website statistics

Archive for the 'Blogger Panels' Category

The Kos Bubble and Rove 2.0

Published by William Beutler on November 20, 2007 in Apple, Asymmetrical Media, Blogger Panels, Blogging Officials, Brick-and-mortar consultants, Daily Kos, Digg, George Allen, Karl Rove, Leftosphere vs. Rightosphere, Netroots, Newsweek, Tech Blogosphere, Technology, Television, Tom DeLay, Web 2.0, William Beutler and Yahoo!. 7 Comments

Whether or not Kossack heads actually exploded throughout the leftosphere this weekend, I cannot say. Reports will trickle in… or not. But Newsweek’s experiment of pairing the Great and Powerful Kos with the Great and Powerful Rove is off and running, and it’s not too soon to draw some preliminary conclusions. First, in terms of drawing blog hype, Newsweek could hardly done a better job of securing two more polarizing and potentially intriguing figures — for the left and right each, I’m having a hard time coming up with any two people in politics who inspire as much passion in their detractors outside of current and former presidents.

I’ll leave the reviews to others, but 24 hours after both stories hit the web, how are they doing in terms of measurable attention? Newsweek provides two metrics that we must assume are the most accurate, simply because they are based on internal numbers, even though Newsweek does not provide actual numbers. I understand why they don’t release them, but if the Digg-ification of the Internet continues apace, they will eventually. So which of the two was e-mailed more than the other?

Newsweek's Most E-mailed Stories

As we see, this was a clear win for Rove. As of about 10 p.m. on Monday night, Rove’s piece has been e-mailed more often — but we still don’t know by how much. Second, Newsweek’s list of the top 10 most viewed stories:

Newsweek's Most Viewed Stories

Even without precise figures, this one paints a clearer picture: Rove is at number one, and Kos is nowhere to be found. Short of a Chris Bowers Google bomb, Rove is the greatest and most powerful.

How can this be? Kos is arguably at the zenith of his fame, with appearances on The Colbert Report and Meet the Press earlier in the year, still reigning as one of the RNC’s favorite bogeymen. Rove on the other hand is out of the White House and for all anyone knows, out of national politics. It may say something about Time readers just not knowing who Kos is, but I’m operating under the assumption that the online version of Newsweek reaches what IPDI has termed the “Poli-fluentials.” To be sure, time will tell. One possibility is that Kos, with his eminently Internet-based platform, stands to do better over the long run. But I also ran the Newsweek column’s permalinks through Technorati to find out how many times each had been linked by another blog. It wasn’t close. At all:

Ouch. Then again, if you look at the top blogs linking to both articles (results above are sorted by authority) a clear majority hail from the left. Maybe the left still remains more interested in Rove than the right is in Kos.

Another possibilty is more subjective, but I’ll offer it anyway: Maybe Kos just isn’t that interesting a writer. Like more than a few in my line of work, I’ve been perusing Matt Bai’s “The Argument” lately, and Bai does little to conceal his skepticism of Moulitsas’ political knowledge. Now, I have read both articles, and I did find Rove’s much more interesting. But don’t take my word for it — the blogosphere seems to agree. I have also seen both speak in a public setting, and perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising, but the seasoned campaign veteran was certainly more compelling than his younger upstart opponent. And there was the time when Kos got a tryout with ideo-journalistic Washington, but didn’t quite make the cut.

An aside: Last week I went with my colleagues and associates Jon Henke, Leslie Bradshaw and Jesse Thomas to see Rove co-keynote Yahoo’s Citizen 2.0 midday bash with Max Cleland (!) at the Willard Intercontinental. They’ve already written about it in detail, but I can’t help noting that their study merely put a slightly different gloss on the IPDI report linked above, i.e. “Citizen 2.0″ has replaced “Poli-fluential.”

Just about Rove, however, I must say: His arguments and observations were as well-honed as any “Internet expert” I’ve seen address a political crowd. And Rove knew what he was talking about: He recalled early computer hard drives he owned, admitted to his membership in the Apple cult, delivered a paean to Moore’s Law, and mused about the long-term effects of TiVo and time-shifting. He spoke of the Allen/Webb race (though he didn’t use the word “Macaca”) and cited studies of the blogosphere like any contributor to TechPresident. That’s why I was a little surprised and disappointed to see Michael Bassik dismiss him as “Not Citzen 2.0″ when in fact the definition given by Yahoo! makes Rove almost the perfect example. I was less surprised to see Think Progress willfully misinterpret the goings-on, but Henke has that one covered. Say what you will about Karl Rove, but don’t say he’s not a geek.

