Why we should go to SXSW 2012

A couple of weeks back I was invited to participate on a proposed panel for SXSW Interactive.  For those of you who don't know about this annual, Austin-based conference, here's the quick description:

Featuring five days of compelling presentations from the brightest minds in emerging media and scores of exciting networking events hosted by industry leaders, SXSW Interactive offers an unbeatable line up of special programs showcasing the best new websites, digital projects, wireless applications, video games and startup ideas the community has to offer. From hands-on training to big-picture analysis, SXSW Interactive has become the place to preview what is unfolding in the world of creative technology.

It's basically the biggest techie conference that shows off all the "new cool stuff" and what it does and discusses the "next cool stuff" and what it may do.

Heather Barmore of No Pasa Nada and Joanne Bamberger of PunditMom are the ones who asked me to join their panel.  The title: "We Are the Ones You Want: Women Online and Politics."

If you're wondering why a women & politics panel would be proposed at a techie conference, you're probably not alone. It's not as if there are technology tools specific to women who are active in politics. This submission has a lot to do with SXSW's past, the role that women have played in technology and design, and the parallels we see in other fields. Whether it's gender politics or office politics or industry politics or just plain politics, it's all politics. It's all about power and influence and money. It's about how those in power try to rig the rules to stay in power. These concepts are all too familiar to the tech industry, and they're all too familiar to women in politics.  It's uncanny how closely the two stories align.

Emma Persky wrote a provocative report called "Changing the Ratio at SXSW" that is well worth a read.  The takeaways, at least for me: the number of women who attend the conference and the number of proposed panels that have some focus on women specifically have increased dramatically, but the proportion of women speakers has remained relatively constant - roughly 3 men for every woman.  The panels that do focus on women seem to be focused more on marketing and branding than panels generally.   Does everything have to be 50-50?  Of course not.  But these numbers certainly suggest that so far, women aren't getting the spotlight at SXSW, and it's not from lack of trying.

I obviously realize this is a tech conference, not a gender equity conference.  And I'm not accusing the organizers of SXSW are "the man" trying to keep women down.  But let's not have any illusions about how male-dominated the tech industry is, and what that means for the industry.  Let's not deny that most "professional" discussions about women and social media focus on convincing women to give us their money  And let's not deny that SXSW has become a focal point for the industry. Remember - SXSW Interactive claims to focus on creativity as much as technology - and diverse perspectives enhance creativity.

The tech industry can learn from the experiences women face when they're trying to break into politics.  The lessons learned aren't unique to one community.  The fact that Joanne and Heather are active advocates  and leaders in social media provides more than enough relevance to this community. I'm not saying our panel should be selected because SXSW hasn't met some kind of quota.  I'm saying it should be selected because the lessons learned in one field apply well to another, and that merits a thoughtful discussion.

Convergence through gaming

A while back I wrote a post about media convergence and a study from Latitude.  They've just published another report on gaming (link is to a pdf) and how it's driving new online technology.  From the release:

The study found that the stereotype of the reclusive gamer is outdated; this emerging demographic is social, heavily engaged with the “offline” world, and extremely goal-oriented – with a strong drive to improve themselves and the world around them. The new gamers are not constrained to any single platform, and have many different motivations for gaming in addition to just having fun. Moreover, they expect that online games will continue to move out of the traditional screen environment, blending seamlessly with the “offline” world in new and engaging ways that go beyond just “checking in” with apps like Foursquare and SCVNGR.

This isn't shocking news in itself, but it's interesting to see how game developers are thinking about applications for the technology beyond games.  That's clearly where I want to go too.  Latitude produced a video that's a bit long, but worth watching:


The Future of Gaming: a Portrait of the New Gamers from latddotcom on Vimeo.

The "money" quote to me: "Who wouldn't want to paint the Prudential Building pink and put an elephant on top of it?"  Well, I'm not sure I'd be into that.

But I would geotag a power plant and add current air quality data and send it to EPA.  I'd also geotag a river or stream down from a coal mine and add water quality data.  Or potholes or graffiti with date stamps to see how responsive the local DPW is.  Or a Congressman's office with a voting record on the issues I care about or the campaign contributor data. (or I'd tag the Congressman himself with image recognition technology.)

