Crowdsourcing Diplomacy

Secretary Clinton gave a very important speech today about the role of new technologies in achieving diplomatic and humanitarian goals. Of course, this topic is nothing new to groups like Global Voices Online or Appropriate Infrastructure Development Group. But here's something that IS new:

...today I’m announcing that over the next year, we will work with partners in industry, academia, and nongovernmental organizations to establish a standing effort that will harness the power of connection technologies and apply them to our diplomatic goals. By relying on mobile phones, mapping applications, and other new tools, we can empower citizens and leverage our traditional diplomacy. We can address deficiencies in the current market for innovation.

Let me give you one example. Let’s say I want to create a mobile phone application that would allow people to rate government ministries, including ours, on their responsiveness and efficiency and also to ferret out and report corruption. The hardware required to make this idea work is already in the hands of billions of potential users. And the software involved would be relatively inexpensive to develop and deploy.

If people took advantage of this tool, it would help us target our foreign assistance spending, improve lives, and encourage foreign investment in countries with responsible governments. However, right now, mobile application developers have no financial assistance to pursue that project on their own, and the State Department currently lacks a mechanism to make it happen. But this initiative should help resolve that problem and provide long-term dividends from modest investments in innovation. We’re going to work with experts to find the best structure for this venture, and we’ll need the talent and resources of technology companies and nonprofits in order to get the best results most quickly. So for those of you in the room who have this kind of talent, expertise, please consider yourselves invited to help us.

In the meantime, there are companies, individuals, and institutions working on ideas and applications that could already advance our diplomatic and development objectives. And the State Department will be launching an innovation competition to give this work an immediate boost. We’ll be asking Americans to send us their best ideas for applications and technologies that help break down language barriers, overcome illiteracy, connect people to the services and information they need. Microsoft, for example, has already developed a prototype for a digital doctor that could help provide medical care in isolated rural communities. We want to see more ideas like that. And we’ll work with the winners of the competition and provide grants to help build their ideas to scale.

Now THAT'S an open platform.

Of course, we're already seeing innovation from the ground up to meet a multitude of challenges, like mapping technology from Ushaidi's work in response to the earthquake in Haiti to the work of innovators like Lalitesh Katragadda. But it's amazing and inspiring to see this kind of open call from the most influential diplomat in the world.

I'm looking forward to learning the details of this contest. I'm wondering if they will make all the submissions public - it could become one of the largest (if not the largest) repositories of technology-based innovative solutions to the worlds problems ever built.

I don't think I'm exaggerating at all to suggest that this project could become Secretary Clinton's legacy. The potential here is absolutely enormous.

FIGHT GLOBAL CORRUPTION

We interrupt Copen-fest 2K9 to remind everyone that today is UN Anticorruption Day. Normally I'm not a huge fan of naming "days" after causes but if the organizations involved actually back up words with real action they deserve attention. This is one such effort.

My colleagues and I have been working with the World Bank and the United Nations to reach out to bloggers to talk about efforts to fight corruption worldwide. A couple of days ago we had the first of what I hope will be many online events that will help build relationships among online advocates and UN & World Bank staff to join forces in this effort.

Corruption is one of the major obstacles in fighting global poverty. You can help raise awareness by adding a badge to your website or blog (available in several langauges) - or embedding this video.

SING

and enjoy your weekend.

Protest and Social Media in Iran

While the United States media focuses the bulk of its attention on screaming people at "town hall" meetings (presumably about health care) and the fact that Michael Jackson is STILL dead, I thought it was important to take a look at what real journalism looks like today and at how high the stakes really are for free speech in some places in the world.

Earlier this week, I was very fortunate to speak briefly with Hamid Tehrani, Iran Editor for Global Voices Online. He's been covering Iran's presidential election and its aftermath. In my opinion no one has provided better coverage than GVO, because they are able to curate the primary source material, translate it in many languages, and present it in its proper context. Hamid has written extensively on the protests and the use of social media to facilitate and report on them.

So much of the "social media coverage" of these protests has been about the tools, and they're no doubt important. But I still think this story is still about the people, the messages, the stories, and what's at stake. Hamid made some excellent points about how social classes have come together in protests, something you wouldn't expect to see in Iran. And for all the talk about Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, I loved his point about history. In 1978 the Ayahtolla distributed audio cassettes to spread his message and people climbed to their rooftops to yell "God is great" in protest. Today, they're using social media tools, but the protesters are still going to the rooftops and they're still chanting "God is great."

