This ONE TIME you can call me a princess

Normally "princess" isn't something you call a guy.  But I'll join in this one.  Just this one time. Go git'em, Susan.  Go ahead, call me a princess.  Find me a damn tiara already. Put me on that LONG list of people calling themselves princesses and supporting you.

Susan Neibur is amazing - astrophysicist (that's "ROCKET SCIENTIST" to you and me), mom, wife, blogger, and cancer survivor.  And she's a damn fine writer.  I've been kicking some ideas around with her on something for almost a year now that I hope will try to bring both of her "worlds" together - science and parenting.  We'll pull it off.

Susan, you're not alone and you never will be.

The State of our Oratory is... well... umm...

2011 SOTU as a Wordle text cloud

A few noteworthy items from last night's speech and response.  OK, responses.

First, the speech that really matters - President Obama gave a decent speech, albeit a forgettable one from a rhetorical perspective.  I was impressed that he focused so much on research, science, math, and technology. The bit about celebrating the winner of the science fair as much as you celebrate the winner of the Super Bowl was the kind of rhetorical salvo that should send warm fuzzies to my science advocate pals.    Overall it was an appeal to our better angels, something America needs at this moment.  

However the catchphrase that was intended to weave the speech together - "win the future" - fell just a bit flat to me.  It seems the phrase was designed to underscore the emphasis on competitiveness you could find throughout the speech, and it may have been designed to tap into a more modern version of the "manifest destiny" idea  that is embedded in America's cultural DNA.   People I know on Twitter explain that it's a reference with "digital age" and gaming undertones, and it's somewhat clear that the people who wrote this speech have a foot securely planted in that world.  As a piece of rhetoric I think it tries to be bold but is just slightly too vague to be useful. 

Overall the speech had all of the entirely predictable elements you find in the modern SOTU - the "we're #1," the laundry-listish recitation of policies, the references to the VIP's sitting next to the First Lady, the shout-out to our military, and the request for God's blessings. 

But let's also remember that the SOTU has its limitations.  It's nearly impossible to get into real specifics, even when the speech runs over an hour.  This speech is perhaps more about ceremony today than it may have been at one time.  So the bits that sound like specifics may or may not be.  For example, the President gave strong emphasis to clean energy and proposed what sounded like an ambitious renewable energy portfolio standard for... some year far enough in the future that he won't really have to worry about it. But in the list of energy sources he included something called "clean coal."  Coal is not clean and it's not renewable.  "Clean coal technology" is more a term of art than an actual, tangible thing.  Yet there it was.  So what is the portfolio standard?  Clean? Renewable? Or some new definition that gives the appearance of success without really doing anything meaningful?  Only time will tell, and it will likely be left to the Department of Energy and the EPA to clarify.  And it's no mistake that Carol Browner's departure was announced BEFORE the speech.  Energy companies no doubt saw that as an olive branch to help deal with the thorns of the rhetoric presented against them in the speech. 

I think the responses demonstrate how truly difficult it is to sit in a room by yourself and read off of a teleprompter and still seem engaging.  Seriously, it's not easy.  The President just gave this huge rhetorical address with the eyes of the world upon him, and you're confined to a small studio with a camera.  Do you try to sound conversational, like a "fireside chat?"  Do you try to be presidential, to match the gravitas of the President?  In this situation you really can't win because you're compared with perhaps the greatest orator of our generation on a stage designed to amplify his presence.   

I won't hide my politics - I'm a Kennedy Democrat.  But trying to take my politics out of the equation (probably impossible to do) I think the responses absolutely sucked.  They just did.  Congressman Ryan's speech was a focus group-driven list of phrases without a coherent rhetorical center.  But it was the format that really killed the speech. He had a limited amount of time to cram in a lot of things.  He spoke too quickly, and the tone of his voice and the expression on his face belied his words.  (You don't smile blankly when you're talking about a colleague who was shot in the head two weeks ago.) This created a fundamental disconnect for viewers - Ryan looked like he either didn't mean what he said, or he was simply reading through a text by rote.   (Oh, and I found the "substance"of the remarks to be misleading at best.)