Governments are starting to figure out there are channels beyond the traditional ones, and it involves bringing the physical and the virtual together with large groups of people.  A science blogger I know found a story about NASA using online fundraiser Kickstarter to help fund their "official" massively-multiplayer online game.  This voluntary funding method might become a model for programs that conceivably have a public benefit but is hard to justify significant taxpayer investment.   Of course "Astronaut: Moon, Mars and Beyond" probably isn't something that will merge the physical and the virtual all that much, but NASA has plenty of Earth-based research and legions of fans.  Games will be the laboratories to work out the technology, and help the rest of us develop strategic applications beyond "World of Warcraft."

I hope the merger of physical and virtual will break down barriers of homophily and bridge communities.  I noted to the folks at Latitude that everyone in the video above were white Americans, and asked if there were other more global examples. To their credit, they were aware of the observation and they've been thinking along those lines as well, pointing to some ideas from the World Bank and a game called Virtual Street Corners.  

While there's a long way to go, we've made amazing progress and I'm looking forward to more from the braintastic crowd at Latitude.

Evolutionary Diplomacy

So it seems Texas Governor Richard Perry, a front-runner for the GOP nomination for President, isn't a big fan of the "theory" of evolution:

"Here your mom was asking about evolution, and you know it's a theory that's out there, and it's got some gaps in it. In Texas we teach both creationsim and evolution in our public schools," Perry said. "Because I figure you're smart enough to figure out which one is right."

Of course, this happens in the electoral silly season - an ongoing narrative that includes promises to cut the price of gasoline in half, assertions that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is borderline treasonous, claims that corporations are people, and so on.   It's a big part of the reason most Americans don't pay attention to elections until after Labor Day.

It seems that noted evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is taking this rather seriously, however.  But he defends evolution ("Darwin's idea is arguably the most powerful ever to occur to a human mind") only after after a four-paragraph-long rebuke of not simply Governor Perry but also Republican voters:

There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.

I realize Dr. Dawkins is a brilliant man, and of course evolution is sound science that should be taught in our schools without religious overtones.  But I fail to see how insulting the membership of a political party does anything other than further entrench both sides in an unnecessarily polarized political argument. If Republicans are as stridently anti-intellectual as Dr. Dawkins claims, he must realize they wear his scorn as a badge of honor.  All he's done is shown his critics how to annoy him. And so the drumbeat continues.

"You're godless."
"You're an idiot."
"You're godless."
"You're an idiot."

Meanwhile, nobody steps forward to provide a positive, assertive and accessible message to explain WHY evolution must be taught in schools - at least not in a way that can resist hurling insults (and convincing the persuadable moderate to leave) beforehand.

I do, however, think that is about to change.  More soon...

Protecting yourself vs. owning your words

Much has been said recently about the Google+ "purge" of accounts that don't include real names and the similar Facebook policy and statements to that effect. As a PR guy and political wonk, I may have a slightly different take than many on this issue - while I certainly see the value and importance of protecting one's privacy, I think we must consider the (perhaps unintended) consequences of trumpeting the freedom of anonymity.  Specifically we have to be careful about insisting on transparency from some while preserving anonymity for others - particularly when the identity in question has the goal of influencing the behavior of others.

First, the case against the "real names" policy.  Alexis Madrigal at The Atlantic says bluntly,

The kind of naming policy that Facebook and Google Plus have is actually a radical departure from the way identity and speech interact in the real world.

You should read the whole thing.  The most compelling defense of anonymity or pseudonymity on the web that I found came from Danah Boyd:

The people who most heavily rely on pseudonyms in online spaces are those who are most marginalized by systems of power. “Real names” policies aren’t empowering; they’re an authoritarian assertion of power over vulnerable people. These ideas and issues aren’t new (and I’ve even talked about this before), but what is new is that marginalized people are banding together and speaking out loudly. And thank goodness.

Emphasis hers, and also worth a read.  So there are certainly times when masking one's identity provides a certain amount of comfort, or security, or freedom.  Mandating your identity strikes many as akin to "papers, please."

But what if the person who wants to be anonymous is actually someone working for Facebook, trying to pitch a story that criticizes Google?  Or the CEO of Whole Foods posing as someone else on the Yahoo Finance message boards to criticize a competitor (and hopefully talk down its stock price) before trying to buy it?  Or some random white American guy living in Scotland, pretending to be a lesbian blogger in Syria who gets arrested after protesting the government?  It seems to me that in these instances anonymity is, in Boyd's words, an assertion of power over vulnerable people.

