I have a fever... and the prescription is...

I want to welcome my new colleague James Walker and I hope you all will check out his blog, Gen Y PR Prescriptions.

I'm heading out of town for a few days and won't be posting until I return - have a great weekend, all...

Who Else is Tweeting in Denver

Now that we've had a day to sift through some of the tweets, here are five more folks I'd add to my original five. Many people are using hashtags to track discussions, though not everyone is.

They're not the big-time political bloggers you'd know immediately, but they're providing some insight and snark. I think it's the latest example of how social media is expanding the conversation. First the political bloggers tried to wrest some of the control of the discussion from the beltway pundits and the "permanent ruling class" of DC. They succeeded. Now, in a very real sense, the big-time political bloggers are the new pundits, and these folks are using new tools to broaden and enhance the political discussion.

Alli Gerkman @gerkmana
Steve Rhodes @tigerbeat
Tim Poindexter @6oclockvintage
Susan Gleason @sgleason
Jill Foster @Jillfoster

Who's Tweeting in Denver

The Democratic National Convention gears up today, and the liberal political bloggers have descended upon Denver. There's no doubt going to be more blog posts than any one person can read. It's a lot easier to read political snark ('cause that's what it is) in an easily-digestible 140-character tidbit.

I'm surprised that the political bloggers have been a bit slow compared to the PR folks to take up Twitter, but here are some of the people I'll be watching (pretty sure they're all in Denver) and thought you might want to as well:

Duncan Black, a.k.a. "Atrios" @atrios
Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake @janehamsher
Joe Trippi, former advisor to the Dean and Edwards campaigns @JoeTrippi
Oliver Willis - "like kryptonite to stupid" @oliverwillis
Erin Kotecki Vest, Queen of Spain @QueenofSpain

There are no doubt many folks tweeting, and I may add more that I find, but these five should give you a good flavor for what's happening.

Of course, there are twitter feeds for larger political blogs like Huffington Post and Daily Kos, but if you have an RSS feed for each blog, what they push out on Twitter is redundant.

I'm A Little Bit Country...

OK, maybe a little bit Bluegrass. I just like that whole crossing-communities thing, whether it's in social media or music. Enjoy your weekend.

Moms Taking Care of Families, Taking Care of Each Other

"Blogger outreach" to moms is a lot more interesting and important when you're not trying to get moms to buy anything. It's even better when you're discussing the things moms care about most.

Recently I had the privilege of working with Families for Depression Awareness, a non-profit organization founded in 2001, and Parent Bloggers Network on a small outreach project designed to introduce FFDA to bloggers everywhere.

Sadly, it seems the timing couldn't be better. If you've kept up with the mom-o-sphere at all, you know plenty of people are not happy.

So we threw together a quick survey to get a discussion started. It's not scientific, but it was still interesting. Thanks to PBN, 137 bloggers responded.

About 3 out of every 4 bloggers who responded agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I'm so busy taking care of my family's emotional needs that I don't have much time to take care of my own."

More than 60% of the responding bloggers said they hide their feelings because they think their kids will be hurt in some way if they see mom reacting to stress or depression.

And 1 out of 4 bloggers said they wished they had the courage to ask for help for themselves or someone in their family. About half said they wanted more information about available resources.

This is all sad, certainly - but to be candid, given the times it's not that surprising.

What struck me, however, was how much these moms rely on their online community - perhaps even more than the people in closest physical proximity to them. About 60 percent said the blogosphere was where they went to find support from moms with similar challenges. And nearly 9 out of 10 people who participated said they feel as close or closer to the people they talk with online as they do the parents in their own neighborhoods.

Then we asked a few of the people who responded to the survey if they'd be interested in speaking with some people from FFDA. They help families recognize and cope with depressive disorders to get people well and prevent suicides. They try to reduce the stigma associated with depressive disorders. And they try to unite families to help them heal and cope. Julie Totten, the President and Founder of the group, spoke with all the moms. From Julie's public bio:

In 1990, Julie lost her brother, who was undiagnosed, to suicide. A year later, after learning about depression, she helped her father get diagnosed for this condition. Julie recently formed Families for Depression Awareness to help others understand depression and reduce stigma associated with the condition.

