iPad story was an iFad
Back in May, a story appeared in the Daily Press that the Hampton City Council was going to start using iPads for their agendas and supporting materials during public meetings. The switch was justified because of the thousands of dollars in paper and copying charges it could save.
That got me to thinking about the potential impact that could have on access to public meeting records, as well as the potential for having in-meeting discussions. I wrote a blog entry of my musings in early June.
A week or so later, I ran into the then-editor of the Daily Press, who told me Williamsburg was considering a similar move. I told him about the column I wrote, and he said a reporter would probably call me for comment. The reporter did call, and he wrote this story for the July 11 edition of his paper.
From there, it got picked up regionally, then statewide, then it got on the Examiner network and I saw references from D.C. to Long Island.
By the end of the month, a reporter from USA Today called to interview me, complete with questions about whether I was “against” iPads.
All along, my position has been that any time government embraces a new technology, it should do so cautiously and with an eye toward the impact it will have on public access. Saving money is an important consideration, but it can’t be the only one, and it shouldn’t be the most important one if the cost-savings measure at the expense of public policy.
The other problem is that applications being developed by iPads that make it easier to share, annotate, record, talk, etc., are not being developed with an eye toward records retention. Data may be saved for the user, but it can’t necessarily be printed, saved or archived for retrieval or sharing with the public.
Anyway, it was nearly three weeks after the interview with USA Today before an article appeared on Aug. 10. Then it was mention in The Daily Beast, a phone interview with ABC Radio News, and then, a live interview on CNN’s morning program alongside Williamsburg’s city manager. (We don’t have a link to the CNN clip, but here’s a story about the interview.)
Once I got over the fact that I look petrified and sounded like a moose (I was recovering from a bout of laryngitis), I was really pleased with the public airing the issue received.
It was a good example of viral press coverage on a trendy issue. From simple blog post to national television news coverage. I don’t really understand why it happened, I’m just glad it did. I hope it gave government something to think about, and I hope it gave citizens some encouragement that we in the access community are doing what we can to keep them informed and to watch out for their interests.
