Truth.

So the good people at babble.com have a micro-controversy brewing.  It doesn't come anywhere close to being a crisis, but as the crisis PR guy who knows more than a few of the players involved, I think I have something to add.

First, by way of background: there's this dad blogger on babble (to protect the innocent, we'll call him "Godzilla") who does a great job promoting his blog/business, tends to push the envelope on marketing, and writes a few emotional feel-good pieces that he hopes provide inspiration to his readers.  These pieces get a lot of attention because a) they're well written and b) they're heavily promoted. 

Then there's this other dad blogger (let's call this guy "Megalon") who has had some not-so-great interactions with Godzilla and makes some reasonably credible assertions that at least one of Godzilla's feel-good pieces was a hoax.   Then Godzilla promotes this series he wrote about being rescued from a mountain, Megalon (and some others) think it's over-the-top, and a sliver of the parenting community breaks into full-blown navel-gazing  "what are we as a community" mode.  Godzilla tells this story about how he owned a mattress business or something, Megalon does the self-deprecating "don't drink and blog" thing, people take stuff way too personally, and hilarity ensues.

Liz Gumbinner, as usual, has a great perspective and kinda brings us back to earth a bit.  From my perspective, there are really two things to keep in mind as bloggers "go pro."

First, there's nothing wrong with promoting yourself and your work as creatively and aggressively as you want.  The market will decide when you've gone too far. The purpose of marketing isn't necessarily to make you feel all warm and fuzzy about a person or a topic.  The purpose of marketing is to influence you on a decision or action.   Sometimes the warm and fuzzy approach works.  Sometimes it's more effective to make people uncomfortable.  Sometimes it's even more effective to annoy people into doing something for you just so you'll go away.  In a 20-year career in politics and PR, I've been called a sell-out, a fraud, a communist AND a fascist, a racist, a hypocrite, a sycophant, and a sleazebag.  (And that's just from my friends.) "Professional" blogging is competitive, and the formulas and business models that actually make money compel you to be provocative and annoying - both in content development and promotion. 

Second, and more importantly, there's this: if something you write and promote isn't completely true, you should say so. It's not good enough to say "even if it's not completely true, that's OK if people get value from it. Even if it's "based on a true story." Even if it's a feel-good piece with a politically-correct social message.  If you state that your blog is your business, you are writing something designed to influence people in some way, and you have a financial interest in the impact of your content, you should be held to the same standards as any other business.   And if you're promoting your content in press releases, the default expectation is everything you're promoting is truthful.  Further, I see this responsibility as an individual one.  If I mess up, it reflects poorly on my employer, my partners, my colleagues. I'm responsible, not them.

Parables and fiction can teach wonderful lessons and have meaningful impact if they're well written.  But the more "true" a story is, the more force it carries.  There are so many examples of this it's impossible to count them all.  The most basic example I can think of is the Bible.  People who think the Bible is a literal record in which every word is completely true take the Bible much more seriously than those who think it's a collection of stories that highlight a good guy with some semblance of accuracy.  And those folks take the Bible more seriously than those who see no evidence that anything in the Bible ever really happened as written.

There are many more contemporary examples with a lot at stake.  Liz mentioned the tale of Amina Abdallah Araf al Omani. You can flip the argument by looking at the climate change "debate." There's a reason critics of climate science aren't putting up much of a fight in peer-reviewed academic journals but are investing heavily in popular consumer media.  The story's facts aren't changing.  But their impact changes dramatically if people don't believe the facts. 


I'd love to know other people's opinions on this. 

I strongly oppose my recent behavior: Facebook, Burson, and digital PR

(Before I begin let me say this blog post reflects my own, personal opinions and no one else's.  I'm by no means perfect, personally or professionally.)

The big story in the tech media this week (other than a blogger outage) is Facebook's botched clandestine PR efforts against Google. For those who don't follow all things Facebook so closely here's the skinny from The Daily Beast, which broke the story.  Other people can talk about the business/legal/tech/whatever ramifications.  I have two thoughts.