The audio quality is so-so, I'm still getting the hang of it. But this is well worth a listen - just under 20 minutes. Here's a link to the page on the Internet Archive. It's also embedded here.

Speech Clouds: President Obama Addresses the Muslim World

From the President's speech in Cairo this morning. Thanks again, Wordle.

I wonder how the speech might look had someone else given it.

Great Idea, Madam Secretary

I like Secretary Clinton. I've always liked her. There, I said it.

But you have to admit, this is really cool. Have a great weekend.

AP Has Already Lost

The Associated Press has launched a very aggressive campaign to protect its intellectual property - and its revenue - from other online sources, particularly blogs. The campaign features some angry, if a bit cliche, language from its current Chairman:

We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories. We are mad as hell, and we are not going to take it any more.

AP, Please don't sue me.

Julian Sanchez at Ars Technica posits another point of view on the subject, and John Aravosis at Americablog points out that AP may not be practicing what it preaches.

I had a long diatribe planned about technology and social media and journalism and economics and legal theory. But I'll spare you all that drivel and ask one thing of AP.

I'd like AP to provide some examples of what they think constitutes "fair use" of their content. If they won't, then they just can't be taken seriously.

This is an organization that tried to charge bloggers $12.50 for using as little as FIVE WORDS from an article. And this is an organization who threatened to sue people for using the embed codes AP provided when they posted videos to YouTube.

I realize AP is "non-profit," but when litigation (or the threat of it) is at the core of your business strategy, you've already lost.

Speech Clouds: President Obama Abroad

I just love these things from Wordle - especially when they're used as tools for comparison.

President Obama's prepared remarks at a town hall in Strasbourg:



And in Prague:



And in Ankara:



Each speech had a certain purpose. The Strasbourg remarks seemed to be about repairing the US' relationship with Europe generally and showing the world that the US has changed. The speech in Prague talked about ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Finally, the Ankara speech opened a door to the Muslim world. Rhetorically the clouds bear this out, I think.

The World According To Mom

A while back I discussed an idea with a couple of bloggers - it would be great to demonstrate how "global" many online communities truly are. Find bloggers with common backgrounds or interests all over the world, and ask them to discuss a specific topic.

Of course, reading bloggers from virtually any country is easy today - just go to Global Voices Online and start clicking.

But what if we did it with bloggers in one specific online community, one that transcended borders? And what if that community, from a global perspective, has been marginalized in politics and media to a certain extent - despite its enormous value?

What if we could use social media to help amplify their voices, strengthen their bonds with each other, and teach the rest of the world a thing or two?

So today, together with some impressive bloggers, we're launching "The World According To Mom: Around the World in 80 Clicks."

We're going to try to find 80 mom bloggers in 80 different countries to write a post in response to a meme Catherine "Her Bad Mother" Connors develops.

I can't think of two better people with whom to try this. Catherine has been a force in the blogosphere, especially among moms, for some time now. She's giving some thought to what we'd ask moms in 80 different countries to share with the world, and providing an intellectual and emotional rudder to this project. Amira Al Hussaini is the Regional Editor for the Middle East and Africa at Global Voices - I interviewed her about her amazing project, Voices without Votes, for a Business Lexington column a few months ago. She's graciously offered to help us find bloggers in 80 countries. I'm essentially a worker bee here - part recording secretary, part dot-connector, part publicist.

Catherine was on the faculty at the University of Toronto, so she's accustomed to giving out assignments. She's developed a straightforward, inclusive and powerful meme for online moms across the world: Describe five things you love about being a mom. Amira Al Hussaini and GVO's Managing Editor, Solana Larsen, have already been enormously helpful finding online moms in scores of countries, and they've offered help with translation, an obviously critical aspect of this project.

As this progresses, I'll be posting links to all the moms in all the countries so you can actually go "around the world" in 80 mouse clicks. I'll also tweet with a hashtag - #globalmoms.

I'm hoping we get more than 80 - we'll soon see. If you're interested in participating - whatever country you're in and whatever language you speak -I hope you'll join in by writing your post, linking to friends, and letting us know by commenting at Catherine's post or here, or sending an email.

When we're completed, I'm hoping we'll have an amazing collection of perspectives on motherhood. I'm excited to see what moms across the world have in common, or how opinions differ. I'm also excited to read GVO's take on this, and Catherine's reactions once this is complete.

I realize it's somewhat odd for a man, and a PR flack at that, to help kick this off. But the "mom-o-sphere" has been the focus of much of my work for years now, and I've come to learn a few things. With all due respect to those (actually rather smart) people who consider "mommyblogs" (I don't like this term either, Liz) to be "media properties" or offer "helpful hints" on pitching them, maybe this will remind us all that online moms exist for something other than the convenience of marketing and PR people.

