A recent piece in Politico by Daniel Libit highlights the ongoing struggle between defining politics as a profession and ensuring that it’s a true change agent. You’ll see:

Among the things that the proliferation of TV cable news has wrought is slackened standards for what constitutes a political strategist. Now used as a catchall tag for a whole host of people with varied — and often peripheral — backgrounds in electoral politics, the term has all but lost its meaning.

“I think it’s absurd,” says Ed Rollins, a bona fide strategist who has held high-ranking positions in numerous Republican presidential campaigns. “Everyone calls themselves a strategist. I have been doing this for 40 years, I know most of the players, and I go on these shows and think, ‘Who are these people?’”

"Slackened standards" can appear like code for issues some may have with the rising diversity in political perspective in modern broadcast news. A subtle way to say: "There are a bit too many of these other folks coming in and playing our game."

That said, let’s first address a concern about the horse race nature of political news coverage, with more focus on polls rather than candidate platforms. The real problem is that there is more gossip than discourse in political news coverage, driven by the sound bite dynamic favored by cable news producers, hosts and anchors. This isn’t completely their fault: typically, they only have several minutes at a time to either finish their thoughts, ask questions and move on to the next segment before commercial breaks set in. We keep talking about the "24/7" news cycle - but is that statement really accurate when applied to the cable networks since a great chunk of that time is eaten away by advertisers? Between a journalistic rock and need-for-information hard place, somebody has to pay the bills. That’s the problem. Let’s talk about that.

The good thing about the recent election cycle is that we’re seeing more of what’s different than the classic "standard." And, we all remember the standard: every major political talk show, every Sunday panel was populated almost exclusively with middle-aged or senior to high-brow to white-hair White males who defined who knew what about politics. It seemed as though no one knew or could discuss politics better than White males in suits. Soon after, working to middle class Irish Catholics joined in, then White ethnics, followed by White females as a way to mix it up and stray from the stale, formulaic Anglo-Saxon Protestant format that dominated for so long; occasionally, for dramatic effect, an adventurous producer would book the few entertaining African American activists, preachers or "leaders" who could cause a stir and momentary jump in ratings - and they, too, were male for the most part. Still, they were more ideologue than analyst. To analyze the political landscape, you’d bring in your White guy "insiders."

To a large degree, that is still the case. Broadcast talk is still disproportionately unrepresentative; Black and Latino analysts are either tokenized or pigeon-holed into discussing "race" topics. Certainly, pundits of color are a good group to access for that sort of info, but there are also quite a few experts within that pool who know just as much about topics such as foreign policy and economics.

And there is still a sense that the "ole boy" school defines American politics - which is one of the main factors behind public apathy and the low voter turnout (until recently) that we experienced for so many years. The larger public doesn’t feel like a stakeholder when the broadcasted political conversation lounges in the ivory tower. But, we see more faces "of color" mixing it up in terms of presence and perspective. And that’s a good thing - not a "slackened standard." Libit’s piece comes off like a veiled attempt to paint these new faces as "unqualified" simply because they don’t fit the mold or image of the traditional pol.

Diversity is not a great thing because it puts "different" or "color" in a room - it’s great because it offers a larger serving of diversity in opinion, thought and information. We’ve seen enough of the old school cats like Ed Rollins above - clearly, he and others are a bit annoyed because they’re finally being challenged. Because their conventional wisdom no longer rules. We appreciate what everyone brings to the table - including Rollins. But, how can we get a real sense of what voters think or what candidates will do if that analysis largely comes from the same vantage point? Rather than hate on the future, step up your game and add something fresh to it.

Charles D. Ellison, 6.29.08

So maybe I was wrong. Maybe not all elected officials are jokingly dismissive of the impact technology can have on their constituents. Today, hanging out with the FastCompany.tv crew as Robert Scoble, his son Patrick, his producer Rocky, and Warren Communications’ Andrew Feinberg, I heard three very different elected officials speak with similar enthusiasm for and knowledge of technology: Senator Tom Coburn, Congressman Tim Ryan, and Congressman John Culberson.

My note-taking capabilities were somewhat hindered during two of those interviews (thank goodness the video will be up and/or is up soon), but I did have my Moleskine notebook and mechanical pencil handy for Senator Coburn.