First, I find it interesting that Burson threw its (now former) client under the bus, never an easy decision.  They acknowledged that they ignored their own "policies" on transparency, but this was the work that was presented to them and "the assignment under these terms should have been declined" - i.e., this was Facebook's idea and the only mistake we made was not realizing it sooner.  Facebook sort of pushes back, suggesting "no 'smear' campaign was authorized or intended," but they go on to say they wanted third parties to speak publicly while sidestepping the assertion that they wanted to hide their own identity in recruiting those third parties.  Burson is a legendary PR firm with a tradition of success - they wouldn't be where they are if they used these tactics all the time.  Facebook's record also speaks for itself. Both companies are acknowledging what they did was wrong, yet both companies are hinting the other company is responsible.  Awkward.

My second observation has to do with the exchange between PR guy and blogger.  Looking at the emails it doesn't seem that the Burson exec has a relationship with the blogger he contacted.   Set aside for the moment the enormous issue of transparency.  Is there ever a situation when an out-of-the-blue request to by-line a ghostwritten op-ed in the Washington Post is an appropriate or effective way to introduce yourself?

Building relationships with bloggers BEFORE your clients need them is not an easy thing to do.  It's time consuming.  It's uncomfortable. It's hard to justify to clients sometimes.  But if the people at either company had real, strong relationships with the bloggers they clearly needed to know ahead of time, they would have been able to deliver the message directly and transparently.   That's why I'm constantly telling my colleagues to always reach out to bloggers, whether you have something to pitch or not.  It's why I advocate for bloggers to the point of annoying colleagues.   It's why I'm still talking about the 3 R's of "blogger relations."

speaking of #scimom...

The Wandering Scientist reads my "reflections" post and says I left out #scimom's who don't work in academia.  It's a valid point. And she's been paying attention to this a lot longer than I have - and not just because she's actually a #scimom.  Back in 2009 she put together perhaps the first #scimom list.

She says academic #scimoms can be more visible in the blogosphere and are more able to write about their work.   And she says being a mom prompts some to take you less seriously at work.   I think perspectives vary a bit on this (the CEO of the company where I work is a proud mom and grandmother), though I understand her point.

I'm curious to know what #scimoms think.  The impression I get is a lot of #scimoms write under a pseudonym whether they're academic or not.  Again just my impression but I get the feeling that anonymity has declined in the mom-o-sphere generally as it's grown more commercialized, but #scimom's still see a significant downside to sharing their names.

I know this topic has been the subject of much discussion at ScienceOnline and elsewhere.  I come from a different online community - public relations and issues management - where transparency is paramount and hiding your identity means hiding your true interests.  So it's hard for me to accept.  But that doesn't make this any less real.   Again, curious to know more about what others think.

Lending Status

A very smart and creative colleague of mine let me know about The Status of Africa yesterday.  The African Medical and Research Foundation has developed a Facebook application where you "lend" your Facebook and Twitter status messages to someone in Africa for five days.    Your account then sends out tweets as if you were that person, and it includes links to relevant AMREF websites.  It strikes me as a creative awareness tool.

I should note that the status messages were actually drafted by AMREF, not necessarily the individuals they identify.  Technically that's probably the best you can do at this point. They disclose this readily, so there isn't a transparency issue in my mind.

It's enormously difficult for non-profits to break through the media noise without massive resources.  Instead groups must rely on creativity and social networking.  I don't know if this application is part of a larger strategy, and I'd like to know what they're doing about garnering traditional media attention.   Still, kudos to AMREF for showing some initiative, overcoming fears, and of course, doing the truly important work of working to improve health and development in Africa.

Question Time: Kicking It Up A Notch

This has also been done before in other countries, but I have to say President Obama deserves credit for this and I hope the White House does it more.



One of the biggest complaints people have about their government these days is that government is too cloistered; not transparent enough and simply not listening to people. This is a step in the right direction - a small step, but a positive one.

Ah, Denmark in December.

Today marks the beginning of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. To be honest, I think the announcement about 3 weeks ago that there won't be a binding deal on carbon emissions was a bit obvious. While that's certainly depressing, at least political leaders aren't setting themselves up for a shock.

I tried to give a preview of the conference over at Earth & Industry. While I'm sure a lot people will come out of this meeting insisting that a lot has been accomplished - after all, they don't want all this time and money to be wasted - my prediction is the real results of the summit will be to just punt the agenda down another year, Of course, we'll have a piece of paper that says everyone promises to take it very seriously next year, but that's it. Because once you filter out all the "fierce urgency of now" rhetoric, once you get past all the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers who still want to question the science here, the whole issue boils down to two words: "You first." But more on that later.