On the other hand, he did mispronounce “Kos.”

P.S. This is as good a time as any to share this photo, taken with my iPhone, of Karl Rove taking a picture of me with his iPhone:

Karl Rove and his iPhone, taken with my iPhone

The man on the right is former Senator Cleland. Believe it or not, they got along like old chums. My guess, and it’s just a hunch, is that Cleland is better at hiding his thoughts and feelings than his boisterous persona suggests. The man on the left appears to be from an Aphex Twin video.

P.P.S. What if Rove turned to blogging? Tom DeLay’s occasionally updated blog is in relaunch limbo at the moment, which provides not the best precedent (despite my own pleasantly surprised initial reaction) but then DeLay was never known as a thinker, either, and left official Washington under considerably less triumphant circumstances. So I think Rove could do well, and I bet he would even write it. If he consented to participate in rightosphere activities like appearing on Heading Right Radio (warning: automatic audio), he could quickly become one of the most influential voices on the Internet. But even then, I’m not sure he’d be the most influential voice on the right.

P.P.P.S. Then again, we haven’t even begun to address the matter of which fledgling columnist Google thinks is the greater and more powerful.

Web 2.0 May Change Media, But You Can’t Trace Web 2.0

Published by William Beutler on October 31, 2007 in Asymmetrical Media, Blogger Panels, Blogs vs. MSM, CNN, Direct Mail, E-mail, Journalism History, Journalist Bloggers, MSM vs. Blogs, Meatspace, Metapost, Newspapers, Technology, Web video and William Beutler. 1 Comment

Not to turn Blog P.I. into a catalog of things I did last weekend, but on Saturday I sat on a panel at the Phillips Foundation’s fall retreat for recipients of its journalism fellowships (about which more below). My co-panelists were Jose Vargas from the Washington Post, Amy Schatz from the Wall Street Journal, and Abbi Tatton from CNN. I was a replacement fill-in, which is why I was the lone non-journalist — but hey, I was a licensed journalist not too long ago, so, close enough for (the discussion of) government work.

The subject was how technology is changing politics — a mandate broad enough to take it in almost any direction. And if anything, I was the wet blanket of the panel. My opening comments focused on how the Internet is changing politics in ways not unique compared to previous technologies, techniques and politics. I didn’t get all the details out on Saturday, but the argument went something like:

Radio : FDR’s fireside chats :: Blogs : The Fred File* and ‘04/’06 predecessors

Television : Nixon/Kennedy Debate :: YouTube/Internet video : “Macaca”

Direct mail/voter files : Richard Viguerie’s first claim to fame :: E-mail lists/subscribers : Why John Kerry matters in 2008

Radio and blogging both gave candidates ways to bypass established media channels and speak directly to supporters and voters. Television and online video can reframe the public’s perception of political events. Direct mail then as e-mail now communicate around the media as well as solicit campaign funds from an (ideally) opt-in crowd.

Panels such as these are at their best when the most interesting comments come from the audience. One theme that emerged in discussion was how even print journalists are being asked to produce short video (and audio) segments for the Internet when reporting from the road. To some extent, each of my fellow panelists had witnessed or dealt with this issue. It’s an interesting and even logical development, as online ad revenues rise compared to the dead tree edition. One also has to also wonder how thin it stretches their already-dwindling reportorial resources. At least in the Morissettean sense, it’s ironic that the migration of news content to the web coincides with layoffs owing to competition from the web.

My friend Robert Bluey, also present, volunteered that his alma mater, Ithaca College, is now offering a course it calls “Backpack Journalism.” He explains in an interesting post at his own blog:

Students are given a backpack with a MacBook, video camera, digital camera, a recording device and other instruments to produce a story. After receiving their assignments, the students are dispatched to cover the story using multiple media.

I find this new kind of journalism fascinating. However, I also sympathize with working journalists who are primarily writers, who may now find themselves needing to acquire new skills to adapt to a changing industry. My co-panelists are among the lucky ones — I suspect they’ll learn new tricks more quickly than some of their older colleagues.

