The Conventions have passed, the 60-day sprint towards the Election in November is underway, and I need this campaign to be over. This campaign season, no matter how it turns out, has already failed to live up to my expectations. Instead of a spirited debate about the issues and an open dialogue with the American people, the two parties have set up a battle between the politics of hope and the politics of fear. Sadly, there seems to be very little backing up either strategy that, in the end, will benefit the voters, or our country.
John McCain has vowed to end the partisan rancor in Washington, but his speech last night was filled with subtle, and not-so-subtle, attacks on Senator Obama and his record of reform. Barack Obama has promised to change politics, yet his campaign continues to follow almost the exact same playbook as every campaign that has come before - hauling out opposition research by the boatload. John McCain said that Senator Obama had his "respect and admiration" but stood by silently as his running mate, Sarah Palin, and every other major speaker at his nominating convention, leveled vicious attacks on his opponent. Barack Obama has challenged John McCain to help raise the level of political dialogue in this nation, yet he refused to sign on to a series of one-on-one forums or debates (other than the three that the Presidential Commission on Debates sanctions each cycle) and stands by as his spokespeople and surrogates spew criticism across the airwaves.
I know how politics works, and I know what it takes to win. Empty rhetoric and negative attacks have become the norm, replacing a focus on real issues and real people. Spin has replaced substance -- no matter what technology you use to wage your campaign or how large a role the media plays. The person who emerges victorious on Election day is the one who survives the campaign, not the one who rises above and carries the nation's hopes and beliefs on his/her back.
That said, I believed this campaign was different. The two nominees who emerged had publicly committed -- apparently when it was politically convenient -- that things would be different. They are asking for votes based on a promise that their Administrations will not only be different than the current one, but better than the standard we have come to accept when it comes to Washington-based politics. But in waging their campaigns, they have done little to suggest that they would stray from the political status quo. And their Conventions were proof of that. The glossier the spectacle (and both conventions were pretty glossy), the more they served to cover up politics as usual.
So, we have a two month campaign ahead of us and very little to look forward to. The Republicans have launched a culture war. They believe scaring the American voters into voting for them (or more importantly, not for the Democrats) is the winning formula. The Democrats, meanwhile, will try to run out the clock on this election by challenging the tone and tactics the Republicans put forward. They have an opportunity to offer their own vision, and policies to back it up, but that is unlikely to happen.
What voters ultimately want from this campaign, and their elected leaders in general, is a genuine commitment to talking about the issues and addressing the challenges facing our nation. They want to know how Barack Obama or John McCain will help them keep their job, keep their kids safe and healthy, provide a high quality education that keeps our country competitive in a global economy and the like. And some day, in some election in the future, I am confident we will have that, that the candidates who are running for President will provide those answers. But after two weeks of watching and working at the Conventions, I am less confident than ever we will get that this year.
Onward to Election Day!
]]>A star was born.
Depending on who you ask, John McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate for any number of reasons: 1) she has real executive experience (a contrast the GOP is making to Senator Obama in particular), 2) she is from outside the Beltway (way outside, you don't get much further away from Washington, DC than Alaska), 3) she is an unapologetic conservative (pro-life, pro-creationism, pro-gun - which allows John McCain to talk and act more like a moderate), and 4) she's a woman.
Let's consider this last point: By picking a woman, McCain is able to signal he is a true maverick - she is, after all, the first woman on the GOP ticket. By picking a woman, he is able to make his candidacy for President equally historic in many ways to that of Senator Obama's candidacy (ok, objectively, its not as historic, but its in the same ballpark). And, by picking a woman, Senator McCain has put women voters - particularly those who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary and remain skeptical about an Obama candidacy - back into play for the GOP.
Hence, what I call the 'woman problem." Women aren't simply going to vote for John McCain because he put a woman on the ticket. And the same is true on the other side - women aren't going to vote for Barack Obama solely because Hillary Clinton threw her overwhelming support behind him. The polls and papers are showing that.
The lesson learned from the historic candidacy of Hillary Clinton and the 18 million votes she earned during the Democratic Primary is that gender is not the primary factor in deciding who to vote for. Women voters (and men too for that matter) care deeply about the issues and they expect the candidates they support to address those issues if the want to earn their vote. There are numerous issues to be addressed: Healthcare, education, pay equity, the strength of the economy and jobs, and for some cultural issues like choice and funding of the arts. Simply addressing the issues isn't enough, the candidates must offer substantive proposals that meet the expectations of the voters to resonate.
