No Twitter posts from the Washington Post – Is that a good idea?

October 21, 2010October 21, 2010 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The Washington Post told it’s journalists to keep off of Twitter after a staffer spent 140 characters defending the publication of an unpopular editorial. The piece, by the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, made a case that gay teens committed suicide because they were mentally unhealthy. It predictably raised the hackles of gay activist groups, who criticized the very idea of allowing such opinions to be published – which just as predictably led to the Post’s representative standing up for the First Amendment and the need for a broad marketplace of ideas.

It may seem ironic that, after a representative of the post contributed to this public conversation by citing the need for a public conversation, the Post shut down public speech from its employees. In fact, Mashable roundly criticizes the new policy:

The Post is clearly trying to do some damage control, but in a time when it is often difficult to encourage traditional journalists to embrace social media and dialogue with readers, this will only discourage it further. News organizations should be encouraging dialogue and debate, not stifling dialogue between readers and journalists.

Actually, the Post’s policy is a good one.

Think of this in terms of a classroom debate. A teacher poses a question. A few students argue for one side, other students argue another. The teacher provides facts and information, but shouldn’t be taking one side versus the other, right? In fact, by removing their journalists from the discussion, the Post can do more to promote a discussion by not taking a side.

It’s important for media outlets to connect with their audience – as purveyors of information, they have to know what’s relevant, understand the various viewpoints are out there, and appreciate which issues pieces of information is most important to readers or viewers. But if a journalist is supposed to (try to be) an objective resource, why would he or she want to participate in the debate? Wouldn’t any journalist who did start to lose some credibility or give evidence of having some sort of agenda or bias?

New Facebook Groups and organizing

October 14, 2010October 15, 2010 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The launch of Facebook’s new Groups feature last week was largely overshadowed by this week’s Bing/Facebook social search announcement and the success of Facebook: The Movie (a.k.a. The Social Network). But in online organizing circles, the new feature presents some questions about the future of online organizing – namely how

The answer to those questions depend on who is asking them.

The Basics of Groups

Facebook Groups is essentially the love child of a glorified list serv and a wiki, with similar functions as Google groups. Group members can send blast messages to the rest of the group, chat, and share content. What makes Groups a bit more interesting than a list serv is that a user creates a group, he or she can add other users without their permission. Adding someone to a group is as easy as tagging them in a photograph. If you’re a Facebook user, you can be added to a group without actively joining (barring some privacy setting adjustments, of course).

Groups vs. Pages

Facebook’s pages are easy to set up, and getting a user to join a fan page is as easy as having them click a “like” button. That’s why many campaigns, causes, organizations, and companies use these pages – aside from operating like a website within Facebook, it’s relatively easy to rack up big numbers of followers if you have some money to spend on Facebook’s cost-effective advertising. Communication with followers is somewhat passive – your posts wind up in their news feed, but you can’t send mass messages – so followers are not always engaged.

Groups are even easier to build than Pages, thanks to the aforementioned tag-style recruitment method. Group members can be engaged more actively that page followers, but a group administrator has less control over the direction of the discussions that take place among group members. This is fine if you are using Facebook Groups for discussions among members of a task force or working group, but gets problematic if you want to use it for a political or issue campaign that relies heavily on message discipline. If you’re part of a small group of activists, though – such as a local Tea Party group – Groups as it currently exists can be very helpful. In many ways, Groups is built for the citizen activist.

Groups and the API

“As it currently exists,” though, may be the operative phrase thanks to the recruitment-as-tagging method mentioned above and another, potentially quite powerful facet of Groups: the open API that lets applications access, communicate, and essentially mine information from Groups:

The API currently enables developers to pull a Group’s basic info including name, description, owner, last updated time, and privacy setting; access the Group’s picture, view existing posts; see all members; and post to the Group… The API will allow developers to build applications over the feature, such as Group feed readers, Group recommendation engines, and more.

What this means is that smart online organizers will use Groups as a recruiting tool, reaching out to these small, self-organized communities to build “like” counts on pages or to join other groups, depending on their specific goals.

(Of course, with all the controversy Facebook and other online networks have suffered due to privacy loopholes, this may not last long.)