One of whom might be Michael Scully, former journalist, journalism professor and blogger (but not the writer from The Simpsons). I tend to share his fears about what “backpack journalism” will mean in some (many, most?) newsrooms:

If Backpack Journalism is about sending ONE person out into the field to report a story, than Backpack Journalism is a travesty. It’s an accountant’s dream but an editor’s nightmare. Accountants love it because you’re sending one person out into the field to produce the work of three people; it’s an editor’s nightmare because the quality of the work is diminished.

I submit that the true business model for New Media must be to send THREE people out into the field. Let one report, one produce, one shoot. Each skill is very important, each skill is very different, each skill has a professional value.

On the other hand, someone who could do all three well would be highly sought-after and accordingly compensated. If the job description caught on, it would presumably spur different kinds of students to enter journalism in the first place. Myself, I actually applied to film school out of high school, but instead pursued print journalism in-state, as I that proved more realistic. But if becoming a “backpack journalist” was an option at Allen Hall, I’d at least have given it the old college try. Heck, I might have even finished my Journalism double-major.

· · ·

And you know, I bet we can fit this into a hastily-assembled anti-triumphalist SAT problem like the ones above:

Print Journalists : The Internet :: Pre-Internet Journalists, I.e. Mostly Print Journalists : Every New Media Before the Internet

Note: As I promised above, a bit more about the Phillips Foundation Journalism Fellowship Program. They are presently seeking applicants for 2008. If you’re inclined toward constitutional democracy and classically liberal economics, and have less than ten years of journalism experience, then you (yes, you!) could land $50,000 to $75,000 to write on a topic of your choosing. Details here. Tell ‘em Blog P.I. sent you.

*I was also the only panelist with a client of current interest, so it made for a few interesting moments as the subject was indeed taken in almost any direction. Hats off to the Standard’s Michael Goldfarb for trying to get me to make news.

IPDI/Edelman on Political Blogging (and Wal-Mart)

Published by William Beutler on November 18, 2006 in Blog Consultants, Blogger Panels, Blogs vs. MSM, Journalist Bloggers, Meatspace, Tech Blogosphere and YouTube. 3 Comments

Edelman/IPDI LogosBecause I’m a sucker for nametags and PowerPoint presentations, during lunchtime hours on Wednesday I attended a panel discussion co-sponsored by GWU’s Institute for Politics Democracy & the Internet (yes, “Politics Democracy”; no, I’m not sure which word is supposed to modify the other) and PR agency Edelman*. But there was another reason to attend, and Edelman was it — the advertised presence of CEO Richard Edelman, that is.

If you don’t follow business or PR blogs, then you may not be aware of the ethical scrape Edelman recently got its blue chip client, Wal-Mart, into. The friction involved revelations that a few presumably grassroots pro-Wal-Mart blogs were in fact astroturf blogs — one might call them “astroblogs,” if the term “flog” wasn’t already gaining popularity.

To recap, as briefly as possible: In early October, BusinessWeek revealed that a blog called Wal-Marting Across America — featuring a couple driving their RV cross-country, using Wal-Mart parking lots as rest stops — was conceived and launched by Edelman on behalf of Working Families for Wal-Mart. The problem is, none of the parties involved disclosed the arrangement. Once outed, the blog was quickly shuttered.

In short order, B.L. Ochman called on WOMMA to throw Edelman out for having violated a code of ethics Edelman had helped develop, Richard Edelman started doing damage control on the company’s own website, his firm fessed up to two more flogs, and Edelman-employed blogger Steve Rubel drew flak for saying as little as possible about the incident (though he did not work on these Wal-Mart projects). It was quite the swarm.

In the end, WOMMA put Edelman on probation and the company started posting disclosures to their still-extant Wal-Mart blogs. So naturally, if Richard Edelman was going to be taking questions from the audience at a blogger conference, I would have to be there.

However — guess who didn’t show? Richard Edelman. And guess who did show? Activists from Wal-Mart Watch. They stood outside the lobby of the conference room at George Washington University handing out flyers titled “THE WAL-MART BFLOG.”

·      ·      ·

Nevertheless, there was still a panel discussion to be attended. Because the conversation ranged across many topics, allow me to fall back on the ol’ faithful of transition-averse writers — the bullet-point:

IPDI Political Blog Trends Conference Presentation

  • Perhaps the main reason for convening the panel was a new survey by Edelman’s research arm, StrategyOne, titled “Blog Readership in the USA.” Danny Glover has already recapped most of the findings at Technology Daily, so I won’t go into them here. I will point out that whereas the Edelman study focused on all blogs, the panel discussion was titled “Trends in Political Blogging” — which gave the discussion a mild case of multiple-personality disorder during the Q&A period.