We also included Dr. Myrna Weissman, a pioneer in interpersonal psychotherapy, on the call to provide an additional level of perspective from an expert. (Sorry Stefania, I know you're asked to talk with "experts" a lot but hopefully you'll agree this is one worth listening to.) I hope the moms who talked with Julie and Dr. Wiessman got something out of the discussion but they will speak for themselves.

Again, the survey is not scientific - but it does make you think. Perhaps the mom-o-sphere isn't just a place where marketers ask women to talk about how fabulous the latest brand is. Perhaps moms have more to say than what was on Oprah that day or what their kids had for breakfast. Perhaps we have an obligation to make a substantive contribution to these important discussions.

And perhaps moms, when shown what kind of resources are out there, can muster the courage to talk about their own private challenges and help show other moms where they can find help to meet their own.

So kudos and thanks to Dr. Myrna Weismann and Julie Totten and Stacey Leibowitz of Families for Depression Awareness. Special thanks to Parent Bloggers Network. And of course, many thanks to the bloggers who participated:

Amy Tucker, Taste Like Crazy
Rita Arens, Surrender Dorothy
Jenn Satterwhite, Mommy Needs Coffee
Christina McMenemy, A Mommy Story
Vivien Bruss, Cool Moms Rule
Dana Tuzske, The Dana Files
Alyson, Three P's in a Pod
Dianne Hoffman, The Mommy Diaries
Kristen Chase, Motherhood Uncensored
Julie Marsh, Mothergoosemouse

I'm trying to get audio of the discussions over to the folks at FFDA, but the audio quality (I HATE SPEAKERPHONES) is giving me fits right now and there were some other distractions during the discussions so it's taking me longer than I hoped, but it will happen sometime soon.

SEC 2.0

Seems the Securities Exchange Commission (which I'm now following on Twitter) has some new ideas:

Washington, D.C., Aug. 19, 2008 — Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox today unveiled the successor to the agency’s 1980s-era EDGAR database, which will give investors far faster and easier access to key financial information about public companies and mutual funds.

The new system is called IDEA, short for Interactive Data Electronic Applications. Based on a completely new architecture being built from the ground up, it will at first supplement and then eventually replace the EDGAR system. The decision to replace EDGAR marks the SEC’s transition from collecting forms and documents to making the information itself freely available to investors to give them better and more up-to-date financial disclosure in a form they can readily use.

The Washington Post is on top of the story, and says the new system will change the way companies report their financials as well as the way journalists cover business news.

While advocates say the new system will eventually save companies money because of the speed and ease of preparing disclosures, some critics complain about the initial expenses of making the transition, a burden that is particularly unwelcome during an economic slowdown.

I'm certainly paying attention to how those regulated by the SEC are reacting, and I think it's fair to say that any such system will have growing pains. But this is certain: We're in a brave new world when it comes to financial communications. The SEC is absolutely correct to look at information technology tools to make sure investors have the clearest picture possible to make educated decisions. Chairman Cox is showing some leadership here, and his staff is thinking ahead.

What's In Your Profile?

Last week I participated on a conference call with the founder of a tech startup in Tel Aviv. They're asking for a proposal to help promote a new product online.

Within a few hours of the call I got a Facebook friend request from the company's CEO.

I immediately accepted the request comfortable in the knowledge that no pictures exist in my profile or tagged with my name that portray me:

• Drunk
• Picking my nose
• Wearing a thong
• Dressed like an oompa-loompa
• Shoving straws up my nose
• Flashing gang signs

This may all sound funny, but these are all specific examples of pictures I've found on Facebook or other social networks of colleagues, potential employees, potential clients, or other professional contacts in the normal course of business.

