some limit (I don't know what) to the number of video windows. Questions could be taken either by video feed or by a questioner typing in the questions for later selection by the mod. In my experiences, they only allowed typed questions, which the mod read and the presenter answered. In one such session, there was actually a panel of presenters, each in different locations and each in a separate window, but all connected and all real-time live.
Anyway, there's some very cool software out there. I am only aware of it ever being used for non-political stuff, but I see no reason for a candidate or an elected official not to try it.
When I spoke about 'being too busy', above, I was actually (and very inartfully) referring not just to the pols, but also to the potential audience members. Might there not be a better chnace for greater participation if the audience's only effort was to log onto a website?
|