Jonathan Gitlin, via Twitter, made sure I saw a new report from the Brookings Institution called Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of Metropolitan America. It was front-page news here in Lexington, with a bold headline screaming "Lexington Tops List of Enemies to the Environment: Carbon Footprint is Largest in Nation."
To be honest, it didn't surprise me that much. For starters, the bulk of Lexington's (very cheap) electricity comes from coal in nearby counties. For decades the city let developers plow up horse farms to build strip malls. There's so much sprawl, spread out all over the city, that people have to drive everywhere. It's been incredibly difficult to develop a real downtown. Despite the efforts of groups like Bluegrass Tomorrow and Bluegrass Conservancy, Lexington has already sacrificed so much of what made it truly unique in favor of retail chains (some of which are now declaring bankruptcy) and "mcmansion" housing units we simply don't need.
But Jonathan's note reminded me of another headline that was in the Herald-Leader not too long ago - Lexington Makes Top 25 In Green Cities Ranking.
The article cited a survey from Popular Science Magazine and gave a quote from it: "Lexingtonians recycle everything from surplus electronics to scrap metal."
So which is it? Does my family live in a swillish cesspool of carbon emissions, or in a forward-thinking recycler's paradise?
Apparently both.
So what would happen if the mayor had a press conference and said Lexington is a tall glass of awesome when it comes to the environment, and Popular Science Magazine backs him up? I'm guessing three things. First, developers would see that as permission to keep building. Second, sustainability advocates would be apoplectic. Finally, those advocates would be marginalized by the populace because more building means more jobs and the industry has the PR cover it needs.
So it occurs to me that we need a standard measurement tool to know what's green and what's not, for a variety of reasons. I know measurement is KD Paine's specialty, but I'm not sure she's up on environmental assessment.
What say the sustainability folks? What's the best measurement here?
29 May 2008
The Best Writing Right Now in the Sustainability Blogosphere, According to ME
Still swamped so I'm lifting from the RSS feed reader again. Maria Energia calls these "Clean Energy Quick Clicks." I'll give it a try.
Hopefully this list will demonstrate how smart, creative and diverse the sustainability online community is.
- Jesse Jenkins' Taking Mountain Top Removal Head On, North Carolina Considers Ban
- Charles Morand's Trading Alert: Railpower Tech
- Jozef Winter's Shark Tail and Kelp-Inspired Ocean Power
- Hank Green's Eco Geeks Get All The Girls
- Preston Koerner's The Stunning Green Design of a Smart Box
- James Kanter's Biofuels and Food Prices
- Jennifer Lance's It's Time to Start Paying Attention to John McCain's Ideas on Climate Change
- Max Gladwell's Hell Hath No Fury Like a Mom with a Blog
- Max Lindberg's Want to Reduce Greenhouse Gasses by 12 Million Tons a Year, Ship by Rail, Not by Truck
Hopefully this list will demonstrate how smart, creative and diverse the sustainability online community is.
28 May 2008
The Best in Social Media Writing Right Now - According to ME
As readers of this blog know it's been more than a little busy in my corner of the Bluegrass - new baby coming, new responsibilities at work, new clients coming in. All good stuff. We all write about how hard it is to keep up with the ever-growing RSS reader. So today I'll just share a few of the posts I've read recently that caught my eye, and I'll act like I'm the one true arbiter of quality in this field by linking to a few and not to others. ;) I tried to stay out of the political arena this time, since I've focused a lot of effort there already. I'll probably add these to my del.icio.us links soon, but I thought these merited a post.
- Kami Huyse's Strategy: Become a Communications Artist
- Brain Solis' PR Tips For Startups - The Director's Cut
- Debbie Weil's John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, Is Back To Blogging Again
- Jason Falls' 4 Ways To Save The Newsroom
- Katie Paine's Top Ten Must-Do Items For Your Social Media Measurement To-Do List
- Jeneanne Sessum's i think i predicted twitter in 01
- Susan Getgood's Pitch Clinic: When Good Pitches Go Bad
27 May 2008
Why Campaigning Will Never Be the Same - Social Media and a Bad Friday
The Friday afternoon before a long weekend has traditionally been the time that a government, a business, or a political campaign decides to "take out the trash," i.e., release embarrassing information that simply has to be released. The theory is nobody's paying attention, and until now that's typically been the case.
Last Friday demonstrated, in the age of social media and live internet streams, that's no longer the case. That's when a fatigued and frustrated Senator Clinton went to an editorial board meeting at a South Dakota newspaper and re-hashed an ill-conceived and politically and culturally tone-deaf talking point intended to justify continuing her campaign:
Not surprisingly, the media pounced on the comments and made it the outrage du jour.
But here's the kicker - the New York Post reported on the flub before the press corps traveling with the Clinton campaign did. In fact, the Post reported on it even before the South Dakota paper did - because the Post was watching the live internet stream of the editorial board meeting.
Today's communications technology is so inexpensive it allows relatively small newspapers like the Sioux Falls Argus Leader to broadcast events live. All you need is a webcam, some software, a laptop, and a broadband internet connection. So that's what the Argus Leader did.
The New York Times' Caucus Blog has a very interesting post-mortem on the day:
There's no question the Clinton campaign was caught flat-footed on this one. After all, while perhaps an eyebrow or two was raised when Clinton recited the talking point back in March there wasn't anything close to this reaction. Social media helped whip this up into a frenzy, prompting melodramatic "special comments" and descriptions of "implosion" from snarky pundits.
True to form, the Clinton campaign is in overdrive trying to work through this latest error with typical tactics like blaming their opponent while some members of the "mainstream" punditry are apparently showing their true colors. (THAT'S the comment that truly deserves scorn.) We're essentially returning to business as usual, but the damage is done - and the Clinton campaign's protestations to the contrary, Senator Clinton's candidacy remains a longshot hope at best.
So what does this mean for campaigns in the future?
First, it means the "online team" on a campaign just got a lot more important. 2008 will be remembered as the year that the Internet drove not only the bulk of political fundraising, but carried the most effective (or damaging) campaign communication as well.
It means the people running those online divisions have to be involved in the larger strategy discussions of the campaign, because they're the ones who will be responsible for managing and distributing a campaign's message. It also means the people running the "mainstream" media operations in campaigns will have to learn all about social media tools and internet technology - as we can see, the MSM is using the 'net too.
It means campaigns must stop dismissing bloggers with a "they're not journalists" and a wave of the hand. The people currently fanning the flames on this latest gaffe aren't journalists, but they're having an enormous impact. Ignore social media mavens at your own peril.
It means campaigns have to invest in more sophisticated online monitoring systems. A Google alert isn't going to cut it anymore. Google doesn't look at Twitter or Friendfeed or Seesmic. More political conversations are happening there, and those conversations matter.
It also means that campaigns are going to have to spend some meaningful cash on ads in social media. Eyeballs - or more appropriately, well-educated and politically-engaged eyeballs - will be focused on newspaper a little less, blogs a little more.
It should surprise no one that the almost certain winner of the Democratic nomination for President embraced social media early and continues to use it well, while the losing campaign essentially defends against social media. We'll see much more of this in future campaigns.