But this isn't about me, and it's much bigger than whatever PR flacks are talking about. . Once it starts, it belongs to all the people who participate in it and it will exist for the reasons they say it does - that's what "social media" is all about.

Seriously, people, it's not a lecture.

How social media covers cerebral beltway speeches

I've been giving some thought to how social media could play a much stronger role in international affairs and global finance. (Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what you were thinking about too.)

Then I learn Ben Bernanke gave a talk on Tuesday morning to the Council on Foreign Relations.

I'm surprised at how small the initial response in the social media world was to the speech. Granted, there wasn't much in terms of groundbreaking news, but this is one of those moments when thoughtful, serious people can and should give global finance issues the airing they deserve.

So what did I find? The mainstream media - yes, that organization I essentially buried for the last two days - led the coverage. But there was one major exception - Dan Drezner live-blogged the event at his new FP blog. He essentially took quotes from the speech and gave a few thoughts on the Q&A session. It's worth a look.

I found it interesting that both CFR and the Fed haven't done more to make this information more accessible via social media channels. CFR only made Bernanke's remarks available as a pdf document and not html. The Federal Reserve's website did publish the text for all to see without downloading. Neither site gave the option of bookmarking or sharing the remarks or asked for comment.

Since I'm addicted to wordle, Here's the "speech cloud" for Bernanke at CFR:



The first bit of analysis I saw - not much more than a quote, but it's the context more than the content here - came from a Wall Street Journal blog post. I also saw quick responses from BBC ("Worst Crisis Since 1930's"), the New York Times and Associated Press ("Bernanke Says Regulatory Overhaul Needed").

I did catch some twitter chatter. It's interesting to see which news outlets are using Twitter (in multiple languages to just push content out like an RSS feed, and who's actually using Twitter to comment:

• Nieuwslijstnl: Bernanke: meer internationale financiële regels (BNR Nieuwsradio) http://www.nieuwslijst.nl/t/13138 10 minutes ago from web · Reply · View Tweet
• VanessaAlvarez1: Bernanke: :We may see a recovery of the economy as early as this year", depends on the banks 10 minutes ago from web · Reply · View Tweet
• RTLZ: RTLZ Nieuws: Bernanke: meer internationale financiële regulering, herstel in 2009?: Regeringen werel.. http://tinyurl.com/bhno7w (expand)
  10 minutes ago from twitterfeed · Reply · View Tweet
• cajunmaverick: Wait, did I hear Bernanke say we need to get rid of mark-to-market accounting? #tcot 11 minutes ago from TweetDeck · Reply · View Tweet
• Indexhirek: Gazdaság: Bernanke: Meglepő, milyen mély a válság: Az amerikai jegybank elnöke szerint akkor érhet vég.. http://tinyurl.com/dmkf57 (expand)
  11 minutes ago from twitterfeed · Reply · View Tweet
• ftuseconomy: Bernanke urges regulatory overhaul http://tinyurl.com/cp3qqm (expand) 12 minutes ago from twitterfeed · Reply · View Tweet

• itzpapalotl: I know it's probably just me, but Federal Reserve chairman Ben S. Bernanke is kinda hot. 17 minutes ago from twhirl · Reply · View Tweet
  
  
• capitalbeat: Bernanke Says More Study on "Mark to Market" Would Be "Useful" http://tinyurl.com/bdgmh3 (expand) 18 minutes ago from twitterfeed · Reply · View Tweet
• syafiza: Bernanke: Reform before rebound: U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke says economic recovery hinges on sta.. http://tinyurl.com/cf3ylu (expand)
  18 minutes ago from twitterfeed · Reply · View Tweet
• thebodybreaks: Worst crisis since 1930s says Fed: US Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke says the world is suffering from the wo.. http://tinyurl.com/cmm4ac (expand)

Let me stress that I do NOT necessarily share the above expressed opinions, especially @itzpapalotl.

The Mom-O-Sphere Goes Corporate and Cultures Clash

I've been watching with interest some of the discussions taking place in the Mom-o-sphere. (hey, it's my job.)

Specifically, I'm interested in a couple of posts from Kristen Chase and Liz Gumbinner - you may have heard of them as the co-founders of Cool Mom Picks. In a very real sense, they represent an important case study in next-gen online entrepreneurship.