Therein lies the challenge for Sarah Palin and the Republicans. Can Governor Palin help John McCain address the issues that are important to women voters in this election, because of her knowledge, experience, and unique perspective as a woman (and not simply by representing her gender)? Can she do what Barack Obama and Joe Biden have not yet proven capable of doing -- demonstrate to women (and men) who supported Hillary Clinton during the Primary that they understand the need for universal healthcare, share their commitment to early childhood education, and have both an undertanding and a plan to address other key policies that Senator Clinton championed so effectively during her campaign?
When we look back on this election, women voters will almost certainly be one of the audiences that tips the balance in the direction of either Senator McCain or Senator Obama. Which way they tip will depend on whether Sarah Palin, and the other candidates, get over their women troubles and decide to dig deep into the issues.
]]>About half-way through his speech tonight at the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis/St. Paul, Senator Joe Lieberman uttered two words that no Republican had been willing, or able, to do in the first two days of the Convention. Those two words: Barack Obama. In fact, he used the Democratic nominee's name twice, in two consecutive sentences.
Compare that to last week's Democratic Convention.
Barack Obama used John McCain's name four times in his acceptance speech. Joe Biden used John McCain's name more than a dozen times in his speech at the Democratic Convention, even going out of his way to call the Senator his 'friend.' In fact, with the exception of Bill Clinton's speech (which focused far more on bolstering Obama's candidacy than breaking down McCain's), I can't find a major speaker at the Democratic Convention who didn't mention John McCain by name
Why are the Republicans so reluctant to mention Barack Obama by name? In politics, the rule seems to be that if you mention your opponents' name then you are legitimizing their candidacy, putting them on your level. Though by the time you get this seep into a national election, I can't imagine that rule still applies.
Why were the Democrats so eager to call out the Republican nominee? Most of the speakers in Denver tried to link McCain to the failed politics of the Bush Administration, calling the campaign a continuation of the Bush/McCain/Rove policies. I can see how being associated with the President (with his incredibly low favorability ratings) could hurt McCain, but you have to be pretty deep into politics to know the capabilities of Karl Rove, and their impact on our political system.
Will the rhetoric in the final two days of the Republican Convention change course what what we have seen so far? Probably not. Its pretty clear that the goal of the Republican Convention is to a) highlight John McCain's lifetime of service - as a soldier, a prisoner of war, a Senator, and father/husband, b) honor his commitment to our nation, not to mention his deep and abiding love for freedom, liberty, baseball, apple pie, cute puppies, and all the other things that make this country great, and finally c) convince the American people that we need a President who puts country first and his personal, naked, political ambitions (a distant) second.
And clearly, they don't believe you succeed if you need to mention Barack Obama all the time.
LIke everything else in politics, the rhetoric at both of these conventions largely underestimates the intelligence of voters, and the speakers talk down to those who tune in. Its a shame, too, because having the stage at a national convention, in front of millions watching on TV and online, creates a wonderful opportunity to educate people, challenge their beliefs, inspire their creativity, and compel their participation in our political process. Maybe next time, they'll learn there are better ways to get your message across.
]]>Huffington had hosted a similar panel last week in Denver (with a significantly different lineup of talent, including George Stephanoupolos, Will.i.am, and Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) among others).
I took notes, and have lots of thoughts - a few of which I will try to summarize here. But, the event took place in the basement of a hotel -- with limited/no internet connection and few electrical outlets -- and when my laptop battery died I was forced to take handwritten and thumb-types notes. As such, my thoughts below are far from comprehensive (and could be far from coherent).
- The big story of the day is the announcement that VP nominee Governor Sarah Palin's 17-year old daughter is pregnant. The rumor about her pregnancy (or the possibility of a cover up by the Governor) had been floating around liberal blogs for several days and finally broke into the mainstream press this morning. Arianna spent the time before the panel began asking the various media notables in the room (on camera) about how and when they first heard the news. The first question of the panel also focused on this story, and more specifically whether the blogosphere and the traditional media operate under different ethical rules/standards. The consensus is that they do (and that the blogosphere has a lot to do to live up to the standards of the traditional press).
- Peggy Noonan noted that the biggest fear facing traditional media in today's fast-paced, internet driven culture is either missing out on a story, or getting something wrong. But, with the rise of blogs and the spread of information they enable, in many respects new media has put a gun to the head of old media. Either the newspapers and networks follow one of the stories bubbling up on line or risk looking like an idiot if it breaks a few days/weeks later and they miss it. Still, traditional media must hold onto it's stature, it's legitimacy while realizing that technology has changed.
- Like most of these discussions, two main topics emerged -- the challenge of funding (or monetizing) online journalism, and the need for long-format, high quality investigative journalism that balances the quick and snippy media culture. Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham noted "I hope we still have investigative journalism in the future," seeming not so optimistic. But Arianna added that increasingly, investigative work will be done online and the wisdom of the crowds holds greater potential for ferreting out the truth than anything.