Last Friday demonstrated, in the age of social media and live internet streams, that's no longer the case. That's when a fatigued and frustrated Senator Clinton went to an editorial board meeting at a South Dakota newspaper and re-hashed an ill-conceived and politically and culturally tone-deaf talking point intended to justify continuing her campaign:
My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it.Of course she's not saying she's in the race because something terrible could happen to the presumptive nominee - she's saying that June is not all that late if you put this race in the context of history. But this is a poor talking point at best - President Clinton had the race wrapped up two months earlier and the "wrap-up" was mere formality. The Dukakis nomination would probably be a better example of what she meant. And let's face it - given our nation's history on racial issues, raising the specter of assassination when running against an African-American candidate, no matter where you are in the campaign, is not something I'd advise a candidate to do. (Frankly, I'd take the word "assassinated" of the table altogether.)
Not surprisingly, the media pounced on the comments and made it the outrage du jour.
But here's the kicker - the New York Post reported on the flub before the press corps traveling with the Clinton campaign did. In fact, the Post reported on it even before the South Dakota paper did - because the Post was watching the live internet stream of the editorial board meeting.
Today's communications technology is so inexpensive it allows relatively small newspapers like the Sioux Falls Argus Leader to broadcast events live. All you need is a webcam, some software, a laptop, and a broadband internet connection. So that's what the Argus Leader did.
The New York Times' Caucus Blog has a very interesting post-mortem on the day:
The Caucus blog mentions Drudge but doesn't do justice to how quickly the news spread, despite the press corps' relative isolation and the Friday-before-a-long-weekend phenomenon. Thousands upon thousands of people learned about the flub through social media channels. For me it was when all of the political people I follow on Twitter reacted with shock - making Twitter's already bad day get a little worse, I think.Mrs. Clinton had three events. First was a meeting with the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, which was live-streaming the interview, something a few newspapers just started doing in this election cycle.
The press corps, meanwhile, was on a bus from the airport to Brandon, a few miles away, to set up for her second event at a supermarket. (The media are sometimes in a different place from the candidate, usually when the event is private or small.)
Her interview began while we were on the bus, but Internet access was so poor, we could only pick up bits of her comments intermittently. We did hear her bat back reports that her campaign had made overtures to Senator Barack Obama’s campaign about some kind of deal for her to exit the race.
At the supermarket, we were ensconced in a café off the deli counter, where many reporters were writing about her denying the overtures while also trying to follow the live stream. Here, too, Internet access was spotty and the stream came over in choppy bursts.
Mrs. Clinton arrived from the newspaper in the midst of this, and began addressing a couple of hundred people who were seated adjacent to us, in the fresh produce section. Then our cell phones and Blackberries went off.
On the other end were editors who had seen a Drudge Report link to a New York Post item online. The Post was not with the traveling press _ and apparently had a decent Internet connection.
There's no question the Clinton campaign was caught flat-footed on this one. After all, while perhaps an eyebrow or two was raised when Clinton recited the talking point back in March there wasn't anything close to this reaction. Social media helped whip this up into a frenzy, prompting melodramatic "special comments" and descriptions of "implosion" from snarky pundits.
True to form, the Clinton campaign is in overdrive trying to work through this latest error with typical tactics like blaming their opponent while some members of the "mainstream" punditry are apparently showing their true colors. (THAT'S the comment that truly deserves scorn.) We're essentially returning to business as usual, but the damage is done - and the Clinton campaign's protestations to the contrary, Senator Clinton's candidacy remains a longshot hope at best.
So what does this mean for campaigns in the future?
First, it means the "online team" on a campaign just got a lot more important. 2008 will be remembered as the year that the Internet drove not only the bulk of political fundraising, but carried the most effective (or damaging) campaign communication as well.
It means the people running those online divisions have to be involved in the larger strategy discussions of the campaign, because they're the ones who will be responsible for managing and distributing a campaign's message. It also means the people running the "mainstream" media operations in campaigns will have to learn all about social media tools and internet technology - as we can see, the MSM is using the 'net too.
It means campaigns must stop dismissing bloggers with a "they're not journalists" and a wave of the hand. The people currently fanning the flames on this latest gaffe aren't journalists, but they're having an enormous impact. Ignore social media mavens at your own peril.
It means campaigns have to invest in more sophisticated online monitoring systems. A Google alert isn't going to cut it anymore. Google doesn't look at Twitter or Friendfeed or Seesmic. More political conversations are happening there, and those conversations matter.
It also means that campaigns are going to have to spend some meaningful cash on ads in social media. Eyeballs - or more appropriately, well-educated and politically-engaged eyeballs - will be focused on newspaper a little less, blogs a little more.
It should surprise no one that the almost certain winner of the Democratic nomination for President embraced social media early and continues to use it well, while the losing campaign essentially defends against social media. We'll see much more of this in future campaigns.
26 May 2008
Memorial Day
Many heartfelt thanks to all those who serve and defend our country and to those who came before them. Thanks also to the families of service members - their sacrifice often goes unnoticed.
23 May 2008
Republicans like Blog Her, Too
Elisa Camahort pointed me to the Carly Fiorina podcast, which actually went up before the Barack Obama interview.
Nice to see the GOP reaching out.
Nice to see the GOP reaching out.
22 May 2008
Using Social Media To Move Beyond The Base
I wrote a while back about "mom" as the cross-cultural discussion driver and how political candidates must go beyond the traditional political blogs that raise money to spread their message.
So it was interesting to learn that Barack Obama talks with BlogHer.
Coming soon - Carly Fiorina from the McCain campaign will do so as well and create a podcast, which I'll link to when it's up.
So it was interesting to learn that Barack Obama talks with BlogHer.
Coming soon - Carly Fiorina from the McCain campaign will do so as well and create a podcast, which I'll link to when it's up.
21 May 2008
Technically, This Is a Social Media Post
Lots of news from the olde towne - some quite inspirational, some a bit sad. So in deference to my home town, and to keep things light, I'll just share the chatter surrounding a memorable night for another inspirational kid in Boston. Twitter sure is somethin', ain't it?
 | |
 | digg_sports Jon Lester, Red Sox Pitcher Throws No-No: Less than two years after being diagnosed with cancer, 24 y.. http://tinyurl.com/4aa7lk 1 day ago |
 | TimCameron How long before the Jon Lester story becomes a sports movie...http://tinyurl.com/5zskxy 1 day ago |
 | idigg Jon Lester, Red Sox Pitcher Throws No-No: Less than two years after being diagnosed with cancer, 24 year ol.. http://tinyurl.com/5erqgx 1 day ago |
 | |
 | |
 | thebodybreaks Pitcher Who Beat Cancer Throws No Hitter : Cancer survivor Jon Lester pitches no-hitter, leads Bost.. http://tinyurl.com/6azlyx 1 day ago |
 | mojobaer Nice, peaceful, and quiet at Rao's in the aftermath of the student exodus and Jon Lester's Sox No... - Photo: http://bkite.com/00eAI 1 day ago |
 | Clampants Jon Lester treding UP in the Twitosphere: http://summize.com/search?q=Jon+Lester (and I just added to it) 1 day ago |
 | ampersandranch Congrats to Jon Lester! http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSB56080920080520 1 day ago |
 | jolenehajj congrats to Jon Lester for last night's no hitter!! Yankees? Bueller? Bueller? ;-) 1 day ago |
 | |
 | |
 |
20 May 2008
Nothing Super About Superdelegates
Today is Primary Day in Kentucky and Oregon. Senator Clinton is going to win Kentucky by a very wide margin. Senator Obama will probably win in Oregon, and will in all likelihood clinch a majority of pledged delegates and send the latest signal that he's the nominee for President. I'm excited to vote, and I think the close contest with two very strong candidates has helped the Party and helped the country - for starters, it's encouraged a new generation of political junkies and it's given a lot of exposure to the candidates.
