June 2008 Archives

• Political Freelancers Use Web to Join the Attack (New York Times)
  The development of cheap new editing programs and fast video distribution is empowering a new generation of largely unregulated political warriors. (Of course, this isn't limited to politics, but that is much sexier to write about)

Bill Gates retired as the head of Microsoft yesterday.   After 33 years leading the global software company he founded in his garage, he will now devote his full attention to philanthropy through the work of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Regardless of what you think about Microsoft, or Bill Gates personally, know that he's a genius and the experience and perspective he now brings to the philanthropic world are significant.
What's his secret?   What should we look for as a hint of how he'll take his business experience and apply it further to his work around the globe?   The Seattle Times quoted Gates in his farewell speech to Microsoft, saying:

"My life's work really is about software and working with incredible people," Gates said with tears in his eyes at a gathering on the company's Redmond campus. "And I love working with smart people."

We should all be so lucky.

As he has done in the software industry for more than three decades, Bill Gates will not only do more and better things for philanthropy through his direct work, but he will fundamentally change the way foundations, non-profits, governments, and other institutions conduct their work through his leadership.   He has already create dnew models for how we address the most pressing health and other issues around the world and I am confident that more dramatic shifts are ahead.
So, Bill Gates, if you are listening — as you say goodbye to one career and begin another, I say "hello!", and welcome (full-time now) to the world philanthropy.   I, for one, am very happy you are devoting your time, energy, and talents to these critically important causes and I look forward to the opportunity to work with you, and learn from your leadership, whenever and however, that opportunity presents itself.

• American Solutions
  Newt Gingrich is using the web to help develop solutions for some of the nation's most complex challenges. I may not agree with him politically, but the guy does understand how to build a movement.

• Hill, Yes! O., No! - washingtonpost.com
  The effectiveness of the Internet as an organizing tool for dissent is creating concern and uncertainty about the scope and intensity of those Democrats who are unwilling to fall in line and support Barack Obama.

• 30 Essential PDF Documents Every Designer Should  Download (Graphic Design Blog)
  I'm not a designer but this is very cool - and helpful
• Hyperpolitics (American Style)
  Terrific presentation from this morning's session at PDF

I am at the Personal Democracy Forum conference in New York and am attending a launch event for a new initiative that calls on Congress and the president to act in the public interest by enacting a plan for the wired and wireless Internet built upon the following principles.   The project is called Internet for Everyone (http://internetforeveryone.org/)

NOTE: The organization that launched this project, Free Press, is a client — but I do not currently play a role in this initiative.

I won't try and summarize all the important points made during the session.   Andy Carvin did an excellent job of capturing everyone's remarks, so you can see as close to a transcript as you'll find on his Twitter feed (http://twitter.com/acarvin)

Let me quickly summarize the project:

An open, free, and accessible internet is critical — not just to those who do things online (like myself) — but to all aspects of our economy, our governance, and similar.   The future of the internet is the future of all media.   And it is pretty clear (to me anyway) that leaving the development of a national broadband policy to the cable and telecommunications industry, who have controlled much of the policy making around this issue, is not a good idea.

So, the initiative promotes a four-part agenda:

Access: Every home and business in America must have access to a high-speed, world class communications infrastructure.

Choice: Every consumer must enjoy real competition in online content as well as among high-speed Internet providers to achieve lower prices and higher speeds.

Openness: Every Internet user should have the right to freedom of speech and commerce online in an open market without gatekeepers or discrimination.

Innovation: The Internet should continue to create good jobs, foster entrepreneurship, spread new ideas and serve as a leading engine of economic growth.

A broad, bi-partisan group of experts - business, policy, entertainment, etc. - have come together to help promote the effort.   For starters, look at the group that they pulled together for the announcement:

Josh Silver, Executive Director, Free Press
Brad Burnham, partner at Union Square Ventures
Robin Chase, CEO of Meadow Networks, co-founder Zipcar
Van Jones, president, Green for All
Michael Winship, president Writers Guild of America - East
David All, co-Founder Slatecard.com and TechRepublican.com
Tim Wu, Columbia Law professor
Jonathan Adelstein, FCC commissioner
Jonathan Zittrain, co-founder, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
int Cerf, chief technology evangelist of Google
Larry Lessig, Stanford Law professor

And going forward, the group will be hosting public forums across the nation to get citizens involved, and no doubt other things (that was all they had time to mention today).