In addition to CMP, Kristen and Liz have built strong online platforms (i.e., personal blogs) that have attracted a significant readership - and in doing so, they've gained the attention of marketing and PR firms. No surprise there. Further, beyond the raw numbers of unique visitors and inbound links, the above-average flacks will see the value that Kristen and Liz demonstrate as credible and influential members of an important community. I still remember Liz essentially shutting up an executive from the Conference Board who questioned the validity of social media metrics with a single line - "how do you measure the value of placing a can of Diet Coke in George Clooney's hand?"

(WARNING: I'm gonna get all PR-speak for a second. I'm even gonna use pictures. Don't worry, though - we'll get through this.)

However, I think Kristen and Liz (and dozens of other online moms) are frustrated right now because they thrive in a multi-directional communications environment that depends on transparency and encourages people to participate in multiple community discussions. (You know, SOCIAL media. It's SOCIAL.) The environment they and other online moms have entered - the world where you get paid essentially for what you do and what you write - is still largely transactional and one-way, tends to be more opaque, and emphasizes hitting a very specific demographic and staying there. To me, the old PR/marketing world looks like this:

THE OLD LECTURE



So a company's message gets shaped and filtered through media to an audience, who simply receives it and acts accordingly. Companies and their PR firms simply expect bloggers to serve as one of those intermediate media outlets in the middle. It's much easier for them, because they've done this forever and really aren't interested in doing it differently because that would cost time and money. But then there's...

THE NEW CONVERSATION



Today's reality simply shows that companies are just one player in a larger group discussion. Yes, the traditional media is there and they still wield disproportionate influence on opinion and behavior. But in this world, everybody talks and (hopefully) everybody listens. I could put any number of communities up here and even more arrows, but I hope you get the picture.

(OK, I got that out of my system. It's ridiculous, I know.)

Call it whatever you want - new media rules vs. old media rules, the people who "get it" vs. the people who don't, or even good vs. evil - the bottom line is the two worlds operate on different terms and it's an enormous struggle to find a situation where both companies and bloggers are completely comfortable.

So Liz gets frustrated when she sees other moms who don't necessarily assert their position in the new communications environment, or worse, disclose that they're getting compensated for what they publish. And Kristen gets frustrated when the organizers of a marketing conference choose to introduce her with a "dramatic reading" of one of her sassier posts - positioning her as the "prominent mom" that transactional marketers value - and not with a rundown of her entrepreneurial endeavors or her expertise. That's more than a "personal branding" issue - it's a reflection of conflicting corporate cultures.

And they both get demonstrably upset when PR flacks treat them as they'd treat any other media outlet, only with less attention to detail.

I can say that some of us in the PR/social media world are struggling with the same issues that Kristen and Liz are. As they try to explain the new reality to flacks, we're trying to do the same to some of our clients, and even some of our colleagues.

Moving forward, I see three options:

• the moms (and everyone else) do everything they can to accomodate the institutional flackitude, since PR firms have the money and the stuff they want;
• the PR/marketing world moves to accomodate bloggers and other social media mavens; or
  
• the two groups meet somewhere in the middle.

This is typically where the "meet in the middle" option presents itself as the moderate and essentially preferable model, but I tend to lean toward the flacks accomodating the bloggers. The larger communications environment continues to evolve toward the social media model. Even mainstream media is starting to adopt social media tools, even if they're not yet completely embracing the concept of multi-directional communication - so we should try to get ahead of it . The cost of publishing high-quality multimedia continues to decline, giving more people a voice and the ability to persuade larger groups of people. Finally, I've found that the more you can accomodate people where they are, on their terms, the more success you have. If someone wants to try to accomodate me, that's great - but I can't and shouldn't expect it.

The Purple Tunnel of Doom

Seems it's not always smooth when you try to get together with two million of your closest friends. It's interesting then, that the disgruntled masses have started a Facebook group. Also interesting is the support group.

Welcome to political protest in 2009. Five gets you ten the White House will address this, in some way, through the social media channels that people are using.

The Interview: Amira Al Hussaini

This week's Business Lexington features excerpts from an email interview I got with Amira Al Hussaini, the editor of one of my favorite websites, Voices without Votes. She (along with many of her colleagues at Global Voices Online) represents the kind of global citizen and next-generation journalist the Internet has helped create. To me she also represents a sort of global counterpart to Jacki Schechner, the journalist-turned-activist I interviewed a few months back.

Voices without Votes is, to me, one of the most important collaborative projects on the 'net.

As always, the newspaper column format allows for some of my opinions but doesn't really allow for the whole discussion. So I'll let Amira explain her perspective on this outstanding project in her own words. She was very generous with her time.