However, I'm bothered by my Party's absolutely ridiculous nomination process. The process itself has harmed both candidates and the party.
First, many years ago the Party hierarchy decided that its voters can't always be trusted to nominate a candidate who can win. So they invented this thing called an "unpledged delegate," more commonly known as a "superdelegate" - a member of the party establishment answerable to no one to vote for the "party's choice." About 1 of every 5 delegates at the convention this year will be an unpledged delegate. Predictably, there have already been questions about hand-outs to superdelegates.
And to think, this was the plan they came up with as a way to make the convention MORE responsive to the voters and representative of minorities. Seriously.
Then, no matter what happens, the Democratic Party says Iowa and New Hampshire have to vote first. I have nothing against people in these states, but they get the bulk of the attention from candidates and most won't make it past the first few states. This really does change the way the race plays out. For example, if a Southwestern state held an early primary or caucus, Bill Richardson may have gotten an early bump over, say, John Edwards and been a much more influential figure in this campaign.
But NO MATTER WHAT, says the party, Iowa and New Hampshire go first - and if you try to move your primary up (I'm looking at YOU, Michigan and Florida) to be more relevant, no delegates for you. At least that's what the DNC bylaws committee said back when everyone assumed Senator Clinton would be the nominee and there wouldn't be a big contest.
The party told the candidates not to campaign there, so they didn't. Senator Obama went so far as to remove his name from the ballot in Michigan. But now the same bylaws committee - stacked with allies of Senator Clinton - is meeting in less than two weeks to figure out how to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida. Senator Clinton has declared herself the "winner" of both contests and, finding herself behind in the all-important delegate (super or otherwise) count, wants the races to count again. And they'll probably figure out a way to seat their delegates, but probably not the way the states want.
So because the party insisted that things start in Iowa and New Hampshire, Senator Clinton looks like a power-hungry hypocrite and Senator Obama looks like he's trying to disenfranchise voters in two important states.
And here's another dirty little secret -as an incentive to not pre-empt Iowa or New Hampshire, states that "agreed" to hold later primaries were awarded extra delegates by the DNC, even though most of the states who were awarded extra delegates weren't even considering changing their primary dates. So my vote in Kentucky theoretically counts more simply because I vote later - but only for the two remaining candidates.
So, to sum up:
However, I'm bothered by my Party's absolutely ridiculous nomination process. The process itself has harmed both candidates and the party.
First, many years ago the Party hierarchy decided that its voters can't always be trusted to nominate a candidate who can win. So they invented this thing called an "unpledged delegate," more commonly known as a "superdelegate" - a member of the party establishment answerable to no one to vote for the "party's choice." About 1 of every 5 delegates at the convention this year will be an unpledged delegate. Predictably, there have already been questions about hand-outs to superdelegates.
And to think, this was the plan they came up with as a way to make the convention MORE responsive to the voters and representative of minorities. Seriously.
Then, no matter what happens, the Democratic Party says Iowa and New Hampshire have to vote first. I have nothing against people in these states, but they get the bulk of the attention from candidates and most won't make it past the first few states. This really does change the way the race plays out. For example, if a Southwestern state held an early primary or caucus, Bill Richardson may have gotten an early bump over, say, John Edwards and been a much more influential figure in this campaign.
But NO MATTER WHAT, says the party, Iowa and New Hampshire go first - and if you try to move your primary up (I'm looking at YOU, Michigan and Florida) to be more relevant, no delegates for you. At least that's what the DNC bylaws committee said back when everyone assumed Senator Clinton would be the nominee and there wouldn't be a big contest.
The party told the candidates not to campaign there, so they didn't. Senator Obama went so far as to remove his name from the ballot in Michigan. But now the same bylaws committee - stacked with allies of Senator Clinton - is meeting in less than two weeks to figure out how to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida. Senator Clinton has declared herself the "winner" of both contests and, finding herself behind in the all-important delegate (super or otherwise) count, wants the races to count again. And they'll probably figure out a way to seat their delegates, but probably not the way the states want.
So because the party insisted that things start in Iowa and New Hampshire, Senator Clinton looks like a power-hungry hypocrite and Senator Obama looks like he's trying to disenfranchise voters in two important states.
And here's another dirty little secret -as an incentive to not pre-empt Iowa or New Hampshire, states that "agreed" to hold later primaries were awarded extra delegates by the DNC, even though most of the states who were awarded extra delegates weren't even considering changing their primary dates. So my vote in Kentucky theoretically counts more simply because I vote later - but only for the two remaining candidates.
So, to sum up:
- One out of five delegates is selected by party elders and answerable to absolutely no one - just in case the unwashed masses choose a candidate the party elders don't like;
- Anyone who tries to vote before New Hampshire or Iowa doesn't count - until we say otherwise, but then probably not under the same system; and
- States who vote late get more delegates than states who vote early, regardless of population.
19 May 2008
Follow the Primaries @Campaign2008
A quick plug for the twitter feed - my crackerjack team of tweeters will be providing returns and quick-strike analysis (plus any blog posts from Virtual Vantage Points) @Campaign2008 on Twitter.
Follow if you're not already. Should be good.
Follow if you're not already. Should be good.
The Internet Is Not a Democracy
If the blogosphere were an accurate reflection of global society, the world would be full of techno-gadget lovers who lean to the left and like to look at pictures of cats.
Eight of the "top ten" blogs on Technorati - the tool most of us use to gauge popularity or "authority" of blogs - focus essentially on communications technology and equipment. (the other two in that ten are Huffington Post and Icanhazcheezburger.) Despite the fact that all ten of these blogs are either solely focused or strongly focused on the United States, only one of them periodically focuses on the issues Americans think are the "most important problems" facing the country - the economy, gas prices, health care, and so on. And Huffington Post does it from only one ideological point of view.
Further, The most popular stories on the 'net in the past year according to the participants of Digg are about gadgets and technology, with a dash of Ron Paul and Heath Ledger.
Two items I've listened to/looked at recently - Christopher Lydon's truly outstanding Open Source podcast featuring Global Voices Online's Ethan Zuckerman and Solana Larsen, and a ReadWriteWeb story about "super-users" on Digg - reminded me that the Internet and Web2.0 haven't created the true "democratization of communication" we've heard about. In fact, as your perspective grows broader, that goal looks even farther out of reach. To me, this flies in the face of those who suggest "all media is social media." From a truly global perspective, even social media isn't social media.
The truth is the wired world is still a rather small part of the whole world. 1.4 billion people use the Internet. More than 6.6 billion people live on the planet. Yes, 73 percent of North America is wired, but as noted above, the discussions skew toward the geek.
Now consider that a number of noteworthy scholars estimate that half the world lives on less than two dollars per day. If we're going to see the online discussion become truly representative of the global discussion, we have a lot of work to do in global development well before we worry about Digg or Technorati.
Meantime, we should respect the online discussion for what it is - an "opinion elite" discussion. Again, from the global perspective, the participants represent the most educated, most affluent members of society who incorporate technology into almost everything they do. Even in the United States and Canada where Internet penetration is so high, we know the avid users of technology are more educated, affluent and involved than the population as a whole. Further, we've seen information that suggests many online communities are isolated even from each other.
This is why my social media "elevator speech" can sometimes be a single sentence - "I identify online opinion leaders and I help you build relationships with them."