Three-quarters of what Senator Coburn’s office hears from his constituents in Oklahoma comes from email and blogs. “Technology,” said Senator Coburn, “sets us free and brings transparency to politics.”

For example, Americans want to know about government waste because it has a direct impact on them. Only 11% of Americans have confidence in Congress, said Senator Coburn. Putting information about spending online will bring pressure on elected officials more inclined to play above the table.

Do what you are doing [as voters online] to make us better and more transparent.

In elected office, Senator Coburn said at the beginning of the interview, “motivations are pure, but the management style is out of the 1950s.”

Scoble asked Senator Coburn about the issue of brain drain in science and technology. Senator Coburn discussed a four-tiered process to encourage innovation, education, and research and development:

1. Create a better corporate tax system (Senator Coburn’s words were “create a corporate tax system that’s not the second highest in the world).
2. Create a research and development tax credit.
3. Make higher education rewarding (my note: especially in science, technology, and engineering).
4. Don’t harm the technology system we have now.

Elected officials “should get out of the way, so companies can reinvest in R&D,” said Senator Coburn.

Some of those same points – especially the emphasis on technology as the medium of transparency echoed throughout the interviews today.

Thoughts on this?

Recent polls suggest that race may factor into Presidential election as much as age, and then it flips to show that age could be as much a factor as race. 

However, in reality, it will rest on the larger electorate’s perception of the economy and how that impacts our collective bank accounts.  Voters will react, rather emotionally, to whatever candidate or platform they deem prepared to address the challenges of slow growth, rising oil prices and ridiculous food prices.  Much of that is linked into an overall view that energy is the driving culprit: oil that is.

The GOP is making a rather smart play on that perception, particularly as Americans grumble over $4+ a gallon at every gas pump.  One could argue that lack of Bush Administration zeal for a solution is actually a somewhat deliberate political move to drive voter sentiment in favor of another Republican White House, particularly given the fact that the GOP is having trouble energizing its typically reliable base around the presumptive nominee while dealt the double blow of low popularity for its current head.   Less action helps to exacerbate the situation enough whereby a sudden political burst of willpower to drill domestically is seen as a saving grace.  One can’t help but feel a sense of political strong-arming until the electorate cries uncle. 

Domestic drilling has been seen, up until recently, as an environmental catastrophe. What could be troubling is that any decision to now drill stateside is based on the pure emotion of a voting public being wrestled down by economic pressures. This latest drive by the Bush Administration to drill domestically - buoyed by a McCain reversal on the idea and greater political support from GOP-aligned think tanks, advocacy groups and other associations - could be extremely problematic for Democrats and Obama. 

As problematic, we find, is that although Americans are aware of a shortsighted reliance on fossil fuels - to our global detriment - we’re not as emotional about finding an innovative solution out of this quandary as we are pursuing the quick fix of a domestic drill.  The benefits of such are, at best, mixed, with no clear results for another decade if it’s pursued and no solid data suggesting a sudden price reduction.  But, here again, we find another example of democracy by the gut, absent reason.  �

The World Information Access Project reports that 64 citizen around the world unaffiliated with major media companies have been arrested for their blogging activities. Average jail time is 15 months. Some bloggers were jailed for as little as a few hours, while others were jailed for as long as eight years.

According to the report, the Middle East and Asia are the two areas with the most arrests. Egypt arrested 14 bloggers since 2003, China arrested 12 bloggers, and Iran arrested eight bloggers.

Most of the bloggers arrested are young-ish, varying in age from 21 to 45.

WIA used Lexis Nexis and Google News to accumulate their research. They only recorded stories reported in online media, which means that countless other arrested bloggers are not included in their research. This invisible group is, perhaps, the one that matters most — untrackable but sitting behind bars somewhere for the crime of posting something online.

Check out the analysis and charts and graphs.

About a week and a half ago, IPDI hosted a book discussion with Brian Reich, one of the co-authors (Along with Dan Solomon) of the book Media Rules! Mastering Today’s Technology to Connect with and Keep You Audience.

This is maybe the third or fourth time I’ve heard Reich talk about Media Rules in about as many months, and Reich’s analysis has become, for me, a new organizational leadership guide — for the digital age. Reich himself calls the book “organizational management in the new media age,” and he was compelled to write it out of frustration from working with so many organizations that lack a core understanding of how to use the Internet. “All they have,” Reich said, “is tactics.”

