The country of Iran held its presidential election last week and now is in a state of turmoil. The “theocratic republic” of Iran jammed text messages, cell phones, and Web sites. It shut down the Facebook page of its opposition, Mir Hossein Mousavi, a former prime minister whose campaign hinged on Hope and Change, leaving its 5,000 fans without a communications resource.

Or, so they thought.

Because there was one platform that was able to withstand this hardline Islamic government’s crackdown: the increasingly popular Twitter. Throughout the upheaval and the chaos, Twitter was able to stay one step ahead of the government. As Iran’s new regime blocked one site, another hashtag would be created. And, the tweeting continues even today. As you read this post, it is likely that 10 new hashtags have been made. (For the newer Twitter users, hashtags act as a way to create categories, groups, or topics for tweets that others can use as well.)

Before the “Twitter revolution” began, Twitter was scheduled for a “critical network update,” Twitter would be down for ~90 minutes, but due to the breaking world news Twitter decided to reschedule their maintenance work; good move by Twitter! But, the battle wages on: because the Iranian government is more concerned with “cracking the code” than addressing the people’s voices, new proxies, clean IP address that forward a user to other websites so that they are hidden, are being created to divert them.

The median age in Iran is 27. It is great to see this country’s young population taking advantage of this new (internet usage in Iran is mostly still a phenomenon of the affluent, the young and city-dwellers) technology and still continuing Mir Hossein Mousavi’s ideology even if he ultimately “lost” the election (an outcome that is being heavily disputed). Grand Ayatollah Ali Kharmenei, who is the supreme ruler of Iran, has ordered an investigation into the election and hopefully some resolution will come to this country soon.

Share on Facebook

So, thanks to my 19-year-old son, I had the distinct pleasure (he said sarcastically) of meeting some of the people that decide whether or not you get to keep your license to drive after too many speeding tickets. Believe me, it ain’t pretty. 

Just as social media can shine a light on poor customer service, outrageous employee behavior or other problems in business, the same scrutiny just can’t come to the bureaucratic underpinnings of our government soon enough, and I’m writing today to encourage it. From undeserved parking tickets to government employee rudeness and incompetence, it’s time we returned the control of such processes to those of us that pay for it, and I think social media can play a significant role.

Not long ago, I live-tweeted traffic court. My followers thought it was hysterical. So did I. But, really, it’s not. It’s a joke alright, it’s just not a very funny one when you think about it. Personally, I think it’s far too easy to get a license to drive in this country, but I was reminded again this week we spend far too little time truly thinking about improving safety on the roads and too much time fooling with low-hanging fruit that generates a quick buck. I thought it was “to serve and protect” not “to serve up money for the city coffers.”

My experience at the DMV this week was nothing short of ridiculous. The saddest thing for me as a parent is trying to teach my son to respect authority when the authority is rude for no reason, incompetent, refuses to answer simple and legitimate questions, poorly trained and inarticulate. (My son did have a great line on the way out: If she’s representative of the government, there’s no way they masterminded 9/11!) Bluntly, my son deserves to lose his driving privileges (and had already had them curtailed by dad), but after witnessing the process and personnel, I’m have no confidence the decisions to restrict driving privileges or a myriad of other lower level legal restrictions are being made by those who are trained and competent to do so.

I’m encouraging all of us to begin to use social media tools to encourage accountability in government bureaucrats that, in the end, work for us. Let’s live tweet the absurdities of traffic court and capture the rudeness or incompetence we encounter from employees that our taxes and fees support. And let’s also give a shout out when we get great service (my last trip to get license plates could not have gone better, and the woman behind the counter was a pleasure to work with). 

When those in charge of these agencies get public heat for the bad and public kudos for the good, I believe change will come. And if I’m wrong? A public collective voice can reinforce the status quo and tell me to, in essence, sit down and shut up. Either way, the people decide, as it should be.

Doesn’t that make more sense than griping at a cocktail party?