My two cents: This is a tremendously important issue.   This initiative deserves national (and local) attention - not just within policy circles, but at kitchen tables, in schools and libraries, and among friends over a beer or coffee.   But, this issue, and this initiative, could very easily not gain the necessary traction among people who are not already within the media and policy space.   This could be the darling of the wonk establishment and even the media (wouldn't that be ironic) and still not move the needle towards being implemented.   Why?   Because this issue is complex.   People don't make an association between this issue and their daily lives.   The people who don't have access to broadband probably don't fully realize why its such a big deal.   The people who already have it take it for granted.

So, for this effort to be successful, the initiative has to get out of its own way.   It can't be about the groups or the organizers, or even the specific policy (which is way too complex for anyone to settle on a single set of criteria).   You can't just talk to people who gather at a PDF-like conference, where everyone is already in agreement on the need.   And it can't live solely online.

This movement will organize town hall meetings for people to attend and use as a way to show their support or get involved.   But what about a true grassroots effort, going door to door and town to town to spread the word.   Is that planned?   The people need to have a voice - but will they truly get to play a role in shaping this policy, or just sending emails and making phone calls to their politicians to pressure them for support?   This movement has a nice, straightforward website, which summarizes the issue well.   But who will take responsibility for answering all the questions that people have and pushing content out - online and through traditional means - so that word spreads and people make this issue their own?

These are important questions - and just a few of the ones that need to be answered if this group to succeed and this baseline policy will become a reality.   The big telecommunications folks know this, and are probably counting on the fact that it will be difficult to organize a broad-based, online and offline community to support this fundamental issue.   We can't let them get away with that.   We can't fall into the trap that so many organizations have fallen into with the rise of the internet, where the activity happens online (but never reaches the real word), we focus on the tools (blogs and wikis and such), and where the same people are talking to each other as they always have (and few new voices finding a place in the discussion).   When that happens, little real, meaningful, measurable change being made.   We can't let that happen.

I'll make that case to my client, and anyone else who wants to listen.   I hope this group will not only realize the need, and opportunity, to organize this effort differently and actively push to do more to engage the public, move beyond a 'campaign' style effort, and get into the real world.   And when they do, this effort will finally, finally succeed.

The Boston Celtics captured their 17th NBA Championship last night with a blowout win over the Los Angeles Lakers.   It was their first title in more than 20 years.

The Celtics  now join the New England Patriots, winners of three Superbowls, the Boston Red Sox, winners of two World Series', and the New England Revolution, winners of two MLS Cup Championships, on the list of Boston sports teams who have won championships since I moved to the area six years ago.  

Coincidence?   Maybe.   No matter — I can't claim all the credit, certainly the management, players, and fans of these teams contributed  to their success as well.   In truth, I am  not a fan of any of these teams — I am loyal to my hometown Seattle Mariners, Seattle Seahawks, and Seattle Supersonics (who are currently in court fighting to remain in Seattle — instead of being moved to Oklahoma City).   And my wife, Karen, is actually a Yankees fan.  

So, I congratulate the Celtics on their victory, while noting that the Celtics win would not have happened without Ray Allen (who was traded from the Sonics  before the season and who graduated  from the University of Connecticut where my wife went to school and helped to bring home an NCAA championship in 1999).   And I  promise that I will continue to try and offer good luck and support to the local sports clubs as long as I live in the region.

There will be many moving obituaries written and eulogies delivered honoring Tim Russert.   He deserves all the kind words that people share.   And we will all be better for remembering his contributions - to our lives, and our society - as a journalist, author, and human being.  

He was a giant in the media, as some have said the most influential journalist of this generation.   His passion for sports was significant, and his knowledge of and genuine support for  the teams that he loved (the Buffalo Bills, the Washington Nationals) was truly incredible.   Most importantly, however, he was just a wonderfully nice person — happy, warm, interested, thoughtful - whether he was meeting you for the first time, or talked to you every day.  

