ConvoTrack

§ Subscribe

RSS logo
Alternatives


Enter your email address to receive blog updates by email:

Delivered by FeedBurner

§ Podcast

  • For Immediate Release
    A weekly podcast for professional communicators from Shel Holtz, ABC and Neville Hobson, ABC.
    Podcast Feed
    Vote for FIR

§ PR Search

§ Places


§ Dead Trees

  • Tactical Transparency

    by Shel Holtz and John C. Havens

    cover

  • How to Do Everything with Podcasting

    by Shel Holtz with Neville Hobson

    cover

  • Blogging for Business

    by Shel Holtz and Ted Demopoulos

    cover

  • Corporate Conversations

    by Shel Holtz

    cover

  • Public Relations on the Net

    by Shel Holtz

    cover


§ License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Politics

How online communication affects politics; the category also covers efforts to legislate or regulate online communication

Monday, September 28, 2009

A little respect, please, for government employees

This isn’t a typical post. But it has been weighing on me and I need to get it off my chest.

Whether the murder of Bill Sparkman was truly perpetrated because he was a federal employee has yet to be proven, but the circumstances of his death should strike fear in the heart of any rationale person.

Sparkman was found in Kentucky’s Daniel Boone National Forest. He was hanged from a tree, his hands and feet bound, he was gagged, his clothing was stripped from him, his Census Bureau ID was taped to him, and the word “fed” was scrawled on his chest. Sparkman was a part-time Census Bureau employee. He had been warned by a friend to avoid this part of Kentucky, but it’s where his job took him. The evidence suggests that a violent anti-government sentiment led to the horrific circumstances of his killing.

I have nothing political to say in this post. People like Sparkman happen to work for the federal government for a living. Their jobs transcend any political affiliation and any particular party. These are not the appointees named to their jobs by the party in power. Yet they are routinely the targets of hate, whether it’s the extreme anti-government views that seem to have led to Sparkman’s tragic death or more routine objections to government agencies.

There seems to be an assumption that crosses political boundaries that “government agency” is synonmous with apathy and incompetence, and that they are populated by bureaucratic automotons intent on inaction and waste.

Over the course of my career, I have had the opportunity to work with employees of several U.S. federal government agencies (including the Internal Revenue Service, the General Services Administration, the State Department, the Social Security Administration, Customs and Border Protection, and the U.S. Forest Service) as well as a couple Canadian agencies. My son’s new father-in-law is retired from the Environmental Protection Agency, where he was a passionate and committed advocate for the environment over the course of multiple administrations representing both parties. He’s also a nice guy, as are the folks I’ve worked with in state and county jobs. In fact, virtually every front-line government employee have met and worked with was as impassioned about his or her job and as dedicated to performing well as anybody I have met in the private sector. These are professionals who take pride in their work.

Unlike workers in the private sector, these employees—the flesh-and-blood people I have met—also see themselves as servants of the public. While their “customer” in reality is the U.S. Congress, they view the citizens of the country as their customers. I have yet to meet a single one who doesn’t want government—and especially their agency—to work better for the people to whom they believe they are accountable.

Based on the nature of my work, the government employees I tend to meet are communicators and IT people. I can’t imagine, though, that those working in other corners of government agencies are any less committed, any less dedicated.

That government employees are smart, hard-working, talented, and dedicated should not surprise anyone. After all, in the U.S. over 6.25 million people work for the federal government. These are not two-dimensional caricatures or political cartoon images. They are your next-door neighbors, your family, your friends. They go to your church. Their kids go to school with your kids.

How are they different from you and me? At some point, they chose a life of public service. It may have been a conscious choice; it could just as easily have been that the government made the best job offer at the time they were looking.