Here are some of the lessons I’ve learned from my time reading and listening to Brian Reich:

1. Before you begin to look at incorporating Internet tactics into your organization, focus on the meat — the information, experiences, and stuff that your organization produces. No one has room for crappy “stuff” (or information or experiences). Start with creating good “stuff.”
2. Success is measurable and unique to each space. We’re sometimes so obsessed with new media that many of us have moved away from focusing on our own core principles. All the activity in the world does not equal success. Instead, focus your organizations goals, strategies, tactics, and resources on creating measurable change.
3. Very few new media things actual create measurable change. However, in the digital era, collaboration among groups and organizations with common interests, not competing interests, is the best way to achieve meaningful, measurable change.
4. Digital leadership is defined by a two related abilities. The first is the ability to listen and hear. “We’re collecting information online, but we’re not synthesizing it,” says Reich. Once we learn how to listen, we can use all the online tools that encourage interaction and interactivity in useful ways. This includes collaborating on problems and sharing information. The second ability is the ability to teach people how to have an impact on society or in your issue area.
5. In order to create change, an organization needs to accomplish a few tasks. First, raise awareness. Second, connect, engage, and enable people on the substance of their issue and what their role can be. Third, mobilize them.

According to Reich, “old school organizations are still trying to convince people to do what the old school organizations want them to do.” Unfortunately, those old school management tactics aren’t working anymore. Media Rules! is Reich’s call to change for organizational managers. Sadly, too many organizations lose their commitment to solving issues and instead become organizations that are focused simply on surviving as organizations. They serve the cause instead of solving it.

There’s something sad and ineffective in that, but Reich’s observations is entirely true, and his message should resonate with any leader at any level trying to help guide his or her organization into the digital era.

Guest blogged by Lynn Stinson, a recent graduate of Allegheny College. Stinson will be a student at GWU’s Graduate School of Political Management this autumn.

What chance did a young, seemingly inexperienced black Senator have against one of the most prominent women in the Democratic party? At a first glance, it seemed it would be a struggle for Barack Obama. He lacked adequate experience and was facing a woman that many claimed would easily capture the nomination. However, a series of primaries would result in a victory for Barack Obama despite these claims. How did he manage this? By turning his attention away from traditional politics and towards a new kind of politics, politics focused around the latest technology available.

Hillary Clinton ran an amazing campaign by traditional standards. In fact, she raised more money than ever before via the traditional mode of fundraising. The catch was plain and simple; Barack Obama was steering his campaign away from this traditional mode and moving it entirely towards a technological based fundraising movement. The opportunity to utilize the latest technological advances was available for both Democratic candidates. However, one candidate chose a different path as described by Joshua Green in his article in The Atlantic:

in a colossal error of judgment, the Clinton campaign never made a serious approach, assuming that Obama would fade and that lack of money and cutting-edge technology couldn’t possibly factor into what was expected to be an easy race.

Hillary quickly received a wake up call as Barack Obama surpassed her in fundraising figures, with most of his funding coming from the enormous success his campaign had found using the Internet. Not only did he raise money in astronomical numbers, but he did it by involving supporters and making them part of the process.

A Silicon Valley based website, My.BarackObama.com, propelled the campaign to financial success as well as evidenced the enthusiasm of Obama’s supporters. The website is a social networking page that provides tools to help campaign and fundraise for the candidate. A proponent of the website and Barack Obama’s new-media director, Joe Rospars, explains the success in Green’s article in The Atlantic,

We’ve tried to bring two principles to this campaign. One is lowering the barriers to entry and making it as easy as possible for folks who come to our Web site. The other is raising the expectation of what it means to be a supporter. It’s not enough to have a bumper sticker. We want you to give five dollars, make some calls, host an event. If you look at the messages we send to people over time, there’s a presumption that they will organize.

Slow and steady wins the race, and for Barack Obama, it was the small victories that contributed to his overall win. Small contributions of five dollars here, ten dollars there, have greatly benefited this campaign. The ability to donate such small amounts and truly involve yourself into the democratic process has become available because of Barack Obama’s utilization of technology.

