NOVEMBER 12, 2008

The last time I really picked up a newspaper was in August 2007. That was when I used several bundles of newspapers to wrap my colleague Neal’s cubicle in what stands to be the greatest TMG birthday prank on record. I obviously don’t read the paper. And, based on the latest numbers on newspaper circulation, I’m not alone. I don’t consider myself an uninformed person- I just get my news from television and the internet- the two biggest competitors to newspapers.

However, last Wednesday was different, and not just for me. People all across the country raced to get the daily paper, especially those sporting front page headlines about Barack Obama’s victory.

So does this mean that print is back? Of course not. Joe Strupp over at Editor & Publisher agrees:

…a lot more people will have a lot more newspapers to look back through some day and remember when. Remember not only when voters first elected a black president, but also when the daily paper was still around.

People weren’t buying the paper last week as a source of news- they were grabbing copies as a memento, a keepsake, a piece of history. You can’t frame a website or video story. In this way, papers have seemingly been reduced to the same category as concert ticket stubs or the program from a baseball game. In my opinion, newspapers will continue to serve a purpose, but more as an artifact of time than a physical representation of our current times.

I bought into the frenzy, too: I stopped by the local 7/11 and bought four copies of The Washington Post. I’m going to send the copies to my parents and siblings. History was made on November 4th and I want to hold onto a little piece of it. So for the first time in a long time, I’m thankful for the newspaper.

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

NOVEMBER 10, 2008

Starbucks Shared Planet is a new site aimed at promoting corporate responsibility and environmental stewardship. This is a great example of a company being directly inspired by consumers to be more transparent about its operations. Michelle Gass, the senior vice president of the company, even outlined specific goals the company hopes to achieve by 2015. By inviting customers to suggest ways for the company to become a better community leader, Starbucks is really investing in long-term relationships with them.

The presidential election this year was definitely a historic one in many ways, not the least of which was the use of social media to mobilize voters. Another example was PBS and YouTube’s collaboration on “video your vote”, a site for user-submitted videos documenting peoples’ experiences with voting. YouTube has been very active this year in collaborating with various companies to cover the election; it co-sponsored the first Democratic debate, formed an election center called YouChoose, and debuted many popular videos such as will.i.am’s “Yes We Can”. It’s no wonder than many people have dubbed this election the “YouTube Election”.

I’ve written about Barack Obama’s use of social media before. After the election, the Obama team set up a website at Change.gov to set the tone for the new administration. The website asks visitors to share their own experiences with the election, as well as their hopes for the future. Although the website does not have many social media components yet, it seems that some will be added in the future. Adam Ostrow from Mashable wrote an excellent post on the unprecedented potential of social media as a communication tool for the presidency; I particularly agree with his point that social media can encourage citizens to get more involved and informed about policy making.

Yammer is a new tool based on Twitter that won top prize at this year’s TechCrunch50, where 50 new tech start-ups were presented and officially launched before an audience of “influential VCs, corporations, fellow entrepreneurs and press.” Like Twitter, Yammer allows people post short “tweets” to share links and hold brief exchanges, but it focuses on internal corporate communications. Every company on the Yammer network is a closed group; you must have a work email at that company to be able to talk in the group. It seems like there’s a very real need for an enterprise version of Twitter, as Yammer adopters have noted its usefulness for enhancing office culture. Maybe we’ll even try it out at TMG!

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

NOVEMBER 4, 2008

Recently a meandering conversation in my area of cube-ville turned to voting. Our intern David was going to be out of the country on Election Day and was filling out an absentee ballot. Gloria was worried about weather and traffic on November 4th, and thought she might not be able to make it to the polls in time - something tragic that happened to me on the night of last year’s Democratic primary. I myself had to change my voter registration - the same laborious process as registering for the first time - in order to vote in the Arlington district where I live, rather than the Fairfax district where I used to live.  Given all of these barriers, we thought - why is voting so hard?

It’s a fact drilled into every student of government - the United States, although a participatory democracy, has among the lowest levels of participation in the industrialized world. According to Mark Franklin (via Wikipedia) our turnout rate of 54% for House elections is dwarfed by similar elections in other modern democracies. Australia, for instance, has turnout of 95%!

There are a lot of wrinkles between government systems, parties, and laws that make those numbers not exactly comparable - Australia’s number is inflated by a mandatory voting law, for one thing. But part of me thinks that a lot of America’s low turnout rates can be attributed to a system that makes voting difficult by placing Election Day on a weekday, and requiring affirmative registration for each move. The burden is especially heavy on young voters, who tend to move more often (I’ve moved every year since I was 18) and live away from home in greater numbers than their older counterparts.

