THE BIG BAD WOLF REVISITED

The last post I wrote was about how Google might be the big bad wolf, and today I stumbled across another article by Rob Enderle on this very thing. I am sure these are not the only two articles to bring this to the fore, but since they were less than a week apart, I thought I could revisit the question.

This new discussion goes so far as to call Google evil, which seems quite extreme. It is also difficult to know exactly who and what the author's examples are using, which inhibits the reader's ability to make a complete decision.

I do have to say, however, that there are several good points that are made, and it has me thinking twice. It aptly makes use of the quote, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." And it is true - it is hard to think of any company that might be as well-poised to cause massive harm than Google. After all, they are amassing more information in one place than any other company I can think of, and the fact that there have been scores of citizens outraged by google's actions in the past, that maybe we have good reason to take pause. But this alone is not enough to condemn them to being evil.

The article uses a few examples, that of Google's refusal to address the concerns of citizens with privacy concerns, and even a reference to an article in The New York Times on how Google raised the cost of infant care from 37K a year to 55K. This seemed shocking to me given all of the fanfare about what a great company Google is to work for, but alas the company did not reverse its decision, instead rolling back the price increase (which is substantially over market price) only moderately. And that was that. Enderle makes a good point - that money is eclipsing the widely-held belief and notion that Google cares a great deal about something bigger than money. But this seems to fly in the face of that image.

There is also the case of Google censoring information in China, and refusing to take down materials from its archives that is admittedly false and destructive towards individuals. Who knows what the real intentions of the company are? I am more likely to give people the benefit of the doubt rather than assume they are evil given some isolated incidents, and after all, Google is run by people.

But the fact that the government is supposedly going to gmail, which in itself can be a terrifying thought, and a seemingly increased incidence of this behavior, maybe we do have something to worry about. The benefit that Google has bestowed upon society is certainly vast and important, and they deserve credit for that. But we should not lose sight of the fact that the tech industry is still run by people, and as much as I believe in the good of people, these execs are subject to the same temptations and pitfalls as you or I. We should remember that being innovative and smart does not change this fact.

BIG MEDIA DISENGAGEMENT

Besides the fact that the Queen doesn't look nearly as interested as the Obamas, can you guess what is wrong with this picture? It may not be obvious at first, but there is something VERY wrong with it. Give up? The problem is that it has been the dominant news story every since the G-20 summit opened!

For the past two days all I have heard about is Michelle's fashion, meeting the Queen, an apparent non-violation of royal protocol when Michelle got her hands all up in the Queen's business, and similar stories. Oh yes, and there are some pictures and videos of college-aged hooligans marching in support of a total lack of government. Great idea.

But what about what is going on INSIDE the summit? Sure, there is some discussion about this, but if you flip on a TV or look at the front page of most major publications, it is the Queen (didn't we revolt to get rid of this?).

I am not saying don't cover it, but when it becomes the headline for more than a day, and the coverage of this meeting rivals, if not exceeds, the coverage of how the leaders of the world's top 20 economies are going to help get us out of this mess, it is a sad day.

I haven't really done an in depth study as to the level of coverage, so maybe I am off here, but it seems to me that this should be the side item puff piece about how nice it is that our President is suddenly liked by Euro-land and the rest of the world. I also have not looked too deep into the coverage on blogs, but on social media, it is the Queen and Michelle, holding hands or whatever.

I usually talk about new media, and discuss how it might be aiding in a general movement to disengagement, or how it might be helping us to connect more. But forget new media for a minute in deference to my disappointment with old media. Please CNN, NY Times, and the whole lot of you - MOVE ON!

THEY GROW UP SO FAST

I have come across two articles in the past few days on CNN and the NY Times that talk about the problems that both facebook and twitter are having with growing as quickly as they both have.

The NY Times article by Brad Stone discusses facebook's growth in terms of numbers, and in terms of growing pains. It covers the recent controversies with users over advertising and terms of service, and quite aptly speaks about how users are in a unique conundrum: do they stick with the technology that they have learned to love even though they don't like it as much, or do they leqave it, causing a void in their lives that never existed before? It seems that the former is winning out.

It is also interesting when they quote a facebook executive saying facebook is, "not a democracy." I thought that was the underlying philosophy behind all of this new, user-owned media. But apparenty it is "to build an Internet medium for communication," and about the creators and keepers of the site, "we think we have enough perspective to do that and be caretakers of that vision." It is also interesting when Stone covers how facebook is breaking down traditional, sometimes arbitrary boundries, like those between parent and child, and how this may cause said kids to leave when their parents find pictures of them drinking.