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann's presentation - I think that's a far more appropriate term than "speech" -  looked like a Ross Perot infomercial, and fell short of even Congressman Ryan's address in terms of delivering substance.  The information she placed in charts - real speeches don't have props - was misleading and lacked context.   Of course, this wasn't the first presentation from a Member of Congress to play up some data and ignore other facts, but it seemed the "success" of the presentation relied on the ignorance of its audience.  That's never a good thing to do.  The repeated use of the term "Obamacare" - clearly designed to serve as a pejorative - was beneath the the moment.   And again, difficulties with the format led to the most obvious issue that detracted from the entire presentation.  The teleprompter was placed off to the side, and the speaker looked directly at it (and not the camera) for the entire address.  Combine this with the too-frequent "double-guns" pointing gesture and the result was a distracting and difficult experience for the viewer.  Finally, the iconic picture of the Iwo Jima soldiers raising the American flag at the end was superfluous, even overreaching as a rhetorical device - it lacked relevance to the remarks, and seemed to be forced, and frankly, pandering.   

Overall the night was a solid win for the President - he gave a decent speech (snap reaction to it was overwhelmingly positive) and the GOP demonstrated they couldn't overcome the complexities of the medium to deliver a coherent message in response. Of course, time will tell if any of it has any substantive impact, but at least beltway pundits (and rhetoric geeks like me) have something to write about for a couple of days.

I'm Tweeting My OWN Damn SOTU

Network prime time gets to step aside for one evening each year for the State of the Union Address - or as I like to call it, "Prom for Student Government Nerds."

It's actually a constitutional mandate of sorts - you can find reference to it in Article II, Section 3:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Over the years the State of the Union speech has taken on certain customs; some good and some not.  It's now an annual address of a joint session of Congress, though as you can see there's no constitutional mandate for that.  The speech has a certain amount of pomp and ceremony, with the House Sergeant at Arms yelling, "Mister Speaker, the President of the United States!" just before he walks in.  (This was a job that used to be performed by the House Doorkeeper, but they abolished that position sometime in the mid-nineties.)

The speech typically includes a reference to the First Lady, who will no doubt have all sorts of VIP's sitting next to her in the Gallery.  (I'm guessing at least one of those VIP's tonight will be someone who was at a Tuscon supermarket a couple of weeks ago.)  Recognition will certainly be given to our Armed Forces, and we'll no doubt hear that "the state of our union is strong" or some form of that.  We'll probably hear about a list of programs - getting a "mention in the state of the union" is often seen as some sort of lobbying plum. We'll learn that children are our future, that we need more jobs, and of course, that America is the greatest country with the greatest people.  And we'll wrap the whole thing up with asking God to bless us, everyone.  The whole thing will probably last an hour, give or take.  Someone will certainly count the number of times people applaud, people stand up, and if anyone shouts "you lie."  It's going to be a little different in that the Democrats won't all sit on one side and the Republicans on another, but I'm reasonably confident partisanship will be present in some form.  And of course, let's not forget the drinking games.

Then the opposition response will come - probably less lengthy, but probably more pointed in its criticism of the President and his policies.   This year we get a special bonus opposition response from a "tea party" person, and I'm sure it will be like the first opposition response - just with more invective and references to debt and deficits, but realistically with considerably less substance.

Then the news networks will have their turn to bloviate - the "major" networks will trot out people who have worked in the White House before to explain to us what the speech really meant and whether the President "succeeded" in doing whatever. The cable networks will trot out their people who will explain why the President "failed," and we may even see a focus group or two in action.

The simple truth is this: while it's important for the President to keep the people in the loop, I think we should maybe try tweeting SOTU and see if our democracy is torn asunder. I notice that the Washington Post is trying this out, but they're only giving people one word - I like the idea but I don't like limiting it to one word - my tweet, my rules.

 I'm betting the only people who would suffer are the people who care about cable news ratings.  And frankly, I think this will actually get more people to pay attention.

So if you had to tweet the State of the Union, what would you say?  Just for kicks, you could tweet yours and use the hashtag "#MYsotu" - hey, why not?

Mine:  "We need more jobs, more clean energy and better schools.   But health care reform is happening and we're coming back strong."

#scio11: What's Next for Science Online?

Last week (and weekend) I attended ScienceOnline 2011 as a sponsor for the second straight year.  (You can find my reaction to last year's conference here.)

My immediate reaction to this year's conference is by no means unique or especially insightful, but I'll add my voice to the chorus: Anton Zuiker and Bora Zivkovic are passionate and skilled advocates of the science blogging community, and they put together a strong conference.  (They got some essential help on the ground from other passionate advocates like Dawn Crawford.) They flat out DELIVERED for their community - an amazing accomplishment when you consider how much they had going on in their personal lives this year.