Sure, sometimes the nature of government makes it hard to accomplish things as easily as in the private sector. (If you work in a big corporation you know that getting things accomplished within a corporate bureaucracy is no walk in the park.) But, having gotten to know many government employees, I am increasingly incensed at the way they are demonized. They do not deserve our enmity. Regardless of your political affiliation, your view on big-vs-small government, or your hopes or worries for the direction of the country, the workers toiling day-in and day-out on the front lines of government agencies deserve our respect.

Posted by Shel on 09/28 at 04:12 PM
Politics • (5) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Friday, June 19, 2009

Public bodies can’t manage a Twitter account? WTF?

imageNeville Hobson just tweeted a link to a news story in the Croydon Guardian about the suspension of a Twitter account. In a nutshell, the Croydon Council had launched a print newspaper for distribution to residents of the town to ensure they received town news distributed principally through press releases. Someone on the staff had set up a Twitter account and then mistakenly sent was was supposed to be a direct message as a regular old tweet for all to see. The tweet was critical of a reporter at the Evening Standard.

The newspaper was instructed to stop using the account as a result.

It was a couple of quotes from the Guardian article that prompted this post. The first one is from “a spokesman”—no other details than that:

It’s the firm belief that the Your Croydon publication needs to concentrate on developing its identity in print, not cyberspace.

Now, I’m a supporter of print and a believer in its value, but this statement still prompted a WTF moment for me. After all, print is a one-way channel and fewer and fewer people rely on print as a means of obtaining their information. It’s startling to hear the representative of any town council suggesting the its interests are best served by ignoring the online world in favor of a print publication. Perhaps the use of the word “cyberspace,” which I hardly hear at all any more, is indicative of just how out of touch this council is.

But it was the second quote that caused my jaw to drop. This one came from Councillor Tony Newman, leader of the Labour group that was quick to condemn the misuse of the twitter account:

How anyone could ever suggest that a public body could control a Twitter account is beyond me.

It would appear that what is beyond Mr. Newman isn’t beyond any number of public bodies—city and town councils in particular. The Oxford City Council is on Twitter. So is the Glasgow City Council, the NewCastle City Council, the New York City Council...the list goes on and on and on.

There are one or two public bodies in the U.S. federal government on Twitter, as well, as evidenced by this list from the amazing Twitter Fan Wiki):

You have to wonder just how many things are beyond Mr. Newman. Do politicians even consider research before shooting from the hip?

Posted by Shel on 06/19 at 10:48 AM
Politics • Twitter • (8) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Friday, April 03, 2009

IABC Chair Barb Gibson’s stand against New Zealand PR cuts is not misguided

Barb Gibson, the 2008-09 chair of IABC, sent a letter to Tony Ryall, New Zealand’s State Services Minister, seeking reconsideration of an order to all department heads to reduce the number PR staff. Neville covered the issue on Thursday’s FIR.

Among the responses to Barb’s blog post on the issue is a comment from Graeme Purches, the president elect of the Public Relations Institute of New Zealand. Purches argues that Barb’s effort to engage the IABC membership in a campaign to reinforce her message—that PR isn’t about spin but rather about ensuring organizations achieve their goals—is misguided. “The reality is that many of the jobs being lost were positions created by the former government to undertake social marketing, and spread that government’s social agenda message, in a long lead up to what was always going to be a difficult election,” Purches writes.

If this is true, I have no problem with the elimination of positions that should never have been staffed to begin with. But there’s something amiss with Purches’s argument. If, indeed, this were a matter of correcting inappropriate hires, wouldn’t the order from State Services target those specific hires?

It does not. According to State Service’s own press release (crafted, no doubt, by one of its PR staff):

The cap on the size of core government administration has been set at 38,859 full time equivalent (FTE) staff positions.  The cap is based on the number of FTE staff in Public Service departments and selected Crown entities plus unfilled vacancies as at 31 December 2008.  It is also expected that the numbers of communications and public relations staff will be reduced.

A newspaper article is more specific: “The Government said 321 communications or public relations advisers were employed in government departments.
State Services Minister Tony Ryall has told all departmental chief executives to reduce the number of public relations staff, although he has not given a target.”