  • For example, StrategyOne found that half of all blog readers are in the 18-24 age range, whereas BlogAds and ComScore surveys have shown that readers of political blogs tend to be middle-aged. Panelist Jacki Schechner of CNN offered that at CNN’s recent election night party, their invited bloggers were mostly aged 35-50, and almost none of them were below 30. Because political blogs were what post attendees were interested in, IPDI (note: pronounced “ipdee,” not “I-P-D-I”) director Carol Darr called on BlogAds founder Henry Copeland to generalize about numbers related to the political blogosphere. His estimates: About 100,000 people are blogging daily with an audience of “more than just their friends.” Some 10,000 of them have what could be considered a “commercial audience” — at least 1,000 daily readers (and keep in mind there are only 50,000 brick and mortar journalists in the U.S.). And how many readers of political blogs? Copeland thinks it’s somewhere between 2 and 5 million.
  • RNC eCampaign director Patrick Ruffini, another panelist, praised the netroots’ Use It Or Lose It pre-election campaign, in which liberal bloggers called on safe incumbents with big warchests to donate more to fellow Dems in tight races — or else. Ruffini figures they probably raised as much money then as by collecting the small donations bloggers are best known for. Another good point from Ruffini: When candidates’ positions are fairly similar, such as in a primary campaign, blogs become all the more influential.
  • Edelman Paris representative Guillaume Du Gardier made a great point about podcasting (or netcasting) and video-casting (no one likes “vlogging”) — while often mentioned in the same breath as blogging, they are more top-down, like traditional media. Blogs are a conversation, but podcasts tend to be one-way communications. I would add, this is one reason why YouTube has been so successful — it makes video-blogging almost as interactive as a regular text-based weblog.
  • Schechner said doesn’t consider journalists who blog to be “bloggers” — if your voice is already represented in the media, then you can’t properly be one. I follow that, but it seems incomplete. Not a few bloggers hate the term “blog” and by logical extension, the term “blogger,” too. And it is certainly used as a term of derision, mostly in meatspace rather than cyberspace. Maybe it would be nice to do away with the term, but it’s just not going to happen. Perhaps it would be better to redefine it: Jeff Jarvis likes to say journalism is an act, not a profession — but surely the same must be true of blogging. But if you’re a call center manager whose blog is mentioned in the New York Times, they’re still going to call you a “blogger” on first reference.

IPDI Political Blog Trends Conference Panel

  • Responding to Schechner’s actual point, I would say that a blogging journalist who often links to “true” bloggers should be considered part of the blogosphere. Will Bunch of the Philly Daily News-hosted Attytood is one who does. Chris Cillizza, who writes The Fix for the Washington Post, does not. So you don’t have to be a blogger first to be a part of the blogosphere, while having a blog does not necessarily make you a blogger. This ticket has not been resolved.

  • Bias and balance are an eternal theme of political bloggers right and left, as both believe the mainstream media favors the other side. But this also extends to non-partisan panel discussions, evidenced by a representative from NewAssignment.Net asking if any effort was made to court Democratic representation. (In addition to Ruffini, StrategyOne research director Robert Moran mentioned he had previously worked in GOP politics.) You could tell that Darr didn’t want to say “No.” She said they had sought a range of views, hinted that panelist Bill Allison’s Sunlight Foundation wasn’t exactly a member of the VRWC, and added that Schechner represented “the media.” Pressed about whether IPDI had specifically sought a Democrat for the panel, she conceded the answer was: “No.”
  • The consensus seemed to be that if the Internet had existed in 1976, Ronald Reagan would have defeated Gerald Ford for the Republican presidential nomination. I tend not to ponder such impossible “what ifs,” but that one is interesting to think about.
  • Predictions for 2008? Schechner believes candidates will be better schooled in the ways of the blog. Ruffini wants to see better wireless capability for field organizing — SMS isn’t sophisticated enough. Moran predicted the “ad guys in Old Town” will start getting “jealous” (call me a pedant if you must, but the proper word is “envious”), because blog advisers will start getting the good salaries. Personally, that’s the one I’m counting on.
  • And nobody said a word about the Edelman/Wal-Mart controversy.

*Full disclosure: Edelman is a competitor of my employer. At my last job, I spoke at an event co-sponsored by Edelman. I also know a handful of current and former Edelman employees, whom I count as friends or friendly acquaintances.