I hate Jackie Robinson

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 1 Comment

Major League Baseball is honoring Jackie Robinson today by having all players wear his number, 42.  I honor Jackie Robinson differently: I hate him.

And yes, it has everything to do with color: blue.

Jackie Robinson was a Dodger.  As a Yankee fan, mentioning Robinson conjures thoughts of the 1955 World Series – including the blown call on his steal of home and his team beating the Yankees in seven games.  Was I alive for it?  Not even close.  But as a fan, it stings, and so Duke Snider, Pee Wee Reese, Gil Hodges, Johnny Podres, and especially Sandy [expletive] Amoros are forever enemies.

One could argue either way whether being the first black major league baseball player was enough to make someone a Hall of Famer; Robinson’s on-field achievements made the point moot.  He didn’t ask for grudging respect from fans or peers, his play demanded it.

Robinson was a ballplayer first and foremost.

So yeah, I hate Jackie Robinson.  I hate him the way I hate David Ortiz, Curt Schilling, Edgar Martinez, Luis Gonzalez, Sandy Alomar, Alex Gonzales, Bob Gibson, the 1976 Reds, the 1993 Blue Jays, and of course Pedro Martinez.  It’s not a personal hatred – I wouldn’t throw a D-cell at him – but on the baseball field I’d sure love for him to strike out four or five times.

Would Jackie Robinson have wanted it any other way?

Twit-story: The Library of Congress vs. Google Replay

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 4 Comments

The Library of Congress will collect and store the full volume of Twitter for “scholarly and research purposes.” Twitter is psyched because it’s another demonstration of legitimacy:

It is our pleasure to donate access to the entire archive of public Tweets to the Library of Congress for preservation and research. It’s very exciting that tweets are becoming part of history. It should be noted that there are some specifics regarding this arrangement. Only after a six-month delay can the Tweets will be used for internal library use, for non-commercial research, public display by the library itself, and preservation.

As evidenced by events like the Iranian election protests, Twitter users can act as documentarians of history as it happens.  The Library of Congress’s recognition of this is another sign that Twitter has grown up a bit; the timing couldn’t be better, coming just a couple days after they announced their advertising model.

For the vast majority of Twitter’s data, this announcement is really a non-story – after all, there’s nothing stopping anyone from visiting Twitter and accessing all public tweets.  What about accounts that have been deleted, though?  And what about the accounts that get deleted after the Library of Congress makes an official historical record of them?

Buried in Twitter’s blog post is a much “friendlier” strategy for making Tweets a part of history: Google’s Replay service, which allows users to revisit moments in history and watch events unfold through Twitter and other online media.

As with most announcements, the difference lies in the semantics.  Google Replay would pinpoint specific times and issues – in other words, it would gravitate toward tweets which were sent with the idea that they were for public consumption.  The idea of Twitter turning over a hard drive full of information to a government office may be no different in practice or outcome, but it sounds a lot creepier.  Suddenly, you may find yourself perusing your own Twitter feed to see if you have anything to worry about.  A better announcement might have been a joint release by Twitter, Google, and the Library of Congress discussing a way to incorporate publicly broadcast real-time updates into research.  It might have looked like a tool on the Library’s website, powered by Google.

The nature of Twitter makes this a minor issue, but it isn’t the only place that history is recorded in real time.   Facebook and Google Buzz have both incorporated elements to mimic Twitter’s free-flowing stream-of-consciousness format.  That means they’re just as potentially attractive to the Library of Congress as part of the “historical record” – even though their data is decidedly more sensitive.

W: Redemption through revolution

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The George W. Bush Presidential Institute will host a conference on online dissidents next week.  For a President who left office after two terms with enemies on both the right and left, this is a possible preview of how Dubya plans to brand his time in office.

President Bush’s eight years were defined by September 11; Bush responded to those attacks by advancing the idea of expanding liberty throughout the world. But with the Iraq War grinding along with no end in sight on January 19, 2009, critics on both sides of the aisle viewed Bush as one of the least competent two-term Presidents in history.

