Brookings

Whether the Trump administration is providing “alternative facts” or telling the media to keep its “mouth shut,” it’s clear that the relationship between the administration and the press is strained, and will likely continue to intensify. As the press, administration, and the American public grapple with this new reality, we asked media experts to weigh in on a question that is top of mind for many: What is the role of journalists and journalism during a time when the administration expresses hostility toward much of the media and shares “alternative facts”? We turn to three experts to give their opinion: EJ Dionne, Senior Fellow Governance Studies, Susan Glasser, former editor of Politico, and Jonathan Rauch, Senior Fellow Governance Studies.

[Commentary] As the new administration takes office, we will start to see just how literally to take Donald Trump’s pronouncements and the promised targeting of his predecessor’s executive orders for immediate destruction. Trade policy appointments signal that statements about being aggressive against barriers to trade should be taken very literally. Below we make the case that the Obama executive order extending certain privacy protections to ordinary foreign citizens should not be on the chopping block because it is vital to transatlantic digital trade and ecommerce.

A keystone underlying support for the Privacy Shield is President Obama’s 2014 Presidential Policy Directive 28 (PPD-28) declaring that “all persons should be treated with dignity and respect regardless of their nationality or wherever they might reside, and all persons have legitimate privacy interests in the handling of their personal information.” This order extended to citizens of foreign countries safeguards that require that surveillance of Americans be targeted carefully for defined and legitimate purposes. These safeguards essentially protect the privacy interests of innocent foreigners whose electronic communications are scooped up by the NSA merely as incidental collections to the agency’s actual targeting of malicious individuals. The President-elect, his transition team, and his incoming national security and economic teams would be wise to heed these bipartisan recommendations by keeping PPD-28 and upholding the Privacy Shield.

[Cameron Kerry is Senior Counsel at Sidley Austin, LLP in Boston and Washington, DC, and a Visiting Scholar the MIT Media Lab.
Alan Raul is a partner at Sidley Austin LLP]

Perhaps the greatest promise of the internet of things is the insights to be gained from a flood of data provided by ubiquitous, wirelessly connected sensors. On Jan 9, this promise came closer to reality when Uber announced the launch of a new website that will display traffic data in the cities where it operates. The new website, Uber Movement, will display traffic volumes in different city zones based on anonymized data from Uber drivers’ smartphone applications. This website aims to make urban transportation more efficient by providing current data on traffic patterns. Ultimately, this practice could expand beyond the transportation sector and lead to both greater private sector data sharing along with greater data-driven policymaking.

[Commentary] During the campaign Donald Trump banned certain reporters or media outlets from covering him. Since the election his Chief of Staff has hinted that they might do away with the daily White House press briefing or, at a minimum, change the make-up of who gets briefed and how. Although there is a lot of anxiety among journalists at the prospect that the Trump Administration will make good on its promise to upend the normal course of president-media relations—it could also present an opportunity to journalists.

The freedom from the briefing room to get the information they need in other ways could be an opportunity not only to fulfill their role to hold leaders accountable but also for investigative reporting that informs and enlightens, and that helps sustain the lifeblood of a democracy: an informed citizenry.

[She is currently Founding Director Andrews Institute for Civic Leadership, Lipscomb University in Nashville (TN).]

The contemporary debate about the effects of new technology on individual privacy centers on the idea that privacy is an eroding value. The erosion is ongoing and takes place because of the government and big corporations that collect data on us all: In the consumer space, technology and the companies that create it erode privacy, as consumers trade away their solitude either unknowingly or in exchange for convenience and efficiency.

On January 13, we released a Brookings paper that challenges this idea. Entitled, “The Privacy Paradox II: Measuring the Privacy Benefits of Privacy Threats,” we try to measure the extent to which this focus ignores the significant privacy benefits of the technologies that concern privacy advocates. And we conclude that quantifiable effects in consumer behavior strongly support the reality of these benefits.

Evidence indicates that concerns over privacy do not dampen consumer enthusiasm for new technologies. Scholars have generally attributed this phenomenon to individuals prioritizing convenience, efficiency, or service delivery over privacy. However, a 2015 Brookings paper proposed an alternative explanation, arguing that in fact, countervailing privacy concerns may be a significant part of consumers’ value judgments. For example, the authors hypothesized that people who buy personal products online do so not just because they may be cheaper or more convenient to buy that way, but also, perhaps even most importantly, because of the privacy benefits of the online transaction.