I can't tell you what to put in your profile, but I can tell you who's looking at them.

More Big Think on South Ossetia

from Professor Robert Farley. Great example of how bloggers are actually smart.

Rail is Green

I'm catching up with Jeff McIntire-Strasburg today - he's one of the leaders in the sustainability community. I've sung his praises before. He's at the forefront of a movement that is helping all companies understand the upside of going green - and talking about it online.

An example: people don't necessarily think of railroads as the most environmentally conscious way to transport goods over land - but they should. CSX (a client) is making some noise here. They're leveraging new technology and making a serious investment. This video is just a hint of things to come. Yeah, it's a plug, but it's also a step in the right direction and to me it's worth discussing.

South Ossetia and Social Media - The Discussions

The Russians have decided to "end" their activities in Georgia while the Georgians claim the attacks continue - so says CNN.

I took a quick look at the reactions people have had to the crisis in particular communities - specifically US-based political liberals and US-based political conservatives. Not surprisingly, a discussion that could have been about Vladimir Putin, Dimitri Medvedev and Mikheil Saakashvili quickly became a discussion about George Bush, John McCain, and Barack Obama.

More often than not these communities spend their time attacking the leader of the opposing world view. The consensus: conservatives think Barack Obama's position is to the left of Ben & Jerry while liberals think John McCain's position is to the right of Attila the Hun. And everyone is ready for George Bush to leave the Olympics and get back to work.

This is a stern reminder to those who are trying to reach out to top political blogs right now - if what you're talking about isn't something a political blogger can use to attack the other guy, you're not likely to get their attention. Political bloggers care about the horse race right now. If you're not relevant to their agenda, you're actually setting yourself back by reaching out to them.

One other interesting and insightful update - Jonathan Wong of Armchair Theorist found my post from yesterday on Friend Feed and sings the praises of social media. (Thanks for the shout-out, Jonathan.) I was struck by a comment he made in his post - something that perhaps he's far more qualified to make than I am:

And like I have said many times before, the importance of social media in offsetting complementing mainstream media coverage is 10x more important in the country where I come from, where our press freedom is ranked 153rd in the world, sandwiched between luminaries such as Iraq and Kyrgyzstan.

Global medium, indeed.

South Ossetia: Social Media Tells the Rest of the Story

I must be signed up to the wrong email alerts. Over Friday and the weekend I had plenty of information sent directly to my inbox about John Edwards, Bernie Mac and Issac Hayes - but nothing about South Ossetia, where for a while there it looked like the cold war was beginning again.

For those of you who get your news from western television, Georgia (the country, not the state) became an independent country right after the fall of the Soviet Union. Georgia's territory included enclaves (like South Ossetia and Abkhazia) that border Russia and in which a majority of the people feel more loyal to Russia than Georgia. South Ossetia is separated from North Ossetia in Russia by a mountain range. Many people in South Ossetia carry Russian passports. Virtually all countries and international organizations consider South Ossetia to be part of Georgia, but the people there have declared independence and set up a de facto government. Georgia has worked to install an autonomous provincial government there, but as recent events show it hasn't gone smoothly. Last week Georgia sent troops into South Ossetia's capital, Tskhinvlali, to surround the sepratist government there. Russia responded quickly by calling Georgia's movements criminal, even genocidal, and quickly occupied the territory by force. Some reports indicate the Georgian military is attempting to withdraw and call a cease-fire, though the Russians dispute this.

News junkies like me have scurried to the interwebs to find as much information as possible. I immediately bypassed US coverage (which to be candid hasn't been terrible but clearly hasn't been great either) and used BBC as my starting point. They've put together a reasonably useful tick-tock of the crisis, but they've also rushed to put up a "lessons learned" piece that is more than a bit presumptous.