Q: First, can you explain to my readers the history and mission of Voices without Votes and perhaps some of the numbers behind it? How many bloggers from how many countries? I've listened to the Open Source podcast that features Christopher Lydon, Ethan Zuckerman and Solana Larsen a few times but I'm wondering if there's anything else we should know.

A: Launched on Super Tuesday, Voices without Votes is a Global Voices Online project, commissioned by Reuters, which is a huge Global Voices Online fan and backer. The idea came to life at a time when interest around the world was picking up about the US elections, and as Global Voices Online focuses on non-US material, we decided it was time to set up a separate project, which will enable us to track and report on what the world is saying about US elections and US foreign policy.

Our mission statement is: "Voices without Votes opens a window on what non-Americans are saying in blogs and citizen media about US foreign policy and the 2008 presidential elections."

It continues: "Americans are the only ones who can elect the United States president, but the 2008 election offers a unique opportunity to harvest global commentary on America's politics and foreign policy and how it affects the rest of the world."

Voices Without Votes highlights conversations in non-American blogs and citizen media, with emphasis on the regions covered by Global Voices: Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, and the Middle East.

The site is really the fruit of cooperation between GVO's volunteers and a few interested bloggers from around the world, who continue to monitor the online conversations in their countries, or the countries they cover, and produce features on what they read. We have volunteers working on the site from practically every corner of the world, from Iraq to Madagascar, and Fiji to Canada, as well as translators who are active in bringing us voices in other languages, such as Farsi, Arabic, French, Hebrew, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese and Japanese, to name a few. As the countdown to the elections continue, we are discovering new blogs and websites to add to our coverage, and more people are joining our team of volunteers.

For more about our team of volunteers, please check this page: http://voiceswithoutvotes.org/authors/

Q: Second, could you give me a little information about you and your professional background? I know you're the Middle East & North Africa Editor for GVO - how did you get involved in GVO and Voices without Votes?

A: I am a Bahraini journalist and the former news editor of the Gulf Daily News (GDN) in Bahrain. I started work as a trainee reporter in the GDN in 1991, while I was at my first year in university. By the time I graduated with a BA English (Honours), I swear I must have clocked more hours in the newsroom than the classroom. My career goal was set by then, I caught the bug and wanted to be a journalist for life. I continued working at the GDN, where I was promoted first to assistant news editor and then to become the first Bahraini news editor of an English language daily, until I left Bahrain to Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, to join my husband who is working towards his PhD, in October 2005. In my career as a journalist, I can claim to have covered every type of story, from business and economics, to human interest and politics. In 1996, I also won the coveted Dag Hammarskjold Scholarship, http://www.unjournalismfellowship.org/node/230, which offered me a three-month fellowship to cover the United Nations in New York. I have since been a frequent visitor to the UN's headquarters, where I covered the General Assembly and Security Council, whenever my travels brought me to the US.

In 2004, I ventured into blogging and embraced online media with the same intensity I fell for mainstream media at a young age. My involvement with GVO started after I came to Canada, as I really needed to maintain my work ethics and continue writing. I consider myself really lucky and have found my match in GVO, as I truly believe in its cause. According to its mission statement:

"Global Voices seeks to aggregate, curate, and amplify the global conversation online - shining light on places and people other media often ignore. We work to develop tools, institutions and relationships that will help all voices, everywhere, to be heard."

At GVO, I am the Middle East and North Africa, Arabic Language Editor and Voices without Votes editor. I am also a Board Member.

Not only am I gaining hands on experience in evolving online citizen journalism, learning skills I wouldn't have grasped had I continued in the newsroom, but I am applying my skills and expertise to help bridge understandings, mend fences, and show that it is a small world - and we are all the same in our hopes, aspirations, fears and dreams for tomorrow.

Q: I'd love to know if you've seen any trends from foreign writers. In the Open Source podcast, Ethan Zuckerman made some interesting general statements (I'm paraphrasing here) like "Jamaicans are upset at how Barack Obama is being treated" and "In Israel they're scared of what an Obama presidency might mean for them." What stands out to you about how people outside the US view this election? Do you feel that one candidate is getting more support than the other? Are there particular attributes being ascribed to one candidate or another?