Surely not every New Zealand government department employed communicators specifically to undertake social marketing and spread the government’s social agenda message. If every department is required to reduce PR staff, wouldn’t that mean departments with a single communicator would be left with none? That departments already stretched to the bone in an effort to create effective lines of communication between government and constituents will be rendered ineffective?

I’m open to evidence that an across-the-board reduction of communication staff in every department that employs them will somehow selectively slice those communicators hired for purposes for which taxpayers should not be responsible. Until then, I’m standing with Barb and her exercise of IABC advocacy. The wanton eradication of communication jobs could produce worse interactions between government and its stakeholders, not better. And in the absence of such evidence, I would hope Mr. Purches does a better job of standing up for his constituents once he becomes president than making excuses for a new government he appears to favor. (That’s how it looks. I’m just sayin’.)

I’ve long believed that when times are tough, organizations (including governments) need to communicate more, not less. If the goal is simple reduction of staff costs, then by all means, reduce communication staff, Minister Ryall. But do it when times are good and the need for communication is reduced. Now is the time to up your game.

As Barb suggests, the more of us who speak up, the more likely we are to be heard in the halls of New Zealand’s government.

As for Barb Gibson, her courageous stand has made me prouder than ever to be a member of IABC.

Posted by Shel on 04/03 at 05:12 PM
Politics • PR • (2) Comments • (5) Trackbacks • Permalink

Thursday, March 05, 2009

Democrats’ anti-Rush campaign: pandering or prudent?

Throughout US history, political parties that once held great power have become irrelevant and vanished from the scene. The Federalists were the first major party to go down this road. The party of John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Daniel Webster ultimately suffered from unpopular decisions made by the Adams administration coupled with the politically astute, if somewhat less-than-ethical anti-Federalist campaign by Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican party.

Other parties that have come and gone despite having claimed US presidents among their ranks include the Whigs (William Henry Harrison) and the Bull Moose (Theodore Roosevelt).

It was from this historical context that I pondered the recent launch of a web page by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that on first glance appears to contain all of the intellect and sophistication of a Mad magazine jab..

A quick note before I go any further: My interest here is from a communication standpoint, not a political one.

The page—I’m Sorry, Rush is linked from the DCCC’s home page, which asks, “Ever wonder how Republicans are able to tuck their tails between their legs and apologize to Rush Limbaugh so quickly after they’ve offended their leader? We’ve uncovered the secret Republican apology machine.”

image

Limbaugh, for those outside the US or living in a bubble, is a conservative talk-radio host who, in the wake of the Republicans’ failed bid for the White House, seems to have picked up the mantle of leadership for the party’s agenda. Several Republican leaders have challenged the notion that Limbaugh is guiding Republican policy, only to apologize shortly after, clearly having been chastised by their constituents. These include Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.

The “apology engine” is a form letter with pull-down lists of options for customization of the letter. For example, you can complete the sentence, “I’m sorry I called you” with…

  • An opportunistic brick-thrower
  • ugly
  • an idiot

...all of which are things Republicans have actually said—then apologized for.

My first reaction was one of bemusement. The page reflects a juvenile approach to politics. When I asked for feedback over Twitter, one response called it “a completely idiotic move…why bother?” Another said he had received an email inviting him to create a billboard to send a message to Rush. “Bad PR move, IMO,” this response said.

image

The billboard campaign, on the site of the Democratic party, will select a winner whose submission will “appear on a billboard in Rush Limbaugh’s hometown of West Palm Beach, Florida.” The winner will also get a t-shirt bearing the winning slogan.

Another adolescent dig from prominent politicians, I thought.