The conference program was solid.  I won't be as ecstatic over the content as some because thankfully, ScienceOnline is not about me.  I'm on the periphery of the science blogging community at best. I'm not a scientist, I'm not angling for a book deal, and I'm not a science journalist.  I think it's also safe to say 2010 was the year of the "science blog network," and once Bora launches the Sci Am blog network  I'm wondering just how many more science blogging networks we need at this point.  Rather than more networks I think we'll see further "professionalization" of this online community on the individual level, just as we've seen in other blogging communities.

So here's what I'm looking at for the science blogging community in 2011 - will this be the year science bloggers have real influence beyond their own community?   And if so, who will be the bridge figures that emerge to carry this influence forward?

For example, and I know this surprises some people (cough VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN cough cough), there is a lot of political discussion on science blogs, and for good reason.  But the people who write and implement the public policies that affect all of us don't generally read science blogs. (Seriously, they don't. I checked.) Of course, Congressional staffers and political operatives DO read the political blogs - and they respond to political bloggers who write about science issues, regardless of how (un)informed those bloggers may be.  Yes, there are some people who write competently about both topics, but I'd argue those people are more regularly recognized for their political writing - like Daily Kos' Greg Dworkin, who also manages the Flu Wiki.  (I also note that one of the more widely read reviews of science blogger Sheril Kirshenbaum's new book came from Daily Kos, so maybe that's a start.)

There are several other examples, but I'm hopeful. #scio11's most important moments for me focused on the nexus of science communication and other important communities such as parenting. I walked away from them with new contacts and reasonably specific actions for follow-up.  Some of the ideas that were actually born at #scio10 may bloom sometime before #scio12.

At this point I have many more questions than answers.  But hey, it's January.

#TweetMasdar and Much More

scene from #TweetMasdar

Today my pal Tim Hurst was in Masdar City (a client) with my colleagues hosting a "tweetup" for the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi.   I'm very excited that so many people chose to participate and share their thoughts.  Catch up on the #TweetMasdar conversation and share your thoughts - people keep chiming in.

The conference and Masdar City's leadership in it has been a topic of discussion among some leading green bloggers.  I'm looking forward to reading all the posts, but in the meantime here are a few to get you started:

Masdar: a $2 Billion Clean Energy City Grows in the Desert by Treehugger's Brian Merchant
Personal Rapid Transit in Masdar City by TriplePundit's Nick Aster
Masdar City Gets Real by Marc Gunther

Masdar is an amazing story, and I'm very pleased that so many good writers are out there covering it.  Oh, and maybe I'm just a little jealous of Tim.

Secretary Clinton at Masdar

It's not every day that the Secretary of State visits your client and expresses such strong support:

We have a special connection with the institute because of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of our nation’s top universities, and because of the Department of Energy. We believe that the work that is being done here at Masdar has the potential to solve some of the most urgent challenges facing our planet. How do we develop sustainable energy sources that can power our cities without contributing to climate change? How do we create technologies that are scalable and both use less power and are widely affordable? How do we supply water for drinking and farming in places where fresh water sources are decreasing? How do we achieve economic growth without relying so heavily on fossil fuels where they’re drilling for them, selling them, buying them, or burning them?

...I want my country to know how advanced you are in pursuing clean, renewable energy. I want the world to know that the United States is partnering with you, because we are betting on Abu Dhabi and the UAE. We are betting that this incredible investment represented by Masdar is going to pay off. And when it pays off, it will not only mean a better life for the people of this country and this region. It will have ripple effects throughout the world.

Arizona: what we've really lost and what we must do

By know everyone knows what happened to Congresswoman Giffords, Judge Roll, and the other victims in Tuscon. But I can't stop thinking about this.

Aspiring politician Christina-Taylor Green was born in the midst of tragedy on Sept. 11, 2001, and died Saturday morning while trying to meet Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

The strong-willed 9-year-old third-grader had gone to meet Giffords with a neighbor when she was shot. She died later at University Medical Center.

And not surprisingly, this:

Jittery members of the U.S. House of Representatives concerned about security jammed telephone lines Sunday during a rare bipartisan conference call a day after a gunman tried to assassinate U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords outside a supermarket near Tucson.

A bipartisan group of House leaders took the unusual step of inviting spouses and staffers to dial into the conference call held to update members about Giffords, brief them about the shooting and discuss steps being taken to tighten security.