The Real Nature of Facebook Politics

Either way, Groups illustrates something very important about Facebook organizing: Recruiting for volume is less and less important than recruiting large numbers of the right kind of connections, either as group members or page followers. Having 100,000 followers or 1,000 members is, ultimately, no big deal – all it takes is money for ads or the chutzpah to tag all your friends (and some of their friends, perhaps). The real question is what those followers and members do to help your ultimate goal – whether that goal is votes in an election or a phone call to elected representatives.

“Likes” are cheap, but action is valuable.

The Least Interesting Man in Washington State

October 11, 2010October 18, 2010 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ 2 Comments

According to this ad, that title is held by Dino Rossi. It’s a great find by Project Virginia

This is a great model for an independent expenditure ad. Instead of beating the viewer over the head with sinister music and wild claims, it’s creative and funny – and frames the election in a way the Rossi campaign couldn’t (and probably shouldn’t). Best of all, it praises Rossi while poking a bit of fun at him – making it much more credible to the undecided voter. With polls split down the middle in that race, Rossi could use any edge he can get.

Making online/mobile strategies count

September 14, 2010September 14, 2010 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ 1 Comment

Matt Lewis had me back on his podcast today, and we discuss the balance campaigns must strike between different tech tactics. Specifically, we chat about Florida gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott’s very deliberate decision to avoid text messaging in favor of email to announce his running mate. In this case, the Scott campaign decided that emails were more valuable to their campaign strategy than mobile numbers. (Given Florida’s elderly population, it was probably a wise choice. Also facto in the power of email’s reach – John Boehner actually sent an email update to his supporter list to draw attention to a tweet. It sounds redundant but it’s actually the best way to make the tweet gets seen.)

As Matt and I discussed, the rumor from Scott’s consultants is that he is not averse to spending money – so this was an educated decision.

I’m excited to see the implementation of good mobile strategy – and text messaging is going in some exciting directions. But too often, the people with resources to burn don’t stop to think through their online strategy. This is especially true with issue or candidate campaigns which use tools like Facebook for messaging, but really don’t know what to do with their 10,000-person follower list after everyone clicks the like button.

To use an old-school campaign example, imagine going door to door for a candidate. When the voter opens the door, you ask, “Hey, are you going to vote for my guy?” The voter says, “Yup!” and the conversation ends. You don’t take down their name, address, or phone number, or even ask if they’d like a lawn sign. The same is true if think taking action on an issue you care about ends when you send an email to your Member of Congress. Chances are, that email will be counted and deleted because the staff knows how easy it is for any crazy person to send them an email. (That’s why advanced follow up is always recommended.)

No matter how advanced your tactic, if it isn’t applied with some measurable and impactful result, it’s a waste of time and resources.

How one Florida Gator scored a PR win

September 8, 2010September 8, 2010 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The University of Florida looked putrid in a victory over Miami of Ohio on Saturday (college football is the only sport where a 22-point victory can be called putrid with a straight face). Their offense could not get into a rhythm, in part because newly converted center Mike Pouncey kept snapping the ball down around quarterback John Brantley’s feet. Since Brantley, like most Division I-A quarterbacks, throws with his arm, this was one of the big storylines on Sunday.

On Monday, ESPN Radio’s Scott Van Pelt reported something unusual: Pouncey was available for media interviews. According to Van Pelt, Sports Information Directors tend to shield student athletes who have had rough games from press interviews. But Pouncey calmly answered questions and took the blame for the team’s disappointing performance. And he didn’t give ESPN the exclusive, also sharing his mea culpa with Florida papers like the Miami (of Florida) Herald:

Showing the maturity of a valued team leader, Florida center Mike Pouncey took the blame for his offense’s unflattering start to the 2010 season… After the game, Pouncey said he planned to arrive at UF’s football facility “early in the morning” Sunday to begin correcting his shotgun snaps. When asked whether his hands were injured, Pouncey said they were not; rather, he said the ball was slipping off his fingertips.