The CNN article discusses a more technical aspect of Twitters explosive growth, showing how it is often overloaded with traffic and shuts down. This is a bit more straight forward with the exception of the "early adopters" angle: basically that the early adopters of Twitter are getting annoyed with new users.

It is not lost on me that both articles are published by large, traditional media outlets. Is this an underhanded attempt to chip away at facebook and twitters' collective popularity? Probably not.

It is also interesting to me how both articles cover how these technologies are changing behavior, as that is the topic of the blog. What it does not do, however, is form a value judgement on whether it is for the better or for the worse. I guess that is my job, so here it is (and it is not a new point to be made):

I think both have tremendous potential to help us along in our quest to work better and connect more deeply with our friends and family...as one interviewee in the Twitter piece says, "we are humans, that is what we do." But I am not sure it is great if this is replacing good old face-to-face time (see my post from yesterday). What I found fascinating is at the close of the NY Times article, when one user talks about the new kind of pressure she got from friends when she quit facebook in frustration. Ms. Doherty states, "Everyone has a love-hate relationship with it. They wanted me to be wasting my time on it just like they were wasting their time on it."

Maybe that answers my question.

NEWSPAPER LINED COFFIN

I just wanted to follow up my post from last night on the importance of professional journalism's survival in the face of the new media onslaught.

CNN online ran quite a fitting follow up piece today about the very same topic. It is a scary proposition, as some of the comments following the article express, if user-generated content becomes so dominant that the news becomes something difficult to trust and is by and large unsubstantiated opinion.

The article claims that large national newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post will most likely survive, and may indeed thrive under this new order. But I still think there is a danger.

It is pretty ironic that web 2.0 and the new media are promoted as handing power back into the hands of people, but at the same time manage to destroy the Fourth Estate which is arguably one of the most important checks on our democracy.

I have to think there is some sort of happy medium, but what that might be is unclear right now. It is a red flag when it becomes increasingly more difficult to find any source of news that is worth trusting, even marginally, without extensive checking. Not that one should trust everything they read, but if at any time the impetus to do the fact checking falls primarily on the shoulders of readers, the corpse of our democracy will be laid in a coffin lined with newspaper.

PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISM AND NEW MEDIA

I found a recent article on Real Clear Politics by Cathy Young (of Reason Magazine) on professional journalism vis-a-vis new media good fodder for (DIS)ENGAGED.

Ms. Young makes a wise statement that professional journalists and the profession are both still as important than ever, and that the new media, while a powerful tool of democracy and spreading information, is not a wise substitute. She rightly claims that both do best when acting as a check on, and complement to the other. There is some additional commentary on how Barack Obama was handled with velvet gloves and also that the media is liberal-leaning. She may be right, but that is not what I am interested in here.

The rest of the article (posted on a blog, mind you) goes on to discuss how traditional media might survive in the new media landscape, and business models that might allow these companies to make profits and survive in the face of blogs and the like. I do think this is important.

Ms. Young closes with a judgment that if Americans still respect quality journalism they will pay to keep it alive so long as the media earns that respect. I agree with this in broad terms, but I am not sure that it is entirely true.

I know more people in my hometown in Illinois that think the NY Times is liberal propaganda than those who take it as honest reporting. I see plenty of people here in the big apple who use The NY Post for one-stop news/info shopping. And I have spoken with plenty of folks who seem to put more faith in user-generated commentary disguised as news than they do in that from professional sources.

I was recently in Seattle when the Seattle P.I. folded, and it seems like each day another one bites the dust. It is sad, and scary. While our new media give us new and exciting democratic opportunities, I agree with Ms. Young. We do need to find a way to at least preserve professional journalism, if not the papers.

ENTER FENTON COMMUNICATIONS

I recently had the opportunity of attending a seminar at Fenton Communications, a consulting firm which guides social change movements and enables the organizations that further them to gain traction and move audiences to action. Aside from the incredibly important work done at Fenton, it was inspiring to learn about what it is like to work at the firm. Not only am I grateful that such a place exists to help move the important causes of our time forward, but as a communications and corporate relations professional at NYC's biggest non-profit, I would be remiss not to mention that it sounds like a dream job.

