22 June 2010

On the road...

I'm running around this week.  I need to lighten things up around here anyway - my wife saw this and I thought it might do the trick.

21 June 2010

The Yachts

This has been one of my favorite poems for quite some time. Sadly, it seems all too fitting.


William Carlos Williams - The Yachts


Found at bee mp3 search engine


The Yachts

contend in a sea which the land partly encloses
shielding them from the too-heavy blows
of an ungoverned ocean which when it chooses

tortures the biggest hulls, the best man knows
to pit against its beatings, and sinks them pitilessly.
Mothlike in mists, scintillant in the minute

brilliance of cloudless days, with broad bellying sails
they glide to the wind tossing green water
from their sharp prows while over them the crew crawls

ant-like, solicitously grooming them, releasing,
making fast as they turn, lean far over and having
caught the wind again, side by side, head for the mark.

In a well guarded arena of open water surrounded by
lesser and greater crafts which, sycophant, lumbering
and flittering follow them, they appear youthful, rare

as the light of a happy eye, live with the grace
of all that in the mind is fleckless, free and
naturally to be desired. Now the sea whoch holds them

is moody, lapping their glossy sides, as of feeling
for some slightest flaw but fails completely.
Today no race. Then the wind comes again. The yachts

move, jockeying for a start, the signal is set and they
are off. Now the waves strike at them but they are too
well made, the slip through, though they take in canvas.

Arms with hands grasping seek to clutch at the prows
Bodies thrown recklessly in the way are cut aside.
It is a sea of faces about them in agony, in despair

until the horror of the race dawns staggering the mind;
the whole sea become an entanglement of watery bodies
lost to the world bearing what they can not hold. Broken,

beaten, desolate, reaching from the dead to be taken up
they cry out, failing, failing! their cries rising
in waves skill as the skillful yachts pass over.

17 June 2010

I sense a disturbance in the force

The force known as the mom-o-sphere, that is.  Silicon Valley Moms Group is closing down.

I'm sure there are a variety of factors contributing to this, and I plan to write more about it, but right now I think it's important to recognize Jill Asher as a successful entrepreneur who really helped build a strong online community.  I know she had a lot of help from people like Beth Blecherman, but it's clear that Asher was the face of this organization and accomplished a great deal. 

I know she has a lot of great things going on in her life right now and I'm sure we'll be seeing her again.

Pretty much the stupidest thing ever said by anyone, anywhere

Seriously.

16 June 2010

A Joke Without A Punch Line

UPDATE: OK, this is substantial and frankly, historic. It was still a terrible speech, but the White House scored a major victory for those affected by this spill. I'll take crappy speeches if they're accompanied by real action any day.

The President's Speech as a Text Cloud
That's what I think of the President's speech last night.

Yes, this situation merits a strong communications response, and a speech from the Oval Office is one way to convey the sense of urgency the White House has finally embraced from a communications perspective.  But last night's speech convinced me the government doesn't have the ability to solve a fairly basic physics problem - prevent floating oil from reaching shore - let alone solve the ridiculously complex engineering problem of closing a gusher a mile below the surface.

We were told (again) that the government has thrown a lot of people out there, set a bunch of fires, laid out a ton of boom, and put a bunch of boats in the water.  We were told (again) that this is BP's fault, and they're going to pay for this mess. We were told (again) that bureaucrats are feverishly looking busy, with a brand new National Commission, a new person to run a federal agency, a separate panel of brainiacs, and some kind of idea storm thing led by the Secretary of the Navy.   And then we got the half-hearted "we need to stop being so dependent on oil" rhetoric that is SO twenty years ago, the "we'll do whatever it takes" thing and the pep-talky, schmaltzy appeal to people of faith wrap-up. Oh, and we learned that the President will actually be meeting the Chairman of BP on Wednesday - nearly two months after this thing happened.

Of course this is BP's mess and of course they'll (eventually, probably) be made to pay.  But what astonishes me is the underlying assumption that the company would ever do anything that wasn't in its immediate best interest.  BP is a company.  Companies exist for one reason - make profits for shareholders. 

There's money in deep water drilling, so they do as much as possible.  Disaster planning costs money, so they do as little as possible.  Taking the time to develop and publish real, site-specific reports for the govement costs money, so they do as little as possible.  Acknowledging the existence of subsurface oil plumes costs money, so they do as little as possible.  Pictures of dead, oil-soaked animals washing up on shore cost money, so they prevent as much of it as possible.   Respirators for cleanup crews cost money, so they buy as few as possible.  Demanding all sorts of paperwork from people who have been wiped out and filed claims saves money, so they do as much of it as possible. Meaningful climate change legislation costs money, so they fight it as much as possible.

None of this is excusable. All of this is predictable.