While President-elect Donald Trump’s appointee as the next Federal Communications Commission Chairman remains to be announced, one real challenge ahead is how to change course after the widely- publicized track record of polarized decision making and disjointed collaboration under the Wheeler-led Commission. Moving forward, President-elect Trump’s FCC will have the opportunity to designate an agency leader who can achieve bipartisan consensus on critical issues, while still realizing the incoming administration’s policy agenda.

While differences may emerge around network neutrality, media ownership, mergers and acquisitions and other items, the new FCC chairman might consider confronting matters at the outset that are ripe for collaboration and necessary for the next phase of progress. These issues include spectrum policy, infrastructure, digital inclusion, agency process reform, and the inevitable update of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Come Jan 20, President-elect Donald Trump will have the opportunity to continue or suspend many of the technology-focused initiatives begun by President Barack Obama. These programs included expanding broadband access, training workers for jobs in STEM fields, and building supercomputers, among others. Brookings experts Stuart N. Brotman, Robin Lewis, Nicol Turner-Lee, and Niam Yaraghi weigh in on what direction technology policy will take in the Trump administration, and how it might react to future technology change.

Expanding Broadband Access: The incoming administration has expressed its intent to lead its policy priorities with an aggressive infrastructure plan. Referring to the infrastructure goals as a “golden opportunity for accelerated economic growth,” the new leadership plans to rejuvenate the domestic economy by spurring more targeted private investments and creating and recovering jobs. Under what will seemingly be a pro-business, nonregulated market, the threat of broadband “overbuild” looms, bringing new meaning to the cliche “if you build it, will they come.” Whereas technology overbuilds have often led to increased competition in certain markets and lowered consumer prices, an oversaturated broadband market can also create network redundancies, faster depreciation of assets, and decreased consumer demand. Managing supply and demand of broadband services should be at the core of the new administration’s efforts. With unbridled supply, the marketplace will be ripe for competitive offerings and differentiated services, including free or unlimited data plans. Smart digital inclusion plans and programs with clear goals and outcomes should be prioritized to narrow the gap among those who haven’t adopted broadband into their daily lives. Increased investments in digital literacy training, especially within community anchor institutions (e.g., libraries and schools) can cultivate more interest and use. In sum, the new administration’s efforts to expand and maximize infrastructure must equally address the demand for these and other emerging services so that when it’s built, they will indeed come.

Open government reforms have in recent years emerged as an area of intense activity and fervent hope for some of our largest societal aspirations: to improve public services, to expand public knowledge of governmental processes, to save public money, and to make government more participatory and inclusive. But does it actually achieve those objectives, and if so, under what conditions? In a word, does open government actually work?

In our new report, we assess the evidence. Drawing from hundreds of reports, articles, and peer-reviewed academic studies, we bring together the most rigorous research on open government reforms, including everything from right-to-information laws in India, to grassroots monitoring of health care in Uganda, to federal audits in Brazil, to election monitoring in Ghana, to school-quality report cards in the United States. From this extensive body of research, we derive six features of open government programs that give these reforms the highest likelihood of success.

The Trump campaign of 2016 will doubtlessly go down as one of the most dramatic and sensational in history, especially considering Trump’s tendency to spark national controversy on Twitter. Although the president-elect’s style of social media usage is of a kind highly unusual in the political sphere, the rising importance of digital media in presidential campaigns cannot be solely attributed to one candidate. The use of social media as a major campaign strategy was first pioneered by President Barack Obama in the 2008 election and was repeated successfully in 2012. His strategy encompassed a range of elements, including Facebook, online fundraising, and a YouTube channel, paired with more traditional forms of outreach via phone and direct mail.

The millennial generation (those born between 1981 and 1998) has been a driving force behind the rise of social media and is attributed with tipping the scales in President Obama’s favor both election cycles. Given that social media has become an integral component of the political process during a time of dramatic polarization, there is a concern that the digital world has become a means to filter out opposing opinions from one’s personal online universe – creating an “echo chamber.” Data from the Pew Research Center reveal that the echo chamber is not necessarily born of a refusal to consider opposing viewpoints, but has developed out of the negative political climate and of the desire to avoid confrontation.