Again, I'm not so comfortable with "transparency for you, anonymity for me." Because while the examples above are reasonably obvious, it's not always clear who has power and who doesn't.  I really ruffled the feathers of some anonymity advocates when I saw some bashing Darlene Cavalier's attempts to bring science mainstream:

I understand completely why some people feel the need to remain anonymous as bloggers. Sharing thoughts publicly involves some risk, and sometimes the only way you can safely get information "out there" is anonymously. This isn't unique to the science blogosphere - it happens a lot with people who write about finance. Further, some people just don't want the over-the-top abuse Darlene or people like Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney take when they put their names to their words. I'm cool with that.

But let's get real here. Sometimes - definitely not always but sometimes - some of this anonymous posting is really about avoiding accountability. It's about sidestepping the awkward moment when you meet the person you called an "ignorant fuckwit" last month. And sometimes maybe it's writing something that benefits you personally or professionally without having to disclose that teensy little conflict of interest. Maybe some people find anonymous bloggers to be completely credible. For me, there will always be that kernel of doubt.

I felt somewhat vindicated a month later when journalist Steve Silberman said in a ScienceOnline 2011 panel discussion "you can't call bullshit if you're anonymous." He clearly meant it as a journalist, but I think he also believes "unnamed sources" often deserve a stricter level of scrutiny.

Are Google and Facebook imposing "real name" policies because they suit their commercial interests?  Of course they are. Can anonymity protect the abused from the abuser?  Of course it can, and people have a right to publish under a pseudonym.  I'm not suggesting you be required to give your real name to anyone.  Let's just remember that a certain amount of credibility comes with full disclosure and sometimes it's very, very important to know the names behind the words.

Just another issue for women in politics

Flake

So Newsweek decides to publish the latest in the "cheap-shot unflattering pictures of political women" saga. And the media now plasters it all over the place because this is somehow a story now, and the Newsweek Daily Beast team gets free advertising for lowering our political discourse just a bit more. And this, of course, sparks another silly partisan sideshow that no one really cares about.  Fox News asks aloud "what does Newsweek have against conservative women?" - you know, because that network would never do anything sexist or insulting to Congresswoman Bachmann or publish any less-than-ideal pictures of a political woman. And sadly, we all miss the point. Again.

Weak

Because this is nothing new.  If a political woman dares to raise her voice, she can expect stories that cite anonymous snipers whining about her "abrasive personal style," which is the worst euphemism for "bitch" I've ever seen.  Put Secretary Clinton in the situation room during the attack on Osama bin Laden's compound and suddenly a picture that includes her hand over her mouth becomes a national story. I put my hand over my mouth all the time.  I look at that picture and I still don't get it.  But whatever I'm missing is apparently such a big deal that  one newspaper in Israel actually photoshopped her out of the picture altogether.  You know, because a woman shouldn't be in that room or something.  The paper apologized after the fact but shouldn't it make you wonder why someone felt the need to edit the picture in the first place? 

Ditsy

Pictures show up all the time that take cheap shots at women who dare to lead.  The editors and others who publish them usually won't have the guts to say what they really want to say - something like "Sarah Palin is ditsy"  - but they'll print the one picture in the roll of 50 that shows her eyes a bit wider than normal or in the middle of a gesture that takes a fraction of a second. They won't say "Nancy Pelosi is a lunatic," but we all see the pictures with the wide eyes suddenly appear in news publications.  

And that's just the mainstream publications.  Just do an image search on google for any leading political woman and you almost immediately see the wonders of photoshop.  Heads on the bodies of porn stars.  Faces planted on the backside of a horse. I've even seen an editorial cartoon of Secretary Rice pregnant with a monkey.  The original cartoon came from a Palestinian paper - and then it was quickly republished online by several American news sites.

Of course, what happens if the woman dares to complain?  She can't take the heat.  She doesn't belong in politics. She's easily distracted.  But nobody really thinks much about what happens when that woman's children see the pictures.  Some might even blame the woman - "you had to be prepared for that."

Scary

Do we see unflattering pictures of political men?  Sure.  Newsweek just took a cheap shot at Mitt Romney too.  Bloggers have posted photoshopped pics of Presidents and Prime Ministers.  But be honest- they don't get the reaction that pictures of women do, and I'm fairly certain the frequency for women is disproportionately large.  