Not surprisingly, the US media has focused on the US-Russia dynamic, particularly at the UN Security Council. This isn't without justification; the Russian media suggests the United States actually orchestrated Georgia's initial move into South Ossetia. This has produced a tense (and some would argue embarrassing) public exchange at the Security Council meeting between US and Russian diplomats. Associated Press also ran a story about how Georgia is moving its 1000 troops from Iraq to make them available for the conflict in its own borders - but since it's an AP story I don't want to get into trouble for linking to it.

I confess it's been hard to find comprehensive Georgian media coverage in English, though I did find The Messenger, which includes headlines like "The World Supports Georgia" and Yes, It's War With Russia." The Messenger has been providing updates via its (rather sparse but still informative) blog. Not surprisingly, the most commented post was one about the safety and location of its journalists.

Of course, I'm relying on social media channels to fill out the narrative and get the most complete story. As expected, wikipedians quickly assembled a list of international reactions to the events in South Ossetia that I haven't been able to find anywhere else. The big-thinkers have shared their big thoughts on blogs like Globalsecurity.org, Open Democracy and Whirled View. I've assembled a bunch of links on my del.icio.us page with the tag Ossetia.

The best source of information is, once again, Global Voices Online. They've set up a special section on the conflict that includes everything you could ask for - background, links to posts from individual bloggers on the ground (I was struck by this post from a pair of Peace Corps Volunteers in the Tblisi area) as well as experts across the globe, a South Ossetia flickr stream, and links to other mainstream media sources. GVO is doing a great job assembling the overwhelming about of content and pushing it through a smart, balanced human filter. I've said it before - if you want to see the future of journalism, and how journalists will cover a crisis in the future, look at GVO today.

Best stuff on the interwebs right now, according to ME

Because sometimes del.icio.us links just aren't enough.

Uses of Social Media in Social Marketing, by R. Craig Lefebvre, PhD

Mother's Milk: Kentucky Mom Asked to Leave McDonald's for Breastfeeding by Kristen Chase

Overdriven: why our cars guzzle gas, what to do about it by Jonathan Gitlin

and kudos to Dan Colman for digging up Jesse Owens, 1936 Olympics.

Beltway Pundits Just Don't Get It

Every now and then I read an op-ed that demonstrates a profound disconnect with the way the world works today - and I can't help but think if these pundits took the time to understand how social media works they might do a better job.

Last year I took aim at Thomas Friedman's op-ed "Generation Q" suggesting all this crazy social-media stuff was breeding apathy in our youngsters and they'd never get off their butts and vote. (They did, in record numbers, thanks in no small part to social media.)

This time it's David Brooks, lamenting the demise of a permanent ruling class in Washington in a piece he called "Missing Dean Acheson." Among the more outlandish passages:

Today power is dispersed. There is no permanent bipartisan governing class in Washington. Globally, power has gone multipolar, with the rise of China, India, Brazil and the rest.

This dispersion should, in theory, be a good thing, but in practice, multipolarity means that more groups have effective veto power over collective action. In practice, this new pluralistic world has given rise to globosclerosis, an inability to solve problem after problem...

Moreover, in a multipolar world, there is no way to referee disagreements among competing factions. In a democratic nation, the majority rules and members of the minority understand that they must accede to the wishes of those who win elections.

He then goes on to imply this new affliction - where citizens of the world for the first time have a chance to substantively rebuff the decisions of Brooks' beloved governing elites - is responsible for the downfall of the Doha round of trade talks, as well as our inability to stop genocide in Darfur, impose sanctions on Zimbabwe, and prevent an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

ummmm... NO.

First, do we really have to re-hash the mind-numbingly long list of colonialist and non-democratic injustices, committed in all areas of the globe, that were either ignored, condoned or even caused by this "permanent bipartisan governing class" in Washington from the 40's to the 80's?

Second, the laundry list of global failures Brooks cites exists precisely BECAUSE a small group of people who think they know what's best for everyone else tries to assert its will on a majority. There's no better example of this than the World Trade Organization. Like it or not, the WTO has earned a reputation as one of the most insulated and least transparent multinational organizations ever created. The agreements negotiated there (by unelected bureaucrats, no less) rarely have the majority support of the people they are intended to serve.