Despite the cynicism, I do think it's important for world leaders to get together to focus everyone's attention on a crucial issue. So here's what you should look at to get the REAL scoop on what happens in Copenhagen this week.

The IPCC home and report: This is the online home of the UN group that writes and revises the analysis on the climate change science. This is the site you visit first to know the facts.

COP 15 home: The conference home page. You can learn who's meeting where and so on.

Reuters Copenhagen page: Reuters did a phenomenal job covering the G20 Summit, I expect them to do the same here.

Crowd-sourced newspaper editorial: OK, not really "crowdsourced" the way techies define it. But the Guardian led a group of 56 newspapers in 45 countries to publish an editorial about the summit and the issue. I don't usually take newspaper editorials very seriously but this constitutes a very high level of collaboration in an industry that isn't really known for playing well with others. That alone makes it worthy of reading.

Communication Tips for Scientists and Reporting Tips for Journalists: UC-Berkeley cranked out a couple of very useful one-pagers for scientists and journalists who may be getting together for the first time thanks to this summit. Sarah Kuck at Worldchanging reproduced both. The lasting legacy of this summit may very well be how people talk about it - so let's hope everyone gets this right.

The #cop15 twitter hashstag rss feed: I'm putting this in my sidebar for now. There doesn't seem to be a consensus yet on a hashtag, some people are using #climate, but that strikes me as more general.

Those hacked emails everyone is talking about: No, they don't disprove the science about climate change. They really don't even throw it into question. But this is a problem - scientists, perhaps reacting to the incredibly politicized environment here, may have attempted to exclude critics from the scientific discussion. That's not cool. This issue is too serious for people to be excluded - scientists have an obligation to explain to the lay public why their critics are wrong and why further delay is dangerous - but they don't have a right to exclude people because of their political leanings or financial motivations. (They can start by using those UC-Berkeley tip sheets.) Here in America we just had an administration where one side of a scientific argument was routinely silenced. We can't give them an excuse to do it again once they come back.

I'll be on the look out for more news coverage of the summit - online and off - and try to give a list as soon as I can. I'm really curious to see what the GVO folks will do, since climate change has really morphed into a foreign policy issue more than anything else, at least in my mind. Meantime I hope this gets people started...

I have an idea for C-SPAN

Someone probably already thought of this idea, probably more than one person, but it seems cool to me anyway and it's easily accomplished, thanks to groups like Open Secrets.

What if, when a member of Congress is speaking on the floor of the Senate or House and it's being broadcast on C-SPAN, a list comes up that gives specific information about who gave that person the most money in campaign contributions? One of the great things about consumers of information in 2009 is thanks to social media tools they've become much more adept at processing multiple bits of information at once. It's not hard to listen to someone speak while perusing a list.

To prevent overkill, I think it's sufficient to include, say, the top ten contributors for the most recent election cycle, even though that doesn't really tell the whole story either. But I've noticed an emerging and frankly exciting trend as of late - people who consume news about politics are becoming much more savvy about how the process works and what really influences members of Congress.

I've included here a rather sloppy artist's rendition of what it might look like for the Senators from my state - forgive me, I'm not what you'd call an expert at photoshop. But when there's a debate on the floor of the Senate (or the House) and you hear a member advocate for a particular point of view or commercial interest, it's nice to know if that person has been taking contributions from a relevant party.

I wouldn't DREAM of accusing any particular member of Congress for being a paid spokesperson for any particular company or industry - mostly because so many of them insist that the thousands upon thousands of dollars they accept have absolutely no influence over their votes whatsoever. (uh-huh.) But I do think this is publicly available information that people deserve to have top-of-mind during any policy debate.

An alternative to this would be to amend the dress codes for the House and Senate floor. Rather than jackets and ties for gentleman and similar appropriate dress for ladies, I might suggest the suits NASCAR drivers wear with the logos of the companies who provide "sponsorships" plastered all over them.

Discuss.

WOMMA Update...

John Moore, who among other things serves as WOMMA's spokesman, was good enough to comment on yesterday's post. Since most people don't read comments, I thought it would be appropriate to devote a post to his comment. Here's what he had to say:

Ethics in word-of-mouth online and offline is something WOMMA deeply cares about. Honesty of relationship, opinion, and identity is paramount to word-of-mouth retaining its credibility. We believe our code of ethics offers a thorough guidance on do’s and don’ts.

However, as Susan points out in her comments to my post, the BLOGGING WITH INTEGRITY code is less about marketing. Agreed. Understood. I've pledged by it.