Faced with this, Bush made a smart post-Presidential decision and stayed out of the public eye (save for his humanitarian efforts in Haiti and a pretty good ceremonial first pitch on the Texas Rangers’ opening day).  During his radio silence, the Iran election protests and the China/Google flap demonstrated that freedom-loving people around the world were fighting freedom-hating regimes.

Suddenly, the conversation on world affairs was ripe for W to dip a toe back into the water.  Tech President pointed out that this is a good fit for Bush:

While “George W. Bush” might not be the first person that pops into your head when you think about cyber dissidence, there’s some sense to it. For one thing, you can see this approach mesh well with the sort of hand-on democracy promotion he leaned towards at times during his terms.

Along with a good cause, Bush’s post-Presidential messaging has another smart element: activities like this cyber dissident conference are forward-thinking rather than retrospective.  It doesn’t tell the story of Bush’s foreign policy, it adds to it in order to create the recurring theme of extending freedom.

Bush himself might say, “Even if you don’t agree with me,you know what I believe and where I stand.”  Last time he used that line, it worked out ok for him.

140-character sponsorships

~ Jim Eltringham ~ 1 Comment

Though they haven’t shown up quite yet, the phrase of the day is “sponsored tweets” – Twitter’s long-overdue way to make money off its product. (When you hear anyone say “sponsored tweets,” scream real loud!)

I’ve searched a few terms that seemed like good candidates for these ads to show up but haven’t seen a sponsored tweet yet – which may be the first time anyone has ever wanted to see advertising but couldn’t find it.

Sponsored tweets do offer a new political tactic in advance of the 2010 elections.  Candidates have been using Google ads to frame themselves and their opponents for years, and 2010 will be no exception.  Search engine and Facebook ads, though, are closer to traditional advertising: you see creative (text or a picture), and if it’s interesting enough you take some sort of action.  Clicking on an online ad is a more instant (and measurable) reaction that buying something after seeing a television commercial, but the concept is the same.

Twitter ads appear to be more message advertising – so the “creative” may not even come directly from the ad sponsor.  Lets say you’re working for Republican Keith Fimian, running against Rep. Gerald Connolly to represent Virginia’s lovely 10th district (which includes this blog).  If someone searches for Connolly on Twitter, you might sponsor a tweet from a voter or activist – rather than from the official Fimian campaign Twitter account – that calls on Connolly to get heaved out of office.

This strategy has been tested somewhat with Google ads, but mostly as a joke – searching for John McCain, for instance, might bring up sponsored links for the AARP.   But Twitter ads give brands – political or corporate – a chance to use third party voices to frame search results.  No doubt this will become as much art as science as the 2010 elections approach.

3 Reasons why Conan made the right move

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The internets lit up as soon as the announcement hit (which, oddly enough, happened on Dave Letterman’s birthday): Conan O’Brien is headed to TBS as soon as his contractually obligated silence is up.  The basic cable station won out over Fox, which was the place O’Brien was widely rumored to head since it was first announced that NBC was bumping him out of the 11:30 time slot. That led to some head scratching, though it makes a lot of sense for three big reasons:

1.  Turner properties offer valuable opportunities for cross-promotion. O’Brien was always positioned as the host with the younger audience, and Turner is well positioned to reach that audience. Not only does TBS airs three hours of Family Guy on Monday nights (leading right into the time slot O’Brien will occupy), but Turner’s cable properties have been at the forefront of providing television-quality online video – first with the now-defunct website SuperDeluxe and now on both TBS.com and AdultSwim.com.

The real underrated asset in this deal isn’t online though – it’s the cross-promotional opportunity with Cartoon Network, whose Adult Swim shares some of the same audience as O’Brien.  While it would appear that sets up a tough intra-company competition, that isn’t exactly the case because of the second reason TBS and O’Brien are a great fit.

2.  TBS offers time slot flexibility no other network will. This isn’t just about getting a half-hour jump on Jay Leno and Dave Letterman; Fox could offer the 11:00 p.m. time slot, too.   But after the 11:00 showing of O’Brien’s show, and the 12:00 airing of George Lopez’s program, TBS will have the 1:00 p.m. time slot to fill.

