Main Page | Month Archive | Email Updates | RSS Feed | Print Version

The Public Diplomacy Blog is intended to stimulate dialog among scholars, researchers, practitioners and professionals from around the world in the public diplomacy sphere. The opinions represented here are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School.

THE DIPNOTE BLOG: THE STATE DEPARTMENT’S TENTATIVE STEP INTO GLOBAL ONLINE DIALOGUE
OCT 24, 2007 - 10:59AM PDT
Posted by Craig Hayden
All posts by this author

This September, the United States Department of State launched its own blog – Dipnote. The blog is described as an “alternative source to mainstream media for U.S. foreign policy information” and an “opportunity for participants to discuss important foreign policy issues with senior Department officials.” Seems pretty ambitious. If anything, this belated foray into the blogosphere is a necessary if not crucial step towards making the State Department more relevant to its U.S. constituents, and providing a means for foreign publics to voice their opinions directly to somebody in the U.S. government. Reaction to the new blogsite was swift in the foreign policy blog community. Perhaps not surprisingly, the most common critique was aimed at the name - “Dipnote.” There was also criticism over the design, which features small white text against an austere black background. Between the name, site design, and overall functionality – the site leaves something to be desired. But in a time where the State Department has taken relentless criticism over its attempts at public diplomacy, the blog has the potential to be a positive development as far as advocates of dialogue-based public diplomacy are concerned. Indeed, Steve Corman and Kris Acheson offer their own initial analysis of Dipnote as a site for public dialogue. As part of their study, they look at the comments attached to each blog post. They observe that most of the commentators seem to indicate that they want dialogue. More importantly, Corman and Acheson provide a good theoretical construct for what to expect from “dialogue.” They say the blog exhibits signs that conversations within the comments field are constructive and collaborative – the comments are responsive to each other; while meaning is developed within the context of the conversation. In other words, people are listening to each other – even when the comment field gets polemical. And, there is some indication that State is listening to the comment field. Corman and Acheson note that one comment question regarding who should possess nuclear weapons turned into a “question of the week” comment post. This post had the highest number of comments outside the inaugural post. But has Dipnote emerged as a virtual agora for international public argument; a productive public sphere regarding foreign policy? And, does it reflect a legitimate conduit between foreign publics and U.S. foreign policy-makers? Or is it simply another conduit for talking point diplomacy – a poor stand-in for constructive, dialogue-oriented public diplomacy? Sure, some critics on its first day observed that this was yet another outlet for propaganda. But perhaps it is a bit early to judge the potential of Dipnote. The comments section is telling. Posts on controversial questions draw the most attention from both domestic and foreign audiences. While short postings from Karen Hughes or updates on official diplomatic activities yield scant interest, provocative topics like “Should the United States play a role in the creation of a Palestinian State?” or a discussion of how to convince nations to stop the violence in Burma draw…... FULL TEXT
 
Read Comments (0) | Add Your Own

Read Comments:

No comments for this entry.

Add a Comment:

Your Name:
Your Email:
Comment:
Please enter the word you see in the image below:

NOTE: Comments are moderated by CPD and will typically be posted if they are relevant and respectful.