Start the Revolution Without Me

Representative Eric Cantor's not tweeting me anymore. Yesterday it was all about the Republican revolution gone viral! Angry citizens all over the country were going to CallBackCongress.com and signing Cantor's petition, demanding that Speaker Pelosi reconvenes the House so Republicans could vote on crucial legislation to lower gas prices!

For a while, I was getting a Twitter update from Cantor as another 1,000 joined the protest. And then the updates came a little less frequently, and then....

Well. After two days, almost 29,000 folks have signed up. And while there's a small group of bloggers and pundits electronically high-fiving each other, I must say it's nothing like the real revolt of the HD-DVD code protest.

And while 29,000 may seem like a lot of people, let's put it in perspective -- it's a few thousand less than the population of Orange County, Virginia where I live. So not quite the popular revolt it's being billed as.

And that's the strength -- and the weakness -- of the Internet. Everything's quantifiable. Is this a successful campaign? Check the numbers and judge for yourself.

The stats report, you decide.

- Ralph

Day 54 of the WJMA Web Watch.

"Viral," or just a mild infection for Congress?

Can something be viral just because someone says it is? Representative Eric Cantor seems to think so. He's created a website that is as viral as all get-out (according to the service that created the site).

You may recall the dust-up in the House of Representatives when Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared the House adjourned, and the Republicans refused to leave. They were protesting the refusal of the body to vote on offshore drilling, and kept their seats as the lights and microphones were turned off.

Cantor was one of the protesters, and has started an online petition. The goal? To get Pelosi to reconvene Congress (callbackcongress.com).

I'll give Cantor credit for trying to use new media. As the web designers breathlessly write

This really is a case study in how like-minded people who don’t even know they’re working on the same thing can converge to create something bigger than themselves. It really speaks to the nature of viral communications. There was no strategic plan, no unifying message grid, and no conference call to coordinate the whole endeavor. But people with the same passion, who had the tools at their disposal, were able to move into action quickly. Will the House reconvene? It’s not likely, but thanks to new media, more people are aware of the need for energy independence.

And for the past 24 hours I've been getting hourly tweets on Twitter from Cantor as the numbers continued to climb for the petition. 5,000! 6,000! It's just like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington! (an actual tweet Cantor forwarded).

OK, so let's take stock. As of this morning, about 17,000 people have signed the petition, and a little over 2,000 have viewed the accompanying video on YouTube.

Let's compare that to something like, say, the DVD DRM code posting revolt of 2007. Within 24 hours Digg.com was inundated with posts featuring the forbidden code, YouTube videos with songs and signs featuring the code went up, blogs, Flickr accounts, and countless other sites posted the code. Within 24 hours several million individuals had taken action.

The code protest indeed had become viral, spreading rapidly through the Internet, each post triggering new responses that furthered the message.

I'm not sure I'm seeing the same thing here (especially looking at the numbers).

And one more thing -- during the code revolt the Internet was abuzz with conversation back and forth. When Cantor first tweeted me, I looked at the petition, and had a question about the claim that "House Republicans have a plan to lower gas prices, a plan that has the votes to pass." I tweeted back, asking if he cold provide a link so I could read about the plan. No response.

Later on, I asked what was to happen with the petition when they got enough names, and how many names they considered enough. No response.

Hmmm. So has the "Call Congress Back" gone viral? Well, I think if you have to ask, then the answer is obviously not -- or at least not yet.

In the meantime, gas prices here in Orange, Virgina dropped 25 cents over the past three days. Should I credit the vacationing Speaker of the House, or the Republican Representatives sitting in a room with the lights out?

- Ralph

Day 53 of the WJMA Web Watch.

The Anthropology of YouTube

If you think YouTube is just goofy videos of skateboarding dogs and silly but painful pratfalls, then you've missed something significant about this site. Michael Wesch, professor of anthropology at Kansas University, has been studying the Internet -- and specifically YouTube -- for some time.

His video, "Web 2.0... The Machine is Us/ing Us" should be required viewing for anyone trying to do anything online (in my opinion).

Wesch recently posted his Library of Congress address, "An Anthropological Introduction to YouTube."

So why should you care what some egghead has to say about videos with kittens playing the piano? Well first, what he talks about is more fundamental than that -- he gets at the underlying social forces that drive the YouTube phenomenon. Second, Wesch is an academic with real-world experience in his field, so his observations and conclusions have been documented and tested. And any business with an online presence -- even if it doesn't post YouTube videos -- needs to understand the core concepts Wesch presents.



His concept of context collapse is probably the thing most traditional businesses stumble upon. Basically (if you haven't watched the video yet), the idea is this: once something's made available on the Internet, other people can take it and use all or parts of it for their own self-expression -- and the original creator has no control over its use.

Now this is the kind of thing that keeps RIAA and MPAA lawyers busy round-the-clock issuing take-down orders and filing lawsuits in a vain attempt to hold back the tsunami with an umbrella.

But it's also the kind of thing that made Jonathan Coulton a star. While Prince goes after a mom for the background music heard in a video of her child dancing, Coulton encouraged people to use his music to create their own videos -- and they have. Each one raises Coulton's profile, and each one represents another way for his music to reach potential fans.

Coulton's embrace of YouTube culture has helped him monetize his music while the major labels continue to spend huge sums of money to wage war on their artists' biggest fans.

Which is the smarter marketing strategy? Which one does your business embrace?

Invest an hour. Watch the video.

- Ralph

Day 52 of the WJMA Web Watch.

"How Martin Agronsky Killed the 6:00 Evening News" by John Amos

Let's take stock of the news business.