What’s going on at 1:00 a.m.?  Jimmy Fallon’s Late Night show and Craig Ferguson’s Late Late Show have moved from comedy bits into guests.  Comedy Central is replaying their 11:00-midnight programming (The Daily Show and the Colbert Report).  Adult Swim is getting into its final hour, which features shorter cartoons that aren’t as popular as Family Guy and Robot Chicken – and, let’s be honest, really target the stoner market (have you ever tried to make sense of 12 oz. Mouse?).  And remember those hypothetical college kids who media analysts claimed stayed out too late to catch O’Brien’s Tonight Show?  The 1:00 a.m. slot is a lot closer to last call.

On TBS, O’Brien could wind up with two chances to rope in an audience – so even if more people watch Leno between 11:30 and midnight, O’Brien has a better chance to snag viewers from 11:00-11:30 p.m. and 1:00-2:00 a.m., rack up big viewership numbers, and claim victory on sheer volume even while Leno wins the 11:30 time slot.

3.  TBS straddles the line between cable and network television. This is important because, for as edgy as O’Brien is credited as being, he’s quite traditional in many ways.  With a pedigree in Saturday Night Live, the Tonight Show, the Simpsons, and even Late Night, O’Brien’s signature projects have counted their runs in decades rather than seasons.

TBS is pretty much a network television station in two important ways.  First, its mix of original and syndicated programming mimic most Fox affiliates.  The big difference is that TBS is still searching for signature, cornerstone shows to build a prime time schedule around as Fox found with Married with Children in the late 1980s and the Simpsons in the early 1990s.  (Notably, Fox built a solid prime time audience but could never keep them around for late night; TBS seems to be building in the opposite direction.)  Second, TBS is nearly ubiquitous – among the most basic of basic cable stations.

At the same time, cable (even basic cable) offers some level of freedom that escapes over-the-air network television.  Being on cable at 11:00 may offer the same creative outlet as being on at 12:30 on network television, when O’Brien shined to begin with.

TBS offers these benefits with a final caveat: because it’s cable, measures of success will be different.  It will be easier to become the top-rated original program in TBS’s history than to hold that same position with Fox. After all, the difference between victory or defeat is often a matter of expectations met or missed.

A very maverick-y negative ad

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

That John McCain, two years after being his party’s standard-bearer, is fighting for his political life in a primary against talk show host J.D. Hayworth is telling of how urgently many GOP activists want a cathartic cleansing of Republicans of recent vintage.  However, an online video released by the McCain camp makes an argument that the conservative movement needs effective messengers as much as effective messages.

The message is subtle even if the delivery is not: the GOP has a message problem that goes beyond government policy, and the elevation of a voice like Hayworth’s would add to the stereotype.   One would assume that McCain’s campaign has internal poling numbers which show this is a strong field for them to play on, and that Republican primary voters are vulnerable to fears that Hayworth will be perceived as a joke.

The McCain folks are certainly careful to tread cautiously to avoid offending activists – they use extreme-sounding quotes from Hayworth, but on selective issues.  For instance, the video doesn’t take a stand on gay marriage, but it does quote Hayworth’s hyperbolic comparison of gay marriage to bestiality.  This is followed by Hayworth overreacting to an off-hand comment from a political opponent who promised to metaphorically drive a stake through Hayworth’s heart – echoing the over-the-top rhetoric of some Democrats after the recent health care debate.

With this video, McCain tries to tell conservatives that Hayworth is simply not strong enough to carry their flag.  It’s a pretty sophisticated message – and a good one for McCain to deliver, given his at-times-contentious relationship with conservative activists. And the video is funny, which always helps.

McCain does make one mistake in the presentation of his case that’s worth a chuckle or two.  A quick glance of the official John McCain YouTube channel offers potential for misunderstanding; the thumbnail for the video happens to be the screen frame reading “Expose Obama’s Secret Kenyan Birthplace” – and it looks more like a campaign promise than a joke.

The senseless census

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Census forms are to be mailed back this Friday, leading to a round of news stories and even paid advertising talking about the importance of participating.  If you received a form in the mail, you likely got a nice thick letter beforehand reminding you that it was coming; households that don’t return forms will get a visit from a census taker.   It sounds expensive because it is – especially if you fall into that category of having someone come to your door.  The census is estimated to cost $15 billion.  Since government projects tend to stay on track, that number surely won’t go up.