Then I saw on Stewart’s dissection of the recent CPAC meeting. That’s what got me thinking like a communicator. After all, Stewart’s “The Daily Show” is a source of information for a growing number of people in the same demographic that voted lopsidedly for Democrats in the recent election. A 2006 study found “The Daily Show” to be just as substantive as network coverage of the news. And while a journalism think tank suggested that Stewart’s humor would sail over the heads of those who didn’t pay attention to traditional news outlets, they still are being influenced by Stewart’s (and Stephen Colbert‘s) satiric interpretation of the news.

This demographic is fast becoming the dominant part of the electorate. And if they appreciate Stewart’s and Colbert’s humor (which I do, by the way), what’s to say they wouldn’t equally appreciate the parody pages on the sites of the DCCC and the DNC?

Consider the state of the Republicans. Following a sound defeat in November, the party has made a series of missteps, including the lamentable response to President Barack Obama’s address before Congress. Hailed as one of the up-and-coming leaders of the party (by no less than Limbaugh himself), Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal delivered a talk that became the subject of widespread ridicule.

Democratic strategists no doubt see an opportunity to tap into the current political zeitgeist and further marginalize the Republican party. Visions of sending the Republicans the way of the Federalists, Whigs, and Bull Mooses are likely dancing in their heads.

Since the Democrats’ emergent base is heavily influenced by such commentary as presented routinely on “The Daily Show,” JibJab, and other, well, snarky media channels, is the production of similar content by the party itself a bad idea? In the long run, will shrugging off the Republicans’ woes with a dismissive chortle help solidify the Democrats’ position and (in a two-party system) pave the way for a new second party?

Remember, my commentary is based on the use of a communication technique, aimed at a specific target audience, and is not a Democrat-vs-Republican post; there are plenty of political blogs for that.

Posted by Shel on 03/05 at 09:17 AM
Politics • (7) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Monday, December 29, 2008

Fairpoint Communications makes the case for Net Neutrality

imageAll you opponents of Net Neutrality, explain to me why this is okay:

Verizon customers living in Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire are being switched over to Fairpoint Communications (Verizon sold its land-line business to Fairpoint in order to erase some debt from its books). (Details here.)

Fairpoint has announced to customers who use the service to access the Net that, effective February 6, subscribers to Yahoo, MSN, and AOL will no longer be able to access their email through those sites. If you want to retrieve your email from the Web (as opposed to routing it through to an email client like Outlook), you’ll need to do so through MyFairpoint.net, the company’s own dedicated (and, presumably, ad-supported) portal.

Some are suggesting that this is one path Fairpoint is taking to profitability with Verizon’s money-losing land-line operation. Whether that’s true or not, it’s a shining example of why Net neutrality is a must. The core principle of Net neutrality, regardless of how complex the issue gets when you dig into it, is simple: Those who provide you with access to the Net should not control the content you’re able to see. In this case, Fairpoint is telling its customers that they are not permitted to visit the AOL, Yahoo, or MSN email sites, that if you want your email you have no choice but to do so through the MyFairpoint.net portal.

If I were a customer, I’d be furious and seeking alternatives. Even if I had to get a satellite dish, I’d dump Fairpoint like a bad habit. I suspect many of their customers are already looking to make a change. I would also counsel anyone who asked to avoid using Fairpoint as an ISP at all costs.

But for those who don’t like the idea of legislated Net neutrality, why would this be an acceptable tactic for an ISP? And if it is, what’s to stop Fairpoint from re-routing any traffic to Google to their own advertising-laden search engine portal (as this post suggests)? And if they do, what makes that acceptable?

I’ll read any arguments inf avor of this with as much objectivity as I can muster. But in all honesty, I think this sucks. If I pay for access to the Net, I should be able to go where I want.

Posted by Shel on 12/29 at 12:15 PM
Politics • Technology • Web • (7) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Monday, November 03, 2008

Blogs bringing out our best

It is easy to focus on the negative side of social media, from the banalities of some bloggers to the nastiness of some comments, from the sleazy things accomplished through anonymity to the hurt and pain people seem to be able to cause one another. You don’t see much reporting on those instances where social media provides a platform for allowing the best of us to shine. Sure, you see some, like mainstream media’s coverage of the Frozen Pea Fund, but it grabs more attention—and links—to report on the dark side.