And pictures are just one aspect of the larger cultural problem. I remember when John McCain told a joke at a Republican fundraiser - to great laughs -  "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?  Because her father is Janet Reno." Some papers censored the joke, but others, like the Arizona Republic, didn't.  McCain apologized (after his press secretary initially denied he ever told the joke), but again - what makes anyone think  it's even remotely ok to say things like this?  Why weren't there huge consequences to this?

Angry

A couple of weeks ago I recorded a discussion with Joanne Bamberger - the blogger known as PunditMom and the author of the new book Mothers of Intention: How Women and Social Media Are Revolutionizing Politics in America.  We talked a bit about this phenomenon and I asked her how she thought women should respond to cheap shots like Congresswoman Bachmann being asked point blank, "Are you a flake?"  The conversation should be available on her blog in the near future, and I think she lays out the issues really well and gives some thoughts on how things might change.  I hope she posts the interview soon.

There's one approach to addressing this issue that I'd like feedback from women.  I remember a while back a running bit on Saturday Night Live called "Janet Reno Dance Party," where the Attorney General was played by Will Ferrell in drag. It ran a few times, and at the end of the Clinton Administration, it had a "final episode" that actually featured Janet Reno. She was essentially saying "I'm in on the joke," but the joke is really "Janet Reno is an ugly man."

Is this how women should handle this?  What do you think?

To me, the response to things like this should be to celebrate female role models.  I've done this a few times on this blog before - I think it might be time for another installment.

Earth and Industry: the Gang of Four reunion tour

After a very quick trip to San Diego I'm looking at a rather busy week but I'm glad I got the chance to sneak in a 15-minute chat with some old pals - Tim Hurst, Maria Surma Manka and Jeff McIntire-Strasburg - just before I left. We're the "Gang of Four" for Earth and Industry Radio.

We discussed the implications the new debt ceiling deal have on environmental policy - I hope you tune in and comment.

Clever girl, that Stefania.

I'm heading to San Diego this week.  The annual BlogHer conference is kicking off, but rather than attending the panel discussions etc I'll be at the I'm With the Brand party hosted by Clever Girls Collective. Fresh & Easy (a client) is a sponsor.  I'm stepping up my involvement with this client, and I'm very happy about that.

But there's another reason why I'm excited to travel 3000 miles for a 3-hour party.  I'm really looking forward to witnessing the success of Clever Girls Collective - and specifically one of its founders, Stefania Pomponi Butler - first-hand.

I'm very fortunate to be able to point to specific moments in my social media career where I built relationships with entrepreneurial bloggers, or learned an important lesson from the community of online moms.  The first touchpoint, I'll readily acknowledge, was dumb luck - I was tasked with connecting bloggers to a new radio network that featured Gloria Steinem on its Board of Directors, and I thought it might be a good idea for Ms. Steinem to actually talk with some of those bloggers.  But the year was 2006.  Bloggers (and especially mom-bloggers) were still regarded by mainstream media as insignificant and DEFINITELY NOT journalists. Marketers were only beginning to realize the potential of the mom-o-sphere.  The idea of someone with the fame and gravitas of Gloria Steinem talking with a dozen "regular people" was questionable at best.  It took a lot of convincing.  I had to write memos titled, "What is a blog?" because nobody really knew what I was doing. (Neither did I.)  But of course, Gloria Steinem isn't afraid of anyone, and she agreed to do it without a fuss.

So Ms. Steinem talked with regular people like  Liz Gumbinner.  And Kristen Chase. And Catherine Connors. And Leah Peterson.  And a bunch of other women.  And they loved it.  And then some bloggers met Ms. Steinem at the network's launch party.  And they loved that too.  The radio network wound up folding, but I became "the guy who did the Gloria Steinem thing" and rode that wave into the "State of the Mom-o-Sphere" panel at BlogHer 2007 in Chicago, and I really thought I was this amazing PR hot-shot and everyone would love me.

Yeah, not so much.

By July 2007, a lot of bloggers were getting slammed with emails from PR and marketing flacks basically asking them to write about how awesome their products were. It didn't matter what the product was, or if the mom actually wrote about anything relevant to the product.  And the moms were sick of it.  And they let me know it. Loudly.  So even though I never really spammed anyone like that, I felt compelled to apologize on behalf of the industry and wrote a manifesto of sorts  and I became "the PR guy who gets it."

