Politics

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

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Think twice, endorse once

Share This!

I’ve been impressed with a lot of the work GM has done. Even the European operation has transformed its newsroom into a social media newsroom, based loosely on the template Todd Defren released. One of the elements of GM’s social media newsroom is it’s “Blog Roll,” which direct readers to some of the more influential auto blogs.

I like the idea of an industry blogroll, even if it’s not on a blog. Still, organizations need to give some careful consideration to the independent content to which they link. That point was driven home by an article I read today in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, which was available in the lounge of the Saskatoon Sheraton Cavalier where I’m staying while doing some work up here. (The fact that this story is original reporting in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix means it may not spread very far, but who knows?)

Here’s the gist of the story: The Saskatechewan Party had included on its website a link to a blog called smalldeadanimals.com, penned by local resident Kate McMillan, that had a track record of treating the party favorably. In fact, party members had referenced the blog in the legislature.

No more. Responding to the government cancelling funding for a project, McMillan posted items that were...well...less than flattering. One post suggested that residents “try not to vandalize every business still standing in your neighbourhood, try not selling your ass up and down the street in front of doors. Try parenting your sticky-fingered brats.”

The blog would not have received any attention if the party hadn’t already been holding it up as a model of support for its policies. Premier Brad Wall actually issued a statement saying the posts went “beyond the pale.” Wall had no choice, since a member of the opposition raised the party’s affinity for the blog.

Of course, GM Europe would not find itself in the same boat if one of the bloggers on its blogroll wrote something as “intolerant and unacceptable” as McMillan’s remarks were (at least, according to Wall). A blogroll just informs others of what you’re reading and don’t serve as an endorsement. Still, think twice before using a business blog or website to endorse a blog. You could find yourself backpedaling a week later.

Saturday, March 29, 2008

In defense of the TSA blog

Share This!

I’m a big fan of Leo Laporte’s This Week in Tech, better known as TWIT, one of the top independent podcasts. The crew onhand for episode 137 is an entertaining one: PC Magazine’s John C. Dvorak, Mahalo’s Jason Calacanis, and Guardian reporter Wil Harris. But they got it wrong with the contempt they heaped on ”Evolution of Security,” the new blog from the Transportation Security Administration.

The TWIT guys spent nearly 10 minutes sniping at the blog. Here’s the segment:

It’s not that any of their points were inaccurate. The videos on the site were in the Windows Media Format. But they must have been listening because today, less than a week later, the bloggers have replaced those videos with YouTube embeds. The video is a bit stiff. But c’mon; the site has been up and running only since January, adn the critique doesn’t acknowledge any of the points for which the TSA deserves some credit.

Let’s start with the obvious: A security-focused government agency is making an attempt to have an open dialogue with members of the traveling public. This isn’t something they have to do; it’s not like travelers disastisfied with the TSA can take their business to a competitor. On top of that, the agency is widely criticized. It would certainly be easier to just keep on doing their work and avoid the extra scrutiny.

The blog is authored by authentic employees. One is from the administration’s communication office, but the other four are front-line employees: an airport worker, an air marshal, real people doing the real work, and speaking with their real voices. These bloggers respond quickly to issues that arise. For example, it was less than a day after a controversy hit the news. (The passenger was made to remove nipple rings with pliers because the hardware set off the metal detector.) The post concluded:

The bottom line: the security officers followed the procedures for when someone alarms the metal detector and did nothing wrong. But, after looking at the procedure the officers followed, it was determined that the procedures should be modified. An official statement has been posted on our website.

“Evolution of Security” works just the way an institutional blog is supposed to work. Readers alerted the authors to an inappropriate practice; they advised the proper authorities who put an end to it. Even the MacBook Air video—the subject of most of TWIT’s ribbing—was produced because one of the bloggers read in the blogosphere about problems travelers were having getting their MBAs through security. Sure, the TSA should know about new computer models in advance, but that’s not the bloggers’ fault. Besides, one of the comments to the post made that very suggestion. Another comment pointed out that not all MBAs have solid state drives, more intelligence for the TSA. Again, I’d argue the TSA should know this, but again, the responsibility for those processes lie outside the bloggers’ purvue.

Laporte noted that there were 667 subcribers to the blog. There were 123 comments to the MacBook Air post, including both praise and criticism in addition to the genuine conversation, and it received 23 Diggs.

Does all this make “Evolution of Security” perfect? It has been around only since January, and what blogger had it all figured out after less than three months? Come to think of it, what blogger has it all figured out after three years? But if every institution to consider making the effort to reach out to its publics through a blog knew it would be greeted with this level of snark and insult, who would ever even try?

You may recall that Dell’s Dell’s Direct2Dell blog was greeted with the same kind of derision. Today, it’s held up as a shining example of how an organization can engage its customers. Given time, “Evolution of Security” could be a model for government participation in the social media space.

Go ahead and tell the TSA how it can improve its blog. But at the same time, let’s give credit where it’s due.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Dems unveil “Real State of the Union” CGM contest

Share This!