Eight of the "top ten" blogs on Technorati - the tool most of us use to gauge popularity or "authority" of blogs - focus essentially on communications technology and equipment. (the other two in that ten are Huffington Post and Icanhazcheezburger.) Despite the fact that all ten of these blogs are either solely focused or strongly focused on the United States, only one of them periodically focuses on the issues Americans think are the "most important problems" facing the country - the economy, gas prices, health care, and so on. And Huffington Post does it from only one ideological point of view.
Further, The most popular stories on the 'net in the past year according to the participants of Digg are about gadgets and technology, with a dash of Ron Paul and Heath Ledger.
Two items I've listened to/looked at recently - Christopher Lydon's truly outstanding Open Source podcast featuring Global Voices Online's Ethan Zuckerman and Solana Larsen, and a ReadWriteWeb story about "super-users" on Digg - reminded me that the Internet and Web2.0 haven't created the true "democratization of communication" we've heard about. In fact, as your perspective grows broader, that goal looks even farther out of reach. To me, this flies in the face of those who suggest "all media is social media." From a truly global perspective, even social media isn't social media.
The truth is the wired world is still a rather small part of the whole world. 1.4 billion people use the Internet. More than 6.6 billion people live on the planet. Yes, 73 percent of North America is wired, but as noted above, the discussions skew toward the geek.
Now consider that a number of noteworthy scholars estimate that half the world lives on less than two dollars per day. If we're going to see the online discussion become truly representative of the global discussion, we have a lot of work to do in global development well before we worry about Digg or Technorati.
Meantime, we should respect the online discussion for what it is - an "opinion elite" discussion. Again, from the global perspective, the participants represent the most educated, most affluent members of society who incorporate technology into almost everything they do. Even in the United States and Canada where Internet penetration is so high, we know the avid users of technology are more educated, affluent and involved than the population as a whole. Further, we've seen information that suggests many online communities are isolated even from each other.
This is why my social media "elevator speech" can sometimes be a single sentence - "I identify online opinion leaders and I help you build relationships with them."
16 May 2008
15 May 2008
Why Republicans are Losing
Tuesday night the Republican party lost its third Congressional seat in a special election, all in districts vacated by Republicans, all in districts that President Bush carried by a very wide margin in 2004.
Wednesday morning Congressman Tom Cole, the Chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, issued a recommendation to his colleagues:
I don't hide the fact that I'm a Democrat. I'm not going to rule out the notion that Americans, even deep in the most red districts of red states, associate the Republican party with current economic conditions or the state of affairs in Iraq and perhaps want to give "the other folks" a chance to change things. But to be candid, I somehow doubt a district that President Bush won in 2004 by, say, 50 or 60 points has suddenly experienced an ideological conversion.
Republicans aren't energizing and drawing out their base because they're not having a true conversation with them. They still think it's a lecture. They still think talking points come from one source and trickle down. Hey - don't take my word for it, take theirs - such as GOP wunderkind David All:
What was once a gigantic flaw of the Democratic Party is now, ironically, a huge asset - nobody, and I mean NOBODY, speaks for all Democrats. Not Howard Dean, not Nancy Pelosi, not Hillary Clinton, not even Barack Obama. Democrats speak for themselves. It's one of the reasons they've had so much trouble voting in unanimity on so many things. It's the reason we've had a difficult nomination fight for so long.
Democrats speak for themselves and with each other on blogs, in caucus meetings, and on places like YouTube. The Democratic campaigns facilitated some of it, but nearly all of it is from self-starters. Democrats have embraced social media tools and now use them as an equalizer for the $10,000 a plate RNC fundraisers and talk radio. And because they like the idea that nobody speaks for them, they're able to do this sort of thing quickly and easily. So you see young "superdelegates" (egad, the very concept of a "superdelegate" makes me itch) do stuff like this:
So when Congressman Cole says what he said, he's really saying "do what the Democrats have done." He's really calling for a monumental shift in how the Republicans campaign and communicate. He's asking his colleagues to surrender control of the message to its base. And his colleagues are understandably nervous about that. Of course, the longer they resist Congressman Cole's call to action, the longer they'll be in the minority.
Wednesday morning Congressman Tom Cole, the Chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, issued a recommendation to his colleagues:
I encourage all Republican candidates, whether incumbents or challengers, to take stock of their campaigns and position themselves for challenging campaigns this fall by building the financial resources and grassroots networks that offer them the opportunity and ability to communicate, energize and turn out voters this election.I really don't mean to be flip - seriously, I don't - but I thought that's what campaigns are supposed to do anyway. In fact, I'm pretty sure the Republican Party was quite good at raising money, energizing a base, and turning out voters until recently.
I don't hide the fact that I'm a Democrat. I'm not going to rule out the notion that Americans, even deep in the most red districts of red states, associate the Republican party with current economic conditions or the state of affairs in Iraq and perhaps want to give "the other folks" a chance to change things. But to be candid, I somehow doubt a district that President Bush won in 2004 by, say, 50 or 60 points has suddenly experienced an ideological conversion.
Republicans aren't energizing and drawing out their base because they're not having a true conversation with them. They still think it's a lecture. They still think talking points come from one source and trickle down. Hey - don't take my word for it, take theirs - such as GOP wunderkind David All:
"We've always been a party of staying on message," All said. "It's the Rush Limbaugh model. What Tony Snow says in the White House filters down to talk radio, which makes its way to the blogs."But the problem is when your message doesn't resonate, and it clearly didn't in those three districts, there aren't any alternative voices within your party apparatus to embrace. And if the guy at the top decides to change his tune, it's like turning a very small rudder on a very large aircraft carrier - it takes a long time for the U.S.S. Republican to turn.
What was once a gigantic flaw of the Democratic Party is now, ironically, a huge asset - nobody, and I mean NOBODY, speaks for all Democrats. Not Howard Dean, not Nancy Pelosi, not Hillary Clinton, not even Barack Obama. Democrats speak for themselves. It's one of the reasons they've had so much trouble voting in unanimity on so many things. It's the reason we've had a difficult nomination fight for so long.
Democrats speak for themselves and with each other on blogs, in caucus meetings, and on places like YouTube. The Democratic campaigns facilitated some of it, but nearly all of it is from self-starters. Democrats have embraced social media tools and now use them as an equalizer for the $10,000 a plate RNC fundraisers and talk radio. And because they like the idea that nobody speaks for them, they're able to do this sort of thing quickly and easily. So you see young "superdelegates" (egad, the very concept of a "superdelegate" makes me itch) do stuff like this:
So when Congressman Cole says what he said, he's really saying "do what the Democrats have done." He's really calling for a monumental shift in how the Republicans campaign and communicate. He's asking his colleagues to surrender control of the message to its base. And his colleagues are understandably nervous about that. Of course, the longer they resist Congressman Cole's call to action, the longer they'll be in the minority.
14 May 2008
The Interview: Timothy Hurst, the Ecopolitologist
The second installment of my interview series is with Timothy Hurst, who writes and contributes to a number of environmental policy blogs such as his own Ecopolitology and Cleantechnica, Sustainablog, and Red, Green and Blue. As an academic, a policy wonk, and an environmentalist, he's the kind of person who touches and influences multiple communities - the kind of cross-cultural discussion driver that I always find so interesting. Tim is also a Red Sox fan, which means he basically can do no wrong with me. He started a blog as a means to organize his research for his Ph.D., and he's really embraced the medium. I think he's one of the better enviro-policy guys out there.