Think about it - if Gillette can send me a Mach 3 razor the day I turn 18 and register for Selective Service, why can’t the government send me a voter registration card on the same day? With registration-related campaign controversies becoming more prominent, why even bother with registration at all? Why tie voting to one particular polling place - why not open them all up, so that people can go to the precinct closest to their job, or to kickboxing class, or whatever else they might be doing on a Tuesday night? For that matter, why not hold elections on weekends, when people have spare time?

A lot of questions, but for this election at least, we’ll have to slog ahead using the antiquated system invented by our forefathers.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

I hate waiting.

I joined National Car Rental’s Emerald Club so I can bypass the counter. I will happily ring up my own groceries at the self check-out lane. I often carry on my luggage- waiting at the baggage claim is excruciating.

There are some things I will wait for: a palace special #1 at Kabob Palace; a video to fully load on YouTube (and I know you’ve done it too); and if I’m Elliot Yamin, I’d probably wait for You.

Voting is something I don’t want to wait to do (now I’m more like Paula Cole). I am excited about this election and I am not alone. Many predict record voter turnout. This will be a race that will make history no matter who wins- and everyone wants to have their say.

Rise in registered voters + historic election = long lines.

This is a line I will stand in (because it’s certainly worth it), but it is not a line I’m looking forward to.

Of course, I could have bypassed the lines all together if I had decided to vote early. In at least 34 states voters cast their ballot in person before November 4th. Pretty convenient for those that wants to avoid the possible long lines. Virginia doesn’t have “Early Voting” like in other states, but those that qualify can vote early (in person or by mail) via absentee ballot. According to the AP, over 300,000 absentee ballots were cast in Virginia exceeding 2004’s number of 220,000.

We have been voting in this country since 1776, but we’re always looking for ways to make voting as convenient as many of our other daily errands. Let’s expand early voting to more states so that those that want to express their voice can do so when they want to. Wouldn’t you be more excited about voting if you weren’t dreading today’s long lines?

[Comments(3) »] [TrackBack »]

OCTOBER 22, 2008

People seem to be most concerned about two things right now - the economy and the upcoming election.  But what many don’t realize is that both could be risky to their health.

For instance, did you know that there are more traffic-related deaths on presidential election days than on the day of the Super Bowl, according to a recent report in The Journal of the American Medical Association? Using a national database, the study counted the number of driving deaths on every presidential election day from 1976 to 2004.  An average of 158 people died in crashes each election day, compared with 134 crashes on the Tuesdays before.

Why? It is hard to say, but clearly there are more people on the road, and they may be distracted looking around to find their polling place.  This increase in car deaths could be even more significant in a heavy turnout year like this one. Researchers recommend that get-out-the-vote campaigners emphasize safe driving tips when urging people to vote.

Second, the ailing economy may be causing fewer visits to doctors.  A recent survey found that more than 80 million Americans - insured or not - are cutting back on their health care to save money. Another survey shows that young adults that have been hit the hardest. Nearly 70 percent say the downturn has made it more difficult in the last year to pay for medical expenses.

Even though skimping on health care can have serious consequences, it’s hard for folks in tough economic times to think long term. Unless a risk is imminent or high, we tend to roll the dice and hope for the best.  It is even more clear why this election is so focused on the need for health care reform in this country.

So, putting risk into perspective, it is important to be aware of how major events on the national stage can trickle down to impact us. We can then take steps to minimize the risks they may impose, like driving more carefully to the polls or sticking with our medical checkups even when our pocketbooks are tight. At least that gives us some control in this topsy-turvy world.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

OCTOBER 20, 2008

Should recording artists that make their music available via a “blanket license” from a firm such as ASCAP (the American Society of Composers, Authors and Performers) or BMI (Broadcast Music Inc.) be able to restrict use of their songs if they feel their music is being used to deliver messages they don’t agree with?

In last Monday’s Washington Post, University of Virginia law professors Christopher Sprigman and Silva Vaidhyanathan asked this question in reference to the ongoing controversy concerning the McCain campaign and accusations by artists including Heart, Jackson Browne and John Mellencamp that the campaign is using their songs without first getting consent. They make this claim even though the McCain campaign has a blanket license to use the music.

Sprigman and Vaidhyanathan say that technically the blanket license should cover McCain, but also that McCain should be allowed to use the songs under the First Amendment. They say:

Politicians use songs as a way to tell people what they stand for — or at least what they want us to believe they stand for. Using a song to communicate a political message is just the kind of speech the First Amendment was designed to protect.

Personally, I find it easy to side with the artists in this case. I wouldn’t want my art politicized or used in a way that suggested I endorsed a particular candidate. On an issue as divisive as politics, it’s an easy view to defend. But how far does that argument go?