In a notably partisan moment, Arianna also noted that "Old media got it wrong on the war. Old media got it wrong on Weapons of Mass Destruction." The comment was met by silence. Joe Scarborough then added "that line went over big in Denver!" -- which got scattered laughs.
- Congressman Shadegg (who boasts of carrying four blackberries/cell phones -- one for official business and one for campaign, and a clone of each so he can both talk on the phone and send emails at the same time) described the rise of the blogs and new media as "a challenge of power." He added "Online media is challenging established media and established media is afraid of losing it's power." But, pollster Frank Luntz argued that the challenge was really about matching the audience's needs and interests. He threw out stats, including:
** 2/3 of Americans will go past the jump in a newspaper while only 40% go to second page online.
** There is 30% greater recall of articles read in print, over online.
** The under 35-year old audience primarily trusts online news/content while the over 35-year old audience is more likely to trust print news.
** People read more of fewer stories in print and read less of a greater number of stories online.
- Laura Ingraham put it in basic economic terms. "The old media blew it, she said. "Important journalism is being done, but the traditional media hasn't taken advantage of the immediacy, isn't doing enough to satisfy the desire of the audience. "The free market is working." Mika Brezinsky added that "This will force the good to get better - on both sides."
The discussion went on for more than an hour and little new ground was broken. At one point I raised my hand, but didn't get a chance to ask a question (Joe Scarborough called on a few media pals in the front row of tables but never opened up the session to discussion). The point I wanted to make is as follows:
The reason that blogs, and other online media, are thriving is because they are producing and distributing the kinds of stories - the kinds of content - that the audience wants in a pinch. In a highly charged, super-partisan culture people respond to the red meat, the accusations and the partisan rhetoric more than they respond to the thoughtful, well-researched journalism. The blogs have cornered the market on gossip and attack. But, the work that the traditional media has always been known for, the investigative and long-format discussion of issues still has value - in fact, I would argue greater value in the eyes of most voters. Sadly, when the media tries to compete, thinking that by out sensationalizing the blogs or delivering the quick and dirty parts of the news only (at the expense of the longer, more thoughtful pieces), they can satisfy the needs of the audience, they lose out.
(Shamless Plug: Much of this is drawn from the themes I discuss in my book - Media Rules!.)
Too much of today's discussion was about the tools and tactics that are driving media today, and not enough about the substance, or more importantly, what the audience wants and expects from the media. Not all bloggers feed the angry, partisan politics we experience today. And not all media have given up on their responsibility to our society, or to its readers/viewers/customers. It may seem that way sometimes, but its not true.
I believe there is room for both -- the highly opinionated, partisan work of the blogs and the more extensive reporting of the traditional media. They play off each other. There is audience for both. There is money to be made producing and distributing both. The key is understanding and meeting the expectations of the audience. And there is room for new and different forms of media that have yet to be explored.
The times have certainly changed, and are changing - we all know that. In my view, what lies ahead is opportunity, not disaster. Traditional media isn't going to die - its role will simply be redefined. New media, and blogs in particular, will not be the one and only source of information in the future -- they'll simply play the same niche role, with the same niche audience they always have. I'm not sure the talking heads and media notables in the room today fully embrace that reality, after all they trapped in the middle of the transition as it happens, but as someone who (as the panel today suggested) represents the future of media, I like what I am seeing and I like where things are headed.
]]>Why would a good, loyal Democrat want to attend a giant gathering of Republicans? Lots of reasons, actually: First, I love politics -- and national Conventions are as big as it gets in politics. The best and brightest of the Grand Old Party are all gathered here and I get a chance to talk with them, understand how they are thinking about this election and the evolution of politics in general, and what they think will decide this race. Second, since I am here as a blogger (aka Special Press, aka Credentialed New Media), I get access to all the media facilities and am able to gain a different perspective on the proceedings. I also get to hang with some of the glitterati of the media world (who I not so secretly obsess about). Finally, if all goes well and I see/hear/write something interesting, maybe, just maybe, I will be able to add something to the discussion this election cycle that helps people to understand the issues, motivates someone to participate or vote, or even do something small to improve the political process as a whole. I realize that is a lofty goal, but it serves to keep me motivated.