Share on Facebook

I’ve been following the hot and getting hotter debate over whether or not Facebook should remove and/or disallow groups and “fan pages.” The particular ones in question have names like “Holocaust: A Series of Lies,” “Based on the facts? There was no Holocaust,” and “The Holocaust is a Holohoax.” Michael Arrington at TechCrunch has weighed in. So did ABC News and The New York Times.

Here’s the Time’s coverage:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/holocaust-deniers-gather-on-facebook/

Despite having grown up in the rarified air of the lovely Boulder, and despite having proudly and without hesitation voted for Obama, I am not your typical left wing Democrat. I am actually for WAY LESS government. Does that make me a Republican?? God forbid.

What it does make me, I suppose, is a Civil Libertarian. I don’t believe that the government or anyone should tell us what we can and cannot believe. Obviously, hate crimes, hate speech and out-and-out illegal behavior should be punished and the government should and does indeed legislate against it. Discrimination of any kind is never okay.

But, having an opinion or a point of view, and even having thoughts or feelings that fall somewhere on the not-so-nice to full-out hateful discrimination scale, is not illegal. The Facebook debate is not about legislation. It’s about providing a public forum…for any and all…and as such shouldn’t it be a place where ideas, even controversial…and even stupid…ideas, can be expressed?

We have laws in this country against hate speech. And, certainly the water is murky at best surrounding these Facebook groups. Facebook will remove groups that express hatred towards individuals and groups that are sponsored by recognized terrorist organizations. However, as the company’s spokesman said, it does not take down groups that speak out against countries, political entities or ideas. Facebook has taken down several of the more-outwardly scary Holocaust denial groups. Only three anti-Holocaust/anti Semitic groups remain. Are these “fans” just “communing” or, as some could argue, does their very existence constitute hate speech? I am not sure. And, certainly I have to ask myself, “isn’t ‘only three’ three too many?”  Like I said, murky.

This “live and let live” attitude, though, comes with a price. If we’re going to truly embrace the freedoms of speech and self expression our Constitution guarantees, then we also have to man-up and honestly, and often uncomfortably at times, live along side people that we whole heartedly disagree with. People who make our fists clench and the hair on our necks bristle; people that repulse us, make us angry or scared or sick to our stomachs.

But, where’s the line? It’s easy enough to side with my better angels and just chalk it up to personal choices (and perhaps a brain cell deficiency) when dealing with politics or religion or war or even flag burning or wearing a motorcycle helmet…or any number of things. I’m as judgmental as the next person, believe me.

But, how deep are my Civil Libertarian leanings when it comes to something as repugnant as anti-Semitism or racism? As Voltaire said, “I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Can I (should I?) honor that belief as I read about these whack jobs on Facebook? How can I?
I truly believe that if someone wants to be a complete ass and think that the Holocaust was concocted by a bunch of Hollywood set designers and actors then they should just go right ahead. (I didn’t say I didn’t have an opinion about these groups, did I?!) Do I want it in my face, so to speak, on Facebook? Not really, thank you very much.

I am appalled by these “fan” pages (the sick irony of that classification alone makes my ick radar go off). I want them taken down. My heart and my head say they shouldn’t be allowed to post such vital on such a public forum as Facebook. Afterall, “Holohoax,” and its despicable kin, aren’t the same as some of other Facebook fan pages, like “Cheeseburgers,” “70’s Sitcoms,” “Coffee” or “Sleep” (full-disclosure:  I am a proud, card-carrying member of all of these). And, they are also different from joining a “Fans of John McCain” group.

But, in the end, I want no part of censoring anyone and their right to express, commune, befriend, and gather with others like themselves.  They should be able to speak their minds, believe what they want to believe. Even in public where I, someone who vehemently disagrees with them, can hear it if I were to listen.

The slippery slope is real. And, it’s VERY slippery and scary.

I am a member of a “Pro Gay Marriage” fan page on Facebook. As far as I know, no one has asked for it to be taken down. TechCrunch, ABC and The New York Times haven’t said a word. No one is up in arms and protesting. And, yet, I can’t think of too many topics today that are more emotionally and politically divisive than gay rights.

So, what to do? I guess I have to take my own Civil Libertarian advice: if I don’t like or approve of a TV show, a book, a religion, a person, a group of people with a certain political agenda, I can walk away. I can choose not to participate. Not in a huffy, belligerent way. Just in a “you go your way and I’ll go mine,” kind of way. I am empowered. It is, in fact, my obligation, as person who lives on a planet with billions of people and billions of ideas and beliefs and values different than my own, to do so.

I don’t envy Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg. The company’s decision to allow these groups is a tough one, but despite my personal feelings, I actually agree with the position Facebook has taken. There isn’t a right or wrong answer or a solution that isn’t fraught. And, that too, is the essence of what it means to live in freedom.

Share on Facebook

Social media has come to jurisprudence, John Schwartz writes in today’s New York Times, and the result has judges, attorneys and legal scholars flummoxed.

Why is this a problem? Schwartz explains:

Jurors are not supposed to seek information outside of the courtroom. They are required to reach a verdict based on only the facts the judge has decided are admissible, and they are not supposed to see evidence that has been excluded as prejudicial. But now, using their cellphones, they can look up the name of a defendant on the Web or examine an intersection using Google Maps, violating the legal system’s complex rules of evidence. They can also tell their friends what is happening in the jury room, though they are supposed to keep their opinions and deliberations secret.

A juror on a lunch or bathroom break can find out many details about a case. Wikipedia can help explain the technology underlying a patent claim or medical condition, Google Maps can show how long it might take to drive from Point A to Point B, and news sites can write about a criminal defendant, his lawyers or expert witnesses.

“It’s really impossible to control it,” said Douglas L. Keene, president of the American Society of Trial Consultants.

In this information-wants-to-be-free era, some jurors just don’t understand why they can’t Google the defendant’s name or double-check facts presented by an expert witness. Others claim to be striking a blow for fairness, saying that rules of evidence are “elitist” because the trial court controls what information the jurors see and hear.

In one case, a juror confessed to looking up information on the case during deliberations in a federal drug trial. When the judge questioned other jurors, eight of them said they’d done the same thing. The judge declared a mistrial, “a waste of eight weeks of work by federal prosecutors and defense lawyers,” Schwartz writes.

In an Arkansas case, a juror sent Twitter messages to his friends that some might call indiscreet: ““So Johnathan, what did you do today? Oh nothing really, I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else’s money.” Although the juror insists he said nothing until the trial ended, stories like this are bound to suggest grounds for appeal for the losing side.

As is often the case, the comment thread on the Times story adds a lot of texture. Phil Greene from Houston writes: “As a lawyer who has won most of my cases over the last forty years I can tell you there is nothing magic about courtroom evidence, and the system is based on both sides twisting the truth to their advantage. Information gathered over the internet is much more reliable than the stilted garbage the poor jurors are forced to endure in our medieval court system. Listen to your iPhone, not the judge and the witnesses.” Yikes!

Those little devices we all carry have turned into so much more than just phones.

Share on Facebook

For the longest time I had bruises from kicking myself because I quit a perfectly good union job at the Rocky Mountain News to go to work for a software company.

That job didn’t last. As a freelance writer hustling for my next assignment, as an underpaid trade magazine editor, as an account exec at an agency (not Metzger) that doubled as a sheltered workshop for crazy people, I would think about that Rocky job I quit. Thinking about the weekly check, the health plan and the constant flow of interesting things to write about would get me all nostalgic, and boom, another bruise.

Sometime last year I stopped kicking myself and started counting my blessings.

I am sick, beyond sick, that the Rocky Mountain News is closing.

On the other hand, I remember asking Larry Strutton, the publisher in 1996, why RockyMountainNews.com was so anemic, and what he planned to do about it. I had just been hired as a technology reporter to cover the Internet.

“We are in a newspaper war,” he said, “and I am not wasting money on anything that would keep a reader from putting a quarter into a news box.”