David, I didn’t mean to come across condescending. Not at all. (That ain’t my style. That ain’t WOMMA’s style.) Your points are well stated.

FYI … WOMMA enforces its code with member companies through a review process. (You can learn more here: http://womma.org/ethics/disciplinary/.) And yes, some companies have been reprimanded.

I'm glad that WOMMA has a review process and has tried to provide some semblance of enforcement through reprimands. And kudos to John for starting his comment with the WOMMA talking point. He clearly saw my post as an opportunity to let everyone know what WOMMA is about, and he took advantage of it. That's his job.

There's a back story going on here, but it's really not mine to tell.

Sustainable Communities

I'm back in the office and I had some ideas for posts that I haven't had a chance to get to but I did want to mention this.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is blogging about the new partnership between DoT and HUD on Sustainable Communities:

After housing costs, transportation takes the biggest bite out of the typical household budget. That's why a partnership between HUD and DOT can be so effective; we have the ability to ease the largest financial burden on many American families. We're talking about 60% of the average working American family's expenses. HUD Secretary Donovan and I can cut these costs by focusing our departments' efforts on creating affordable, sustainable communities.

It's great to see government working in a bipartisan way (LaHood is a Republican) to do something meaningful. This didn't get a ton of press - granted, there are some other newsworthy things going on - but if this is done right it's going to be a big deal.

Now I'm just wishing EPA was in on it. Make those communities sustainable from a financial AND environmental perspective.

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.

President Obama On The "Bloggers vs. Journalists" Question: I DON'T CARE

Last night President Obama held his first press conference as President in prime time. All the usual suspects were present - Helen Thomas was as feisty as ever. ABC, CNN, Reuters, Bloomberg, NBC, all the titans of media were there.

Sitting in the front row was Sam Stein of Huffington Post, who was called on to ask a question. Also present was Joe Sudbay of Americablog.

No, they're not the first bloggers to attend a White House press conference. But I think they're the first ones who attended in such a high-profile way and nobody made a big deal that they were there. By calling on Stein, the Obama Administration sent a very clear message that whether you call bloggers journalists or not, their impact is real and the White House needs to reach their readers.

The press conference also demonstrated that some in the mainstream media might want to look in the mirror before they charge that bloggers are "unprofessional" or can't be taken seriously.

Before you take a look at the transcript here, take a look at these two questions and try to guess which was asked by a blogger and which was asked by the Washington Post:

Today, Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-Vermont] announced that he wants to set up a truth and reconciliation committee to investigate the misdeeds of the Bush administration. He said that, before you turn the page, you have to read the page first.

Do you agree with such a proposal? And are you willing to rule out right here and now any prosecution of Bush administration officials?

OR:

What is your reaction to Alex Rodriguez's admission that he used steroids as a member of the Texas Rangers?

Now, you could argue that both questions are "off topic" at a press conference designed to spotlight the economy and the President's proposed stimulus package. But seriously, A-Rod? You get one chance to ask the President of the United States a question at a time when the economy is in free-fall, the armed forces are engaged with the enemy in two countries and rest of the world is hanging on every word the President utters, and you ask him about a juiced infielder?

So are bloggers journalists? Like President Obama, I don't care. They're important, and that's good enough for me. But if you're looking for opinions from the bloggers themselves, Greg Sargent asked Markos "Daily Kos" Moulitsas about the newfound clout of the blogosphere and the attention bloggers are getting from the White House, and he said simply

We are media, and should be treated as communications outlets.

Notice he said MEDIA and not JOURNALIST. Maybe because he sees the difference, but I suspect it's because he realizes the difference just doesn't matter as much anymore. Yes, you absolutely need to know if you're dealing with a journalist or not when you work in communications, but media is media. I think John "Americablog" Aravosis added more detail to where the bloggers - at least the liberal political bloggers - are coming from:

While we are media, we're more than media. We are activists and advocates too - akin to the ACLU, the unions, the gay lobby, and more. We're not even partisan media, such as the Nation, in my view. We're far more activist-oriented, and, I'd argue, many of us are long-time political operatives as well (though I've also worked as a professional journalist).