I asked Tim a series of questions that talk about policy and then turn to the practice of "greenwashing," a sadly all-too-common practice by some in my profession. Greenwashing may mean different things to different people - to me it's when companies overplay their environmental efforts to obtain goodwill from an increasingly eco-conscious public. Tim had a somewhat different angle on it. Here's the Q&A.
I asked Tim a series of questions that talk about policy and then turn to the practice of "greenwashing," a sadly all-too-common practice by some in my profession. Greenwashing may mean different things to different people - to me it's when companies overplay their environmental efforts to obtain goodwill from an increasingly eco-conscious public. Tim had a somewhat different angle on it. Here's the Q&A.
Q: What got you interested in environmental policy?
I’ve had an inherent interest in all things political since I was a kid (kind of sick, huh?). And even though I later got my B.A. in International Relations, read newspapers regularly, and enjoyed the occasional dinnertime chats about politics, I didn’t fully nurture my fascination with “the political” until I witnessed the effects of several years of unsustainable growth in small
The growth was almost exclusively in the kind of upscale rental units, second homes, and winter getaways that are only occupied part of the year, yet guzzle resources year-round with heated driveways, 8 person spas, extensive sprinkler systems, etc.The growth drove up the cost of housing so much that middle-income folks like me couldn’t afford to live in them – let alone think about buying a home in one.
It was at about that time I decided to go back to school to re-engage with politics. Not necessarily to stop those particular problems of growth, but to explore the root causes of problems like them. Since then, my unceasing intellectual curiosity for politics has found a constructive outlet in my passion for the outdoors and desire to contribute to a healthy planet.
Q: There are plenty of ways to get involved in environmental issues. Why blog about them?
I actually started blogging as a creative outlet and to encourage regular, disciplined writing that I would ultimately use in my doctoral dissertation. I soon found that blogging was an excellent way of working out my ideas, reading what other people are writing about in energy and environmental politics, and really engaging with the issues themselves, as they are being reported and disseminated. In doing all of this, I have managed to become part of a community, connect with people of similar interests, build relationships, and even make a couple of bucks, to boot.
With that said, I think the blog medium (as well as/used in conjunction with communication tools like Twitter) is speeding the flow of information beyond what most people ever considered possible. The internet has the potential to become the Great Equalizer, with the free-flow of information limited only by the speed of one’s bandwidth. The internet has the potential to become the Great Democratizer – though it is not there yet.
Q: Who's doing better on environmental issues these days, American companies or the American government?
It is no secret that many vendors are claiming their products are now "green." But how can businesses validate whether a claim is true or just "greenwashing"?
Q: How would you define greenwashing? How serious is it, say, compared to polluting?
Q: What can be done to stop or prevent greenwashing?
- Companies shouldn’t sell themselves as green unless they can show that they actually are. This sounds silly, but unless companies are doing something significantly different, they should not go advertising about how “green” their production process is, because the chances are good it could be greener. Companies that are exposed for making dubious claims will be called out and challenged at every step by a growing army of vigilant consumers. No matter what the type of organization, if it is making some sort of environmental claim – it should have the evidence to back up that claim.
- Organizations need to continue to build certification organization accrediting standards to regulate industries worldwide. Certifying entities are perceived with even greater legitimacy when they include, not only representatives from the trade and industry groups, but scientists, consumer groups, environmentalists and labor groups, as well. This sort of self-policing may ultimately be one of the strongest deterrents greenwashing in the years to come.
- Government intervention and regulation should also play an important role in curbing greenwashing. But it must be done so in a way that discourages bloated bureaucracy and heavy-handed regulatory control.
13 May 2008
I can't believe I have to write this post again
Newsflash: PR has a PR problem.
At least that's what I'm seeing as all these apologetic and even angry posts are popping up again from some pretty smart PR people because someone put together another PR "blacklist" (I'm not on it - yet) and another person decided to basically ban everyone from emailing him.
I'm so over this topic. I've written about it a bunch of times. Here's my most recent post, just a couple of weeks ago.
I won't try to speak for anyone else. It's my job to reach out to bloggers and other people who use social media. I try to explain to my clients that it's not about "placements" on blogs, it's about the relationships you build through respect and relevance. If I mess up and someone wants to filter me out, so be it. If they want to call me out on a wiki or something, so be it. I'm a big boy. I worked in politics for years so I've been called a lot worse. If PR pro's like me aren't willing to take the risks, we shouldn't take the job.
So people don't think I'm just talkin' smack, I helped build a big wiki called bloggersandpr.com for the PR industry to help address this problem. Go there and share your concerns and ideas.
At least that's what I'm seeing as all these apologetic and even angry posts are popping up again from some pretty smart PR people because someone put together another PR "blacklist" (I'm not on it - yet) and another person decided to basically ban everyone from emailing him.
I'm so over this topic. I've written about it a bunch of times. Here's my most recent post, just a couple of weeks ago.
I won't try to speak for anyone else. It's my job to reach out to bloggers and other people who use social media. I try to explain to my clients that it's not about "placements" on blogs, it's about the relationships you build through respect and relevance. If I mess up and someone wants to filter me out, so be it. If they want to call me out on a wiki or something, so be it. I'm a big boy. I worked in politics for years so I've been called a lot worse. If PR pro's like me aren't willing to take the risks, we shouldn't take the job.
So people don't think I'm just talkin' smack, I helped build a big wiki called bloggersandpr.com for the PR industry to help address this problem. Go there and share your concerns and ideas.
12 May 2008
Social Media is NOT All Media
So Senator Obama is visiting Kentucky today and tomorrow (no, I don't plan on seeing him) as the local paper puts out its poll that shows not only is he down a whopping 27 points, but that Kentucky has a problem with the Senator's former pastor and race is the "elephant in the booth." Oh, and one guy from Inez says he's a Muslim no matter what the Senator or anyone else says he is.
Race is a dominant issue, says the Lexington Herald Leader, because Kentuckians were asked if they thought Reverend Jeremiah Wright's comments were important to their vote and 215 of them said yes. These same 500 Kentuckians were also asked if Senator Obama's race makes him more or less likely to win the presidential primary here, and 105 of them said it would make him less likely to win.
My immediate reaction was "great, another story about Kentucky's problem with race." But as I thought about it I realized it's just another example of the difference between mainstream media and social media. And it's a great example of why corporate media is dying.
Look at what Americans say are the ten most important problems facing the country right now, according to Gallup: The economy (41%), the war in Iraq (23%), the price of fuel (9%), health care (8%), unemployment (6%), dissatisfaction with government (6%), immigration issues (5%), high cost of living (4%), lack of money (4%), moral decline (3%) and terrorism (3%).
Heck, look at the most important issues gleaned from this very Herald-Leader poll: the economy leads by a wide margin. Then the war (if you're a Democrat), national security (if you're a Republican), and health care (if you're an Independent).
Now look at the poll questions the Herald Leader chose to ask (pdf) for this story and implied that race was essentially the dominant political issue in Kentucky right now:
I think the folks who did this poll may just be trying to see if the Wright/sniper fire/bitter non-issues had an impact. My answer is simple - any story that's forced down the throats of the American people every day for several weeks by the media will have an impact. With due respect to my friends in the professional media, this isn't one of those stories in which consumers demand more details. Those same consumers have given the media a blueprint of what's news.
Corporate media is dying not simply because they're competing with the online channel. They're dying because they continue to try to control the discussion and steer us toward topics people just don't find important, and more consumers are having none of that.
Campaign '08 will be remembered as the last presidential election in which the corporate media controlled what issues frame the election. Count on it.