Was that when the Rocky began to die?

I complained every single day I worked there, because that’s what reporters do, but it was the best job I ever had and I miss it.

The people were amazing, even the jerks.

That’s my old boss Joe Rassenfoss, who is not a jerk, in the photo on the News’ home page, standing next to Mark Brown, the rock critic. Joe and Rob Reuteman used to sit across from each other on the business desk and you could have sold tickets to their act. Joe would call our designer every afternoon and sing the closing NYSE and NASDAQ to him, just to keep it interesting.

Gene Amole sat next to Suzanne Weiss, and then Ann Carnahan. Why? “Always sit next to a Catholic girl in the newsroom, because they know how to spell.” When Ann got pregnant with triplets, Don Knox told her she’d get better maternity benefits if she named them Rocky, Mountain, and News.

I remember the day Al Lewis defected to the Denver Post. He was in John Temple’s office when the rest of the business staff arrived. While we waited to hear what happened, we divvied up the stuff Al left on his desk. Dick Williamson got Al’s printer. Dana Coffield snagged the headset. Al had taken his yo-yo.

In the old building, the business section was near the bathrooms, so we saw everybody on a regular basis. Because I covered technology, people would ask me for computer advice, except for Holger Jensen, who would come by and tell me why everything I had ever written about the Macintosh was wrong. And by the way, I misspelled Ulaan Batar. Ulan Bator. Whatever. Holger was big and loud and he intimidated me.

Kevin Flynn thought I was Sandy Graham’s sister. That would have been OK with me. John Rebchook would get in trouble with his wife if he bought a soda out of the machine. Lynn Bronikowski came to a Halloween party dressed as Dawn Denzer. The photos must be around somewhere.

Laura Watt told me the secret of pool cars: Always sign out the one that Al Nakkula just brought back, because it would be gassed up and cleaned out. In 1987, when I first walked into the newsroom as an intern, I knew Nakk as the old guy who shuffled around the city desk on Day GA. How surprised I was to find out that he had been a hotshot crime reporter. There’s a reporting award at CU named after him.

When I started, Dusty Saunders’ byline was still Walter.

My college football bowl picks one year were so abysmal that I almost won the booby prize and got my dollar back. At the last moment, Norm Clarke bombed worse than I had, and he came from sports, for God’s sake.

Dana got a lift to some event in Norm’s Miata. Her report? “Never ride in a vehicle driven by a guy with one eye.”

There were moments of extreme frustration and moments of extraordinary grace. We tore up the business section at 5 p.m. the afternoon Bill Daniels died, and I wrote one of my best ledes ever on a sidebar: “Bill Daniels will be remembered not for how he made his fortune, but how he gave it away.”

John Accola wrote the mainbar. May he also rest in peace.

A church sent flowers to the newsroom during the Columbine aftermath, with a note that they were praying for us. That was unheard of. Praying for us! You get used to being the bad guy, a member of the Evil Media Elite. When somebody actually notices that you do a service to the community, delivering horrible news when you’d rather be home cuddling your own kids, it makes an impression.

Writers from the business staff volunteered for metro duty; Guy Kelly covered teenagers’ funerals, one after another, days on end. My little boy was 8 that year, with some of the same diagnoses and taking some of the same meds that the Columbine shooters had, and it shook me. I told Reuteman and John Temple that I would file a dozen stories a day for the business section, but I could not write about other mothers’ dead children. So I stayed on biz and filed a dozen stories a day.

I remember a phone call from Joe Nacchio at Qwest during that time. We talked about raising sons.

I can barely look at the photos taken today in the newsroom. There’s Deb Goeken, who always talked about writing stories that people would cut out and keep in their Bibles.

I saw Ellen Jaskol, who photographed my wedding. Mary Winter, who told somebody that I was one of the best writers in the building. I heard about it thirdhand via two people in California, one of whom was my sister. When you screw up at a newspaper, you find out immediately; compliments travel across two time zones to reach you.