A: I personally am amused at the way the US elections are closely being monitored by bloggers from all corners of the globe and how passionate people are over its developments, especially that they can't vote. Bloggers are actually commenting on developments as the stories break in the US, with commentary coming out as if in competition with mainstream media - and they are really passionate about it. Remember that those are citizen journalists - and are not paid for what they write. What really stands out though is the Obamamania which has taken the blogosphere by storm - making my job as editor and that of my colleagues a difficult balancing act. While it is easy to find international blogs supporting Obama, I literally have to appeal to my volunteer authors to look closely for and report on McCain stories! All the volunteers working on VwV, understand the nature of the project and are trying to portray all reactions as our goal is to rise above the political divisions, evident in US blogs, and reflect what is being said in a timely manner, without taking sides. Our aim is to bring all voices we have access to under one umbrella - and so far we feel we have had a lot of success, in such a short time - thanks to volunteers who have kept the site updated on a daily basis since its inception and voices we wouldn't have had access to otherwise translated and heard. Also, from my observations, people really are looking up to the US as the beacon of democracy and want to see a change - and a different policy from Washington DC which has succeeded in dividing up the world into those who are with us and those who are against us. People all around the world, like some in the US, are tired of instability, wars, and destruction at this day and age and are really rooting for an administration which will correct what they perceive as the mistakes of the current US administration.

Q: Why is Voices without Votes so important? Why should people in Kentucky pay attention to the opinions of people outside our borders on our internal politics?

A: At this time and juncture in history, I feel that VwV is a witness to history in the making where you can find international reactions to a breaking news story under one roof, offering us an insight to how the world feels, thinks and reacts to the most fascinating race to the White House ever. Why should anyone in Kentucky or the US for that matter care about what the world thinks? My question would be why shouldn't they? The US doesn't exist in a vacuum and as the world's only superpower, decisions taken in Washington DC impact not only the people of Kentucky, but those in South America, the Middle East, Asia and the rest of the world. And why shouldn't we all listen to each other? Why can't we open our ears to what people in the Caribbean, Iraq and the Far East, to name a few, have to say? They are just talking but you will be casting the ballot come November 4. The power is in your hands and the least you can do is listen to what they have to say.

Q: Turning the tables a bit, should people in Kentucky be paying closer attention to elections taking place in, say, Ghana or Morocco? Why or why not?

A: Why shouldn't they? The idea abroad is that the US is insular and cocooned on itself and that is not right or fair - not for a country people travel across the world to study in its institutes of higher education. While almost any student from any Third World country knows the world map and can pinpoint at least which continent any country you throw at him is on it, I can't say that is true of many people in the US - even the officers guarding the country's very own borders. In my travels to the US, I have had officers asking me: "Bahrain? Is that in the Bahamas?" - and Bahrain is only the naval headquarters of their Fifth Fleet. http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/history/index.html

Why should the US be the butt of jokes - when it comes to geography and general information about the rest of the world?

Yes, while I don't expect all Americans to be well versed in every aspect of foreign policy, a little understand and knowledge of the world around us is essential. With access to information being easier than ever, thanks to the Internet, what has anyone of us got to lose?

Q: Has the growth of communications technology, and specifically the growth of the blogosphere, changed the way you think about global politics? If so, how?

A: Of course it has. It is so easy to remain abreast with the latest developments by programming your computer to pull the latest headlines and compile them in a neat basket for you.

We also learn new things everyday, about ourselves and the way we interact with the world and reflect on global politics. The biggest lesson I have personally learned is to listen. Yes, I have my ideas and opinions, but I need to also listen to and understand what others think and feel.

Q: Finally, I'm also very curious about your visit to Kentucky and the Idea Festival. (The 2007 archive for the IF website appears to be down.) What did you speak about? Did you have any time to look around Kentucky or meet anyone from here? Any reactions or thoughts? It's always nice to endear the source to the readers by including a quote that says something nice about the Bluegrass... ;)

A: I was invited to the Idea Festival, in Louisville, Kentucky, last year, where I witnessed the Southern charm and hospitality for the first time in my life. The idea behind the festival itself blew me away - and I was touched by the compassion, understanding and brilliance of everyone involved with IF, starting from organiser Kris Kimel and including all the friendly faces I saw there, whether organisers or panelists or attendees. At IF, I was on two panels - one discussing world peace and the other shedding light on the work we do at Global Voices Online. Being involved in IF was both exciting and enriching to me - both as a journalist and a human being. IF provides a truly stellar line up of speakers and Louisville acts as charming, warm and friendly backdrop to this explosion of ideas. I have made many friends who I am in touch with over the Internet and would have loved to have spent more time exploring the place and interacting more with the people there. Perhaps some other time, when I travel wearing my tourist hat!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/georgiap/sets/72157601997048549/

Here are some of our photos from the Idea Festival, taken by my colleague Georgia Popplewell, who is the Managing Editor of GVO.

