That last line is important. Exposing content is generally an editorial decision. That is changing, however, as news sites begin to seek ways of displaying what people are most viewing or emailing. We are rapidly moving towards balanced exposure of amateur and professional interests. One way of distinguishing between professional and amateur has been found by the NBC affiliate in Washington D.C.

The NBC Washington station has done an excellent job of using social commentary to surface articles to its home page that may or may not be the same choices as the editorial staff. Like other media outlets, they are interested in what people are reading most. But they go beyond that simple metrix to mine and surface how their readers are feeling about a news piece.

Its ingenious. Next to every article, you can rate how you feel about the subject matter. Your rating is tallied and the percentage for each feeling category is displayed right next to the article. You read the pulse of the community in real-time. No need to call your neighbor to poll them on how they feel. You already know how your community is reacting.

Also, these feeling ratings are a fantastic marketing tool to generate interest in the article. It’s a crazy, smart feature that I will definitely copy for a future project. I love it!

1. Here’s the home page. Notice the first sentence under the site’s identity. They used a script font to distinguish it from the rest of the content throughout the site. Script suggests hand written = people powered… nice design decision.

Note the copy below the header… “Locals are laughing…” It’s a hot link to the news article.

2. At the news article, you now see all prior readers’ feelings. Note that you can do this without logging in… no membership required, just anonymous polling.

3. The polling tool shows the current sentiment before you indicate yours. It encourages participation. Once you make your choice, immediate feedback is provided and you “feel” your voice has been recorded.

My selection is registered without a page refresh. It shows what I voted for, and encourages me to share it. Brilliant.

Imagine this same concept being used for policy oriented issues that are digitally distributed in the form of news articles, PR releases, videos, white papers, etc. Immediate feedback in an easy to use format. Get ready for the new democracy!!

When you view an impassioned speech that addresses color prejudice, you realize just how timid our culture can be. It’s easier to start a war in a foreign country than to change our own stagnant beliefs. We need to be jolted out of our stupor. We need to awaken to our common humanity.

AFL-CIO’s Richard Trumka makes it clear that racism against Obama lies just below the surface of so many people’s minds. Mr. Trumka does not sit on the sidelines. In this speech, he confronts the issue directly. His words provide me with hope that white America may finally put to rest fear of skin color, even if the message is wrapped in the language of the labor movement of another generation.

The ubiquitous coffee cup, that is our landfill archeological contribution to future generations, has become a mini-messaging medium for marketers. It’s a perfect touch point for advertisements: the consumer is at ease with a warm drink, indulging themselves before, during and after a busy day… their minds are open. This is the moment to deliver a slogan, quote or emotional trigger! It’s the moment I live for…

Supple minds are a marketer’s dream as they tend to be quite receptive to your messaging that should, if properly structured, touch on a consumer’s deepest desires. In a nice play on this, Starbucks does not overtly market themselves on their cups. Instead they deliver socially-aware quotations from known and unknown personages. It’s deceptive because it causes me (if not you) to look favorably on the brand.

They are communicating a provocative quote. I react to the quote, usually favorably, and fleetingly am reminded of Starbucks’ socially mission, rather than the business model. I then experience a feeling of satisfaction: the coffee feels good going down; the quote generates a moment of reflection; and the brand (Starbucks) is reinforced as one that I can associate with… everyone’s happy.

An acquaintance whom I greatly admire, Chip Giller, is the founder of Grist, an online environmental magazine. I met him through two good friends and was impressed by his charisma and soft-spoken delivery. I was happily surprised to find a quote of his used in the Starbucks campaign called, The Way I See It. Chip got the 289th quote! Considering that I haven’t even achieved the bragging rights of quote #8435, I’d say that’s worth a few pats on the back.

Chip’s words are a perfect conversation starter in large, mixed gatherings. By “mixed” I mean, Obama supporters versus Palin lovers, err, I mean, McCain supporters. Are there three camps now?

I digress… energy independence is NOT the exclusive rallying cry of one party. It is the “people’s” issue (or should be) and must be addressed in a progressive manner by both parties, regardless of which controls the executive branch this time around.

Here is the quote… and again, congratulations Chip!

So-called “global warming” is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don’t let them get away with it!

Obama’s camp has used the internet successfully to raise money, activate volunteers and keep in constant contact with his supporters. As an Obama supporter, I have experienced this first hand, particularly since I signed up to receive text messages. I was notified of his running mate before it hit the media outlets.

McCain has been more successful at search advertising associated with top issues. In particular, his campaign has been aggressive at buying up key words that would be entered by Obama supporters and diverting the traffic. For instance, last night, we went looking for the DNC’s website to watch the convention speeches. The first link from the results actually went to a Republican site. Well done! According to a WSJ article, as of last Wednesday, a search for “Joe Biden” returned a link labeled, “Joe Biden on Obama” that links to McCain’s site.

Obama has better organic or non-paid results when his name is typed in, suggesting that his team has properly optimized its pages for search, called Search Engine Optimization (SEO). In fact, according to Nielson Online, the 3.3 million unique visitors to Sen. Obama’s Web site in July was more than double the 1.6 million visitors to Sen. McCain’s site.

Regardless of which candidate you support, it is a mixed blessing that both camps are effectively using the internet to get their message out in front of voters. While it is encouraging that online marketing has played a more significant role than it did in 2004, reflecting a recognition of the internet’s importance beyond campaign donations, I still find it discouraging on another level. I had innocently hoped that this most populist medium would remain above the negative attack ad culture that misleads while misinforming. Unfortunately, as with all things, once it is clear how to manipulate results, the gloves come off.

I can’t wait any longer.

Here are the words I contributed with my donation:

As I listen to the words or Mr. Obama and sense the need for a new language of politics, I begin to hope that he may have a shot. The old language of politics is stale. The old language perpetuates the belief in difference. The old political language survives on polarization, rather than common ground.

I have pulled back from national politics to devote myself to local government where my actions affect policy. This is where I have access to create intelligent change. Mr. Obama is causing me to take pause and perhaps, dare I say it, hope the national system can evolve.

I hope that he can change the politics of cronyism. I hope he can return our country to a merit-ocracy where the most capable, and not the most connected, are advanced. I hope that he can act, as President Lincoln did, to foster healthy debate within his administration to arrive at a most just and thoughtful course.

I hope that the people can be empowered to know their power. I hope that the word "revolution" can be uttered w/o fear of our speech being revoked. I hope that Obama will be our "revolution" and turn the tide. I hope that my children can believe that this is their country. I hope they can experience a leader who can show them that to make mistakes in the pursuit of what is just is human. To not admit weakness, not embrace change, is the sign of a coward, not a leader. I hope that the next generation who watches their parents today, will believe that we value their tomorrow.

I hope Obama can be the change for which I hope.

Our culture supports polarity. It supports the view that finding difference is a matter of survival. The business world encourages it using military terms of strategy, outflanking, undermining, etc…. the language of competition. Competition requires distinction, not similarity.

Politics also is about distinction. We require candidates to show how different they are from their opponent. On the positive side, this helps voters to understand what they will get if that candidate is elected. However, once elected, the entire mentality of the politician must change if they are to be successful. They must seek common ground. They must build consensus to move projects and policy through the machine. In a partisan environment, they typically need a politician from the “other side” with common interests to commit their support.

Finding fault, difference, disagreements is easy. It is what our minds are taught to seek. On a local government level, I have witnessed how seeking difference is where some officials find their value. They can be outspoken and strong. They can develop a position from which they defend their arguments. All very admirable. Makes for a strong leader of the tribe.

Common ground, on the other hand, requires an open mind that doesn’t form judgements and opinions. Common ground requires a dialogue and exchange. It requires that areas of similarity be sought and discovered. In all honesty, it requires more work… But the results can be more fulfilling.

What does common ground get us that polarity doesn’t? It can result in a more lasting solution. If we find and then focus on areas of similarity, we can build something. The process of distinction involves taking away. Common ground builds unity, interest, collaboration, congeniality and most importantly it builds energy.

So that next time I’m in a discussion, whether with other town officials or with an aquantenance at the coffee shop, I’ll seek out common ground. It might just help with the effort of creating a lasting peace… even if its just between two people.

Next post idea to look at the question- “does the internet promote common ground?”

Mr. Krupp is not an environmental extremist. He is a pragmatic realist who sees an opportunity for both the environment and big business. He backs his claim up with facts and communicates a synthesis of the current market, the players and the possible outcome.

