Booze, Bloggers and very very important discussions in a serious atmosphere
I thought it was just me a nd a few other select people going along but the nice people at the ASI are inviting all sorts of rif raf as well, so come along, and I'll be looking to get very very drunk later on - anyone up for it?
The Adam Smith Institute is hosting an evening seminar on
Democracy and the Blogosphere
with Stephen Pollard, New Labour journalist and broadcaster
William Heath, Chairman of Kable (publishers of Government Computing)
Perry de Havilland, Chief Editor of Samizdata.net and Partner of the Big Blog Company
and Sandy Starr, Spiked Online
on Tuesday 16 November 2004 at 6:15pm for 6:30pm
at the Institute’s offices at 23 Great Smith Street, London SW1
Dress: jacket and tie
If you would like to attend, please e-mail email@example.com in order to get a place. We have limited space, so it's important to book. The event will be followed by a champagne reception. Click here for a map.
Here's the blurb...
Much hype surrounds the internet's self-publishing phenomenon known as blogging. Many claim that the blogosphere - the community of millions of blogs - is the key to reinvigorating the political process. Some believe that, using blogs, politicians will better serve their constituents, the disaffected will become involved in politics, and public confidence in the ability of government to solve society's problems will skyrocket.
There are also those who fiercely believe that, if only MPs would all start blogging, public debate would be dramatically revitalised. Is this wishful thinking in the age of spin doctors and party whips? Would more conversation with the public encourage our MPs to follow better policies, or lead to governance by opinion poll?
Does the blogosphere really strengthen the political progress, or is it more anti-Establishment than the Establishment would like to believe? Should the unprecedented ability of citizens to spread criticism of the state, its actions and its employees be cause for governmental alarm? Can our political process withstand such scrutiny? And is the blogosphere the big, equality-driving democracy so many claim that it is, or is it really a meritocracy, where the most interesting, compelling, and worthwhile ideas rise to the top?