True enough, that tidy sum doesn’t represent that much of a dent in the budget, but couldn’t the census be organized a little better?  Isn’t it a bit surprising that it won’t be until 2020 – a quarter century after the internet became a big deal – that the census bureau figured out how to harness online communications to help count the citizenry?

Most organizations which rely on grassroots outreach have a tiered system, with online outreach as an initial step.  The first communication can go to a broad audience very cheaply, and those that participate online don’t require additional – and progressively more expensive – means of contact.

As an example, let’s say you are recruiting people for a political cause.  You might first reach out to that broad audience and invite them to sign up online.  Those that do can then be taken off the list.  Next, you might send them a piece of mail or two, then perhaps a live phone call, and finally, if all else fails, send someone to knock on their door.  At each stage in this simple example, you reduce your outreach list so that in successive stages you are spending only as much as you need.

Sending a postcard with a secure website address on it, where people could log on and answer the census questions, would be a good start to the census – and it could save millions in printing and delivery expenses of forms, letters, and other reminders.  It would have the additional benefit of painting a clearer picture of the national technological infrastructure, which would make broadband initiatives more focused.

Security of data is an important concern – and the one most often cited as an excuse for the census’s technological lagging.  Yet the IRS accepts tax return data online – which includes some of the same information.

The idea of an online census may be way off base; if that’s the case, I’d love to hear why.   But online communication is efficient, cheap, and secure – couldn’t any government program benefit from those qualities?

Stupak your bags

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Rep. Bart Stupak has been the object of derision and scorn since he famously flipped his health care vote.  Because of that, his seat has been a big part of the electoral calculus for this fall’s Congressional elections – and despite his retirement, it still is.

Nationally, Democrats were able to win the debate on health care, thanks in large part to Stupak.  His last-second flip gave cover to other pro-life Democrats to support the bill – and he pulled enough votes with him that other Democrats in conservative districts, like Heath Shuler, could continue to oppose the bill.  (Shuler was promptly replaced by Donovan McNabb.)

As such a key figure, Stupak might as well have drawn a giant bullseye on his back.  But it was a national bullseye, as a friend of Stupak told Politico:

The friend said he believes Stupak would have won, adding: “More than 95 percent of the opposition from left and right has come from outside of his district.”

And Republicans have rallied around surgeon Dan Benishek, a tea party favorite, who received very little attention until Stupak voted for the health care legislation even without the anti-abortion language in the bill . Benishek is expected to raise more than $100,000 this quarter, according to GOP sources, a large amount for a first-time candidate who had virtually no campaign infrastructure before Stupak received national attention over his health care positioning.

While he was running, Stupak was a lightning rod; even if he lost his race he would at least soak up resources.  Like he did a few weeks ago, he would have run interference for his fellow Democrats.  Other Democrats in tough races may find themselves touched by the ripples of his retirement.

Free News!

~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Rupert Murdoch – the Australian who prints Our Nation’s Newspaper of Record – is sticking to his guns: advertising alone won’t support journalism, so if you want news from his properties, you’ll have to pay.  (Eventually.)

Murdoch has a problem with news aggregators like Google, which monetize other people’s content.  Critics say Murdoch’s time has passed, and that putting up paywalls would hurt readership.  While this is true, readership really isn’t the problem for news media, it’s revenue.

Like any foray into the online world, eyes on the page mean little unless those eyes do something.  Campaigns and causes find that out all the time.  It’s relatively easy to drive traffic to a site or amass 10,000 Facebook fans, but unless those site visitors and fans sign up, give money, and/or take action, they’re nothing more than numbers on a spreadsheet.

Similarly, if  Murdoch’s papers don’t have users that somehow create revenue, it really doesn’t matter how much news they read.  It isn’t a matter of greed; it’s a matter of keeping the lights on.  And if Murdoch chooses to monetize his content completely, then Google and Microsoft have no right to take his content and serve ads around it.

To be sure, committing to a business model that sells content means that content will have to stand out a bit.  If Murdoch’s content stands out to the point where people are willing to pay, then he should charge.  And if not, the problem will correct itself.