If David Brooks expects Indian farmers (or American steelworkers or anyone else) to simply let themselves go bankrupt in the face of overwhelming, subsidized competition, then he's missing one of the most basic rules of capitalism - the system works best when people act in their own interest. In a few decades perhaps free trade will even out economic conditions and improve everyone's lot in life - I certainly hope so. But when the best answer you have for people who will certainly lose their livelihoods is "we'll have to get back to you," you can't expect those farmers to tell their starving kids that David Brooks says it's all for the best.

Brooks' rhetoric about democracy and trade also raises an eyebrow. In the United States, once a major trade agreement is finalized, the President invariably asks the Congress to give him "fast-track" authority - i.e., cede Congress' right to amend legislation and agree to an up-or-down vote by a date certain. Fast Track has been called a lot of things, good and bad - but as a former legislative assistant to a Senator for trade issues, I've never heard it called "more democratic."

Brooks isn't about to change his world view but could learn about how the world works in 2008 by participating in a few global online discussions. The days of a permanent governing class with one-way decision-making are coming to an end - just as the days of an elite beltway pundit corps with one-way communication have already ended. The days of trade deals negotiated behind closed doors are coming to an end, just as the days of non-transparent online communication have already ended.

Interestingly enough, the people Tom Friedman was completely wrong about - young people who use social media aggressively and participate in the political process - will finalize the downfall of the permanent governing class David Brooks laments.

Can Bloggers REALLY Affect Health Policy?

Last week my colleague Bill Pierce attended a Kaiser Family Foundation event: 'The Health Blogosphere: What it Means for Policy Debates and Journalism." Bill is APCO Worldwide's resident health policy blogger at Virtual Vantage Points, and he had an interesting take on the event.

I was particularly struck by three points he made. First, his declaration of the existence of a "mainstream blogger" - an oxymoron if I ever saw one:

The group, while very impressive and interesting, represented the mainstream of bloggers and the blogosphere, all of them worked for an established media outlet or organization. This in and of itself is an amazing statement. Five years ago there was no mainstream blogosphere it was all way outside the box. We’ve come a long way. But I think there should have been some non-mainstream represented. That was clearly missing.

I'd be curious to know who he thinks qualifies as a "non-mainstream" blogger on health policy. I'll have to ask him. Second, the impact the blogosphere has had on the media:

The blogosphere... has not, and I do not believe will, change the very nature of news, analysis, and information sharing, but its impact has been profound and it will continue to change how we get information. First, and perhaps most importantly, it has forced old style print, TV and radio to rethink how they do business and their business model.

This reminds me of the ideas Richard Stacy and others have posited - the advent of personal publishing and individual content generation has had a profound impact on the media business. No surprise there. But I was most struck by this:

Tom Rosenstiel made an important point. While the blogosphere has expanded the debate, provided a different point of view and added a new medium to get information out into the public arena, it hasn’t changed human nature. We still need to sort out the information we have in making decisions, reaching conclusions or coming to an answer. The blogosphere has not changed this point, nor made this easier. It may have made it more difficult by increasing the volume and decreasing our ability to understand the source.

So the blogosphere has now reduced the barriers to entry not only of the media industry, but in policy development itself. I'm not talking about the more-heat-than-light political blogosphere where blogs focus on the foibles of the opposing team but the community of thought leaders who care less about party affiliation than pragmatic solutions. I think this is an outstanding development - as a guy who's worked in health care and in Washington, I can say without reservation that health policy could definitely use an infusion of new ideas from new perspectives.

However, I still sense an inside-the-beltway, knee-jerk reaction about "understanding the source" here that fits well with the "mainstream" blogger idea Bill mentioned. It's akin to the "Missing Dean Acheson" column David Brooks wrote last week, lamenting the downfall of a "permanent bipartisan governing class in Washington." It's the idea that position within corridors of power implies credibility.

I will be discussing this Brooks column at length in a future post.