All that is to say that bloggers are a bit of a mutt, and should be treated as such (after all, am I a blogger, a liberal activist, a 24-year-Washington-insider, a gay rights leader, a prominent Greek-American, or a journalist?) . If you corner us off with the mainstream media, you'll be missing out on harnessing our advocacy. But if you treat us simply as activists, you miss out on our media megaphone. In the end, the one thing that would hamper Jesse's job, in my view, is to treat him as a techie. Blog outreach long-since graduated from the days when it was the domain of the computer guy. The computer guy is a genius, but he's not a political genius. The blog outreach person in any organization has to have political and media savvy, and good 'ole activist/organizing sense. He has to be multi-disciplinary, and thus needs to straddle several departments, with a leg in media, political, and even tech (I know, 3 legs).

And most importantly, he has to be connected to what's going on in the White House. It's of no use, to us or the WH, having someone work with us who isn't really authorized to speak on behalf, negotiate on behalf, of the administration. We are here to help, when our interests coincide. But we need someone who's truly part of the WH team, and not simply passing us press releases.

To me, this is why you can't just treat "blogger outreach" as if it were just another PR or marketing exercise. Bloggers don't exist for the convenience of flacks and we shouldn't expect them to adhere to a set of rules simply because they're familiar or convenient to us. They have special interests and special needs. Bloggers have their own turf and it's our job to adapt to them, not the other way around.

The YouTube Congress

Say it ain't so, Joe

Seems this Joe the Plumber guy has more attention than he ever wanted.

Welcome to the political blogosphere in 2008. There are times like this, in the heat of a campaign, where the online world pushes the mainstream media into a frenzy. Eight years ago a story like this probably wouldn't have happened.

Ask a few questions to a political candidate and within hours you're trumpeted as the conquering hero of the right - the "Joe Sixpack" the McCain campaign has been yearning to personify - and in a few more hours you're vilified by the left and made the object of any number of attacks - some true, some not.

Absolutely NONE of this would have happened in the pre-social media age. The McCain campaign learned about this guy by reading Drudge. The mainstream media learned the facts that erode his credibility from the blogs on the left.

They say politics ain't beanbag - but before the blogosphere got as big as it has, that just applied to candidates. Now it applies to voters. It will definitely apply to companies. In the future the pace will be even faster, the tone will be even harsher, and the stakes will be even higher.

Second Verse, Same As the First: Politics Is NOT a Lecture

OK, now I'm really steamed. And this really has nothing to do with my political affiliation. Congressman Ed Whitfield apparently believes politics is about "I talk, you listen."

Like most members of Kentucky's congressional delegation, U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Hopkinsville, refused to face his challenger for a live statewide debate arranged by Kentucky Educational Television.

Unlike the other incumbents, who simply didn't show up, Whitfield and his attorneys demanded that KET on Monday air an unedited videotaped statement that he submitted, to run after Democratic challenger Heather Ryan of Paducah took half an hour of questions from journalists.

The crazy thing is KET actually agreed to the demand and gave the Congressman 30 minutes of airtime, while Ryan, who actually showed up for the debate, was subjected to questioning from the media. Not surprisingly, Ryan was a bit miffed:

Ryan said she was shocked to discover just hours before her scheduled appearance that KET would allow the congressman to skip the live debate, but still get televised time to say things she could not respond to.

"This completely changes the dynamics of everything KET and its debates are supposed to be about," Ryan said. "Why would any incumbent ever agree to a debate if all you have to do is skip the questions and the rebuttals and just submit a campaign commercial, which KET will broadcast for free?"

Shockingly, there are serious disagreements about what the law says about "equal time." Start with the premise that candidates benefit when they're put on television for a length of time to answer questions. That's true enough. But each candidate is given the opportunity to appear, and one declined. An interview and a commercial are NOT the same things. One has some semblance of accountability while the other gets to make unchallenged statements.

I wrote about this just last week. Republicans can certainly make an argument that the "mainstream media" is biased. But they are not helping themselves when they abandon the political discussion and force a lecture upon the electorate. This is the reason Republicans are losing in droves this year - the clear message the public hears from this is "I refuse to be held accountable for my positions and decisions."

This is also the reason social media has advanced so much in the current election cycle. Americans are tired of being told what's what and not having the opportunity to shape the debate. Mainstream media remains the primary vehicle for accountability, but it's the people who are using social media channels to have an immediate and dramatic impact on our politics. The further people like Sarah Palin and Ed Whitfield move toward the lecture and away from the discussion, the worse they'll do. They talk about "rejecting the filter of the media and talking directly to the people" but that's all they're doing. They're not listening to the people. They're trying to keep the people from talking back. They're forgetting who they serve.