But another very important thing happened at that panel discussion, and it was an idea led by Kelly Wickham and by Stefania. They noticed the moms getting all these pitches from PR flacks happened to be white, and that blogs written by people of color were being ignored - even though they had comparable levels of popularity - and they wanted to know why.  So I tried to give an explanation - it's basically because, when it comes to diversity, often the PR industry just plain sucks.  And I became "the PR guy who gets it" all over again.

Of course that answer didn't settle the matter for Stefania or Kelly, nor should it.  They've led several panel discussions at subsequent BlogHer conferences and beyond on the issue of diversity in the blogosphere.  And Stefania and her partners founded Clever Girls Collective. They started out by showing brands that they could reach out to online moms - and particularly moms of color - much more effectively than big PR firms.  They've grown dramatically over the past couple of years because they take their job very seriously, they always work with integrity, and they deliver results.

I've learned a lot by watching and talking with Stefania and these other dynamic women.  I've learned that you can achieve much greater success by engaging bloggers not as ersatz journalists or outreach targets, but as entrepreneurs or partners.  I've learned how important a mom blogger's integrity and fidelity to the greater community of online moms is, and you should support that community without necessarily asking for anything in return.  I've learned that in this community, bloggers support each other relentlessly and find true friendship and build amazingly strong bonds over great distances.

I've learned this and more and I'm very, very grateful.

The mysterious story of Scienceblogs and Freethoughtblogs

PZ without his makeup?

So I read the news, and pardon the pun, but at first I thought PZ Myers just read Scienceblogs.com its last rites:

A new blog network is hitting the web on August 1. Led by two of the most prominent and widely read secular-minded blogs in the country - PZ Myers' Pharyngula and Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars - Freethoughtblogs.com will, we hope, quickly become and important gathering place for atheists, humanists, skeptics and freethinkers in the blogosphere.

Freethoughtblogs will be more than just a place for people to read the opinions of their favorite bloggers. It will be a community of like-minded people exchanging ideas and joining forces to advocate for a more secular and rational world.

That's right - Scienceblogs.com's (now owned by National Geographic) most popular blogger - and the guy responsible for maybe half of its web traffic - is taking his "hottest" content to another site, and he's taking another Scibling with him. Perhaps adding insult to injury, Dr. Myers even used his perch at Scienceblogs as a tool to acquire technical support for Scienceblog's newest competitor after the new site crashed:

...What you can do to help is give us concrete recommendations for a better situation, either a Virtual Private Server or a dedicated host. Leave info, links, phone numbers, whatever in the comments, or email me so we can work out a deal fast...

So I'm thinking there isn't a non-compete clause in his contract. But here's what really made me say hmmm - an entry from Myers on Google+:

I will still be maintaining my relationship with Scienceblogs and National Geographic, but only select content will appear there: that is, science, anti-creationism, that sort of thing...the openly anti-religious material will be on FtB only. So if you're a Christian, you'll now be able to read Sb Pharyngula without crying (but don't fool yourself, I'll still be despising your foolish belief system); if you're a teacher, you'll be able to tell your students to read Sb Pharyngula without fearing the wrath of the PTA.

I'm sorry, I can't understand why National Geographic, the new owners of Scienceblogs.com, didn't just ask for a clean break.  It's clear they want to control content to fit their squeaky-clean brand, and it's clear Myers makes them very nervous.  But if you worry about these things, Myers is simply "radioactive."  This isn't the same thing as an actor who appears in movies rated "R" and then shows up in a Disney flick - You simply can't separate PZ Myers' content from his personal brand.

It creates issues for Myers too - it raises the perception that he agreed to be censored for a buck.  He's announced he's only going to put "science" content on SB - can he link to his other blog? Can he mention it? Will content that was previously published on SB that no longer meets NatGeo's brand standards be removed?

SEED Media's sad history of unresponsiveness to its bloggers' concerns, its hesitancy and dumbfounding silence in the aftermath of Pepsigate, and the slow pace of public transition to National Geographic has really set this network back.  SB still has a handful of good writers - Greg Laden, the ever-angry Orac, Isis, Mike the Mad Biologist, Sharon Astyk, to name a few - but now the network can't sell web traffic to advertisers, and that creates a new set of problems.