Yet social media do often bring out the best in people. This was my thought as I was scrolling through comments left to the post on Barack Obama’s blog containing his and his sister’s statement on the passing of their grandmother, Madelyn Dunham. One comment, from Jason in Altoona, Pennsylvania, reads, “I will be voting for John McCain tomorrow, but I want to convey my deepest sorrow and condolences to Senator Obama and his family for their loss. I lost my grandmother a year ago, so I know how hard it can be.”

Most of the comments in response to Jason—all from Obama supporters—are gracious and heartfelt, like this one: “Thank you Jason. May we all aspire to the generosity of spirit you are exemplifying.”

It is truly uplifting to see, the night before the election when partisan passions are running high, that people on opposite sides can put the politics aside and be human. You have to wonder how much of that would be visible if Jason didn’t have Obama’s blog on which to leave his thoughts. It is my sincerest wish that we see more of social media’s ability to bring us together than the divisive uses to which it is often put.

Posted by Shel on 11/03 at 03:47 PM
Blogging • Politics • Social Media • (4) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Monday, June 30, 2008

Word games with AP content

On the one hand, Associated Press asserts that it wants to protect its content from abuse by bloggers. On the other hand, they’re willing to sell their content by the word to anyone willing to pay. All of which makes you wonder if the venerable AP has taken any issue at all with the manipulation of its content by one of its customers, the American Family Association.

The organization is using software to automatically replace the word “gay” with “homosexual” in all of the AP stories selected to appear on the organization’s news site, OneNews Now. (This has led to the renaming of Olympics-bound track star Tyson Gay into Tyson Homosexual; pro basketball player Rudy Gay got the same treatment.)

image

The blog where I learned about this is as politically-minded as the American Family Association, the 31-year-old organization founded and still run by Rev. Donald Wildmon. The AFA is focused on “traditional family values” and wields considerable clout because of its large, voting constituency. But while I am troubled by the message the search-and-replace effort is meant to convey—I’m equally dismayed at the wanton abuse of content. Presenting AP-branded content without disclosing that it has been altered is plainly immoral

Personally, I find the AFA’s actions deplorable on a number of levels. My friend Pete Shinbach, who directed me to the story, reminded me of the time AOL blocked the word “breast” as part of a decency filter, denying women access to breast cancer support groups and content (not to mention blocking access to recipes for chicken breasts). You would think we learned back then, wouldn’t you?

But this blog is about the communication business, not my personal political or ethical views, and in that context, it’s the AP I wonder about. If it’s an abuse of intellectual property to run more than four words without anteing up, isn’t it an abuse for somebody to buy the content and then rewrite it to serve partisan purposes?

I don’t know that the AP is not taking any action to curtail the AFA’s practices. But I have done some searching and haven’t yet found any evidence to suggest the AP has ever commented publicly on the issue. The right move would be to pull the plug; stop providing the AFA with content based on a flagrant breech of contract.

But then again, times are tough for the print journalism business, and if the AP is looking to bloggers to pay by the word to quote their content, how anxious would they be to turn away a paying customer?

Given the recent dustup in the blogosphere AP could do itself a lot of reputational good by taking a stand. While the politics of the AFA would undoubtedly wind up being a significant factor, it’s really not about that; I would hope AP would take just as strong a stand if it were a left-wing organization replacing the word “Republicans” with “Right-Wing Extremists.”

No, it’s not about politics; it’s about principle. If AP wants us to believe its pratices are all about protecting intellectual property, the same standard should apply here.

Over to you, AP.

Posted by Shel on 06/30 at 06:54 PM
Politics • Transparency • (1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 1 of 7 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »