Mark & Justin

Last night's class was pretty amazing. It's heartening to know that Justin (I believe I have that right) is a gspm grad. (I hope he got a chance to catch up on his sleep after staying up all night to edit the videos!)

I also learned a lot about e-mail, particularly the e-mail appends (sp?) which apparently works with an opt-in system. That makes a lot of sense. I wonder - how many opt-in systems like that are out there?

I also noticed that Mark mentioned the "two-step model," I believe it was. When he described it, it did sound familiar. Maybe we can discuss that in our last class?

FBI Surveillance

Emi and Phil's post today about FBI surveillance is quite disturbing - and reminiscent both of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" and the U.S. in the time of Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover. It also reinforces something I have believed for a long time now - that the current administration in particular and the Republican Party in general, are moving us in a direction that is decidedly NOT conservative. In fact, it is radical in its extreme right-wing approach. The extreme right wing has a name, and it isn't democracy.

Amazing!

With all the media attention being paid to the Rove-Plame CIA leak investigation, there was one comment made over the weekend that I find amazing (and pertinent to this course). Matt Cooper said on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, that the one thing he would do differently in this whole affair, is to be more discrete about his e-mails - that it has been an object lesson in the fact that e-mails get out. How incredible! This high level journalist, with years of experience, who finds himself talking to top White House officials about national security issues, never thought of that before! We certainly do have a long way to go in this country, in online savvy.

IPDI: Online Videos in 2004 Election

My first reaction to the IPDI study of online videos is that videos on the right were not judged as harshly as those on the left. For instance, the veracity of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth message went unchallenged, and much was made of the mistakenly aired "Hitler" video, without much mention of over-reaches on the Republican side.

It is, though, clearly a thorough investigation of how online videos spread in 2004. It was particularly interesting to note the difference between press reports, web traffic, and blog publicity.

Obviously, these web videos are here to stay. I was frustrated with the lack of reporting by the MSM during the 2004 election, on the veracity of political TV ads. In the future, I hope they step up to the plate to investigate the veracity of online videos.

(I was unable to access the actual videos.)

Speaking of Censorship!

Wow! Right after reading the China filtering article and blogging about it, I came across this article alleging political censorship by Comcast! Perhaps this issue is closer to home than we thought!

Internet Filtering in China

The report on internet filtering in China was, of course, quite disturbing. I'm disappointed in American companies' compliance with Chinese rules. One would think that an administration dedicated to "spreading Democracy" might have something to say about that. On the other hand, it was fascinating to read that Chinese citizens were able to find out the news about SARS through their mobile phones. Is it possible that that's a huge loophole in the Chinese system? How long will it last?

Of course, we don't have such controls on internet traffic here - or at least not to that extent. However, I worry that certain offline filtering that occurs - e.g., cutting off of access to journalists who are criticial of administration policies, limiting of press conferences, "scripting" of such conferences, restricting access to Presidential events by non-supporters, etc. - could extend to future online filtering.

Fogg on Ethics

Fogg does a good job of breaking down the various issue involved in online ethics. As I was reading his chapter, my ears perked up at the gym, when CNN Headlines News reported on a controversial website: 4parents.gov, which purports to give parents important information for keeping their kids safe. WaPo reports on it here. There are many layers of ethical concerns surrounding this website (which I could not find today, so perhaps it has been pulled). First, is the fact that it omits life-saving information, and even includes misleading information that some experts say may lead to more risky sexual behavior (such as exaggerating condom failure rates.) Second, is the fact that this is a government website, so it is accountable to the taxpayers. Third, with many experts on the HHS payroll, an outside organization was paid to develop the site; the organization appears to have a hidden agenda on these issues. Clearly, the site is attempting to influence behavior. As Fogg encourages us to ask: Whom do we blame for negative consequences?

Addendum on Career Center privacy

On the question I posted as a comment, which was brought up last night: I looked at the Career Center's privacy policy. It looks like they say they can't guarantee that our resumes will not be looked at by others.

Accommodating Multiple Disabilities

After last night's class, I started thinking about my identical twin sister. She was born profoundly deaf, and also with some brain damage, which has never fit into a neat category. She has some problems with language - with putting sentences together in a logical way, and with thinking clearly. I was wondering about what kind of accommodations you would have to make for her on a website. First, I would make sure that any computer she works with has as many security controls as possible, since I would worry about her vulnerability to scams, and other trickery online. Second, I of course would have to implement the accommodations we discussed last night for the deaf user - clearly printing everything that is said in any audio or video. In addition, I think simple language would be important, and using the active voice, where the subject and verb of a sentence are pretty clear. Perhaps lots of graphics that illustrate the concepts being described would also be helpful. I would also have lots of pictures of people - particularly famous people (in her particular case, that would get her attention) - and I would strive to make my candidate look appealing and friendly. I would also put clear instructions on the site, about what the user can and cannot legally do, such as copying and pasting copyrighted material.
Finally, I would try to make sure that the graphics didn't compete in any one place for her attention, as that would be confusing.

Racism & the Digital Divide

I've been thinking about the article referred to on Emi & Phil's blog on racism and the digital divide. First, I'm intrigued by the ending statistics on the number of Latino and African-American men that use the internet. My first thought on that was: why did they only have statistics on men? I wonder what the gap is for girls and women?

Aside from that, the article talks about some minority groups being mistrustful of the internet. That's interesting. Why would that be? Do they worry more about privacy? Do they worry that the government is snooping on us online? I'd like to know more about that statistic.

Finally, in terms of what I, as a future political professional, can do about this divide: perhaps advertising my client's website in other media, such as banners on mass transit, or on popular TV shows. If I work for an office-holder, then numerous opportunies present themselves, such as trying to get funding for hardware, software, and training in schools with more than 50% "people of color," or forming partnerships with teachers' organizations and civic organizations. Of course, another thought is to hire more minorities to design my clients' websites, or to appear as spokespersons of some kind, on or offline.

The Digital Divide

The articles on the digital divide were quite eye-opening. (I never realized that cell phones can improve economic conditions!) It's also nice to know that not all teenagers are way ahead of their parents on the internet. Also, the studies done by Nielsen are impressive, innovative, and very useful.

Clearly, website developers need to take into account disabilities, differences in learning style, and different levels of education and reading ability, in designing websites. Democrats, in particular, might find such disadvantaged populations more receptive to their message.

(I often find myself having trouble reading online - I believe it's related to the way my eyes respond to an inner ear condition that I have. Sometimes it's just really uncomfortable. But I don't think there's anything that can be done to accommodate my problem.)

On the issue of race, I think it's important to point out that the article from the New Amsterdam News, I believe, is only talking about the attention that minority bloggers get from the mainstream media. This doesn't necessarily mean that there are no minority voices in the blogosphere (though, of course, money and available technology can be a factor).

However, the xx.blog article makes a good point: when whites say they like the fact that the web is color blind, perhaps they just mean that they don't want to be bothered with issues of race. (On the other hand, Femocrat makes a good point - to what extent can you make statements about race and blogging, unless you know the identity - and race - of every blogger?)

These are complex issues, but I'm glad that the questions are being asked.

IPDI's "Online Influentials" Article

Upon reading the IPDI article on "online influential," I felt like I was reading about my life for the past few years. (Many of my friends and family would respond that this means that I need to get a life, but that's another story.) I'm sure everyone in our class qualifies as an online influential. I had one question, though: if the checklist of activities was developed after "influentials" were identified, then how were they identified? They mention a method developed by NOP World, but I'd like more detail (unless, of course, it's proprietary.)

Also, calling talk radio shows is mentioned as a good thing, but is this really what candidates and parties should want people to do? For example, do the Dems really want liberals to call Rush Limbaugh & be ridiculed and hung up on?

Finally, I'm really uncomfortable with asking people to supply names & contact information about friends and family to the campaign. I'm even more uncomfortable with giving them the names of neighbors whose political leanings are unkown, asking them to, essentially, be spies for the campaign. I prefer that websites just let you open an e-mail on your own e-mail system (so you can take advantage of auto-completion of saved e-mail addresses, and don't have to share them) and spread information that way.

Strengths & Weakness of VA AG Website

STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES OF VA ATTORNEY GENERAL WEBSITE:

Strengths

Virginia Attorney General Judy Jagdmann’s website is full of information, much of it helpful, such as warning consumers about common scams after natural disasters. In addition to a picture of her at the top left corner of the website, there is a picture of her being sworn in, with her children at her side (holding the bible), which is appealing. The website also clearly explains that she was unanimously confirmed by the Virginia General Assembly to replace AG Kilgore. Also good is her “Kids!” section, at the top of her site, and in color. It includes a quiz that kids can take for online safety. There is a clear privacy policy, and the media office contact information is three clicks from the home page. Other helpful information includes a link to the "Stop Domestic Violence" program which trains salon professionals to spot & report evidence of domestic violence, a link to cyber-crime and other tech issues such as spam and do not call registry. There is also useful information on identity theft and telemarketing. There is also a list of e-mail addresses, based on issues dealt with by different office departments.

Weaknesses

The website has no picture of the AG with symbols of power, and no pictures of her with kids other than her own (this could be important, given accusations in the media that she is short-changing disabled children). Strangely, many links lead to pages with bullets that, for lack of a better word, I’ll call “ghost links,” where you don’t see the link until you click on an area that seems to be blank (kind of like “mystery meat!”). In addition, when they appear, they are usually in a florescent pink color that is difficult to see on a computer screen. In addition, many of her links lead to complicated pages in “legalese,” rather than plain English. (Many of those links are labeled from the point of view of a lawyer, such as “official opinions.”) The “news releases” link leads to a list of dates, (which end in May, so it has not been updated), and you have to then click on a date to finally see the press release, rather than allowing you to peruse press releases by headline.

While e-mail addresses are given, you first have to click on “our office,” then
on the last bullet that says “contact us,” then get to a page with a map, that says “click here” to reach a certain department, which finally leads to e-mail addresses. E-mail addresses should be much more accessible.

In addition, there are some places on the site where phrases are underlined but not clickable. Finally, a link to the “Virginia Cyber Crime Task Force” misspells Virginia!
In short, Attorney General Jagdmann’s website has some useful information, but needs to be written more from the point of view of providing service to the user, and less from the point of view of a lawyer. Links needs to be clearer, better explained, and updated.

(I forgot to add that it should have an "en espanol" button.)

Postscript to Last week's class

Btw: This online letter has some interesting information relevant to our discussion last Tuesday.

Johnson's Congressional Websites

Dennis Johnson has important information about how Congressional websites have fared over the years. They clearly improved with the benefit of research from the Congress Online Project. Particularly interesting was the story of the focus group that snickered when a link led to "Congress in recess," but was silenced when they saw a Congressperson's schedule while at home. I think the book could benefit from more interesting anecdotes such as that.

I did notice that he always applauded comprehensiveness, but didn't discuss the issue of information overload on a website. When is more too much?

His suggestion for an overarching Congressional web portal is a good one.

It's interesting to see the pros and cons, from different viewpoints, of making certain types of information public. Johnson sides with as much access to the public as possible, but also makes clear where the limits are.

Interesting e-advocacy improvements

I just heard about Sandra Day O'Connor resigning, so I clicked the "take action" link on an e-mail I got from CivilRights.org. To my pleasant surprise, their form for sending an e-mail to decision makers was secure! Yay!

I also got an e-mail from Moveon.org, with their version of a petition to send to my Senators re: the Supreme Court vacancy. I noticed two differences from other e-mails: First, they explained that time was of the essence - that Bush might appoint someone as early as Tuesday. Other e-mails I got didn't do that, so I put them aside for later. I responded right away to Moveon.org. Second: I'm always frustrated that websites ask me to send along a message to friends and family by typing their e-mail addresses. But when I send e-mail to them from Outlook Express I can type the first few letters of their name, without having to remember their e-mail address. (I particularly have trouble remembering my sister's yahoo! address; I can never remember where the "underline" goes.) This time, they invited me to open a new e-mail, and then I could do it the way I always do. That was very satisfying.

Finally, I got an e-mail from John Conyers' office, telling me that he's re-launching his blog, in response to some inappropriate comments that were posted - he had to add some more controls. He also had a well organized list of what I can find there (including the transcript of the Downing Street memo hearings), and a note giving "us" credit for the eventual front page treatment of the Downing Street issue, as a result of a petition that was on his blog. He included many links, so that you can choose what you want to delve further into.

It's nice to see that improvements are happening "as we speak!"

Johnson's "E-mail Overload"

Dennis Johnson begins his chapter on "e-mail overload" by telling us the pitfalls of e-mail (from the impersonation of Congress members, to the difficulty of screening out non-constituents, to more "gravitas" being accorded to paper correspondence). But by the end of his chapter, with Bill Frist providing the public crucial information in the wake of 9/11, it's clear that the benefits outweigh the risks - especially with more sophisticated software.

I've been hearing for a while now, and Johnson re-iterated this, that it's better to write something original than copy what an advocacy organization gives you (though, the other common advice - that hand written correspondence is the best - seems to be falling by the wayside, as Johnson seems to suggest). That always makes me feel guilty, since I often rely on the research on a particular issue that an advocacy organization I trust has done to produce a suggested e-mail. To be honest, I also don't want to take the time to write my own. I hope I still have some impact, with my "canned" e-mails. If anyone who works on the Hill has any thoughts on this, I'd love to hear it.

Lakoff's Liberal and Conservative Frames

Last night's interview with Frank Luntz reminded me of one of my favorite social scientists - George Lakoff. Lakoff is a cognitive linguist who is working on doing for the Democrats what Luntz has done for the Republicans. He talks about how language is the key to presenting progressive ideas. Lakoff says that liberals and conservatives have two different "frames" that they use to look at various political issues, and they are based on different views of family. The conservative view is the "strict father" view, and the liberal view is the "nurturant parent" view. Conservatives look at the role of the strict father as imposing strict discipline, in order to teach their children morality and self reliance. Liberals look at the role of the nurturant parent as teaching empathy and responsibility and responsiveness to others' needs. Thus, conservatives look at successful executives as people who have demonstrated discipline and self reliance, and as such, should be rewarded. The poor should be punished for being dependent and undisciplined. Liberals look at the poor as people we have a responsibility to help, and corporate executives as having more than they need. Thus, liberals look at taxes as part of their responsibility to the less fortunate, while conservatives use phrases such as "tax relief," to describe taxes as an affliction. Perhaps if taxes were described as "community responsibility," people would respond differently to Democratic proposals.

Come to think of it, Lakoff's theory also describes the different responses we all had to the Ohio voters in minority neighborhoods. Liberals like me were almost moved to tears, and thought that we owe it to these people to make voting less difficult. Conservatives thought that the voters (or those were were attempting to be voters) were shirking their responsibility to be well informed on the procedures.

This use of language to frame the debate is important to keep in mind when writing for e-newsletters, as well as for web sites and blogs.

Technology, the Internet & Progressive Politics

This piece by Frank E. Watkins is quite remarkable, in that it showed extremely savvy use of new media and technology when it was truly in its infancy. Targeting voters using their database, and then contacting them about recent controversies was particularly clever. However, the fact that Congressman Jackson used the same computer system - Monarch - that was used by his father - Rev. Jesse Jackson - to contact clergy, who then disseminated the information to their congregants, makes me concerned about church-state separation. The use of church visits in the campaign does, as well. I wonder what Americans United for Separation of Church & State would think of this article.

Tumulty and Cone

Tumulty makes a similar point as we saw before on the Amway-style Bush campaign strategy, with less emphasis on the online part of the synergy.
I was disappointed, though, that she didn't mention J. Kenneth Blackwell's role in the Bush campaign, in addition to being the Ohio Secretary of State.

On reading about Cone's article on Emi's blog, I found it quite interesting. My original dissertation topic, (before my professors convinced me that it would be unmanageable) was "The Paradox of Control." As Emi points out, Cone talks about the fact that the campaign gave up a lot of control, but that turned out suit its purposes - in the end, they ended up with more control. I don't agree with some bloggers that it was this giving up of control that was the ruin of the Dean campaign. I believe it was simply Dean's lack of self control.

In addition, I was amazed that Dean's blog was not monitored - this is advised against in our previous reading and classroom discussions, but it's stated here as a strength, fostering ownership.

(I found the response to trolls - donation pledges in response - to be brilliant!)

NPR interview

The NPR interview that included Matt Bai, author of the MLM article, was fascinating. It helped bring the issue about MLM that Bai was addressing, more to light for me. It was even clearer how the online/offline synergy worked in this "pyramid scheme." Volunteers would get detailed instructions every day on the website, and would pass on their data online as well. When I was in business school, I spent a lot of time studying "control systems," particularly Management By Objectives. My master's thesis looked at such a control system from the point of view of cybernetics. This MLM new media strategy is a classic case of a control system, made more efficient, and "tighter," by virtue of new media. It is interesting that this increased efficiency made Matt Bai uncomfortable. (It is also ironic, since, as one of the guests pointed out, it also made use of very old-fashioned grassroots techniques.) It raises, again, the question of how much control human beings tolerate, and in what form. The precision of it all made it seem "robotic," a word used by the radio talk show host. It would be interesting to ask how the volunteers felt, and compare that to how volunteers felt under the old Democratic "machine," with ward bosses. Do our reactions to control systems make sense, or are we easily fooled, in how much we are being controlled? (Reminds me of a newspaper cartoon I used to see on the door of one of my old psychology professors - a lab rat is saying to a fellow rat something like: "I have this guy well trained - every time I push this bar he gives me a food pellet.")

In the end. you've got to admit that the strategy is brilliant.

MLM

In the "The Multilevel Marketing of the President," Matt Bai provides an inside look at the online/offline synergy that the Bush '04 campaign used in Ohio. While most of the article goes into the details of grassroots canvassing, the online component supporting that effort is explained here:

Like their Democratic rivals, Republicans have added a massive new database that can track every facet of a voter's profile, and they are honing their skills in ''microtargeting,'' which should enable the party to hunt down likely Republican voters using all kinds of consumer data.

Clearly, the strategy was an impressive and successful one. Bai draws an interesting parellel between the Bush strategy and the pyramid model used by Amway. He points to the fact that Amway feels it necessary to dispel rumors that they are like a cult, on their website. Bai points out that, while "The Plan" touts its participatory nature, volunteers actually have strinent requirements, and little decision-making power. He seems to be saying that they're learning from Democrats of the past; however, I think it's clear that today's Democrats have become compalacent in their field work, and have a lot of catching up to do.

Narrowcasting in Ohio

The article on narrowcasting said the following:

Although ACT and the Bush campaign used different methods to influence voters, both campaigns relied on improvements in technology to directly target voters based on their preferences. At the same time, the technology and the law enables the campaign to better hide the messages they are sending to each individual voter. The result is a reduction in transparency in the messages that a candidate can use to get elected.

The goal of campaign finance reform was to increase transparency in the political process — to help people know who is supporting specific positions. But the narrowcasting revolution is enabling 527 organizations and campaigns to influence more voters while enabling a further erosion of transparency.

This is a very important point. Narrowcasting is powerful; is this aspect problematic? Is it different from "push polls?" I'd be interested in what other classmates think.

(As an aside, I find the use of credit reports extremely disconcerting!)

One Democrat's View

Another classmate, a conservative Republican, has asked me what I look for in a Democratic candidate's website. I thought it was good question, and I thought I'd post my answer to the blog, so that we could perhaps start an exchange on eachother's answers to this question:

When I look at a candidate's website, I don't think I look at any specific issue, though I suppose there are certain things I would take for granted in a Democrat: e.g., support for government programs that work, support for unions, support for separation of church and state (including reproductive rights and other civil liberties), opposition to "corporate welfare" and opposition to the privatization of social security. But most of all, I look for evidence that the candidate has the guts to stand up to the Republicans, to the corporate media; that h/she has the courage to say what I believe to be true: that what this administration has actually been doing (contrary to much of their rhetoric) goes against the values that most people in this country hold sacred. What attracted me to Dean, was that he was clearly stating his convictions, not trying to play both sides of the fence. I feel that Democrats have been WAY too cautious. I look for passion and conviction - and good speech writers. (I'm hoping Joe Biden decides to run.)

I welcome similar comments from Republicans and Democrats.

It's the Incompetence, Stupid

This piece is refreshing, because it is written by someone (James Verini) who was in the trenches at the Kerry campaign. He makes a good argument for incompetence, but also talks a fair amount about the campaign being uninspired. Verini mentions several times that volunteers didn't know - or care - what Kerry stood for, they just wanted to defeat Bush. Thus, the author saw no pictures of Kerry or Edwards at campaign offices, and volunteers couldn't answer voters' questions. The Democrats have to ask why that was, and try not to make the same mistake again. We Democrats were so attracted to Dean at first, since he seemed to have the guts to say what needed to be said - that with all their talk about values, what the Bush administration has been actually doing runs counter to many of the values this country holds sacred. Yet, when Dean seemed to be not ready for prime time, we flocked to Kerry because he seemed "safe." In short, I believe the problem was as much the candidate as the incompetence of the campaign.

Obviously, this article points to the importance of synergy. The best website in the world, and the best computer targeting, has to coordinate with the ground campaign.

Questions for the Class

While pondering my strategic plan, I came across some questions I'd like to pose to the class:
1) In my research, I came across some controversies that cast the Virginia Attorney General (my "client") in a bad light. Should I explain her side of the story on the website?

2) I'm using, as a model, the Maryland AG's site, because I think it's a lot better than her current site. But I noticed a lot of redundancies on his website. Is that a good thing?

Thanks.

More on Newletters

Today I got an e-newsletter from the National Jewish Democratic Council that I thought did a pretty good job. It was in html form; below the NJDC banner, It showed a press release, labeled "for immediate release," with a clear headline. The press release was not too long. [Though, I thought the beginning of the quote from the head of their organization: "Enough, already..." tends to trivialize the issue they're addressing - the response (by Rep. Hostettler-R-IN) to an ammendment (by Rep. David Obey - D-WI) "to fully examine allegations of proselytizing and religious intolerance at the United States Air Force Academy." Hostettler said that "Democrats can't help denigrating and demonizing Christians" as part of a "long war on Christianity."] Right below the press release is an invitation to "visit NJDC.org" and to "contribute today." Just below that is an invitation to tell a friend. There are clear unsubscribe instructions, and an invitation to join the e-mail list if you received the e-mail from a friend. One glaring omission, however, especially for a news release, is the absence of a media contact, with e-mail address and phone numbers given. This should have been displayed prominently, as one of the first things you see.

Anti-semitism Denouncement

Follow-up on anti-semitism allegations: The Rachel Maddow show blog links to a statement by Howard Dean denouncing the "handful" of people handing out anti-semitic literature at the Downing Street Memo hearing. Glad to hear it.

