Five Technologies that Will Impact the 2008 Elections

Patrick Ruffini has a good post about an online poll he came across that asked what technology would have the biggest impact on the 2008 election cycle.  YouTube is winning the poll in a landslide.  Ruffini writes:

That’s a “fighting the last war” mentality. Ask the pundits to predict what will work in the next election cycle and they’ll repeat what worked in the last one.

I agree.  So in a fit of stupidity, I'm going to list some of the technologies I think will impact the 2008 cycle that haven't already been hyped/written about to death.  Technologies that haven't really hit the political world yet.  Chances are none of these will actually have an impact and it will be something else, but it is worth a shot.

(1) Ning (Niche Social Networks)

The social network creation tool Ning relauched yesterday and it looks very, very promising.  Ning allows users to create their own highly specialized social networks through a slick drag and drop interface.  As an example, a network has been created to draft Al Gore for another Presidential run.  Ning is not the only player in this field – there are tons.

The implications here are pretty obvious.  These tools will allow activists to create their own networks around the issues or candidates they are passionate about (they are essentially a more powerful version of Yahoo Groups).  Campaigns can build their own social networks without spending a fortune to build inferior tools.  Bloggers can build communities around their sites. 

Continue reading “Five Technologies that Will Impact the 2008 Elections” »

Magazine Presentation Recap

Erin and I went up to NYC a few weeks back to give a presentation to members of the Magazine Publishers' of America about our study on the features of magazine websites.  If you are a glutton for punishment, you can download a copy of our Powerpoint presentation here.  

As a presenter, the questions/answer part of the session is always the most interesting. And the best questions are always the ones you can't really answer.  So here are some of the better questions we were asked.

(1)  How do journalists balance the time demands of their print duties with those of their online duties?

I basically said "umm" and then made a grunting noise. Seriously, I don't know.

It sort of reminds me of when I go into pitches to corporate clients and try to get them to start blogging themselves.  They always ask about the time commitments that are required.  "We're already overworked.  We don't have time to blog.  How can I do it without hiring someone?"  I can't really answer that one either.

I can only answer these questions from my own personal experience.  I'm a busy guy and I find time to blog.  How?  For me, my work and my blogging are accomplished in one motion.  Blogging feeds my work and my work feeds my blogging.  It's all kind of the same thing.  

So I'd say in an ideal world magazines should create an environment where writing web and print content can be achieved in one motion.  Write blog entries that provide insight into the process of creating the story itself.  Post notes from interviews.  Post follow ups on the story as more information becomes available.  Post links to discussion about the article.  Post about peripheral issues you got interested in due to your story research.  I think creating web content can be done in a way that supplements what you are already doing.

I don't know is probably the right answer though. 

(2) How do you balance the traditional role of magazines as gatekeepers with the trend towards user generated content and social news?

I don't really have a good answer to this one either.  I would just say I think there is a sweet spot between your traditional, editor-driven newspaper website and the free for all approach taken by sites like Digg that no one has really hit yet.  

(3) Assuming you open things up and allow readers to comment on stories, how do you manage this given the lack of resources?

Once again, I don't think there is a right answer here as people are still figuring this out, but I did take a stab at it. 

First, you don't have to allow people to comment on every article.  Why bother with comments on wire stories?  In order to preserve resources you could potentially allow commenting only on longer pieces and/or editorials.  This is the approach being taken by www.espn.com .

Second, let your readers/users help you police the comments.  Give them ways to report out of line comments through your site.  I think this is a much better and more practical approach than having magazine staffers waiting at the ready to review every comment as they come in.

Seattle Post Intelligencer News Reader: Why?

Following on the heels of the New York Times, the Seattle Post Intelligencer has launched a news reader that allows you to read the print version of the newspaper through a desktop application.

I gave the reader a test drive and think it is a fantastic piece of technology.  The reader runs smooth and fast and creates a really pleasing reading experience.  It is much better than the PDFs of print editions I've seen in other places.

However, there are a couple of problems with this.

(1) You have to install the reader software on your machine in order to use it.  Not only that, the version of the reader is specific to each newspaper.  So if I want to read five papers online like this, I'd have to install five programs.  This is much more likely to be adopted if you could install the program once and then read all your newspapers and magazines on it.

(2) I don't want to read the print version of the newspaper on my computer, even if the reader is really slick.  I really don't.

If I'm on my computer, I'd rather just go to the website and quickly pick and choose what I read.   Maybe I'd use this thing for a glossy magazine, but I'm having trouble seeing why I'd use this application instead of just reading stuff on the newspaper's website.  I don't get it.

Am I missing something?

Is the McCain campaign listening to bloggers?

I wrote a pretty complementary post a few weeks back about a conference call the McCain campaign had with conservative bloggers. 

Two weeks later it is clear that the McCain campaign is failing at the most important part of blogger relations: listening.

Mike Turk signed up for an account on McCain's social networking tool, McCainSpace, a while back.  Due to the top-down nature of the campaign's online effort, accounts must be approved by a human administrator before they are made active.  So far no joy for Turk.  He writes:

It has been 14 days since I created my page, and it still has not been approved.  I have received no rejection, no e-mail indicating there is a problem, and no request to change the content.  There is simply stony silence.

Ok, so they are slow or maybe someone missed something.  It happens.  But Turk has written about not getting his account approved not once but twice on his blog.  William Beutler is also waiting.  Silence. 

A sort of small time, political version of Dell Hell.