I saw Jerd Smith, who brought me soup when I had cancer.

Do we lose as a community when a newspaper folds? I hate so much to have to find out.

Share on Facebook

_________________

Know the Press Ahead of Time: The reporters that knew me already talked to me before and after – and that’s where I wound up in coverage. Help your clients with these relationships and if you don’t know them, work the room harder. I have not been on one talk show while other Regents have because they are known commodities and know the people booking those shows.

Picture Me This: Hand Written Signs Make for Great Photo Opps: Hand written placards show grass roots movement and the press likes to show those.  Props are also nice (some students used oil drums and oil rigs). So, if you are fighting against the man, have your people make their own signs of protest. If you are representing the man and have these protestors – not a lot you can do to keep those images out of the press. But, if you have legit supporters on your side, have them make handmade signs and stand next to the protestors.

Fight Fair and You Can Stay in the Game: This is a political, public affairs deal. One of my bosses taught me this adage: “Kill the bear or make friends with the bear, but don’t wound the bear.”  So, if you are going to have to work with people in the future (on a grass roots, business, community or political level) don’t go for the jugular and miss.  Fight hard, but don’t cross the line unless you have nothing to lose but everything to gain. That’s why 527 and Internet chats are so nasty – anonymity means you can say what you want with impunity. If you cross the line, you may never be able to repair the damaged relationships with people you will have to work with.  We can help our clients avoid that. These rules don’t apply to groups like Progress Now Action.

Lose Well: I don’t like this one.  But, I knew the odds were against my side prevailing so I had to consider how to 1) keep my integrity and 2) and not to inflict long-term damage to the institution while being honest.  When I knew it looked grim, I let people know I was not going to engage in a scorched Earth policy if I lost.  When casting my vote, I said if he’s the guy, he gets my full support. Not always appropriate, but worked in this case.  I tell you this as if you are in a public fight, this might come in handy.

Win Well: Bruce Benson said the vote is behind him and he will work with everyone. That’s a gracious winner.

Is that Bach?: This hadn’t occurred to me before, but the sound guys played some nice guitarish, new ageish, something over the sound system before the meeting. Brilliant! It really changed the feel of the room. Music calms – something to keep in mind.

[digg=http://digg.com/politics/More_Thoughts_from_Regent_Ludwig]

Share on Facebook

Steve wrote up some impressions from his experience as a regent and PR professional, and we’d like to share them over posts during the next couple of days.

___________

Public Comment to Avoid Controversy is a Good Thing: We had more public comment before this meeting than go into most major local government decisions impacting communities.  The Board could have easily said we had enough public comment and taken none at our meeting – which was the way I was leaning.  My leaning was a dumb idea. Allowing public comment reaffirmed our commitment to having an open and public process – which is where I sort of smack my own forehead and say “duh” – which we committed to, and took an arrow out of the quiver of people unhappy with the process. And, oddly, we had the Denver Mayor, head of the Colorado Board of Education, a member of the Board of Education, a former state Supreme Court Justice, the head of Denver Public Schools and three lawmakers come and testify… who would have guessed?  Did it change anyone’s mind on the Board? I don’t know. Either way, the public discourse was viewed as positive.

Eloquence is Not a Press Strategy: I gave remarks, and they were well prepared and read – if I do say so myself.  However, they are not the most quoted in the coverage of this event. If we are advising clients or writing their remarks, a balanced and thoughtful approach might make them feel good (I certainly felt good) and might be appropriate (boy, did I feel appropriate), but it won’t necessarily get them in the paper or on the evening news. Since that was not my goal, the outcome is fine. If our clients want ink, however, we should consider other options.

Work the Room: Mingle and chat with members of the media before and after events – it will increase your odds of getting quoted. I can’t emphasize this enough. The Regents that are best at this get the most quotes in the paper.

_______

We’ll post some additional thoughts early next week. Thanks, Steve!

[digg=http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Thoughts_from_Regent_Ludwig]

Share on Facebook