Of course, the events of last week in Denver (where I was on staff as a part of the online content team for the Democratic National Convention) are significantly different than this week. Putting aside the changes to the Convention programming that were required because of the arrival of Hurricane Gustav, the Democrats and Republicans simply do things differently. For example:
Denver vs. Minneapolis: Denver is a small city, nestled in the picturesque Rocky Mountains, with a decidedly western feel (red rock buildings, old banks converted into restaurants, horse posts left over from the old days, etc). The view in every direction is stunning. The air is crisp and clear. The people are incredibly nice. And the city was alive, streets literally filled at all hours of the day, and signs for the Convention welcoming delegates at every turn. Most importantly, the Pepsi Center was just a few short blocks away from downtown (and even Invesco Field, where Barack Obama gave his acceptance speech on Thursday night, was reachable on foot - though it was a longer walk).
Minneapolis, by contrast is a sprawling metropolis with highways on all sides. There are some interesting buildings, and some wonderful public art - but for the most part the city seems very plain. Its humid and sticky. The streets are eerily quiet, with only a handful of people on any corner and few signs to welcome or direct visitors to any official (or unofficial) Convention activities. The XCel Center is in downtown St. Paul, more than ten miles from the heart of downtown Minneapolis -- requiring a vehicle (and a good navigator in my case) to find. And though I know from experience that the residents of Minneapolis are incredible nice, I can't seem to find anyone who lives locally to ask for directions or help -- its all RNC staff and volunteers and none of them seem to be very helpful.
Democratic Delegates vs. Republican Delegates: I find the Republican delegates both more pleasant to be around, and more welcoming of outsiders -- though I suppose that would be different if they knew I was a Democrat (or worse, a blogger!). I also find the Republicans gathered here to be more interested in talking than the Democrats I met in Denver -- and more talkative once you get them started. Interestingly, the Republicans I encounter spend more of their time talking about the Democrats -- the latest rumors or accusations about Barack Obama are a popular topic -- than about their own candidates or proceedings. This is, of course, something the Democrats and Republicans have in common, since the Democrats love to talk about themselves. The majority of the attendees to the GOP Convention, it seems, are white, and older by comparison to the Democrats - who it seems have actually achieved (more this Convention than in past years) to build a truly big tent.
There are other comparisons I could make, some flattering and some not, but you get the idea. The point is, for Democrats last week, and Republicans this week, the convention is the center of the political universe. They each have their own perspective on what makes for a good party, and what will present their candidate and their agenda in the best light. Their candidates can do no wrong. Their opponents don't know which end is up. And by the end of the week, the American people will see clearly that the choice in November is clear.
We'll see. Three more days to go.
]]>Some ads make you laugh. Others make you think. And, every now and then, you’ll actually see an ad that (gasp!) makes you want to buy the product it is promoting. But really, if you think about it, most of the ads that appear on television aren’t worth the air time they consume.
This point has been reinforced for me while watching the first few days of Olympic programming.
The closest thing to a good commercial I have seen this week is the +8 ad that AIG is running - and all they did was take a video from YouTube showing a laughing baby and add a couple sentences of dialogue.
So my question is this - why produce such bad advertising? Is it really that difficult to produce advertising that doesn’t suck?
Look, I am not stupid - I know that a big reason that companies spend millions of dollars on advertising is so that I will recall their brands. And yes, me writing a blog post that uses specific commercials as examples when lamenting the poor state of advertising is evidence that the advertising is serving its purpose.
But just because I can recall the brand doesn’t mean that a poorly executed ad is doing its job. Does the advertising industry really think that the work they are producing is good - or do they not care because they get paid regardless? Do the media that cover the ad space really think they are doing us all a service by letting mediocre (or worse) ads get off without a scolding?
I would love nothing more than to write a post about the wonderful ads I have seen, the creative ideas that were shared, or a product that I really felt was worthy of my investment after seeing it on television. But I can’t.
So my hope instead is that someone will tell me why so many of the ads I see aren’t good, and what I am supposed to do about it.
]]>I am drawn to the sports - the diversity of the skills on display, the high level of competition, and the powerful emotions behind every run, throw, stroke, spike, vault, lunge, and lift hold my attention for the full two weeks, and inspire me to be active.
I am intrigued by the global political implications - so many different languages and cultures on display, the pride and the patriotism athletes show as they represent their entire nation, and the ability to use sport to bring war, famine, poverty, AIDS, human rights and the challenges of world diplomacy into clearer focus for so many people who have chosen to ignore them the rest of the time.
I am fascinated by the logistics - the schedule, the geography, the details of the construction, and all the things (like the playing of all the national anthems) that makes the games uniquely complex to conduct yet seemingly effortless to pull off.
And with the XXIX Olympic Games in Beijing, the first in the broadband area, I have something else to pay attention to - the media.