The Virginia Tech football team regularly enters their home games to the tune of “Hells Bells” by AC/DC. Should we take this to mean that AC/DC is made up of Hokie fans? Likewise, if AC/DC was actually made up of UVA football fans, should they be able to file a cease-and-desist order against Virginia Tech?

Or, what if “Time of Your Life” by Green Day were played over the loudspeaker at a public event celebrating the retirement of a respected teacher. Should Green Day have a right to get a cease-and-desist order against the school system?

Perhaps AC/DC and Green Day should have this right. But when looked at in this light, does this use seem quite as objectionable as Jackson Browne makes it out to be?

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

OCTOBER 10, 2008

The power of social media is growing ever more pervasive, and the commentary of those who want a voice is becoming increasingly (and more seamlessly) integrated at the macro level - particularly when it comes to politics.

Over the course of this year, large traditional media organizations have gotten into the act. First, we had the CNN/YouTube debates. Now, C-SPAN has created tools to help bloggers take a more active role in debate commentary. The government affairs network recently developed a site called “Debate Hub” that offers a slate of tools to those interested in liveblogging debates, including live timeline-based embeddable (and editable) video clips and transcripts, site integration of twitter feeds, and lots of outgoing links to live blogs as they happen. The real-time toolbox and level of interactivity and inclusiveness on the site are impressive. And rather than forcing bloggers to find them, C-SPAN is reaching out to the bloggers. A typical e-mail from the C-SPAN team looks like this:

Hey Steve,

Just wanted to drop you a line to remind you that C-SPAN’s going to be running its Debate Hub tonight. If you want to post clips and not have to wait until after the debate to do so, you can actually edit and splice together clips while the debate is going on. So let’s say John McCain or Obama says an answer that you find interesting, you can go to the live streaming debate timeline, click on the blue (Obama) or red (McCain) block and that specific answer will pop up in the transcripts and you can embed just that tiny portion of video:

http://debatehub.c-span.org/

Also, if you scroll down to the bottom you’ll see that we’re live streaming twitter posts when users use the hashtags debate08 and #nashdebate, and we’re also constantly monitoring and linking to bloggers who are live blogging the debate.

Enjoy the debate, and if you have any questions please contact me.

These aren’t just form letters; there are real people on the other end who not only respond, but are participating in the debate commentary themselves.

Another resource that’s popped up is Twitter.com and Current.tv’s joint project, “Hack the Debate“. The site allows for tweets to be superimposed, live, over video coverage of a debate. The result is a combination of CNN’s Live Audience Reaction Meter and MST3K. (The promo video for the service is pretty cool.)

What all of this amounts to is a a more robust political conversation, which I see as a good thing. It’s one thing to be encouraged to go out and vote; it’s another entirely to be encouraged to be educated about the candidates and their issues and to take part in the national discussion. The more people know, the more likely they are to make good, informed decisions - and that benefits everyone.

[Comments(5) »] [TrackBack »]

SEPTEMBER 16, 2008

In case you hadn’t noticed, the United States is in the middle of the knock-down, drag-out biennial ritual of federal elections, which means, for the time being, the work of governing has taken a back seat to the work of name-calling and taking comments out of context. It wouldn’t be a big deal if this process lasted a month or two, but unfortunately we’ve been knee-deep in the muck since January 2007 - when politicians began to announce their 2008 candidacies -  just two months after the 2006 midterms. By necessity, today’s politicians have largely embraced the permanent campaign and the combative, partisan politics that comes with all campaigns.

What does this mean for, you know, actual governance? Nothing good. Congress has basically been deadlocked since Democrats took control last January, with the opposition using a record number of procedural filibusters to limit that body’s productivity, and the executive branch simply doesn’t have the political capital necessary to create proactive policy at this point. The result is a government that, in an age of mounting challenges on a variety of fronts, has done nothing. The problem can’t be blamed on any particular person or party - it’s part and parcel of our political system and won’t easily be rooted out.

If the people we elect to Congress and the White House can’t get the job done, then who will? It seems that the job of creating innovative, relevant, and fact-based public policy is being taken up by private individuals, who are free of the kinds of political restrictions members of Congress work under.

One such example is energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens, who has become something of a media and political darling since unveiling the Pickens Plan a few months ago. Pickens obviously has a lot of self-interest involved here - his plan calls for extensive use of energy resources in which he has a direct financial stake - but it’s a more comprehensive plan than anything the Washington establishment has been able to dream up.

Another is Bill Gates, whose Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation boasts one of the largest endowments in the non-profit world - $38.7 billion, higher than the GDP of 48 countries. The Gates Foundation has stepped in in countless arenas where government funds have not been forthcoming, providing money for HIV research, library improvement, and agricultural advancement in Africa.