Race is a dominant issue, says the Lexington Herald Leader, because Kentuckians were asked if they thought Reverend Jeremiah Wright's comments were important to their vote and 215 of them said yes. These same 500 Kentuckians were also asked if Senator Obama's race makes him more or less likely to win the presidential primary here, and 105 of them said it would make him less likely to win.
My immediate reaction was "great, another story about Kentucky's problem with race." But as I thought about it I realized it's just another example of the difference between mainstream media and social media. And it's a great example of why corporate media is dying.
Look at what Americans say are the ten most important problems facing the country right now, according to Gallup: The economy (41%), the war in Iraq (23%), the price of fuel (9%), health care (8%), unemployment (6%), dissatisfaction with government (6%), immigration issues (5%), high cost of living (4%), lack of money (4%), moral decline (3%) and terrorism (3%).
Heck, look at the most important issues gleaned from this very Herald-Leader poll: the economy leads by a wide margin. Then the war (if you're a Democrat), national security (if you're a Republican), and health care (if you're an Independent).
Now look at the poll questions the Herald Leader chose to ask (pdf) for this story and implied that race was essentially the dominant political issue in Kentucky right now:
In terms of how you will vote, how important are the remarks made by Barack Obama’s former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright?So just like the ABC News debate debacle last month in Pennsylvania, the public is focused on the issues that actually affect them, while some in the "professional" media want to keep talking about who's black, who's a woman, and stupid things people say - including something said by a guy who isn't even a candidate.
In terms of how you will vote, how important are the misstatements made by Hillary Clinton about her trip to Bosnia?
In terms of how you will vote, how important are the comments made by Barack Obama in San Francisco about small-town voters?
Do you think Barack Obama's race makes him more or less electable in Kentucky or does Obama's race not matter in his getting elected?
Do you think Hillary Clinton's gender makes her more or less electable in Kentucky or does Clinton's gender not matter in her getting elected?
I think the folks who did this poll may just be trying to see if the Wright/sniper fire/bitter non-issues had an impact. My answer is simple - any story that's forced down the throats of the American people every day for several weeks by the media will have an impact. With due respect to my friends in the professional media, this isn't one of those stories in which consumers demand more details. Those same consumers have given the media a blueprint of what's news.
Corporate media is dying not simply because they're competing with the online channel. They're dying because they continue to try to control the discussion and steer us toward topics people just don't find important, and more consumers are having none of that.
Campaign '08 will be remembered as the last presidential election in which the corporate media controlled what issues frame the election. Count on it.
09 May 2008
But they're NOT journalists!!!!
Except sometimes they are. And they're really good.
As the American media still spends the bulk of its time covering a presidential primary race that was probably over a long time ago, a few other things have been going on elsewhere. Like food riots in Haiti. Or a tsunami that killed at least 23,000 people in Myanmar.
I'm having trouble grasping the concept of 23,000 people perishing in a single storm. I have even more trouble understanding how a government would prevent the rest of the world from providing aid. I don't care where it happened - that strikes me as a bit more important than, say, the whims of uncommitted superdelegates. So as I try to find less-reported but no less important news (preferably without the words "Clinton" or "Obama" in it), I keep coming back to blogs. Here's a short list of places you can find great international coverage you just won't find much in the US media.
Global Voices Online - the biggest and the best. There's so much stuff here you can lose yourself for days just reading so much. Perhaps the best example I can find of the Internet as a truly global medium.
Citizen Reporter - Bicycle Mark may be more than a bit left-of-center, but he writes and broadcasts stories I couldn't find anywhere else and he challenges me to look at things from a different perspective.
Mexico Reporter - anyone who wants to think about America's immigration issues needs to read this. It's not about immigration per se, but it provides a perspective that you simply must have before you form opinions on what happens on our southern border.
Alive in Baghdad - no, this is not a statement on the war. It's news about Iraqis. One video a week, distributed by RSS.
Passport - the blog of Foreign Policy Magazine. This is a bit more "mainstream" than the rest but it still covers items you don't see on TV.
There are plenty more - and I'm always looking for new ones, so share your recommendations...
As the American media still spends the bulk of its time covering a presidential primary race that was probably over a long time ago, a few other things have been going on elsewhere. Like food riots in Haiti. Or a tsunami that killed at least 23,000 people in Myanmar.
I'm having trouble grasping the concept of 23,000 people perishing in a single storm. I have even more trouble understanding how a government would prevent the rest of the world from providing aid. I don't care where it happened - that strikes me as a bit more important than, say, the whims of uncommitted superdelegates. So as I try to find less-reported but no less important news (preferably without the words "Clinton" or "Obama" in it), I keep coming back to blogs. Here's a short list of places you can find great international coverage you just won't find much in the US media.
Global Voices Online - the biggest and the best. There's so much stuff here you can lose yourself for days just reading so much. Perhaps the best example I can find of the Internet as a truly global medium.
Citizen Reporter - Bicycle Mark may be more than a bit left-of-center, but he writes and broadcasts stories I couldn't find anywhere else and he challenges me to look at things from a different perspective.
Mexico Reporter - anyone who wants to think about America's immigration issues needs to read this. It's not about immigration per se, but it provides a perspective that you simply must have before you form opinions on what happens on our southern border.
Alive in Baghdad - no, this is not a statement on the war. It's news about Iraqis. One video a week, distributed by RSS.
Passport - the blog of Foreign Policy Magazine. This is a bit more "mainstream" than the rest but it still covers items you don't see on TV.
There are plenty more - and I'm always looking for new ones, so share your recommendations...
07 May 2008
Social Media and the Presidential Campaign: What's Left?
OK, back to political talk.
The media has (once again) anointed Senator Obama as the presumptive nominee and the talk is all about framing Senator Clinton's "exit strategy." Of course, in about a week we will see a story that leads with "Someone forgot to tell West Virginia that Senator Clinton lost." And we'll see it again a week later in Kentucky. And since those states are among the biggest of the states remaining in the primaries, their influence will be inflated, especially by the Clinton campaign. In the end, none of the talking heads will matter.
It's still Senator Obama's nomination to lose, but he's in a similar position to the one Senator McCain was in just before he clinched the nomination - remember Governor Huckabee kept getting larger-than-expected results in a few states around that time. (In fact, Senator McCain still isn't carrying 80 percent of his own primaries. The mainstream media might just notice this eventually when they talk about division among Democrats.)
So what role will social media play in the weeks ahead? The short answer is simple: money money money money money money money money money money. Oh, and money.
Liberals are turning their blogs into virtual ATM's not simply for the Obama campaign, but for "down-ticket" Senate and House races as well, and they are producing impressive results. For some inexplicable reason, I don't see opportunities to contribute to campaigns on many of the conservative blogs - RedState, with links to David All's Slatecard project (sort of a conservative answer to Act Blue) stands out as the major exception.
Somewhere, deep inside the Clinton campaign, people are kicking themselves for not building better relationships with bloggers months ago. Now the "big" blogs like Daily Kos and Americablog have essentially turned on them. The people who read political blogs are, obviously, very interested in partisan politics. Blogs give them an opportunity to participate - i.e. give money - quickly and easily. No more having to get dressed up and schlep to a fundraiser or find a stamp and mail in a check. Click a mouse a few times and it's done - especially if the blogger does all the back-end work for you.
The Clinton and McCain campaigns are still relying primarily on people to leave the website they're looking at and visit the campaign website to donate. The Obama campaign, with its support throughout the blogosphere, gives people the opportunity to donate from the website they're looking at that moment.