In addition to learning about the exciting work done by the Fenton professionals, Sharene Azimi, Vice President with Fenton, offered to help me get some answers for (DIS)ENGAGED. I was fortunate enough to be able to ask some important questions relating to the topic of this blog, the answers to which came from John Gordon, Vice President of Online Services with the firm. What follows below is this question and answer session:

Could you please briefly explain the scope of Fenton’s work and your role?

Fenton provides a range of public relations, advertising, and new media services to clients that protect the environment, transform markets, improve public health, and advance human rights and social justice.

I am the Vice President of Online Services and I work with clients to develop strategies to engage their network through Web tools and social media.

Can you explain how Fenton is using Web 2.0 (social networks, blogs, or user-generated content in general) to further its work?

We believe successful campaigns require you to join a conversation before you can move people to action. These conversations are happening in traditional media, at water-coolers, and around the kitchen table. But, more and more, they are happening through social tools like Facebook, Twitter and blogs. As much as appropriate we try to integrate social media into the communications mix. The challenge is to leverage the strengths of each media to complement and support the overall goals of the client.


Now the big, general question: do you see the emergence of these technologies as engaging citizens in our political and social process to change our society for the better? If so, how?

Yes. Any tool that enables citizens to organize, inform and communicate at a higher level can only better our society.


Do you see anything as a threat to technology’s ability to help move us all forward?

Last mile restrictions and media consolidation are probably the biggest threats to the Internet’s potential. Also, investment in communications infrastructure and equitable access to technology are challenges we must meet if we want to move forward as a society.

Do you believe in the professed power of social networking sites, or could they be smoke and mirrors?

The power of social networking is real. Millions of people are using these tools to connect with others and have real conversations. That’s a powerful thing.


Do you believe blogs, sites like YouTube and social networks could actually end up being a hindrance to progress, or another distraction in a world where people can seem incredibly disengaged?

Traditional media inspired response, but the experience was mostly passive. The promise of social media is that we can engage and deliver action within the same expression. With every medium there is the opportunity to use it for less than productive means, but the overall rewards certainly will outweigh any threats.


Are there any examples that immediately come to mind that you see as a success in leveraging these new online tools to change things for the better, or at least expand engagement in the larger conversation?

The one obvious example was the Obama campaign. They were able to integrate new media in way that brought about historic change.


What specific technologies do you think hold the most promise for moving the conversation forward?

I don’t think it’s about the specific technologies so much as it is about behavior. The technology certainly enables communication, but people’s desire to connect and communicate in new and creative ways is driving the innovation.


Do you see any “dangerous” new technologies, or, ones that look like they may hold us back?

Social monitoring tools are very useful, but they are also a little frightening. I don’t think most people understand that every Tweet and post they generate is searchable and that people are actively mining and monitoring for information. The flip side of this is that younger generations do understand this and they seem okay with it. This active embrace of total information sharing could have future implications about the perception of privacy rights.

Thank you so much to the team at Fenton Communications, both for helping me, and for your work!

IS FACEBOOK THE NEW PARTY BOSS?

At the risk of seeming too mainstream-media effected, I thought that this piece by Professor of History and Public Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University, Julian E. Zelizer, raised the very question that (DIS)ENGAGED is meant to explore: are facebook and its net roots cohorts really a new force to be reckoned with in our political discourse?

The good professor doesn't take any sides but does correctly state that, although Barack Obama may have been elected to the White House with a lot of help from the "roots" and facebook, it is not yet clear whether these two new players can really affect legislation or policy. As Zelizer aptly points out, the tools that raised the President so much money during his campaign and ultimately put him into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, was not used as a means to an end during the fight over the recent stimulus bill. As the article ponders, it will be interesting to see if it can be effectively deployed to help with the upcoming budget war, or beyond that into more specific policy areas.

There is a great video from the BBC cited in the article and it is a pretty stinging (if not entertaining), yet painfully accurate, commentary on how many people actually spend their time on facebook:

Though it is unclear how likely it is to happen, Zelizer contends that the new power of citizen-generated policy could supplant the muscular "political machines" of our not-so-distant past. If this Presidency can effectively use web 2.0 to navigate the legislative and political hurdles that loom large on the horizon, we could indeed be witnessing the beginnings of a new political order. It will just take someone savvy enough to pull the networked strings of our culture to get the job done in this potentially newly-engaged world.