Newspapers can no longer compete with the computer. Subscriptions are down; advertising dollars are down. Everyone is reading online. No doubt, I'll soon be arm-twisted into giving up my daily paper -- an actual, physical object, delivered to my house before dawn -- for some ghastly dot-com news source. I'm resigned. There just aren't enough of us who want real ink on real paper anymore. The Newspaper is Dead! Long Live the Internet!

Television news programs have suffered a similar fate. The solid, reliable networks with their solid, reliable anchors (Cronkite, Jennings, Brokaw, and the like) have been pushed aside by flashier, tabloid-esque cable channels. And while I've never been a big fan of television news, opting instead for the breadth and depth of newspapers, it's still sad to see what's happened.

The way I figure it, Martin Agronsky is responsible.

In the late 1960's Agronsky, a respected correspondent for (at times) all three major networks, dropped his job as a reporter to begin a new kind of public affairs program. The show was revolutionary, visionary, so far ahead of its time that no one could possibly realize the impact it would have on the way we view "the news" in this country.

Agronsky's idea was simple: Gather four experts in a studio to discuss the major political events of the day.

I didn't start watching until the 70's after the show had been established for some time. The Jimmy Carter fiasco was in full bloom, and I wanted to know how things could have degenerated to such a pitiable state. So in addition to reading the papers, I turned to Agronsky and Company for analysis.

In those days, the cast consisted of a young arch-conservative named George Will; Carl Rowan, a self-avowed liberal and the most prominent African-American political writer of his day; journalistic elder statesman, Hugh Sidey, editor of Newsweek; and Agronsky himself.

The show was interesting, informative and dignified. The participants discussed the hot political topics of the week. When they disagreed, they did so respectfully. At the end of every half hour, I always came away more knowledgeable about the issues.

But over time, something curious happened. I started seeing these pundits as caricatures. Was George Will really that stiff? Was Rowan really that naive? Would Sidney ever utter an opinion that didn't sound soothing and grandfatherly? Gradually, the substance of their conversation began to get lost in the unreal glow of their television personas.

Without my realizing it, these figures had become celebrities, had morphed into Famous Television Personalities. Once that happened, I was no longer watching the news. I was watching a cartoon. An entertaining cartoon, for sure. Even a somewhat informative one. But a cartoon nonetheless.

The success of Agronsky paved the way for other, less edifying shows. First came The McGlaughlin Group, a shout-fest in which the experts spent their 30 minutes bickering and shouting rudely. Then came Crossfire, pitting partisans from Right and Left, who talked past each other about the issue du jour. Crossfire spawned The Capital Gang, an Agronsky knockoff that truly was more about personalities than issues.

Today the imbecilic political gab-a-thon has become the norm. We're offered The Situation Room, The Verdict, The Factor, and Countdown, mini-dramas with the Star Journalist as central character. In addition to professional yakkers like Wolf Blitzer and Bill O'Reilly, we now have pretty-boy David Gregory, a former White House reporter, whose show reduces politics to a game. Fox's insufferable Sean Hannity spouts jingoistic blather from the Right, and MSNBC's equally insufferable Keith Olberman, trying way too hard to be funny, spins every issue from the Left.

I know all this because I watch. It's my guilty pleasure, my pitiful substitute for the real thing.

Such shows never simply report the news. Instead, they analyze; they predict; they opine. In truth, simple reporting is held in pretty low esteem these days. Any young reporter worth his salt aspires to more. They all have ambitions. Everyone wants to be a star.

Without question, Martin Agronsky was a pioneer; yet I'm sure he wouldn't approve of the path he unwittingly blazed. He wanted a better-informed public, not a citizenry polarized by preening, demagogic talking heads.

Fact: We get the politicians we deserve. Corollary: We also get the media we deserve.

Maybe if we quit watching this silliness, it would go away. Maybe if we demanded better, we'd get it.

Naaah.

- John Amos
from his column "Every Now and Then"
©2008 by John Amos, reprinted by permission
"Every Now And Then: Occasional Essays"

Day 51 of the WJMA Web Watch.

Webb Responds!

As long-time readers may recall, back on May 20th I wrote Jim Webb, one of my two senators about the Internet Radio Equality Act. I received an e-mail response today. Here's the letter.

August 1, 2008
Dear Mr. Graves:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding Internet radio. I apologize for the delayed response. [two months and some change -- but I'm just as guilty with some of my correspondence]

Internet radio and other forms of alternative media provide a fair and open forum for musicians to present their material, as well as for consumers to hear music that does not always receive air time on mainstream media. [true, that] My staff and I will carefully evaluate Copyright Royalty Board decisions, court decisions, legislation, and other pertinent matters affecting webcasting to ensure that the best interests of Virginians are served. [I'm hoping that the best interest of folks in my state aren't divergent from the rest of the nation here!]

As the 110th Congress continues to address media rights and other important issues facing the United States, please be assured that your views will be very helpful to me and my staff. I hope that you will continue to share your views with us in the years ahead.

I would also invite you to visit my website at www.webb.senate.gov for regular updates about my activities and positions on matters that are important to Virginia and our nation. [Yep. And I also track you on OpenCongress.org]

Thank you once again for contacting my office.

Sincerely,

Jim Webb
United States Senator
JW:as

OK, not too bad. I appreciate the initials at the bottom. For those not up on the formalities of business correspondence, it means the letter came from Senator Webb, but was actually typed by someone else whose initials are A.S. (either a secretary or office assistant). I appreciate it because it means Webb's not pretending to personally answer all the letters that come into his office.

And it looks like he actually read my email, so I'm kind of happy about that. How will he vote if S. 1353 ever makes it out of committee? Well, I'm not 100% sure. But his take on the issue seems a little more solid than Rep. Eric Cantor. At least he doesn't think I'm against any royalty increase at all!

So I'll keep watching the mail and inbox for something from Senator Warner. Two down, one to go!

- Ralph

Day 48 of the WJMA Web Watch.