Mr. Krupp also pulls no punches. He states that committing our resources to this endeavor is paramount. The state of the planet’s systems demands change, not in ten or twenty years, but now. He clearly communicates that we must make renewable energy and carbon reductions a reality in the next year and a half!!!!

View this educational interview recently conducted with Charlie Rose.

Watching all three videos provides some sense of each persons ability to connect with their audience. If John Kennedy trumped Richard Nixon based on his ability to understand the emerging power of television, then how do these candidates fare some 40 years later? The nuances of the medium are fully understood.

Each candidate is relentlessly coached on their presentation, their facial expressions, body language, cadence and choice of words. Everything is finely scripted. No memorization is required. Generally, spontaneity is avoided and rarely viewed by the public.

Take a look at these professional politicians. They represent the pinnacle of a system of refined persuasion. “The message is the medium.”

—————–
BARACK OBAMA

—————–
HILLARY CLINTON

—————–
JOHN MCCAIN

- Bonnie Raitt
- Pete Seger
- Naomi Klien
- Tom Hayden

With its first episode, we are privy to a conversation between two environmental-social activists who have had a huge impact on their chosen fields. These passionate men are Carl Pope, president of the Sierra Club, and Van Jones, founder of numerous social organizations, including The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Green For All.

Carl Pope and Van Jones provide wonderful historical perspective to their early childhood’s political and social climate which gave rise to their activism. We find reasons for why they chose these paths. The soil was fertile and remains so. Over the years and as a product of their generational differences, each advocate has used different communication channels for their message and make observations about the emerging tools which provide “information empowerment.”

The editing makes for a much better story. It could have been a locked camera perspective on two men talking on a stage. Instead, the editor referenced footage from the 60’s to the present that gave context to the men’s conversation.

More posts will be provided as more episodes become available. For now, I hope you take the time to listen.

Brave Nation, Episode One

He has not the acumen, the intelligence, the moral compass nor the communication skills to hold the awarded post. Go to the bottom of this entry to see the video. However, before you do, I couldn’t help back up my claim of “another appointee who fails to inspire.” I like lists, so here are a few others scandal riddled Bush-men that come to mind on my WALL OF SHAME:

- Lewis Libby this former vice presidential chief of staff was convicted of four felony charges relating to the Plame affair by a federal jury on March 7, 2007.
- Jack Abramoff (In 2000, Abramoff was named to George Bush’s presidential transition team for the Interior Department, helping select the new Republican leadership team)
- Steven Griles (associated with Jack Abramoff and Lobby-gate)
- Roger G. Stillwell was tried and convicted in the Lobby-gate scandal. He was a coal lobbyist and then Deputy Secretary for the US Dept. of the Interior (wow, another appointee from the energy sector… how odd…)
- Lester Crawford, a former commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). According to an October 17, 2006, Associated Press article, Crawford “abruptly resigned” from the FDA in September 2005 and pleaded guilty to charges of “conflict of interest and false reporting of information about stocks he owned in food, beverage and medical device companies he was in charge of regulating” in October 2006.
- Brian J. Doyle, former deputy press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security. On September 19, 2006, Doyle “pleaded no contest to seven counts of using a computer to seduce a child and 16 counts of transmitting harmful material to a minor.”
- Claude A. Allen, former assistant to the president for domestic policy. Allen resigned in February 2006 after a January 2006 police investigation concerning multiple fraudulent returns to a Target store in Gaithersburg, Maryland. On August 4, 2006, Allen pleaded guilty to one count of misdemeanor theft.
- David H. Safavian, a former chief of staff of the General Services Administration. Safavian was found guilty of lying and obstructing justice in June 2006. Another Lobby-gate conspirator…
- John T. Korsmo, former chairman of the Federal Housing Finance Board. On April 7, 2005, Korsmo “pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which oversees the Finance Board, and the Inspector General for the Finance Board.”
- John Ashcroft (paranoia is good for the nation and good for our policies…)- not convicted of any wrong-doing, but surely a candidate for ridicule…
- Michael D. Brown (former FEMA fiasco czar) was never convicted of anything except being non-responsive and uninterested in the position he held. Interestingly, after the Hurricane Katrina debacle and his subsequent dismissal, he became a critic of the Bush Administration (a case of back-stabbing the back-stabbers perhaps?).

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/v/mGlOBPNr7Kg]

That’s all I can write on this subject as I am again totally dis-heartened by the stupidity present in “our” government…