TEAM PLAYERS PART DEUX

Last night was probably one of the best nights of homework I had recently: I watched the CNN-facebook State of the Nation event, on facebook, along with scores of other people. It was terrific to blend what I would have been doing otherwise with an obligation for class. And I did learn a few things. First, the positives.

It was pretty exciting and encouraging to see so many people becoming actively engaged in the political discourse of our time. The comments were mixed (see the end for my favorite lines from facebook comments) with those for and those against the President and his proposals. While seeing some more objectivity would have been nice, it was clear most people were tuning in with their opinions already made up. But the fact that so many viewers were able to watch, comment and have their input seen by others around the globe was thrilling. There were people from Korea, Pakistan, Europe, Buenos Aires, Canada and of course the US. I can not think of another way that so many people could share in something, in real time, that effects those very people. Certainly this made me feel that this technology was assisting us in moving forward, at least as far as getting people involved. And not just involved like they think about things sometimes. But involved because they could be part of the discussion, and more importantly, chose this forum to watch the speech precisely because they could engage in the conversation.

However, I would be remiss not to mention that it did seem a lot more like sitting around with either a group of lefty hipsters, or a group of die-hard Cheney fans (depending on the commentator) than it felt like watching "the best political team on television" as CNN claims.

While I agree - Nancy Pelosi looked a bit insane and her dress was truly tragic - I was amazed at how many comments had to do with these and other meaningless parts of the broadcast, and very little to do with the actual substance being covered in the President's address. Some were there to spew, some were there to coo and some were just there to check it out. But the vitriol with which some people engaged, and the blind following of others made me wonder whether this type of interaction was actually helping move the discussion forward. At times it seemed more like helping facebook try to become a mainstream source of information, and assist CNN attract new viewers.

In the end I would put this in the "engaged" column because so many people did sign in to take part in what is ultimately an important moment in the fate of our society. Perhaps to some, simply seeing so many others participating helped to add gravity to the importance of being involved in our nation's trajectory. However, it is clear that mob rule is a real potential dark side to this new media, and that many are not using these tools to move the conversation forward.

And now, for your viewing pleasure, some notable comments from the evening (spelling mistakes and all). If you read to the end you will be rewarded with a good chuckle, I promise:

Michael William Collins asks what each of us facebook users will do for our country.

Jordan Prok Obama's Goal: Making Americans understand the difference between neccessities and luxuries.

Chris Denslow can't wait for the Repug response about how we will tax cut our way out of the recession. I need a good laugh.

Daniel Rollings That was 80 billion for alternative energy in that stimulus bill. Finally money where it really counts.

Benjamin Souza has heard nothing but spending, spending and more spending which equals HUGE debt.

John Matthews There's more oil in the Dakotas than anywhere else on earth. Just let us drill.

Sadiya El-Nubein' facebook is sooo innovative to have this status while watching the Pres. Love it.

Chiara Di Bendetto Brown our entire corrupt government in one room, how sickening.

Shailesh Kumar How will our children repay China for all the money we are going to borrow from them.

Nicole Quick can't believe she just watched the State of the Union on Facebook.

And by far my two most favorite comments:

Chidi Afulezi just saw McCain mutter "If I have to stand again, Joe the Plumber's about to get nasty up in this piece.

Jasmaine Graves thinks Nancy P. wants Obama to take her to "Pleasure Town."

MORNING MORSEL

I have to start out by saying that I don't really drink orange juice. I am more of a grapefruit person. My parents retired to Florida and this new design looks like the local generic brand sold at Publix grocery stores (one on every corner!). Also, this piece seems like fodder for my friend and classmate Jennifer's blog, but I thought I would try to scoop her.

So as I am eating my high fiber bran cereal with banana this morning, my regular news show was covering this story about how Tropicana was switching their carton design back to the old picture of a straw coming right out the orange. I also caught the same story here.

On the outset it seems like nothing special; alright, they went back to their old package...so what? But it is how Pepsi was forced back that is the interesting part. Apparently blogs, chatrooms, fan pages on facebook, and the whole realm of online Tropicana fans went ballistic about the packaging, flooding the internet with complaints. Well, Pepsi was listening and decided to tuck their tail and run back to the straw. Looks like Pepsi understands the Groundswell.