So what will the announcers talk about next week? Probably the fact that Pouncey is a stand-up guy. Sure, there will be questions about Pouncey’s technique, but none about his intelligence, commitment, or fortitude. If he keeps snapping worm burners, the assumption will be that he should return to his original position at guard and that he simply doesn’t have the physical ability to snap the ball, despite trying his hardest. There would not be loud whispers that he’s psyched out by the pressure of performing.

(And it’s worth noting that Pouncey will probably get the lion’s share of attention this week – taking some of the heat off the rest of the underperforming offense and endearing himself to his teammates even more.)

It helps that Pouncey has a track record of success to point to. More than that, though, the way he handled his failures honestly and proactively will win him the benefit of the doubt heading into next week’s game – and the best chance to turn those failures into successes.

Winning on Iraq

September 1, 2010September 1, 2010 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ 3 Comments

Last night’s Presidential address on Iraq was written and shaped, in part, by John Boehner. Boehner re-drew the rhetorical battle lines on Iraq, neutering the administration looking for a win heading into campaign season.

Throughout August, Boehner and Republicans have been talking about Iraq with a fairly consistent message of thanks to the troops for their service in Iraq, crediting them for victory. It’s not a controversial message, but one they beat the drum on pretty well. That made it difficult for the Obama Administration to give the speech they probably would have liked to give last night.

Did you notice (as Politico’s Roger Simon did) that the thrust of the speech had little to do with the Iraq war itself? When the President spoke on Iraq, he echoed Boehner’s talking points in speaking about the troops’ resolve. The final half of the speech delved into future military strategy, and then wended into domestic policy in an awkward attempt to tie policy consensus to support for the troops.

In a vacuum, a skilled orator like Obama might have claimed credit for ending the conflict started by his predecessor – a tack he has used repeatedly for his economic policies – and called for unity after a long national nightmare. There might have even been a few digs at the rationale behind the war in the first place, Easter eggs for the far left supporters who will be crucial campaign activists in the coming elections.

Instead, Obama gave a speech which reads like it could have been given by John Boehner.

UPDATE: I meant to include this earlier, and just plum forgot. To get a sense of what the speech may have looked like in the imagined vacuum, check out the opening of the email Organizing for America sent around last night over the President’s signature:

Tonight marks the end of the American combat mission in Iraq.

As a candidate for this office, I pledged to end this war responsibly. And, as President, that is what I am doing.

Since I became Commander-in-Chief, we’ve brought home nearly 100,000 U.S. troops. We’ve closed or turned over to Iraq hundreds of our bases… Ending this war is not only in Iraq’s interest — it is in our own. Our nation has paid a huge price to put Iraq’s future in the hands of its people. We have sent our men and women in uniform to make enormous sacrifices. We have spent vast resources abroad in the face of several years of recession at home.

The New Yorker: Koch fiend

August 26, 2010August 26, 2010 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

This lesson in investigative journalism is brought to you by The New Yorker’s hit piece on Charles and David Koch’s political activities:

1. Find some fact that isn’t particularly widely known. Save time by finding a fact that isn’t widely known because it isn’t particularly interesting.

2. Pretend that the fact is not widely known because of a conspiracy.

3. Write a hit piece that calls out political activists for their political activism.

Koch industries has issued their rebuttal, and the story will likely blow over pretty quickly, but The New Yorker’s story deserves a second look as a primer on journalism mistakes to avoid.

Most Americans probably don’t know the extent to which federal government activity buoys the Washington, D.C. job market. In addition to government jobs, there are countless lobbying firms, public affairs shops, and of course think tanks whose existence is based on the fact that the government is so complex. Both the left and the right have their think tanks, and if you stroll through the halls of similar organizations on either side you’ll start to see similar names on the plaques which commemorate donors. One of those names on the conservative side is Koch.

The New Yorker article paints David and Charles Koch as clandestine movers and shakers among the center-right, starting sham organizations to debunk global warming theories and government regulations. The hilarious part about this is that the Koch brothers have never made any secret of their interest in politics – or their willingness to spend money advancing ideas.

In the interest of full disclosure, I’ve had a few dealings with the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. I’ve had friends who work there, and I’ve spoken to their Associates program (a widely advertised course which trains people to run think tanks) a couple of times a few years back. In fact, to thank me for appearing, they gave me a Swiss army knife key chain with “Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation” stamped on the side. If you’re running a secret conspiracy group, you don’t make up key chains advertising it.