And mind you these guys aren't just some random bloggers.  Turk ran the Bush-Cheney e-campaign in 2004 and Beutler is a former National Journal reporter.   If you aren't listening to these guys who are you listening to?

Contrast this with the Obama campaigns' response to a site bug pointed out by Michael Arrington of Techcrunch.  The bug was fixed within two hours of posting (although admittedly that bug was a little more explosive than the McCainSpace problems). 

Contrast this with the Edwards' campaign, where Elizabeth Edwards herself is engaging in blog discussions (including one on our blog). 

Contrast this with Microsoft, which helped Gaping Void's Hugh Maclead fix a problem he was having with his tablet PC within a few hours of him posting.

Having conference calls with bloggers is great.  Truly listening to what they are saying is better.

Update: Mike Turk has now written his third blog entry about his troubles.  We'll see if this ever gets resolved.

Update 2: After eighteen days of waiting, Turk's account was finally approved.  He has a full review of the McCainSpace tool up on TechPresident .

Fuzzy Zoeller and Wikipedia

Fuzzy Zoeller is suing Wikipedia.

Well, at least, he wishes he could.

The Associated Press reported yesterday that Fuzzy Zoeller is suing a Florida-based consulting company for vandalizing his Wikipedia profile.  The paragraph in question has since been removed from both Wikipedia and Answers.com (which draws lots of its info from Wikipedia articles), but according to the Smoking Gun, the entry included false information about Zoeller abusing alcohol and drugs as well as physically abusing his family.

Zoeller, known for his slightly unorthodox temperament on the golf course, is known for being a jokester.  Example: check out these comments in a 2001 interview with Golf Digest:

Did any fellow competitor ever ask you to tone down the joking around? I've heard some guys say that you were a little difficult to play with.
Don't care. Tell them to speed up. Get ahead of me.

Some guys don't like the crowd getting into it, saying it affects their play.
Tell them to go look in the mirror. I don't hit their shots for them. Like firing caddies out here–caddies never hit a shot out here; what are you firing the caddie for? I haven't had a caddie in 27 years who ever hit a shot for me. I know they'd like to, but it's never happened.

You used to joke that your prescription for the bad back was "vodka and Advil."
You gotta tell 'em something. I do take a lot of Advil. But only when I'm on the road. When I'm home, I'm off.

Is vodka still your drink?
I'll even drink a few beers now and then. But then I might go home and not have anything for two or three weeks, a month.

A lot of the great characters in golf history–Hagen, Demaret–enjoyed their beverages.
That was a little before my time. Back then that was how all the guys played; they carried flasks in their bags. There's nothing wrong with that.

It's changed a lot over the years.
Yeah, but what else did you have to do back then? Think about it.

Now there's the fitness kick on tour.
The last five years, everybody feels that they gotta look their best out there.

Has that hit you yet?
Look at me! [Laughs.] I tell you, every time I get the idea of working out, I have to sit down until the thought leaves. I don't want to go out there and sweat. [Laughs.] Seriously, if I had a good spine, I'd probably do it. But I have no spine.

Even though Zoeller often made jokes like this in the past, there is a huge difference between joking around about vodka and advil and publishing malicious and damaging remarks about someone's character in a public environment.  Zoeller claims that the comments made about him on Wikipedia caused him "mental anguish" and "loss of income".

This brings me back to my original purpose in writing this post.  What kind of protection do people have against slander and defamation on sites like Wikipedia?  Not much.  In its disclaimers, Wikipedia clearly does not take any responsibility for the content that appears in the open-source encyclopedia.  It seems like the site is invincible: since most articles are written/edited by individuals not associated with the website, the encyclopedia is not necessarily responsible for the information that is published on its pages. As Fuzzy Zoeller discovered, you can't sue Wikipedia!

Wikipedia Disclaimer:

None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages.

Since Zoeller and his lawyers can't touch the website legally, the pro golfer has approached the source of the comments.  By identifying the IP address of the original "vandalism", it was discovered the the comments came from a computer at Josef Silny & Associates, a Miami-based consulting firm.  Zoeller is suing the consulting firm in order to "put a stop to this. Otherwise, we're all just victims of the Internet vandals out there. They ought not to be able to act with impunity ."

Zoeller's defense team is right. Online users should not be able to slander whoever and whatever they want on the Web with no recourse for punishment.  But should Zoeller be able to sue an entire company for something that most likely only involved one employee in non-business-related activity?  I'm not sure.  In addition, Should people like Zoeller be so concerned with false information appearing on a site that everyone knows provides unreliable information in the first place?  I'm not sure about that either.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said in response to this event, "We try to police [Wikipedia entries] pretty closely, but people do misbehave on the Internet."

I think that situations like the "Zoeller Incident" speak to the structure of Wikipedia.  While having an open-source encyclopedia is in theory a great (if not utopian) idea, I think that the site needs a better system of identifying individual editors.  That way, individuals could be held responsible if they purposely publish false or damaging information to the encyclopedia, possibly discouraging the publishing of malicious or false content to begin with. 

Also, should people be able to sue Wikipedia?  It seems strange to me that just because of a few disclaimers, the site is free of any responsibility of the material that shows up online.  If a Wikipedia article is the source of a reputation-killing piece of false information, should the site's owners have to take some responsibility?  I think to some degree, they should.

I'd be really interested to see what other people have to say about this, so please feel free to chime in with your opinions.