While I applaud Pickens and Gates for stepping up where the actual government has proven woefully inadequate, I have to wonder about whether this trend is a positive one. Every two years we elect a new crop of men and women to set aside their own self-interest and serve the public’s. And it seems like every two years we’re disappointed with the job those people have done, and vow to shake things up next time - changes that never seem to materialize. And although these private efforts are admirable ones, the question that really needs to be asked to our elected officials is “Why aren’t you doing this?”.

[Comments(2) »] [TrackBack »]

SEPTEMBER 15, 2008

It may seem like a small thing and insignificant in the eyes of most, but to me it stood out like a sore thumb when I was watching news coverage of McCain’s running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, at the Republican National Convention.  No, it wasn’t the striking resemblance between Palin and Tina Fey, nor was it the minor technical difficulties she encountered during her speech, including a faulty teleprompter.  No, it was the hug.  You know what hug I’m talking about - that McCain-Palin embrace (about 1:22 into the clip), so awkward and uncomfortable I was squirming in my seat.  He leaned in and tried to hug, but couldn’t lift his arms high enough to make a full embrace (due to injuries sustained as a POW in Vietnam) and she kind of, sort of leaned in, but looked away and leaned out at the same time.  Hard to imagine, I know, and even more painful to watch.

I wasn’t the only one who noticed the hug.  Elisabeth Bumiller wrote an article about it in The New York Times.  Bumiller pointed out:

It has been nearly a quarter century since Walter F. Mondale almost never touched Geraldine A. Ferraro in public when they shared the Democratic presidential ticket in 1984, and it is safe to say that times have changed.  Back then, Mr. Mondale had a strict ‘hands off’ policy and did not even put his palm on Ms. Ferraro’s back when the two stood side-by-side and waved with uplifted arms.

But today, with our second co-ed presidential ticket, times have clearly changed. According to an etiquette expert quoted for the NYTarticle, Mr. McCain was right to initiate the hugging as Ms. Palin’s hierarchical superior.  As Letitia Baldrige, former White House social secretary to Jacqueline Kennedy, points out in the article, she finds embarrassing “all this fake hugging that goes on when people greet each other on television,” but goes on to say it’s okay for Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin, “because we accept anything now.”

Personally, my initial reaction to the hug, after the distorted look on my face dissipated, was, why hug?  If McCain’s running mate were a man, they would have shaken hands (or would they?  McCain seems like a hugger, check him out in this receiving line.)  Is it a McCain thing, or a woman thing, and is it okay?  To Baldrige’s point, does anything go these days?

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

SEPTEMBER 10, 2008

Some interesting news flashed across my Google Reader screen this morning: SpinSpotter, a Firefox add-on that uses a series of algorithms to detect “spin” in news stories, has gone live.

According to the BusinessWeek article, SpinSpotter’s basic features include functionality to detect and flag violations of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics.  In addition to that, the program will rely heavily on input from its users, who can flag specific instances of bias and spin that may not be detectable by the program. Those individual flags will be incorporated back into the program itself, so it has the capability to adapt to new kinds of spin.

Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to check out the program for myself, but reading the interview with company officials, a few red flags pop out at me. First, there’s an assumption that media bias is a two-sided affair - that if there’s bias, it’s against Republicans or Democrats - when in reality, American political opinion is much more multifaceted than the old left-right continuum would suggest.

My other issue, though, is a little more substantive. I believe strongly in the power of an adversarial press - where people, reporters, and companies with different opinions can contribute their points of view. Certainly there must be ground rules, and if a journalist is merely repeating the talking points of a political party then he or she deserves to be ignored. But part of the marketplace of ideas is a vibrant press, filled with different points of view, that allows readers to decide what’s relevant and what’s not.

An adversarial press relies on diversity of outlets - something that has been in short supply over the past 50 years, when most cities have only one daily paper and three television stations to supply the news. But the internet and social media have changed that by allowing the kind of diversity of opinion in the press that existed before the big media conglomerates. To gut that diversity by using an automated spin remover seems to me to be missing the point of social media entirely - that it’s supposed to be about individual opinions.

Beyond that, there’s very little evidence to suggest that Americans are interested in bias-free news. For instance, a Rasmussen poll shows that 87% of Fox News viewers plan to vote for John McCain in the upcoming elections, while Barack Obama holds smaller majorities of CNN and MSNBC viewers. It’s clear that in this case, we’re selecting the media outlets that we think best fit our views. It’s no different in newspaper-land: conservatives here in DC read the Times, everyone else reads the Post. 

While SpinSpotter’s efforts are certainly noble, ultimately I think it’s a lost cause. Even if we were interested in reading non-biased news, the nature of bias is so complicated that it seems impossible to truly remove it.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]