Of course, there's much more to it than that. The Clinton campaign is, essentially, a top-down organization in terms of communication. It takes a traditional approach to message development (run the highly-controlled focus group, glean some key words, and repeat them back - whatever they happen to be). The McCain campaign is a GOP operation, so it distributes the daily talking points to Fox News, talk radio, GOP politicians, and now a handful of bloggers who want to be part of the echo chamber.
The Obama campaign is much different, especially in terms of organizing. They built a series of social network infrastructures and let people do the organizing on their own, the way they want to. They put an unprecedented amount of power in the hands of their volunteers, and gave more access to more people. Think of a "straight talk express" bus on the Information Superhighway, and you don't need a press pass to get the talk.
This is riskier - after all, the stories about Senator Obama's "rural voters are bitter" remarks at a San Francisco fundraiser were actually sparked by an Obama supporter on a blog - but the strength of his organization is largely responsible for his victories in caucus states, and much if not most of that organization was organically grown outside the walls of campaign HQ.
The Obama campaign can now focus on just a handful of states and it can beef up its networks in all. And come the general election, more states will be in play because more people will be part of the process and the volunteers already have an easy process in place to do their work in each state. Senator McCain is shoring up his own base. Senator Obama is expanding the Democratic one.
The race will still be decided on ideas and on perceptions of the future (or on a major gaffe by a candidate), but if GOTV (that's "Get Out The Vote" if you're a newbie) and cash have anything to do with it, Senator Obama has a large advantage.
The media has (once again) anointed Senator Obama as the presumptive nominee and the talk is all about framing Senator Clinton's "exit strategy." Of course, in about a week we will see a story that leads with "Someone forgot to tell West Virginia that Senator Clinton lost." And we'll see it again a week later in Kentucky. And since those states are among the biggest of the states remaining in the primaries, their influence will be inflated, especially by the Clinton campaign. In the end, none of the talking heads will matter.
It's still Senator Obama's nomination to lose, but he's in a similar position to the one Senator McCain was in just before he clinched the nomination - remember Governor Huckabee kept getting larger-than-expected results in a few states around that time. (In fact, Senator McCain still isn't carrying 80 percent of his own primaries. The mainstream media might just notice this eventually when they talk about division among Democrats.)
So what role will social media play in the weeks ahead? The short answer is simple: money money money money money money money money money money. Oh, and money.
Liberals are turning their blogs into virtual ATM's not simply for the Obama campaign, but for "down-ticket" Senate and House races as well, and they are producing impressive results. For some inexplicable reason, I don't see opportunities to contribute to campaigns on many of the conservative blogs - RedState, with links to David All's Slatecard project (sort of a conservative answer to Act Blue) stands out as the major exception.
Somewhere, deep inside the Clinton campaign, people are kicking themselves for not building better relationships with bloggers months ago. Now the "big" blogs like Daily Kos and Americablog have essentially turned on them. The people who read political blogs are, obviously, very interested in partisan politics. Blogs give them an opportunity to participate - i.e. give money - quickly and easily. No more having to get dressed up and schlep to a fundraiser or find a stamp and mail in a check. Click a mouse a few times and it's done - especially if the blogger does all the back-end work for you.
The Clinton and McCain campaigns are still relying primarily on people to leave the website they're looking at and visit the campaign website to donate. The Obama campaign, with its support throughout the blogosphere, gives people the opportunity to donate from the website they're looking at that moment.
Of course, there's much more to it than that. The Clinton campaign is, essentially, a top-down organization in terms of communication. It takes a traditional approach to message development (run the highly-controlled focus group, glean some key words, and repeat them back - whatever they happen to be). The McCain campaign is a GOP operation, so it distributes the daily talking points to Fox News, talk radio, GOP politicians, and now a handful of bloggers who want to be part of the echo chamber.
The Obama campaign is much different, especially in terms of organizing. They built a series of social network infrastructures and let people do the organizing on their own, the way they want to. They put an unprecedented amount of power in the hands of their volunteers, and gave more access to more people. Think of a "straight talk express" bus on the Information Superhighway, and you don't need a press pass to get the talk.
This is riskier - after all, the stories about Senator Obama's "rural voters are bitter" remarks at a San Francisco fundraiser were actually sparked by an Obama supporter on a blog - but the strength of his organization is largely responsible for his victories in caucus states, and much if not most of that organization was organically grown outside the walls of campaign HQ.
The Obama campaign can now focus on just a handful of states and it can beef up its networks in all. And come the general election, more states will be in play because more people will be part of the process and the volunteers already have an easy process in place to do their work in each state. Senator McCain is shoring up his own base. Senator Obama is expanding the Democratic one.
The race will still be decided on ideas and on perceptions of the future (or on a major gaffe by a candidate), but if GOTV (that's "Get Out The Vote" if you're a newbie) and cash have anything to do with it, Senator Obama has a large advantage.
The Kentucky Derby and Crisis Communications
Apparently there were a couple of primaries last night. We may know a lot more at the end of today than we do at the beginning. Social media played a small role in organizing and a huge role in fundraising, much as it has in other primaries. But more on that later.
Tuesday's NYT editorial "Another Horse-Racing Horror" is not being well received here in the Bluegrass, particularly from the equine industry that calls this place home. Within hours of the Derby and the sad fate of its placing filly, Eight Belles, PETA was dominating the airwaves - calling for investigations of the jockey and the owner, calling for the banning of the sport, and barring that, mandating the new "polytrack" surface on all tracks.
A handful of talk-radio callers and newspaper columnists defend the industry with comments, mostly directed toward PETA, like "you obviously don't know anything about this industry and ignorant people should just keep their mouths shut." They may have a point, but they shouldn't be part of the industry's crisis communications plan.
To its credit, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association is responding via its CEO blog with a post called, "Safety First." The online component is likely part of a larger communications effort to talk about what the industry does to protect horses. I'm especially impressed with the close of the post:
I think it's because it's not just an industry - it's a way of life.
Just as the New England fishing families resent the scientists and environmentalists (many who have never fished a day in their lives) telling them to cut back on their days at sea, the horse families of Kentucky resent animal rights activists determined to ban thoroughbred racing, and with it, events like the Kentucky Derby - signature moments in their heritage and culture.
So in situations like these, the reaction of some in the equine industry is to lump anyone who has questions about Eight Belles or concerns about the welfare of animals with the activists trying to ban racing. This is a cultural thing, and you're either with us or you're against us.
Taking this tack right now will only serve to polarize the issue and hurt the industry's case. The industry has to walk people through all the safeguards it takes and explain the whole process, warts and all. It has to acknowledge fault where it exists, and take real action to prevent future problems.
And once the shock of the race subsides, it has to continue the spirit of openness that NTRA is now showing on its blog. It won't be able to turn directly to its political priorities of casino gaming and estate tax relief - these only reinforce the elitist, profit-before-welfare stereotypes many have toward the industry. NTRA doesn't represent the entire thoroughbred industry, let alone the whole equine industry - but right now they're front and center and the pressure's on.
Frankly, I think we should see even more from the good people at the American Association of Equine Practitioners. They're already doing a good job explaining what really happened to Eight Belles, but they're being drowned out by the critics right now.
I think AAEP's crackerjack blogger, Dr. Jennifer Selvig, should be front and center, explaining what happened and issuing the call for more equine practitioners so we can take better care of horses. Use Eight Belle's tragedy as an opportunity to help horses in the long run - that's a legacy any horse owner can embrace with pride.