So rather than another speech that warms over last decade's talking points, rather than sending "we really mean it this time" letters -- LETTERS! -- to BP, rather than more commissions and blue-ribbon panels and asking the Secretary of the Navy to do something other than run the Navy, let's just take some baby steps here.
  1. Until further notice, the world revolves around Thad Allen, the guy running the response efforts. He doesn't have to send letters to get a response.  He gets a cattle prod and he gets to shove it up the ass of anyone who stalls on him.
  2. Rather than re-designing the Department of the Interior or writing some other massive bureaucratic opus, let's just agree it's a good idea to actually read the applications for drilling that are already submitted to it.  If the application mentions animals that don't live within thousands of miles of the area or it has dead people on its "who to call" list, deny the application.
  3. Anyone who prevents journalists from doing their job is immediately sent to Thad Allen for cattle prodding. If the government really is "in charge," that means this is America's cleanup and Americans have a right to know what's really happening.

I'd have more ideas, but frankly I think that's about all the government can handle right now.

14 June 2010

Science PR... Missing the Point

A year or so ago I read a book called Unscientific America by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum.   It was a fairly straightforward call-to-action for the community of scientists and science advocates.  It suggested the burden fell mainly on that community to develop better ways to communicate the importance and relevance of science to people outside that community.  It offered some general suggestions on doing so, such as being less antagonistic toward people of faith and finding more and better ways to blend science and pop culture.   I don't necessarily agree 100 percent with everything in the book, but it got more much more negative criticism than I thought it would.

Chris Mooney has been fairly engaged when it comes to responding to his critics, most recently the editor of a conservative publication called the New Atlantis. To me a lot of the criticism/discussion has been about issues only tangential to the most important point.   Sometimes the criticism focuses on politics - Mooney clearly doesn't shy away from partisan politics.  (BTW, I don't use the word "partisan" as a pejorative.) Sometimes it's a discussion about what's ok to say to religious people.  I recall some of the criticism even had to do with the choices the authors made to serve as examples for the book, such as the debate over the "status" of Pluto.

I boil it down like this.  There's general consensus in the science / science advocacy community that science and scientists are undervalued. There are differences of opinion on who's responsible for fixing that.  But for those who truly believe it's the responsibility of scientists and science advocates to fix it, I think there's still a huge disconnect.

I'm very hesitant to paraphrase or summarize Mooney & Kirshenbaum, because I think most of the criticism of the book really misstates what they intended to convey.  I think they want scientists to become better communicators and better writers for a lay audience.  It seems to me they want to "re-brand" science topics, making them cool or popular.  And then I see criticism from New Atlantis for using PR-like language to describe what they'd do.

Well, I'm in PR.  I've been in PR and politics (which is basically PR on steroids) for almost 20 years now.  Here's what I tell my clients - and it hasn't changed over time.  It's not terribly complicated. 
  1. NEVER LIE.
  2. Learn everything you possibly can about the people you want to influence.
  3. Have a plan for reaching people, and have a plan for when that plan doesn't work.
  4. Don't wait for people to come to you; find them.  Knock on doors.
  5. Don't expect people to suddenly think your information is important. You have to make it relevant to them.
  6. Don't expect people to use your communication tools. If people prefer telephones, don't expect them to respond to your email. 
  7. Get used to hearing "no" a lot.  Be patient.
  8. If you're not enjoying it, you're not doing it right.
I have other lists of pithy feel-good PR advice, which I'll share in later posts.

This community of scientists and their advocates are getting a lot of it right, but they're missing one really important thing.  It's what Bora is calling "push versus pull."  Chris and Sheril are finding really good people who are making themselves available to help.  They don't seem to be finding a lot of people who are willing to knock on doors.  Nobody seems to be thinking about finding the best doors to knock.

Knocking on doors is not easy; it's not convenient.  It's outside the comfort zone of most people.  But it's what must be done to change attitudes here.

11 June 2010

Lit Clouds: Moby Dick




Seemed fitting this week.  The FAIL in the gulf has become so mind-numbingly EPIC on so many levels that I barely have the ability to comment.

09 June 2010

Buying Google Ads Is Not a Crime

I think it's safe to say I haven't been too kind to BP in the past couple of weeks.  But when I saw a bunch of "mainstream" media breathlessly report that the company bought up all the sponsored links on Google searches about the oil spill - like that was some sort of scandal - I had to chuckle.

Buying search ads is one of the first things I'd do if I worked for them.

You can take issue with the way the company has addressed the crisis.  You can take issue with the content of the ad itself. You can at least make an argument that the company doesn't need any more attention and shouldn't ask for it.  But at least on this, the company has something to say in their own voice and has the right to buy an ad.  It's really not any different than buying an ad in a relevant section of a newspaper.

This isn't a transparency issue.  Ads are clearly marked on Google.  And contrary to what Howard Fineman said on MSNBC the other night, the company didn't "buy the algorithm." It's only logical that their site would rise to the top of organic search rankings.

But here's the thing for me:  Nobody is forcing anyone to click on a specific search result. There are no "google police."   We're acting like scrolling down to the bottom of the screen and clicking "next" is some kind of monumental task.  

Just wait - I'm sure someone will sue over this.