But I want to get back to the topic of this blog. Jennifer can cover the deeper branding implications, but is this really a step forward? On my morning program Linda Kaplan Thaler was on (and I never realized she was so...animated), and her take on the people's revolt was that:

"People can't control the state of the economy, they can't control the housing crisis, but they can control their carton of orange juice. They can go in there, blog about it, write it, and change it. They feel empowered."

OK - maybe - but since when? I have never felt like I can control what companies do with their products. When something changes for the worse, I usually just switch brands or deal with it. But now, people CAN force companies to change. However, I am not convinced that this is moving forward. Is the carton really that important, or have we become so consumerized (is that a word?) that we are getting so caught up in superficial nonsense like our orange juice packaging? It seems to me that if people want to control the economy and the housing crisis, all of the tools they just used to passionately plea for a new picture (or, rather, reverting back to the old design) on the carton of their morning juice could be used to try and sway lawmakers and the powers that be about important things.

Maybe I just don't understand because I don't drink orange juice - it's possible. But I just can't believe that getting Pepsi to change Tropicana's packaging is really engaging people over anything that meaningful. But I do concede that it does demonstrate the power of the new tools consumers and ordinary folks have available.

SHE'S BACK, AGAIN, FOR THE ???TH TIME

One might think I am posting this to talk a little trash, and that statement wouldn't be totally misguided. Or those more familiar with Columbia's Strat Comm program might wonder if I have chosen this picture deliberately to give props to a classmate of mine, which would also be accurate. But actually, I do have a relevant point.

It is a bit ironic for someone to use media, to bash media, to get their name in the media; but that is politics, right? I just wonder what "media" the distinguished Governor is talking about. I can assume she means the major networks and newspapers, but at best she is only vaguely aware of what was said about her in blogs, social networks, etc. I have to believe that if she had looked into these media (which I doubt since she couldn't answer what newspapers she reads - for God's sake LIE if you are running for VP!) as I certainly did during the election, she would be truly horrified. Which brings me back to the point of this blog: are people using new technology to become more or less engaged?

Clearly when it comes to the election of 2008, I have to put a mark in the engaged column (as opposed to disengaged). I am also curious if Gov. Palin discusses The Google or the internets in her interview. But leveraging the power of web 2.0 was key to our current President's victory, and it is quite obvious that her side of the race didn't have a keen understanding of what they could do with these tools, or how to do it.

Then again, as much as I enjoy this gun-toting Sarah, maybe photoshopping Sarah Palin's head on a truly sad and tragic bikini pic isn't necessarily the best way of engaging either (no offense Naomi - you know I love it).

TEAM PLAYERS

Alright, so here we go, CNN and facebook are teaming up to bring us the President's speech before Congress next Tuesday. While I certainly wish there was more to be excited about other than this pairing of media players, I do think that this is a significant step in the right direction of engagement.

I know that this topic - social networking and Obama - is a bit played out, but it can't really be overstated. If the younger generations that certainly help thrust Barack into the White House can become involved in our nation's political discourse, beyond his election and inauguration, we have some good times to look forward to. Of course facebook is not just for the young any longer (note: I am on facebook), but the web service definitely skews younger, and more active attention being paid to our political direction the more actively engaged these younger voters will become. I am of the mind that this can only good for our democracy...though sometimes I wonder when I speak with someone 23 or younger.

My only question with this situation is that the new and improved aspect of facebook is that it is not big-media driven. However, by teaming with a big media company, offering CNN's commentary exclusively on facebook, the users are really only being exposed to one angle...that of CNN. While those who are not excited about the networks coverage have a chance to speak out, it does raise the question of where facebook's power ends and users' power begins.

TWEETING THE KIDNEY

So I came across this article today during my lunch that I thought was particularly appropriate for this conversation. I know the blog started out to be about social action, and while I still hope to exlore that subject matter, this was an interesting piece on CNN.com that I read today about doctors tweeting their surgery.

The purpose is to not only keep family, friends and those watching updated on what is happening, but also to demystify what is otherwise a scary operation (removing a tumor from a kidney). During the course of the surgery it came to the surgeon's attention that he may have to remove the whole kidney, which he had not intended to do and which in the end was not necessary. This, of course, raises some new questions about this practice: whether it is actually a good thing to have family get a play-by-play of a loved one's surgical procedure.

But nonetheless, I think this is an incredibly interesting, creative and progressive way of using this type of technology, and I would say a move in the right direction.