Tuesday's NYT editorial "Another Horse-Racing Horror" is not being well received here in the Bluegrass, particularly from the equine industry that calls this place home. Within hours of the Derby and the sad fate of its placing filly, Eight Belles, PETA was dominating the airwaves - calling for investigations of the jockey and the owner, calling for the banning of the sport, and barring that, mandating the new "polytrack" surface on all tracks.
A handful of talk-radio callers and newspaper columnists defend the industry with comments, mostly directed toward PETA, like "you obviously don't know anything about this industry and ignorant people should just keep their mouths shut." They may have a point, but they shouldn't be part of the industry's crisis communications plan.
To its credit, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association is responding via its CEO blog with a post called, "Safety First." The online component is likely part of a larger communications effort to talk about what the industry does to protect horses. I'm especially impressed with the close of the post:
I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on what you believe racing should do in the wake of Eight Belles’ death. Thanks.This reflects the openness and access that the entire equine industry must embrace at this moment and beyond. I'll be candid: having lived in the Bluegrass for a few years now, and having approached "horse people" on a few occasions, I get the feeling that the industry looks at people outside their industry with some suspicion, and their first reaction is to clam up.
I think it's because it's not just an industry - it's a way of life.
Just as the New England fishing families resent the scientists and environmentalists (many who have never fished a day in their lives) telling them to cut back on their days at sea, the horse families of Kentucky resent animal rights activists determined to ban thoroughbred racing, and with it, events like the Kentucky Derby - signature moments in their heritage and culture.
So in situations like these, the reaction of some in the equine industry is to lump anyone who has questions about Eight Belles or concerns about the welfare of animals with the activists trying to ban racing. This is a cultural thing, and you're either with us or you're against us.
Taking this tack right now will only serve to polarize the issue and hurt the industry's case. The industry has to walk people through all the safeguards it takes and explain the whole process, warts and all. It has to acknowledge fault where it exists, and take real action to prevent future problems.
And once the shock of the race subsides, it has to continue the spirit of openness that NTRA is now showing on its blog. It won't be able to turn directly to its political priorities of casino gaming and estate tax relief - these only reinforce the elitist, profit-before-welfare stereotypes many have toward the industry. NTRA doesn't represent the entire thoroughbred industry, let alone the whole equine industry - but right now they're front and center and the pressure's on.
Frankly, I think we should see even more from the good people at the American Association of Equine Practitioners. They're already doing a good job explaining what really happened to Eight Belles, but they're being drowned out by the critics right now.
I think AAEP's crackerjack blogger, Dr. Jennifer Selvig, should be front and center, explaining what happened and issuing the call for more equine practitioners so we can take better care of horses. Use Eight Belle's tragedy as an opportunity to help horses in the long run - that's a legacy any horse owner can embrace with pride.
05 May 2008
It's amazing when your state becomes relevant...
...to a presidential primary.
The podcast for the Lexington Forum event can be found here. (the panel discussion starts 20 minutes into the podcast.) Listening to it I think I came off as an Obama supporter; that really wasn't my intent since I haven't declared support for anyone. I do think his success is the reason we're having important discussions about politics and social media, however.
I thought Ryan Alessi and Scott Jennings were smart and I'm very pleased that we didn't descend into the arguing you hear on the talking head shows on cable tv. It was an inherently "political" discussion, but we spent a significant amount of time talking about the impact blogs social media has had on the election and the tensions between online and traditional media. I even let a sarcastic crack out about bloggers being "basement-dwelling, pajama wearing, cheetoh-eating folks who rant" - but remember, I'm a blogger too, and I did it really to note the irony of how to this day these stereotypes exist and yet we gain influence daily. Honestly, all in good fun - no hatemail, please... ;)
Scott Jennings (former deputy political director in the WH under Karl Rove) made some comments I found interesting - he essentially thought that blogs and social media really aren't that relevant in Kentucky. Listen to the podcast to get his thoughts directly, but basically he thinks that blogs talk only to "the base" and very few people actually pay attention to them in the state. He did, however, volunteer the "Macaca Moment" as an example of why they have to be taken seriously.
Hey may be right - Kentucky is one state where change comes much more slowly than elsewhere - though I tend to think that the online channel's influence is increasing, even here in the Bluegrass State. The state has its share of political bloggers, and they're honing their craft. I think when Mark Nickolas left (and took Bluegrass Report with him) the state lost its major online political hub, and no one blog is filling the void, at least on the left.
Ryan Alessi (Political Reporter for the Lexington Herald-Leader) discussed how Sen. Obama's "bitter" remarks were actually first reported by a blogger, and how blogs are now attending the same conferences and events he is. Ryan is one of those guys who still sees himself as a mainstream media guy, but he's young and he gets it.
Again, the panel discussion starts about 20 minutes into the podcast, but if you live locally I think the brief remarks by Mayor Jim Newberry before our panel were important - he's focusing on STEM education, and I personally think his idea is critical for Lexington's long-term success.
The podcast for the Lexington Forum event can be found here. (the panel discussion starts 20 minutes into the podcast.) Listening to it I think I came off as an Obama supporter; that really wasn't my intent since I haven't declared support for anyone. I do think his success is the reason we're having important discussions about politics and social media, however.
I thought Ryan Alessi and Scott Jennings were smart and I'm very pleased that we didn't descend into the arguing you hear on the talking head shows on cable tv. It was an inherently "political" discussion, but we spent a significant amount of time talking about the impact blogs social media has had on the election and the tensions between online and traditional media. I even let a sarcastic crack out about bloggers being "basement-dwelling, pajama wearing, cheetoh-eating folks who rant" - but remember, I'm a blogger too, and I did it really to note the irony of how to this day these stereotypes exist and yet we gain influence daily. Honestly, all in good fun - no hatemail, please... ;)
Scott Jennings (former deputy political director in the WH under Karl Rove) made some comments I found interesting - he essentially thought that blogs and social media really aren't that relevant in Kentucky. Listen to the podcast to get his thoughts directly, but basically he thinks that blogs talk only to "the base" and very few people actually pay attention to them in the state. He did, however, volunteer the "Macaca Moment" as an example of why they have to be taken seriously.
Hey may be right - Kentucky is one state where change comes much more slowly than elsewhere - though I tend to think that the online channel's influence is increasing, even here in the Bluegrass State. The state has its share of political bloggers, and they're honing their craft. I think when Mark Nickolas left (and took Bluegrass Report with him) the state lost its major online political hub, and no one blog is filling the void, at least on the left.
Ryan Alessi (Political Reporter for the Lexington Herald-Leader) discussed how Sen. Obama's "bitter" remarks were actually first reported by a blogger, and how blogs are now attending the same conferences and events he is. Ryan is one of those guys who still sees himself as a mainstream media guy, but he's young and he gets it.
Again, the panel discussion starts about 20 minutes into the podcast, but if you live locally I think the brief remarks by Mayor Jim Newberry before our panel were important - he's focusing on STEM education, and I personally think his idea is critical for Lexington's long-term success.
02 May 2008
Presidential Politics, continued...
There will be a podcast in the near future that recorded the Lexington Forum event, and I'll provide a link. It was an interesting event.
Meantime, here's a Business Lexington piece comparing the presidential candidates' positions on three issues important to Kentucky Business - health care costs, energy/environment (particularly coal), and making higher education affordable and accessible.
Meantime, here's a Business Lexington piece comparing the presidential candidates' positions on three issues important to Kentucky Business - health care costs, energy/environment (particularly coal), and making higher education affordable and accessible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)