I want to show some restraint in commenting on this because there was no initial "proof" that this (alleged) assassin's actions had any groundings in politics.  And frankly I found it disturbing at how quickly the punditry on both ends of the political spectrum absorbed this news and once again used it as proof they have been right about the other side all along. As usual, I won't hide my politics - the punditry on the right has gotten so defensive about this and the tone their rhetoric has taken it almost begs the Shakespearean retort, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Before we delve into the depravity of today's political discourse, it's important to take stock of what we've really lost.

• We have, of course, the unfathomable tragedy of the loss of life - not only a vital public servant in the form of a federal judge, but also five other innocent people, including a nine-year-old girl.  And we have those who were badly wounded, and those who were traumatized by witnessing the event.
• We will likely see further physical separation of the government and the governed.  We will have fewer public events, more security and isolation for Members of Congress and this Administration, less access for the taxpayers and even the media.  This means that more government will be done in private, among only those privileged and moneyed enough to have access to those in power.
• We will see even less incentive to go into public service.  If I run for Congress I already know I'll spend most of my time asking lobbyists for money, I'll have a grueling travel schedule, I'll have to maintain two residences,  and I'll spend the majority of my "floor" time talking about symbolic things that have very little impact on the daily lives of people.  Now I get to wear kevlar while I do it. This is not a line of work I'd ever want my son to enter - not right now, anyway.  We used to worry about our children getting hurt if they joined the military.  Now we have to worry if they run for Congress.

I can think of two major changes we need immediately.  While we don't know for sure if the accused was listening to the political rhetoric of the right or saw the now scrubbed image of Congresswoman Giffords' district in the cross hairs of a rifle sight, we need to understand the status quo is not sustainable.

First, the news media needs to understand its own responsibility here and act accordingly - stop giving rhetorical bomb-throwers air time. We all know who they are.  We all know what networks put them on television. And sadly, we also know they drive ratings.  But you know what - it's really not news.  We've reached the point in our politics where you're rewarded not by working hard with people across the aisle but by calling those people un-American or worse.  It's time for our professional media to be the grown-ups in the room and say no, you don't get to go on TV if all you have are thinly-veiled references to guns, boldface lies  or asinine suggestions that people aren't citizens.  And don't give me guff about the first amendment.  Remember Daniel Webster: "liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint."  Editors edit.  Start doing your jobs.

Second, transparency in government just got a whole lot more important.  If we further restrict access to members of Congress and others in the government, we must know immediately who DOES have access  and where campaigns are getting money. Further, front-groups that don't disclose their funding sources - the groups that have fueled so much of the "vitriol" we've heard about without a shred of accountability to anyone - are a cancer on our democracy.  OWN YOUR WORDS.

One final point - there are moneyed interests who have contributed to the current state of political depravity.   I can't stop thinking about what I wrote in August 2009, when corporate interests were instructing angry, ignorant mobs to storm town meetings much like the one Congresswoman Giffords held this weekend.

There can be no doubt that people in my profession are organizing this sort of thing, stirring up fear and hatred and dehumanizing an enemy, in the name of "freedom," going on television and telling outright lies. They are actively trying to suppress discussion and debate. They are telling unstable people some unstable things, then they're pointing at someone and calling them "Hitler." And they're hiding their true identities (and their funding) by setting up "non-profit" groups that have names with words like "freedom" in them.

They are undoubtedly aware that the more they do this, the more likely someone is going to commit even greater acts of violence. They know this and they do it anyway.

Now those same interests find themselves more able to hide their funding, and actually have more access to government leaders as public meetings become more restrictive.  And of course, no one is accountable. 

Getting Serious About Climate PR

It's not often I get to say I'm on the same page as the Union of Concerned Scientists. But back in November I wrote a post about some scientists (specifically the American Geophysical Union) pulling together a "rapid response" team to work with the media on climate change issues. I suggested that was good but not enough, and gave some ideas on action items:

One of the things they could do is hold a press conference in DC before the new Congress is seated and let the political reporters know some basic facts. Not necessarily the science of climate change, because most political reporters don't care about the science of climate change. The basic facts I'm talking about can be summed up thusly: if a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying. Get out there first and define the lie. Yes, it's been said before. But not really in this context - right as a session of Congress is beginning. Make sure everyone knows they're lying - make sure it's the default position. Then let the media investigate the motivation behind the lie.

Then follow up the press conference with editorial board meetings with the newspapers in key Congressional districts (i.e., the members of Congress who chair relevant committees), again with the simple, clear message: if a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying.