That's just not gonna work anymore. What does it say about a candidate who won't subject himself to 30 minutes of questioning from Kentucky public television? In my mind, the choice is clear - one candidate is interested in the discussion and one is interested in giving a lecture. Since Heather Ryan is interested in the discussion, I'll give her the last word:

Monday's KET appearance was going to be the only debate this year between Whitfield and Ryan, since Whitfield has skipped all other joint appearances, Ryan said. The network's decision is disappointing and undermines its public-service mission, she said.

"I drove six hours with two kids from Paducah (to the KET studios in Lexington) to answer questions for the people of Kentucky because I thought this was important. Ed Whitfield couldn't make the time?" she asked.

Governor Palin, It's Not a Lecture Anymore.

UPDATE: The New York Times defends itself, says it's been harder on Obama/Biden than McCain/Palin.

So it is spoken, so shall it be done...

I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also...

I like being able to answer these tough questions without the filter, even, of the mainstream media kind of telling viewers what they've just heard. I'd rather be able to just speak to the American people like we just did.

So said Governor Palin at the VP "debate" last week. The Governor raises an important, valid point about the traditional media - but it seems to me she's under the impression that politics and communication is still a lecture, and not a conversation. This sticking point remains a fundamental reason the Republican party continues to lose ground and will suffer heavy losses in November.

Governor Palin and the McCain campaign have taken "running against the media" to a new level. For example, they've gotten to the point now where they don't even try to challenge the facts the New York Times prints - they simply refer to the Times as "150% in the tank" or a "pro-Obama advocacy organization." But do they have a point? Yes and no.

The Times (and any other media outlet, for that matter) has any number of stories it can choose to print; it chooses to print items on page one that paint Senator McCain in an unfavorable light. While the Times has published items that are critical of Senator Obama, it seems we haven't seen that as much lately. Of course, bias is not the sole province of the Times. Fox News has become the Attack Obama network - and I'm not even including the opinion shows like O'Reilly or Hannity-Colmes. (I put pundits in a different category - they're paid to bloviate.)

The "mainstream" media is and always has been biased. But the bias is not one of ideology. The media has a distinct NEGATIVE bias. It highlights conflict. It reports on problems. It speculates on future problems. It searches out problems, and then to sell papers (or get viewers), it tries to convince you that the problems it finds are really important, even if they're not.

I recall in the not-too-distant past the mainstream media was absolutely obsessed with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, holdovers from the Black Panther Party, whether rural people were "bitter" and the sheer horror of not wearing a flag pin. (I'm pretty sure the McCain campaign wasn't complaining about this - in fact, I expect to see commercials that revisit all of this in the very near future.)

The more important point, however, is how the McCain campaign has chosen to deal with this bias - they're putting Governor Palin in situations where only she gets to talk. No Sunday talk shows. No press conferences. No interviews with Katie Couric. Unless you're a stenographer (or Fox News), no access to the candidate whatsoever. You can't do that anymore and expect to get away with it.

While I absolutely LOVE Senator Thompson's comment to CNN's Wolf Blitzer on this:

Well, Wolf, I hate to break this to you, but you don't get national security experience by being on Sunday talk shows, and that's where a lot of these fellows get theirs.

It misses the point. At the debate, Governor Palin wasn't interested in answering questions. She was interested in reciting pre-approved talking points, and her job was to get in as many of those points as possible - regardless of the situation. She's resigned to the notion that in media interviews "you get clobbered no matter what you say," so she's going to ignore the media and "speak to the American people."

How exactly does she plan to do that? Will she actually talk with voters, or are we simply bracing ourselves for 30-second TV spots?

And more importantly, what if the American people have a question? Is it ok to ask for something a tad more specific than "I'm on a team of mavericks?" Do we submit questions in writing? Do we yell them out at a campaign speech? Do we write them on the back of the check to the RNC and hope you get back to us? For some reason I think we're not going to see Governor Palin do what Prime Minister Thatcher did - thanks to Andrew Sullivan for reminding us "what real accountability looks like."

Americans have not yet seen Govenor Palin's capacity for critical thought - and frankly, thanks to the devastating interview with Katie Couric, many Americans don't think she has any. This decision to quarantine Governor Palin, made by the McCain campaign, prevents people from ever knowing anything else. And it forces people to conclude that a vote for McCain is too risky because a Vice-President-suddenly-turned-President Palin wouldn't address the crisis before her - she'd want to talk about something else.