08 June 2010

E&I's Gang of Four (minus one): Deepwater Horizon

I had the chance to chat briefly with two of my favorite environmentalist bloggers, Tim Hurst and Jeff McIntire-Strasburg, for another edition of Earth & Industry Radio.  (Maria Surma Manka sent her regrets.)  I wanted to get their reactions to everything we've seen and read about the oil spill.  Jeff grew up in Southern Louisiana so he brings some personal perspective, and I've come to admire Tim's political instincts.   As always the podcasts are available on iTunes or you can listen right from the page.

I also note with interest NOAA's "confirmation" of measurements from the University of South Florida on the existence of subsurface oil plumes. I haven't seen BP's reaction to it yet.  USF and the good people from the University of Georgia have done some incredible work, and I really don't think the government would have been as forthcoming if these researchers hadn't pushed forward on this work AND promoted it through social media channels.   I'm hopeful their aggressive work on issues such as more accurate estimates of the rates of flow will continue - not for any PR purpose but to make sure people have all the information necessary to make the right decisions on addressing the spill.  It also means that people will take scientists like the folks at UNC - Chapel Hill very seriously when it comes to addressing mitigation, remediation, and so on.

The spill is tragic and the response is much less effective than everyone wants.   If it's even possible to say there's a positive here, it's that scientists are doing great work AND they're using social media effectively to get relevant, useful and important information out there.

07 June 2010

And this is why we have scientists (and public information officers)

Sifting through my twitter stream today (constantly in the background while I'm working) I see this nugget from Patric Lane at UNC - Chapel Hill:

Tip: if tmrw’s NOAA tests = positive match w/BP well http://ar.gy/Mt, UNC experts can explain oil plume phenom. http://ar.gy/N1less than a minute ago via Argyle Social




And I immediately thought how important it was that we have university-funded scientists who do this sort of thing. Patric linked to a YouTube video of some experiments performed at UNC-Chapel Hill that suggest how undersea oil plumes can form. Apparently it has something to do with whether the oil gushes out "in the form of a turbulent jet" or if it just seeps out, and variations in the density of water based on temperature and salt content.  Here's the video:



I also note these scientists estimate the oil flow rate at 56,000 barrels per day, considerably higher than BP's and the government's estimates.  The "third party" evaluators of this have been very forceful in asserting their opinions on this. In my experience scientists are actually very cautious bunch when it comes to making estimates like this; it's actually quite rare that scientists make such confident statements unless they're very sure of their work.

Last week I suggested university scientists were the real ones holding people accountable to the facts since BP's CEO flatly denied the existence of these plumes while the government was hesitant to acknowledge anything.  At least one scientist expressed grave concerns his work would be censored.

I can say this - if the University of South Florida comes back and confirms what many scientists expect them to, it's another blow to the credibility of those "officially" measuring the spill, and another reason to support your local university scientist.

04 June 2010

What's that about measuring Twitter followers to determine influence?

Number of people following the official Twitter account of the White House as of June 4, 2010: 1,765,389

Number of people following the official Twitter account of MC Hammer as of June 4, 2010:  1,865,138

Maybe we could suck up some of that oil spill with the pants MC Hammer wore back in the 80's.

02 June 2010

Science, Politics, PR and Social Media

One of the biggest complaints I had about the previous administration was its hostility toward science on everything from climate change to sex education to stem cell research.   Scientific reports were edited and censored to conform to a political agenda.  Scientists were marginalized.  These guys were "creating their own reality," and facts weren't simply inconvenient, they were irrelevant.  There's a book all about it.

So when I see something like this it makes my blood boil.  Scientists are apparently being told by a government agency (in this case, NOAA) that any data from the gulf oil spill they collect while on that agency's boats may only be publicized with that agency's permission.   The debate right now is over the existence of huge subsurface plumes of oil - a group of scientists (including these folks - GO DAWGS) have collected data that suggests the size, location and density of these plumes, while BP's CEO says flatly "there are no plumes."  Right now the head of NOAA is calling the scientists' data "circumstantial."

I'm not a scientist, so let's just assume these oil plumes, if they exist, are probably "bad."  

I really don't have a problem with the NOAA head being careful and hesitant to come to any conclusions on the plumes - the language of science is typically cautious, focusing on limitations and generally leaving open the possibility of error.  (Yet another PR challenge for scientists.)  But I strongly believe that if government wants to regain trust - particularly when it comes to issues of science - they need to err on the side of sharing, not concealing.   Here's why.

Scientists share data.  It's what they do.  They collect data, analyze it, and then publish it.  That's essentially the entire job. Telling a scientist to stop sharing data is like telling a Red Sox fan to stop chanting "Yankees Suck."  Social media has helped scientists share data faster and more effectively than ever before.  Seriously, look at what the folks at Georgia and the University of South Florida and LSU and Southern Mississippi are doing. It's amazing stuff.  Then look more generally at what platforms like the Public Library of Science's PLOS One can do, providing open access to scientific research and then promoting that research.  No matter how hard you try to hide, say, a massive undersea oil plume - these folks are gonna find it and let others know.

Now of course the old political axiom "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up" comes into play.  RULE NUMBER ONE in PR:  NEVER LIE.  Nothing good ever comes of it.  The truth reveals itself one drip at a time, and you just look like the guy who can't plug a massive leak.