I didn't know Russert well enough to offer anything truly meaningful in the wake of his death — others will have better words and deeper memories to share.   I met him twice, both while working for Vice President Gore, and like millions of others watched on Sunday morning and countless other times as he displayed his talents.   As a Washington Nationals season ticket holder, I also saw him at the ballpark quite a bit.  

Two quick memories:

The first time I met Tim Russert, I was working for Vice President Gore as his Briefing Director in the White House.   I remember arriving early on a Sunday morning to the NBC studios in DC in advance of an appearance on Meet the Press.   I was the only person from the staff who had gone straight to the studios (everyone else would arrive with the Vice President in the motorcade later).   I was sitting in the conference room shuffling documents and Russert came in to ask me when the VP would arrive.   He made a point to introduce himself (like I didn't know who he was) and asked what I did for the VP.   I answered, and then awkwardly transitioned the conversation to football — a topic I felt much more comfortable talking about.   Russert's eyes lit up and we proceeded to have a discussion about the prospects for the Buffalo Bills season (dim, at best).   The whole encounter probably lasted only a couple of minutes, but his interest in my thoughts was genuine and appreciated.   Later that morning, Russert came to see Gore in the conference room where we were all waiting and Gore introduced everyone.   When he got around to me, Tim said "yes, Brian and I met earlier."

The second time I met Tim Russert, also while working for Vice President Gore, was at that Naval Observatory (where Gore lived, and we were doing a taping of Meet the Press).   Again, I was on site early and again I was the only person from the Vice President's staff  to be on location ahead of time  (the others were doing final prep at the house a couple hundred yards away).   And again, Russert made a point to  come over and talk to me   — only this time, when I told him that we had met during Gore's last appearance on the show, he seemed to remember (or pretended really well).   I had helped our internal policy and press teams with the research for the interview — we spent weeks pouring through policy positions, past statements, transcripts of Meet the Press and everything else we could find to try and out-research Russert and his staff - so  this time  I felt like I had more insight into how Russert's mind worked, at least enough to support a conversation.   It worked, we talked briefly and he asked my opinion on a few pressing issues.   Little did Russert know, I was pumping him for information to aid Gore in the interview.   My most meaningful contribution gleaned from the conversation with Russert was an update on the Bills season prospects (still dim, at best).   Gore made Bills references both on-air and in private conversations with Russert, which he lated thanked me for helping with.    

Both times I met Russert he was generous with his time and interested in our brief conversation.   In the 8+ years since, I have watched him hundreds of times on television and seen him at baseball games in DC on at least a dozen occasions.    I certainly can't claim to be a friend or even an acquaintance really.   I am just a fan.    But, I am still very sad about his death.   He was a truly great journalist and an upstanding person and I will miss him.

Every panel about citizen journalism that I have ever attended (and there have been quite a few) has followed the same script.   The assembled experts talk about how journalism isn't doing its job, provide a few powerful examples of citizens sharing information at a local level that no media organization can (or will) offer, and posits that the future of journalism will feature more input from the bottom-up.   They say the news consumer is becoming the news creator - that the lines are becoming blurred.   They explain how the model has shifted from create and distribute to create and make available (so the audience can come and get it).   They say that the new model turns journalism on its head - everything is experience and public driven instead of expert and editor driven.

It's a good script, and the examples are all helpful.   The experts know their stuff and those of us listening learn a lot from being in the audience.   Every time I attend one of these panels, and today was no different, I walk away with a new list of links and projects to follow, talk about, and learn from.

So why do I still have so many questions?   No panel that I have attended, including the one today at the National Conference For Media Reform, has ever moved away from this script.   They haven't given a satisfactory set of answers to the questions that I have, and that I believe many share.

(Disclosure: Free Press, the organization hosting the National Conference For Media Reform, is a client.)

So, what are my questions?   What haven't the citizen journalism experts been able to answer?

• How do you make money?   I know this is everyone's question, but what I don't understand is if the content is good, why won't people pay for it?   I think they will — but why hasn't anyone proven it yet?