Evaluating Newsletters

I thought I'd hop on the bandwagon of evaluating newsletters that I've gotten.

One e-mail newsletter was from "Anne Lewis, DSCC." I'm not sure if everyone knows who Anne Lewis is, or even remembers (even after signing up) what DSCC stands for (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee). Perhaps the whole name of the organization (even though it's long) should have been the sender.

The e-mail itself is broken down into manageable subsections, with bright headings. However, it would have been better to provide the headlines for each section as links that people can choose to get more detail on.

As an aside, I believe their statement regarding the DSM:

Many believe the memo - actually the minutes of a meeting between UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and his advisers - shows that George Bush decided to go to war in Iraq well before the invasion actually occurred.

is missing the point. It's not that the decision was made well before the invasion, (that would just be good planning), but that it was made before we were led to believe it was made, and before the rationale was concocted.

The e-mail ends with a link to donate, and there are clear instructions for unsubscribing. However, the title: "Right-Wing Implosion," is not the best. It doesn't quite describe all the sub-headings; in fact, the e-mail ends by telling us about a huge fundraiser by Bush, and how that's what we're up against. That doesn't quite match the image of implosion.

I got another e-newsletter from "Mike Hersh," - I have no idea who that is, and I don't find out until the end of the e-mail, where I see that Mike represents three different organizations: The Montgomery Progressive Alliance, Progressive Democrats of America, Democracy for America, Silver Spring - Wheaton. In addition, he has a link to "Become the Media Project," as well as to his own website, the "Openly Oppose Bush Store," and the "Media Watch Project." Besides the fact that I should have understood what organizations were involved from the beginning, I think he should stick to one organization at a time, when contacting people - especially since Montgomery County Progressive Alliance is an outgrowth of Montgomery County for Kerry. I sense I'm being pulled into too many affiliations.

The subject and first heading: "Attend, Watch, Demand Coverage of the Downing Street Minutes Hearings and Rally" is way too long, and should begin with the key phrase: "Downing Street Minutes."

The print is very small - quite frustrating. There are no subheadings, muchless links.

On the positive side, there are clear unsubscribe instructions, and the time and place of the hearings and rally are clearly stated early in the memo (though perhaps they should have been in the subject, as well.)

He includes a long list of media contacts, which I suppose is good, since he wants you to contact the media. However, the e-mail addresses aren't clickable. Perhaps he should have just chosen a few key media contacts - the list is a bit overwhelming. Better yet, he could have created links for "media contacts," or for each media organization. Overall a pretty amateurish-looking e-mail.

Emi & Phil

Emi & Phil's chapter on e-mail newletters has a lot of valuable advice. I particularly like the advice for campaigns to find ways for users to interact that allow the campaign to maintain control over content, to make sure candidates are welcome on a discussion list, to include clear instructions for unsubscribing. Links in e-mail to allow readers control over what they delve into are also a great idea.

I had some questions about two sections, though. First was the case study in which an office-holder used his own funds in order to set up a website that collected e-mail addresses. He was later free to use that list in the service of a later campaign. But would people be annoyed to be contacted for a different purpose?

Another part was the suggestion of

simply building a list [of e-mails] by using e-mail addresses found on the websites of local civic, religious, corporate, or educational institutions (p. 224).

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but doesn't this go against the IPDI admonitions against "harvesting?"

Newsletters that Won't Go Away

Here's another great example of newsletters gone wrong. A while ago I subscribed to "Rapid Response Network," which has suggestions for responding (from a liberal perspective) to the MSM. Well, as always happens, I'm getting overwhelmed with e-mail, so I've tried - multiples times - to unsubscribe. I followed the instructions, but I still get their e-mail. Then I tried replying directly that I'm having trouble unsubscribing. No response, but more e-mails. Argghhh!!

Disturbing

I'm disturbed by a couple of comments on John Conyer's blog that allege 1) that the recent House hearing/forum on the DSM tolerated anti-semitic statements, and distribution of anti-semitic materials; 2) that Democratic Underground is anti-semitic. Does anyone know anything about this?

Anniversary

Today's my wedding anniversary. Twenty-two years! My husband is away, so I sent him an e-card from care2. Actually, they're an interesting site. When you send a card, they show you a screen offering you the opportunity to speak out in some way on some cause, usually a relatively liberal one. They're big on the environment, and they pre-check the option of getting their e-mails (which focus a lot on environmentalism and natural products), but you can un-check. An interesting mix of business and activism.

Guest Blogger

Here's a special post from my older daughter:

special guest, dun dududunnnnn!)