There is nothing new about the Olympic Games being broadcast on television, written about by tens-of-thousands of reporters, or even having scores and highlights posted online in real-time. In fact, as sporting events go, the Olympics offers so many storylines (the Olympics isn’t really one event - every athlete, in every event, is being covered by someone, and watched with interest by people in their home country) that no single organization or medium would suffice. But, as technology evolves, the internet expands, and the silos and borders that represent our traditional media environment break down, the challenges are many, new, and intriguing for sure.
In the United States, the exclusive broadcast rights for the Games were purchased by NBC. Over the course of the next two weeks, they’ll share over 2000 hours of coverage - live and tape-delayed - across all their stations (NBC, CNBC, MSNC, USA, Telemundo, etc.) and online. Much of their prime time coverage, of course, will be tape delayed because Beijing is some 12 hours ahead of the United States (meaning 8pm EST in the United States is 8am in China, the beginning of a new day of competition). Meanwhile, the broadcast rights for every other country in the world has been sold to local and regional providers, like the BBC, Terra (the largest internet company in Latin America) and Organización de Televisión Iberoamericana, the African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) and the South African Broadcasting Corporation Limited (SABC), CCTV in China and so on.
And that is where it gets interesting.
As the New York Times reported on the first day of the Games:
“NBC’s decision to delay broadcasting the opening ceremonies by 12 hours sent people across the country to their computers to poke holes in NBC’s technological wall — by finding newsfeeds on foreign broadcasters’ Web sites and by watching clips of the ceremonies on YouTube and other sites.”
I admit, I was one of those people. I spent much of Friday morning refreshing my Twitter feed hoping to get live updates of the opening ceremonies from friends in attendance at the Birds Nest (and then using my insights to enhance the commentary I provided to my wife, and our two dinner guests, while watching the ceremonies on Friday night). And, though I am consuming as much live coverage through NBC’s TV and Internet coverage as possible, I am also looking at the BBC and other foreign sites for video highlights and context from the preliminary rounds of competition in soccer, swimming, team handball, weightlifting, air pistol, fencing (which, interestingly, was dominated by the United States but still received very little coverage on this continent) and other sports where the US-centric coverage offered by the American media isn’t complete or sufficient.
Even with all the coverage on TV and online from NBC (which thus far, I have to say is better than expected - the notable exception being any appearance by Chris Collinsworth, who I never see as adding value to a broadcast, even when the subject is football, his expertise), the peacock folks doing everything they can, it seems to make it more difficult for me to get my full Olympics fix.
Again, from the New York Times:
In response, NBC sent frantic requests to Web sites, asking them to take down the illicit clips and restrict authorized video to host countries. As the four-hour ceremony progressed, a game of digital whack-a-mole took place. Network executives tried to regulate leaks on the Web and shut down unauthorized video, while viewers deftly traded new links on blogs and on the Twitter site, redirecting one another to coverage from, say, Germany, or a site with a grainy Spanish-language video stream.”
I am not an expert in television rights, and I am certainly not on the hook for the billions of dollars that NBC has invested in this venture (roughly $900 million alone for the rights to broadcast Beijing, not counting the actual costs for pulling it off). I spend my time exploring how people get and share information in today’s information age and what that means for organizations - of all types and sizes - in terms of communications, engagement, and mobilization. And even without that knowledge, I could have told you that NBC’s plan presented some serious challenges.
Instead of trying to control every aspect of the information experience around the Olympics, with an iron fist no less, NBC should have focused on creating a better information experience for their audience, with the confidence that we would tune in to see the coverage wherever that experience was available. What does that look like? NBC should be syndicating its coverage to all the US networks who want to purchase a feed, offer online sites willing to embed NBC-driven players the offer to share their favorite highlights, and inviting individuals to pay a small fee to be able to access and customize extra coverage, on their terms.
There are hints that NBC understand this, and is trying to adjust their model. And certainly, NBC deserves a lot of credit for how it has planned its programming (I watched Michael Phelps win his first gold medal last night, live on NBC at around 10pm EST - what a treat!) to deliver as much live programming as possible. But the New York Times article, and other comments on blogs, from conversations I have had with friends in the media business, and my personal observations suggest that NBC is still operating with too much of a finger-in-the-dyke mentality. There is still so much more they can do.
I will keep watching, these games and all those that follow. And the early ratings from the opening ceremonies (34.2 million people in the US, and over a billion people worldwide tuned in) suggest I am far from alone in my commitment as a viewer/consumer. I just hope that NBC and all the broadcast groups around the world will continue to evolve their offering, and work together, to recognize what fans want from their Olympic experience, and try to deliver it. I know I am not alone in that.
(This is cross-posted on my Fast Company experts blog)
]]>