The fact remains - especially with the Republicans - the mainstream media still asks questions for the people. Republicans don't use the blogosphere the way Democrats do - GOP blogs aren't really a "shadow media" that demands accountability from both politicians and pundits. The conservative blogosphere is set up like an echo chamber for the GOP, sort of the online version of talk radio. In fact, one of the right-o-sphere's biggest bloggers is a radio talk show host.

In this regard the Republicans only have themselves to blame - they've confused "message discipline" with "message control." They haven't fostered the arrival of new conservative voices, they haven't asked for new ideas or support. They continue to rely on 20th Century tools like talk radio and direct mail, and when it comes to campaigning, they equate a diversity of opinion with weakness.

Compare this to what liberal blogs said about Senator Obama's position on FISA. Obama remains accountable for his decision, and he chose to keep the multiple lines of communication open. Message: "I'm transparent and accountable to you." Now the liberal blogosphere feels invested in the Obama campaign, and has transformed itself into the largest virtual ATM ever invented - capable of out-raising even the stunningly efficient Republican National Committee.

The Obama campaign is winning because it provides access to both mainstream media and the public. While it has a messaging platform, it gets significant input from the people in the grassroots social networks it has helped set up, and it reacts to information there. It's how the Obama campaign remains accountable to the people who support it and everyone else. The Republicans don't have that.

Governor Palin and the leadership of the McCain campaign seem committed to an "I talk, you listen" lecture style of campaigning. They see anything that disrupts that form of communication as a problem. That's SO ten years ago.

I'm not a conservative, but I know, like, and work with many. Conservatives have interesting and insightful ideas that they're more than willing to debate, discuss, and defend. I suspect Governor Palin is one of those people.

Too bad we'll never know.

It's Just Another Manic Monday

Following up from last week's Manic Monday post, I'm really struck how well journalists, academics, and even activists are leveraging social media tools to provide consumers with a wealth of information to understand just how the credit crisis started and how we might dig ourselves out of it. I wish I had these resources when I was working on financial services issues for the Senator.

I found it very interesting that a group of conservative political activists has turned to YouTube to lay the blame for the current crisis at the feet of the Community Reinvestment Act, and that video has been viewed more than 700,000 times. (Sorry guys, but as Chairman Frank explains, your argument is flawed.)

Via Open Culture, I've found two excellent podcasts from NPR's Fresh Air - one with Michael Greenberger (A University of Maryland Law Professor and former official at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission), the other with the New York Times' Gretchen Morgenson. The interview with Greenberger is the best description I've heard yet about the $62 trillion worth of exposure finanical companies and investors have taken on in the form of unregulated credit default swaps since the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Morgenson talks about the prospects of a web of conflicts of interest as the pending bailout package is implemented. Terry Gross has done an admirable job finding people who can translate finance to English.

Twitter has been a decent source of information. Paul Kedrosky has been pushing out insightful commentary and links. I like his twitter feed even more than his blog. I first got a link to the 110-page discussion draft currently working its way through Congress from someone calling herself Miss Trade.

I'd be remiss if I didn't link to some of the better "bubble blogs" out there that have been warning people about this crisis for years now - Calculated Risk, Bubble Meter, and Professor Pigginton's Econo-Almanac for the Landed Poor are three of my favorites.

(and you guys thought I'd be writing about the debates. The pundits were wrong, the people were right. So there.)

Seems Journalists Like Blogs Just Fine

Beltway and national journalists covering the presidential campaigns have had a lot to say lately about the access to the candidates afforded them by campaign staff. With a few notable exceptions, those journalists have voiced their opinions about access (and other issues) on blogs (such as here, here and here) and not in mainstream articles, op-eds or broadcast spots. The journalists are also watching full-time bloggers amplify their voices by running with the "access" story.

I note that this comes about the same time reputable traditional news organizations like McClatchy are cutting even more staff. It's just the latest example of how the media is moving away from print and to online, and how journalists are getting more social in their communication.

They're still not doing the back-and-forth of real conversation in reporting, and they seem stuck on the lecture format, but I think we're inching closer to "acceptance" in the corporate media's five stages of grief.

SEC 2.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's In Your Profile?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can Bloggers REALLY Affect Health Policy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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