I’m on the mailing lists of both the Republican and Democratic parties. I got there by having been registered to vote at one point as a member of each party. (I won’t get into why I was registered with each party; I try to not take sides in the context of this blog, slamming or praising either party when they do something wrong or right from a communications perspective.)

The email I just received from the Democratic Party was intriguing enough to prompt a quick post. The Democrats have launched a CGM campaign inviting people to submit videos, the winners of which will be featured in TV ads. The email, from Brian Wolff, director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, says the videos will offer an alternative view to President Bush’s State of the Union:

Let’s respond with energy, imagination—and maybe even a little sense of humor—to George W. Bush’s last attempt to lie, scare, and mislead America into adopting his disastrous policies.

The winning videos in our contest will be part of a larger DCCC Real State of the Union initiative. Using mobile text messages, videos, and an online lie detector, we intend to make sure that the truth speaks louder than George Bush’s spin.

The Real State of the Union video contest involves uploading productions of up to two minutes to YouTube. The panel of judges includes movie director Jerry Zucker, Goo Goo Dolls singer John Rzeznik, political blogger Arianna Huffington, Florida Congressman Kendrick Meek, Everclear singer Art Alexikas, and party strategist James Carville.

The contest web page asks for videos on gas prices, the middle class squeeze, college affordability, health care, Iraq and topics of your choice.

Undoubtedly, I’ll get some comments here from the other side that are partisan in nature. Partisanship aside, it’s another interesting way to get voters involved on behalf of their party, just as Coors is using a similar approach to deal with the fact that Budweiser has shut the company out of advertising on the SUper Bowl.

Frankly, I’ve been bored and unimpressed with most of the social media efforts on display so far from Democrats and the party. It’s nice to see something interesting crop up.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Don’t Clinton staffers watch the news?

Share This!

I lauded the Hillary Clinton campaign recently for the launch of The Fact Hub, a blog-based website designed to provide rapid response to rumors, inaccuracies, and factual misstatements. It’s only fair, then, that I call the campaign out for a communications gaffe made all the more egregious by the the fact that FEMA was all over the news recently for making a similar move. FEMA, you may recall, came under fire for putting on a fake news conference, with members of the FEMA staff posing as reporters and tossing softball questions. Now it turns out the Clinton campaign was planting questions for the candidate among members of various audiences.

Clinton claims to be unaware of the practice and has condemned it. Whether that’s true or not, you have to wonder, in the wake of the FEMA debacle, what those staff members were thinking. As Clinton’s lead over her nearest rival, Barak Obama, continues to shrink, a bonehead move like this can’t help. Both stories—Clinton and FEMA—should be lessons to anyone seeking to sway public opinion. Candor and transparency must guide your efforts.

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Free flow of information: 1 Censorship: 0

Share This!

Think social media doesn’t change things? Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez shut down Radio Caracas Television to silence criticism. So the station has simply begun producing shortened programming with a reduced staff, and making the content available through YouTube.

CNN has the story.

Monday, July 17, 2006

Sen. Stevens and net neutrality

Share This!

It’s scary when the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation—the committee with oversight of telecommunications, the committee that is addressing the Net neutrality question—displays a remarkable degree of ignorance about the nature of the Net itself. If you haven’t listened to Rob Walch’s Podcast411 interview with Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alasaka), it’s an eye-opener (well, at least an ear-opener).

The folks over at ”The Bold Headed Broadcast” have done a mashup of some of Stevens’ remarks to highlight the senator’s failure to grasp the nature of the Net. Interestingly, when a MySpace user posted the video to his site, MySpace cancelled the account. According to Wired News, the site owner, Andrew Raff, finds MySpace’s action “a foreshadowing of the kind of repression of speech that could become commonplace if phone companies prevail in their efforts to create a two-tiered internet.” (The account was later reinstated.)

Fortunately, nobody at YouTube has yanked the video. Here it is.

Update: Oh, Rob. I missed the fact that Stevens delivered this as a speech to his Senate committee and that you heavily selected and edited that file, adding your own voice, to create an “interview.” You couldn’t disclose this? I agree with Allan Jenkins that the result is “cheap, tacky snarkiness.” Context is everything. Although, also like Allan, I still agree with the sentiment.

Friday, June 23, 2006

Berners-Lee on net neutrality

Share This!

There’s a lot of debate on the issue of Net neutrality, with the telecoms and their advocates muddying the waters with a lot of doublespeak. (Not that it matters. The telecom lobby in Washington is a whole lot stronger than the unaffiliated collection of neutrality supporters, as the House of Representatives recent vote against neutrality proves.) On the other side, neutrality supporters like Craig Newmark (founder of Craig’s List) have penned some simple and easy-to-understand arguments explaining the severe downside of a tiered Internet.

If there’s anybody to whom we should be listening, though, it’s Tim Berners-Lee. This is the guy who invented the web, which gives him a unique perspective. On Wednesday, he blogged about Net neutrality, making the issue as simple and clear as anybody has managed to do so far:

Net neutrality is this: If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level.

The rest of the post is short, to the point, and well thought out. Read it.