More Big Think on South Ossetia

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

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.

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.

Social Media and the Crisis in Zimbabwe

For those of you who only get news from American sources who think "foreign news" is whatever Amy Winehouse is doing right now, Zimbabwe is a country of about 12 million people in Southern Africa. It's known for its rich mineral deposits, beautiful places like Victoria Falls, its high poverty and HIV rates, and its ruthless leader, Robert Mugabe. On March 29 the country held general elections and most impartial observers concluded that the opposition party, led by Morgan Tsvangirai, won a clear majority. The "official" results, released by Mugabe, declared that no party won a majority and a run-off vote would be required on June 27.

Leading up to the run-off, the country has seen a systematic campaign of intimidation and violence, including the arrest of Tsvangirai, who ultimately pulled out of the run-off to prevent further bloodshed. Today the western world has tried to convince other countries in Africa to refuse to recognize the Mugabe government and find a diplomatic solution to transfer power in a way that reflects the will of the people. These efforts have had limited success.

Not surprisingly, the best coverage of the crisis in Zimbabwe has come from inside Zimbabwe. But it's come from bloggers. I'm particuarly impressed with Sokwanele's efforts to map incidents of violence at the blog This is Zimbabwe. You can follow Sokwanele on Twitter for breaking news, and it's amazingly good - when Twitter's working, of course.

Global Voices Online had been following and linking to some of the more noteworthy posts, but that's dropped off a bit. There's been a lot of commentary about Zimbabwe at Open Democracy, and thankfully not all of it is from the Western intellectuals' perspective.

The Interview: Jacki Schechner

I was going to post this before I went on hiatus but the bambino came a little earlier than expected. Still, I'm pleased to post the third installment of my interview series that features discussions with people who have influence in more than one online community and like to discuss policy.

Jacki Schechner is probably best known as an on-air Internet reporter or "blogger chick" for CNN. She spent a good deal of time examining how the media, both online and off, covered political campaigns. She writes her own blog and has an occasional guest post and podcast at Americablog. She recently interviewed Senator Kerry and Speaker Gingrich for the Virtual Energy Forum. She also had some interesting thoughts on the whole AP "fair use" fiasco.

Jacki just started working as communications director for Healthcare for America Now, a new grassroots campaign with an obvious mission, based on the name.

I asked Jacki some questions that focused on the nexus of journalism, online communication, and politics. Enjoy.
Q: How did you develop an interest in journalism?

Growing up, we had a family friend who was a news videographer, and he used to tell these incredible stories about witnessing and documenting history. The more I learned about what he did, the more fascinated I became in the world of journalism. I chose the University of Pennsylvania for college, but since their communications curriculum was more theory than practical application, I studied history and used my time away from school to pursue TV. I spent time in England with an ITV broadcaster who let me tag along to work and shadow his staff. I interned at two television stations - one in Miami and one in Philadelphia - and I contributed what I could to the teeny student-run TV station under the cafeteria at Penn. But none of this was sufficient to get me a gig after graduation so I found a Masters program in my hometown and took the plunge. I've been strangely addicted to the profession ever since.

Q: You're one of the first people who has really made a substantial impact in both mainstream and online journalism. Do you feel these two channels are still mutually exclusive, or do see more integration?

I don't think either form of journalism can survive in a vacuum anymore. Most news/political blogs initially gained traction by linking to, commenting on, and/or supplementing mainstream media work. Interest and financial investment have allowed many of these new independent ventures to grow significantly to the point that they can thrive independent of the traditional outlets. But both sides would be foolish to attempt to ignore the power of integration. For example, TV time and print column space are both limited. Every story has to be edited down in some fashion. The Internet, in contrast, is limitless and offers the chance for mainstream media to offer supplemental content to the work you see on television or in print. On the flip side, online ventures can learn from the world of traditional journalism. When the basics are done right - how to research a story, how to tell a story, how to source a story - they're invaluable.

Q: Many traditional journalists express concern about the new competition they face from blogs and social media sites, essentially saying "bloggers aren't journalists," while many bloggers constantly attack the credibility of traditional journalism. How can consumers of information know who to trust for accurate information and smart commentary?

You absolutely have to be paying attention. No one is going to do that homework for you.

Traditional journalists should be afraid of the competition. The line is blurrier now than it's ever been, and many bloggers are getting very good at working hard to get the scoop and break the story. Mainstream media outlets have the benefit of more resources and better name recognition which can get them quicker access to information. But the key word is can. There's still hard work to be done, and that's where many feel mainstream reporters and producers are dropping the ball.