Buried in the conspiratorial tone of the story and the apparently necessary examples of inflammatory rhetoric at tea party rallies are a few interesting facts about the priorities of Koch-funded organizations and the priorities of Koch industries. But lost in the shuffle is the consistency with which the Koch brothers have held to libertarian ideals – ideals which are actually quite rare in the business world.

And then there’s the big story The New Yorker completely whiffs on – that a large, activist government that picks winners and losers will attract attention and activism from large corporate players.

Internet and technology companies are weighing in on policies like net neutrality. Health care companies were all over the place on both sides of the health care takeover. Railroad companies are plugging for railroad subsidies; farmers are plugging for farm subsidies. In fact, the devious “Koch agenda” is unique only in that while most companies are clamoring for their piece of the pie, the Koch brothers are among the few saying “just leave us alone – we got this.”

Had the author not spent valuable mental energy dreaming up the term “Kochtopus” to describe the many tentacles of activity funded by the Koch brothers, she might have had some left over to explore some of the other octopi in the D.C. ocean.

Plus, I’m pretty sure Ziggy already wrote this story.

Deconstructing the primaries

August 25, 2010August 25, 2010 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ 1 Comment

What might be the best wrap-up of yesterday’s primary results was published before the returns came in. As media outlets keep dropping over-simplistic terms like “tea party support” and “outsiders vs. insiders” to explain what happened, the Washington Examiner’s Timothy Carney boils the divide in Republican politics down as “the Tea Party Wing against the K Street Wing” – a divide which is not simply ideological or experiential:

The main distinction… might have less to do with policy platforms and more to do with a politician’s attitude toward the Washington nexus of power and money. Nevada’s Sharron Angle is anti-bailout and anti-subsidy. [Kentucky candidate Rand] Paul could try to shrink defense spending and ethanol subsidies. In Florida, Republican Marco Rubio isn’t a game player like [former Senator Bob] Dole’s buddy Crist is.

This morning, we hear that Lisa Murkowski is in trouble against “tea partier” Joe Miller, that John McCain bested an insurgent challenge from a more conservative candidate, and that established Republican Bill McCollum lost out to Rick Scott.

So if you’re scoring at home, “the establishment” won some and lost some, with Alaska up in the air – at least, according to most of the talking heads you see.

But can you call McCain an establishment Republican candidate? McCain had bucked national party leadership in his own way for decades, often lashing out at the K Street types Carney mentions above. As Matt Lewis noted – again, before polls closed yesterday – he fought a serious race against an opponent with more clear ties to K Street establishmentism. Last week, the New York Times saw fit to print that Alaska’s rugged individualism was either inconsistent or an outright sham because of its dependence on federal money; regardless of how the final tallies go for the scion of the Murkowski family goes, her ability to keep winning earmarks did not lead to an easy victory lap. And Bill McCollum was part of a Republican establishment in Florida rocked with a spending scandal earlier this year.

And of course, there’s the big caveat that each race has its own local interpretations of who counts as “the establishment” and who really is an “outsider.” All the more reason to look at the results through Carney’s prism rather than the crystal ball which other analysts are trying to use.

New Diggs

August 20, 2010August 20, 2010 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ 1 Comment

Digg got a lot more relevant after announcing upgrades that make it a true social news service this week.

The old Digg was pretty straightforward: people submit stories, everyone votes, the top links appear on the home page and drive thousands of hits worth of traffic. The problem is that the top stories for one user are the top stories for every user – and means that the site experience is a reflection of the aggregated community, rather than a user.

Breaking into a system like that means joining with like-minded users to promote content more favorable to your side. Alternet called that “censorship” a few weeks back, but is really just a form of political organizing. It was an attracting but ultimately useless expenditure of time; while Digg could drive traffic, it’s probably not going to be an important front in the war on ideas.

A more user-oriented model downplays the need for such a strategy (while promoting further social engagement) because the front page is no longer the Holy Grail. It opens up the possibility of niche communities. In politics and advocacy circles, it means you no longer need to have a high-profile race for Digg to be a viable part of your social strategy.