So how did he beat Hillary Clinton, who was presumed to easily claim the nomination? By turning to technology and embracing the advances that have developed even since the campaign has embarked. Not only did Obama use the Internet to raise money in numbers unheard of in past campaigns, but he did it in a way that involved his supporters by allowing them to take the reigns into their own hands. Much like past presidents that have embraced technological advances and reaped the benefits - like Andrew Jackson and the printing press, John F. Kennedy and the television, FDR and the radio - Barack Obama has utilized what was available to him to its fullest as is pointed out by Marc Ambinder in his article “HisSpace” within The Atlantic. The success met by Obama and his campaign has already made a gigantic splash and has translated into the nomination for this unlikely candidate; the culprit of this success is technology.

After months of trying to help Andrew Feinberg of CapitolValley.net organize this event, I am most proud to announce the CapitolValley/Scobleizer/Wine Library TV/Somewhat Frank/Social Times event

Robert Scoble & Gary Vanerchuk DC Bash!

Wednesday, June 25 from 6:00 PM to 9:30 PM (ET)

MCCXXII

1223 Connecticut Ave NW

Washington, DC 20036

Vaynerchuk is supplying free win.

There is, however, one catch: REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. Sign up at http://dcsocialmedia.eventbrite.com/.

Colin Delany at ePolitics just released the second edition of his classic handbook, Online Politics 101. It’s a handy (and free) guide to using the Internet in politics, updated for a post-Twitter, pre-AI political world.

BTW, Colin is speaking at Personal Democracy Forum next week.

May the force be with you, Colin.

With the passing of Tim Russert from a sudden heart attack on Friday, journalism lost one of its greatest practitioners. Russert, in many ways, exemplified what mainstream media should be with an adherence to journalistic principles during a time that saw trends of a sound-bite culture and sensationalism for the sake of ratings. Russert was both feared and respected by politicians from both sides of the aisle. Perhaps even more importantly, the enthusiasm and dedication that he brought to the table was reflected in a desire to really understand the arguments of those he interviewed. Since his death the mainstream media and blogosphere alike have been praising Russert for what he did for the profession of journalism. The journalism community coalesced to honor Russert’s memory with heartfelt and touching tributes. However, the sincerity of these tributes is yet to be seen. On Friday afternoon just hours before his death, Russert said the following in an interview on MSNBC:

You have bloggers on both sides, liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats all trying to utilize this vehicle without any kind of fact checking and without any kind of editorial control … That’s what we have to be conscious of and vigilant against, particularly at the end of the campaign as things are put out there. We’ve already had a few fake videos with different words dubbed in and people say, “This must be true because I saw it on the Internet.” What we hope to do in this campaign is recognize there are big differences on big issues between John McCain and Barack Obama – the war in Iraq, Iran, Social Security, taxes. You don’t need to get into this other stuff. If it does surface, then I think the mainstream media has an obligation not to just instinctively put it out there without vetting it. Or, if it is something that is manufactured as a virus, report on that – who did it and why.

If those in the mainstream media truly want to honor Russert they must follow his example and advice. The loss of Russert right before the General Election leaves a void that will be impossible to fill, however while all journalists were quick and correct to pay tribute to their friend and colleague, eulogies are not enough. The biggest compliment that the mainstream media can pay to Russert is actually making a concerted effort to focus on the real important issues of the campaign and not get bogged down in the alluring but unsubstantial mudslinging that occurs during the course of a campaign.

Interesting piece in eGov monitor by World Bank’s Samia Melham examines the recent e-readiness index and where various world governments rank in terms of using mobile technology to interface with citizens.  The United States ranks #10 on a list of 25 countries:

The index looks at the availability of Government services on line (personal tax car registrations, business permits, passport applications, e-procurement applications etc.). These services are based on the traditional web-based delivery platform for egovernment services, but several of them are now being migrated to the mobile platform under different agreements between the government and the mobile operators.

Question: do such trends actually diminish government accountability?  Basically, there is a concern here that while governments argue that technological applications make them more transparent, they can also use such to hide behind a cloak of visual disclosure.  The storefront nature of the web can make a government appear responsive - but, is it really?  It’s a good debate, to ensure that governments are not just pulling our collective leg, so to speak, in one massive public relations ploy.  Technology, as useful as it seems, can also produce a lot of hype through soaring expectations.  Experimenting and beta testing new applications is great, but is the rubber meeting the road as it relates to true government representation and responsiveness?

Charles D. Ellison, 6.17.08