• If you can't make money, is there still a value in doing citizen journalism?   I say yes.   Journalism is supposed to be a civic good, so it should have value in our society no matter how much money is generated as a result.   Projects like those the Sunlight Foundation, which has tapped citizens to help research and complete 'reporting', are organizing get at this point.   Do they have a long-term aim besides simply contributing to the public good and the strength of our democracy?

• Who qualifies as a citizen journalist?   So much of what we talk about are citizen journalism projects that exist on the web.   Like social networking, didn't citizen journalism exist long before the web made it sexy?

• Where is the line between true citizen journalism and the increasing use of citizen sources by the traditional, mainstream media?   It seems to me like the goal of citizen journalism is, or should be, to improve the functioning of journalism - not to replace it.   And yet, so many of the projects that we focus on focus on more than filling the gaps left by media (at the community level for example) but replacing the broken media wholesale.

• Can you teach citizen journalism the same way you teach traditional journalism? And should we? Columbia University has an award-winning journalism school.   Will we see a similar organization form to grant citizens formal credentials allowing them to become journalists?   Will there be any regulation of citizen journalism (besides that offered by the community?

I'm not sure these are good questions, but they keep popping into my head.   I have others as well.   And I know I am not the only one who still has questions.   So how do we get those questions answered?   Does anyone have the answers?

Like I said, there were lots of interesting points and examples in the panel discussion.   And I am further committed to the cause of citizen journalism and can only hope to have the privilege of working with those who were sitting on the panel today.   I feel as if I practice it every day - when I blog, when I pass along information to reporters I know about events I attend, and in lots of other ways.   But I don't think I am a journalist.   So, those questions remain unanswered, along with so many others.   And they will, I guess, until the next panel, and perhaps for longer than that.

The panel about organizing the social web at the National Conference For Media Reform, I presume, was designed to deliver guidance about how to mobilize the millions of citizens who are online around a larger cause, or at very least a series of smaller causes with some focus and measurable impact.   It did not.   The luminaries on the panel didn't seem to want to take responsibility for directing action on that level.   They seemed almost embarrassed that they were being put up as models of how to act.   I wasn't expecting that.

(Disclosure: Free Press, the organization sponsoring the National Conference For Media Reform, is a client.)

Even though they didn't really offer any thought on the subject of the panel, the smart people who were invited to speak did offer some interesting ideas and projects to follow.   They did so in the context of two important questions.   Here they are:

1) Name a specific example of real social change that has happened as a result of these social technologies.   The answers included:

- Raising money for women in Darfur
- One Voice movement in Palestine
- The Obama Campaign
- The work of the Sunlight Foundation (and Change Congress)
- Opposition to Sinclair Media keeping an anti-Kerry documentary from airing in 2004
- Save the Internet

I'm not sure any of those have achieved any significant social change yet (in fact when I twittered about the reference to Save The Internet a friend wrote back "What, did they achieve Net Neutrality when I wasn't looking?"   A fair point).   Still, these are the closest thing we have, I think, to examples of how to get past boasting about a big email list or millions of signatures on a petition that doesn't impact anything.

What's missing?   Well, Craig Newmark noted that "The community we are talking about is pretty small.   We have to break out of the echo chamber, reach thousands and millions more people" if we really want to have an impact.

2) What is the next big thing, the technology that will change things forever?   The answers included:

- Schmap.com (a widget that automatically updates statewide polls and similar)
- The IamProgressive widget on Facebook
- Twitter (not super new, but a good model for immediacy and one-to-many communications)
- SecondLife (again, not new, but the overall metaverse and opportunity to use virtual worlds to learn, teach, engage and similar)
- MagicActsofKindness.com (a social action effort promoted by the Harry Potter Alliance)
- And, a really cool project to promote the summer tour for the band, Harry and the Potters.   Its called "Unlimited Enthusiasm" and used all sorts of online and offline techniques, in unison, to deliver interesting information

That's it, that's all I got out of the panel.   But that's a pretty interesting list, and some new projects and ideas to follow.   So, I'll take it.