I have a xanga, where people can post entries online, and anyone else with a xanga can go to the site and post comments by clicking on a link and writing comments, and then they can be viewed under that link. You have options, like you can change the colors or the title or make the screen wider or add a "skin" which is like a background. You can put music on your xanga, or leave it silent. There are a lot of things you can do. Some people put chatterboxes on their xanga's, which doesn't have anything to do with xanga I think; its java or flooble or something, I'm not sure, but once you download it onto your site, people can write things on it, no matter whether they have xanga or not, and all the comments are posted in the box. A xanga isn't really hard to get; you just go to xanga.com and sign up for it like you'd sign up for an email account or something, writing your name and email and stuff, and you can also write what you want in a profile that you can have appear on the left side of the screen, and you can also post a picture of yourself. There isn't really much to xanga, really, its fairly simple.

Typekey Usability

Speaking of usability, I'm having a real problem with the public blogs that are part of "typekey." A lot of them "ask" you if you want to pass your e-mail along to the site, with "yes" pre-marked. If you switch it to "no," it says your login failed. That really bugs me! I don't want my e-mail address posted online.

Our Blog Listings

I've been thinking about something related to our previous reading about hiring consultants to get google to list your site high up in their list for a search. I know that when I start looking at my classmates' blogs, I often start at the top, with "Advise and Consent." I wonder whether placement in the alphabetical list affects comment rates...

E-mail Newsletters

Nielsen's usability guidelines for newsletters really fits my experience - including my recent post about Amnesty International - by the way, AI sent an e-mail apologizing and explaining that the problem was fixed. I think I've experienced frustration over every usability problem Nielsen mentioned.

It's interesting that in the last days of the campaign, Bush urged people to bring their friends to the polls, while Kerry asked for money. I believe that helped Bush. But I'm highly skeptical of Nielsen's scores of Bush having overwhelmingly postive campaigning, and Kerry having overwhelmingly negative campaigning. Based on Nielsen's description of his content coding process, it sounded highly subjective.

On the issue who the campaign sets the e-mail to be "from," I do admit that I do a bit of a double-take when I get an e-mail from James Carville or Bill Clinton, but I'd really prefer to just get the e-mail from the "Kerry campaign," or the "Democratic Party."

Raw Story & Cornfield: Blogger Victory

I just came across this interesting BBC article, through RawStory. I think it's doubly relevant, since it refers to the belated MSM coverage of the Downing Street Memo as a "victory for bloggers," as Raw Story puts it, and it quotes our own Michael Cornfield!

Unwise marketing moves

I've just come across a couple of problems with new media marketing that I feel are problematic. The first happened when I signed up for the Amnesty International e-mail list. Somehow a mistake was made, causing the list to act like a listserv, rather than an e-mail list. People's automatic out-of-office replies started getting sent to the whole list. So then people, who didn't understand why they were getting e-mails from strangers, were replying (which again got posted to the whole list) things like, "I don't know you, why are you e-mailing me?" The situation has been snowballing; one person on the list sent an e-mail to everyone to calm them down, and explained that obviously Amnesty International made a mistake. This can be a big problem, since it means that our e-mails are being released to a large number of people.

Another experience was when I checked out the PC magazine website, to see what they were saying about technology. (Interestingly, it seems to be a website that also operates as a sort of blog, allowing people to post comments on articles.) Their latest issue lists the top 100 web sites, which I found interesting. But of course, they ask you to "join" by registering, and they have a long registration form to fill out. It's not secure, and asks for your name, address, and other personal information. I found that quite annoying; I applaud Emi's suggestion to have all personal information encrypted, not just credit card information.

In some ways, the new media have a few bugs to work out.

Comparing AG Websites

So, I had been wondering how much of the Virginia AG's website (my assignment) is a function of the requirements of the post. Then I got the brilliant idea (duh!) to look at other state AG's websites. I started with the Maryland AG's website. His website was so much more user friendly! My "client," AG Jagdmann, has a long list of topics on the left side of her site, listing such things as "meth watch," "tobacco" and "cases of interest." AG Curran's site has links broken up into smaller chunks with headings, rather than one long list on the side. His use of color is more pleasing to the eye, with orange buttons with cute graphics. His titles are more geared to the user's needs; across the top he has headings such as "Protecting Consumers" and "Safeguarding Children." His links are divided into "Office Overview" and "Services to the Public." News releases are listed by headline, so you can decide which ones you want to click on, as opposed to Jagdmann's site, where after you click on "news releases," you get a long list of dates, and you have to decide based on that which press release you want to click on. Under "topics of interest," Curran tells consumers that a certain drug is available to Marylanders without insurance, and then lists "Consumer alerts," with those words in red. Another thing I noticed about his site is that he uses "action verbs" more, in describing his links. For instance he has "Reducing Youth Access to Tobacco," instead of just "Tobacco," and "Mentoring Maryland's Children," rather than just "Kids." Also, he gears his kids' section to teens, which makes it a little "cooler." His quick links include such things as "Prescription Drug Finder." As I told Emi last night, I'm not visual at all, but I liked the fact that he has a line between the three columns on his site, which helps to organize the information, and makes it seem less overwhelming. In short, I feel that Jagdmann's site says, "This is what our office has been working on," and Curran's site says, "This is what you need to know."