And so on.  So it's quite heartening to read this in Politico:

Expecting a surge next year in Republican-led House hearings on global warming science, the Union of Concerned Scientists sent experts out earlier this month to Washington and New York for meetings with reporters from 60 Minutes, Time, USA Today, Reuters, Bloomberg, MSNBC and other news organizations. Frumhoff said the journalists “were keenly interested in understanding how casting doubt about mainstream scientific findings that upset powerful financial interests, from the health risks of tobacco to the reality and risks of global warming, is a tactic that has been used time and again to delay or avoid regulation.”

UCS has also been leading behind-the-scenes efforts to get its scientists on television, radio and in print stories, as well as in front of Rotary clubs and editorial boards.

This suggests to me that scientists are thinking more strategically about communication and how it relates to policy, and this is a very good thing.

Of course, there is considerably more to this than just meeting in advance.  What does their messaging look like?  Has it been tested with focus groups or surveys?   Are they addressing the economic issues that critics leverage so effectively?  Are their spokespersons well-trained and all on the same page?  And do they have the commitment and resources to sustain a coordinated and aggressive campaign?

Here's the thing:  groups like UCS and AGU clearly have the science on their side, and they actually want more, not less, transparency in this discussion.  But critics have more money and more at stake in the short term, and they have much more experience developing and implementing effective, strategic communications campaigns.

In a future post I'll review some of the strategic pressure points advocates can use in their messaging to move from defense to offense, and win more of these PR skirmishes.

Measuring Twitter Influence Update

As of Thursday, January 6, 2011:

White House official Twitter account: 1,913,504 followers.  and now we know how they've been handling the economy:

Under-reported in WH staff shake-up: we’ll be bringing in whole new crop of interns for summer. Apply: www.wh.gov/internshipless than a minute ago via webThe White House
whitehouse

MC Hammer official Twitter account: 1,990,064 followers. and he's pumping out brain candy like:

@THeBOyBOyMEss love you boy !!!
And you do know dat !!!!!less than a minute ago via Twitter for iPhoneMC HAMMER
MCHammer

Online PR: In Need Of A Colon Cleanse

Dr. Val passed on a post by Gary Schweitzer, a healthcare media critic and publisher of a valuable site, HealthNewsReview.org.  Schweitzer wrote his version of the bad pitch blog as a year-end post, running down some of the garbage he got this year. I snipped out some of my favorites:

• "natural essence water" that saves men from nagging wives or girlfriends who may think you're a "schlub"
• an offer of a free sample (street value of $60) of a colon-cleansing/detoxifying product. (What do they know about my colon? Is it toxic? I didn't take them up on the offer.)
• a note that was entitled "Chill Your Buns" that offered free samples of a "cold therapy" for hemorrhoids. (OK, what do they know about my buns and beyond?)

Read the whole list - it would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.  It wasn't just that the pitches ranged from silly to snake oil.  It's that the pitches were sent to a media critic.  He's the guy who actually evaluates healthcare journalism.  He's pretty good at it.  He'd likely slam a publication that ran with one of these pitches. And he clearly got dozens of them.

The moral of Schweitzer's story isn't that the pitches are pathetic, it's that healthcare journalism is too dependent on PR and the impenetrable wall between editorial and advertising seems to be thinning a bit. He's clearly right about this, but I'm more concerned with the apparently auto-generated and mind-numbingly stupid outreach. Schweitzer was far more restrained in his criticism than I would have been.

The sad truth is we're going to have more, not less, of this crap in 2011.  Companies will try even harder to commoditize online outreach to the point where cost and speed become the only criteria for choosing an approach.  I already get the emails - "buy my blogger database" to cut down on your research costs and send bulk pitch emails.  I'm in a lot of these databases already - and in several of them, the blog is called a "music blog," a "tech blog," an even a "sports blog."

I've also gotten generic emails with nothing more than a press release and a "please share with your readers" - from a college on the west coast announcing new courses in social media marketing. I assume this is where students will learn all those advanced techniques people use to build strong, personalized relationships with bloggers.

Online PR - at least what I think of it - is headed in the wrong direction.  We're obsessed with all the shiny new tools and the new networks and all that.  But for cost control reasons we label people and bloggers without even looking at what those people have to say - and we're getting worse, not better.  Social media is not static, and people can't be tagged with a single label.  Database-driven bulk email strategies are more risk than they're worth.

To any companies reading this blog, I can say without reservation that buying a well-developed ad program with a thoughtful placement strategy yields a much higher ROI than what we're doing now, and at comparable if not better cost.    If you're really concerned about building or protecting reputation for your brand or your company, throw away the database and do the work necessary to earn the trust of people.