If you're looking online for information from independent sources - meaning sites not affiliated with traditional news outlets - the best thing to do is start with larger bloggers who have built their reputation and traffic over time. Because there is a great call for transparency in the world of online media, it's not tough to suss out where someone's coming from. Perspective is important, but most bloggers are upfront about their political preferences, so again, if you're paying attention, you'll have an easy time learning the ropes. A healthy dose of skepticism never hurts either. But that goes for both mainstream and new media. No one's got the full picture anymore. You have to be active and piece that together yourself.

Q: More people are learning about "breaking news" such as wildfires in San Diego, Earthquakes in China, or even school shootings from social media channels such as Twitter or even cell phone texting and video. As a professional journalist, how do you compete with the "citizen journalists" who happen to be where news breaks?

You don't compete. You integrate. It's the only way. Offering up an avenue to accept citizen journalism - many networks have them now - is a good start. You still have to hone the process of vetting content before you put it on the air, but making it easy for someone to upload video or email a picture is an important part of the process. Since you are often the liaison between the amateur and the audience, you have to get the story and do it justice. Every little bit of color or emotion helps bring the footage to life. And finally, never forget attribution. Too many mainstream journalists think it's ok to snag content off the Internet without giving credit where due. That's a huge no-no in my book.

Q: Mainstream networks such as CNN and ABC are partnering occasionally with online entities like YouTube and Facebook to cover the presidential election. How would you assess the job they've done so far?

Fair. I think CNN did a pretty good job with the Democratic Youtube debate. I was in-house for that one and found myself captivated by both the questions and the answers. There was an element of newness that sparked interest, and anything that gets people excited about politics again is a good thing in my book. ABC's partnership with Facebook was abysmal. The network reported information culled from the social networking site without context. For example, Ron Paul's Internet-savvy supporters played a huge role in stacking online results in their candidate's favor - as they have often done online throughout this primary season. However, the ABC reporter tasked to "covering" the Facebook poll results made no mention of this important caveat. Mainstream news organizations still have a lot to learn about covering the online world as a real beat. I assure you it's much harder than it looks.
Q: 2008 will be remembered by many as the first "YouTube Election." How do you think social media will change the way we cover campaigns in 2012?

Wow. I don't know, but I'm excited to find out. I'm a little bit of an Internet geek like that.

The Internet Is Not a Democracy

If the blogosphere were an accurate reflection of global society, the world would be full of techno-gadget lovers who lean to the left and like to look at pictures of cats.

Eight of the "top ten" blogs on Technorati - the tool most of us use to gauge popularity or "authority" of blogs - focus essentially on communications technology and equipment. (the other two in that ten are Huffington Post and Icanhazcheezburger.) Despite the fact that all ten of these blogs are either solely focused or strongly focused on the United States, only one of them periodically focuses on the issues Americans think are the "most important problems" facing the country - the economy, gas prices, health care, and so on. And Huffington Post does it from only one ideological point of view.

Further, The most popular stories on the 'net in the past year according to the participants of Digg are about gadgets and technology, with a dash of Ron Paul and Heath Ledger.

Two items I've listened to/looked at recently - Christopher Lydon's truly outstanding Open Source podcast featuring Global Voices Online's Ethan Zuckerman and Solana Larsen, and a ReadWriteWeb story about "super-users" on Digg - reminded me that the Internet and Web2.0 haven't created the true "democratization of communication" we've heard about. In fact, as your perspective grows broader, that goal looks even farther out of reach. To me, this flies in the face of those who suggest "all media is social media." From a truly global perspective, even social media isn't social media.

The truth is the wired world is still a rather small part of the whole world. 1.4 billion people use the Internet. More than 6.6 billion people live on the planet. Yes, 73 percent of North America is wired, but as noted above, the discussions skew toward the geek.

Now consider that a number of noteworthy scholars estimate that half the world lives on less than two dollars per day. If we're going to see the online discussion become truly representative of the global discussion, we have a lot of work to do in global development well before we worry about Digg or Technorati.

Meantime, we should respect the online discussion for what it is - an "opinion elite" discussion. Again, from the global perspective, the participants represent the most educated, most affluent members of society who incorporate technology into almost everything they do. Even in the United States and Canada where Internet penetration is so high, we know the avid users of technology are more educated, affluent and involved than the population as a whole. Further, we've seen information that suggests many online communities are isolated even from each other.

This is why my social media "elevator speech" can sometimes be a single sentence - "I identify online opinion leaders and I help you build relationships with them."