Progressive Website Influencing MSM?

Well, this is exciting. It appears that progressive site Media Matters for America, might have actually had an impact on the MSM. Media Matters for America wrote a letter on their website to MSNBC about Tucker Carlson's new show, "The Situation," imploring them to balance the show with progressive voices. Last night the show debuted, including Air America Radio's Rachel Maddow. I was thrilled! (Although, unfortunately, they had to spend most of their time talking about the Michael Jackson verdict.) I thought Maddow did a great job. It's quite unusual these days, to see a true progressive on a prime time television show.

Advocacy Organizations

We've been reading a lot about the importance of integrating online and offline activities. We have also been focusing a lot on candidate campaigns. So far, I've been more involved in advocacy organizations, and I wonder how some of them are doing. One of my favorite organizations, Center for American Progress does a very good job of promoting their website. One of the ways they do this, is with daily appearances by their Director for Strategic Communications on Air America Radio's Al Franken show. Their research is excellent, and they, of course, drive people to their website with these appearances, where you can sign up for their e-newsletter. (Interestingly, they are not very aggressive about fund raising; their DONATE button is pretty far down the page, and their e-mails, when I was getting them, did not focus on fundraising, as many DNC e-mails do.) I wonder if they could do more. Perhaps holding press conferences? Other forms of publicity?

Another one of my favorite organizations, and one that I've been associated with, is Americans United for Separation of Church & State. They're slightly more assertive about fundraising than CAP - their "support AU" button is at the top of the page, and they also urge you to join or renew your membership pretty high up on the page. Their e-mails are not frequent, and they are usually press releases, with opportunities to donate at the bottom of the e-mail. However, their Executive Director gets much more press coverage than does CAP, but I've never heard him mention the website on one of his appearances. Maybe he should, (though I'd be curious to hear if some of you think that would be too obnoxious.) They have been quite clever on the issue of publicity, though; they broke the news of Falwell's concerns about "tinky-winky" the PBS tele-tubby being gay, for instance. They also recently broke the news of comments made by Tom Delay to his supporters about the Schiavo case.

Overall, I wonder if the advice for campaigns also applies to advocacy organizations such as Americans United and the Center for American Progress.

Web Videos and Web Events

I find the prospects of web videos and web events very exciting. Again, Peter's point about the superiority of TV ads might be eclipsed by more use of web video. Web events have the power to "synergize" multiple strategies for reaching people. Moveon.org and Meetup.com are mentioned as pioneers; however, I'm very disappointed with Meetup's new strategy of charging. Even worse, they charge the group organizer and expect him/her to collect from group members. There's got to be a better way!

Again and again, IPDI stress the importance of a good e-mail list. The method of obtaining e-mail addresses should ensure that the people on it are actual supporters.

I keep thinking of how I would implement these suggestions as a speechwriter or communications director. On some issues, (especially Search Engine Positioning), some of the language was a bit technical for me. I wonder how I would evaluate a consultant providing that kind of service. (I'm amazed that such specialized consultants exist!)

When Do Bloggers Break Through?

The blog Talk Left has two posts, I find interesting, and related. One talks about the need to support Howard Dean in the wake of some Democratic leaders turning against him, and the other is about an interview with Nancy Pelosi. Talk Left says,

The House Democratic leader made striking comments about the mainstream media, even asserting that reporters had told her journalists couldn’t tell the Democrats’ story because they feared losing access.

“I’ve had reporters say to me, I have orthodontia, I have tuition, I have mortgage, I need access, I’m not writing your story,” Pelosi remarked.

These two stories together demonstrate that it is easier for the MSM to report on alleged gaffes by Howard Dean, than on policy issues that the Democrats want to talk about.

But, as we saw in the case of the Downing Street Memo, bloggers can, at times, influence coverage to overcome this stranglehold on the MSM. The question is: where is that critical point at which a story that's on the blogs gets MSM coverage? Is it the simple number of blogs that are talking about a story? Are some bloggers listened to more than others? Are some stories more dangerous to print than others? I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts.