I saw a great story this past Sunday on the CBS Sunday Morning news show. It was about the death of Michael Jackson, but the story didn’t go exactly how I expected. The story talked about how this week was a significant milestone in the growth of the Internet and social networking sites. Everyone took notice as the social networking sites and blogs disseminated information faster than anyone thought possible – last week proved that people are talking, listening and engaging through social networking now, more than ever.

The celebrity gossip site TMZ.com posted the news of Michael Jackson’s death approximately 6 minutes before the coroner actually pronounced him. Word of his passing spread like wildfire throughout Twitter and tribute pages on Facebook gained thousands of followers per minute, posting condolences, photos and videos of the dead pop star.

I only heard about the news because I happened to catch the 5 p.m. newscast in a waiting room, I was skeptical at first – how could they know? Is the story accurate or just gossip? But when I got home and logged into my Twitter and Facebook accounts, the chatter was overwhelming and even CNN and all of the reputable news sites were reporting the same story. He was dead.

Last week was the first of many milestones Facebook, Twitter and many other social networking sites will experience. There are bound to be ups and downs, but I am just glad I get to go along for the ride.

Thomas Friedman ( a U of M J-School grad) was on Public Radio today talking
about his new book, “Hot, Flat and Crowded.” It deals with the
problems the world faces from being…you guessed it! Too hot, too
flat and too crowded.

He closed his talk with this story. It’s a great lesson in
problem solving and a great metaphor.

A company CEO was trying to read his newspaper one evening and kept
getting interrupted by his lively 4-year old daughter. He was trying
to think of a way to keep her occupied (and out of his hair) when he
came across a full page ad with a satellite photo of the world
occupying 2/3 of the page. He tore the ad into small pieces and
challenged his daughter to tape the photo back together.

He then settled back for what he thought would be 15-20 minutes of
reading without interruption.

To his surprise, his daughter had the photo taped together in under
three minutes. Every segment of the photo fit perfectly.

In amazement, he asked her how she could possibly have finished that fast.

His daughter replied.”Well, I noticed that there was a picture of a
person on the backside. When I fixed the person, I also fixed the
planet.

Hmmmm.

Since my wife has been sleeping a lot (recovering from surgery) for the past two weeks, I’ve had time to do something I have been promising myself to do for years. I’m re-reading “Huckleberry Finn.”

Many critics consider it the great American novel, and I hadn’t read it since high school, so I thought I would revisit it from an adult’s perspective.

I would recommend it to everyone! Twain’s descriptive powers are vivid ( (He describes Huck’s drunken father’s complexion as “fish belly white.”) His social commentary is biting and there are scenes of great poignancy (when Huck can’t bring himself to turn in his friend, Jim, as a runaway slave, Huck is afraid he’ll go to hell for it.)

It’s too bad that, for most of us, our exposure to the classics came in school, when we didn’t have enough life experience to appreciate the truths about the human condition that these great authors were sharing.

Other novels I would like to re-read include: “East of Eden” by John Steinbeck, “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” and “Les Miserables” by Victor Hugo. and “Lord Jim” by Joseph Conrad (“Lord Jim” should have been required reading for every guy of draft age during the Vietnam War).

When students come to me asking for advice on how to be a great copywriter, my answer is simple: READ
You learn to write great ad copy by reading great literature.

I’m sure everyone has a favorite book or two that you would like to recommend. Let us know!

We came across an issue using the jQuery idTabs plugin and printing. For a particular Dotnetnuke skin we are using, we have tabs set up using the idTabs plugin. When the page is printed, only content in the selected tab is visible.

To remedy this, we opened the source of idTabs 2.2 and found that it is using the the jQuery standard hide() and show() functions. These functions put an inline style of display:none; and display:block respectively. Since these are inline styles it’s impossible to overwrite them in a print stylesheet.

Solution
We made some changes to the source of the idTabs plugin. Since this was a minified version, it was no easy task!

• Replaced $(idList[i]).hide(); with $(idList[i]).removeAttr(“class”).addClass(“ourtab-hide”);
• Replaced $(id).show(); with $(id).removeAttr(“class”).addClass(“ourtab-show”);
• Added classes:.ourtab-hide{display:none;}
  .ourtab-show(display:block;)

• In the print css, I changed .ourtab-hide to display:block.
  

Now all the content in the tabs shows when printing. This is not unique to Dotnetnuke skinning with jQuery either.

I’ll pass the information on to the plugin writer to see if there is a better long term fix.

Publications are shrinking. Newsrooms are slashing their budgets. As a result, more and more journalists are joining the ranks of freelancers. In fact, at a Minnesota PRSA event that I attended this week, Christy DeSmith, lifestyle editor of Mpls.St. Paul magazine, predicted that within 10 years, magazines will shift to a model that has one editor with many freelancers.

At the event, which also featured freelance business journalist Dan Haugen, the consensus was that the best way for public relations professionals to adapt to this new model is to focus on the relationships with the writers. Give them ideas for great stories. Know their work. Respect their time.

DeSmith and Haugen also pointed out that journalists are being more entrepreneurial than ever, pitching many story ideas to national outlets. Keep up your relationships with them, and your company’s story just might be in consideration for publications across the nation.

With the absence of foreign journalists covering the turmoil in Iran following the recent elections, much of the world is relying heavily (if not solely) on Twitter to get news of the developing situation.

The journalist in me finds this a bit unsettling.

According to a recent article in Time, “the vast body of information about current events in Iran that circulates on Twitter is chaotic, subjective and totally unverifiable. It’s impossible to authenticate sources. It’s also not clear who exactly is using Twitter within Iran, especially in English. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the bulk of tweets are coming from “hyphenated” Iranians not actually in the country who are getting the word out to Western observers, rather than from the protesters themselves, who favor other, less public media.”

Reading this reminded me of the movie Sergeant York starring Gary Cooper, in which the telling of York’s heroic deeds, (as the scuttlebutt moves down the line), gets distorted to the point where instead of capturing several score of German soldiers, the tale has York single-handedly apprehending the Kaiser.

Some would say that any information is better than no information. Especially in a totalitarian state where the government blocks all but the state media. I would simply caution that the chance of getting (and unknowingly spreading) misinformation based on error, rumor, or worse, manipulation must always be considered. Especially when such information may influence or incite large-scale actions that could harm the innocent.

The Time article continues, “Twitter didn’t start the protests in Iran, nor did it make them possible. But there’s no question that it has emboldened the protesters, reinforced their conviction that they are not alone and engaged populations outside Iran in an emotional, immediate way that was never possible before.”

And therein lies the rub. The very first thing they taught us in Journalism School was that news should never be more than an objective representation of corroborated facts. When emotion and opinion enter the equation, it’s all to easy for the “truth” to become subject to interpretation and personal preference.

As a public relations professional, I like to stay up-to-date on what’s happening in the news. Each day I skim local and national outlets, taking from them news that’s interesting and thought-provoking, sometimes worth sharing, other times pointless, and even times down right depressing. This is what I’ve come to expect from my media outlets of choice: a mix of news – the good and the bad – to keep me informed.

So I was interested to hear that AOL and Sears recently launched a Web site that offers news to consumers who want to filter out the not-so-good stories. Good News Now (or GNN, a spin on CNN, I guess), is intended to give visitors a positive break from negative news by offering lighthearted and fun news stories, pictures and videos.

My initial thought: Are the media outlets that we gravitate toward feeding us stories that are so depressing, so horrific, that we need a site that provides only the happy stuff? Sure, most media outlets cover plenty of the serious, real, not-so-uplifting stories, and some outlets tend to sensationalize things a bit more than others, but isn’t that something that we’ve come to expect and to a degree accept? I have to a point. It’s taught me to be my own filter, seeking out a mix of the good and the “bad” that I’m comfortable with, realizing that we live in a real world where the good and the bad coexist.

With an open mind, I checked out Good News Now (or www.GNN.com) and found stories about a boy who discovered a seven-leaf clover, a woman who won the lottery a week after her husband, and a rare yellow lobster. As expected, it was all fun and fairly amusing, but at the same time it didn’t really feel like news.

So what do others think? A member of one blog community called it “creepy.” In his recent blog posting, the blogger analyzed the content of Good News Now and compared it with content from CNN and The New York Times. His conclusion? Good News Now offered “an aftertaste of doom that the others lacked.”

Personally, I didn’t get that flavor, but after reading his analysis I see how some might.

All in all, I think that Good News Now has its place. For those who have “built-in” news filters but are looking for some news novelty, or for those who are tired of the negative news and simply need an escape, Good News Now is worth checking out – at least once. After all, we could all use a little good news from time to time!

What do you think?

While sifting around for a new pair of shoes…I came across a VERY interesting search result.  Below is the search result that came from “Black Gladiator Shoes.”  The interesting thing to note about this SERP is the Google Product Search (or Shopping or Base) results that are appearing in the right hand column that is reserved for Sponsored Search results.  This is the first time I (or anyone on my team) has seen a result like this.  Now…let the conspiracy theories ensue.

Is this just showing a specific term that offers better results with the product search than the sponsored search (resulting in Google giving it new placement) OR is this the first signs of Google possibly charging for Google Base?

Thoughts?

So, I get an email from the director of the Greenlee School of Journalism at Iowa State University — noted for its fabulous reporting sequence and stellar advertising program.  ISU was doing strategy work and creative development a decade before another J School somewhere in the Twin Cities (a Big 10 school, I believe) even contemplated having it on the syllabus.  This rodent university taught great theory but never gave students the opportunity to create until much later. But I digress.  Director Michael Bugeja is smart as hell, and is a super teacher. But he’s wrong about Facebook.

In a Newsweek article Bugeja is quoted as saying too much time spent online keeps us from living satisfying lives in the real world.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/06/15/friends-with-benefits-do-facebook-friends-provide-the-same-support-as-those-in-real-life.aspx

Give me a break.  Facebook is perfect for reaching out and touching friends from the past.  It is so neat to share news about your son’s college graduation — and get comments from high school buddies, fraternity brothers and other college pals (especially those in the journalism school).  Plus my ‘real’ friends whom I work and play with everyday will continue to thrive.  I’m not missing out on anything — my reach is not limited to groups.  Instead, my connections are extended.  The only link that scares me is that former girlfriend.  That’s one real world experience I choose not to replay.

PS — in the Newsweek link, there are a number of reporting errors.  The most egregious is noting Professor Bugeja teaches at the University of Iowa.  Very sloppy — it’s Iowa State, Iowa State, ISU!

As you’ve probably heard, Facebook is finally letting its members lock down a customized, vanity url. BIG NEWS, right? Well, sort of. Twitter and MySpace have offered its members a customized url for years now, with zero fan-fare.

Maybe it’s been a slow news week, but both online and traditional media outlets are covering the announcement like the second coming, with ABC news calling 12:01 am ET, the time after when members can register their user name, a “virtual land rush.”

Besides the ill-directed hype, many of the articles are failing to mention all of the loop-holes that Facebook has added to keep domain “squatters” at bay. It seems that every day, some new loop hole is uncovered that restricts a new group from staying up late on Friday night.

One of the things that I found to be most interesting is that you had to have 1,000 followers by May 31st to be eligible for the “virtual land rush.” This is especially frustrating for us at Risdall because we have many clients that are engaging consumers through social media, but have yet to reach that 1,000 follower mark. Our clients are providing phenomenal utility to their consumers through their Facebook pages, but apparently not enough in the eyes of Facebook. Maybe the $200-$300 million in revenue that analysts believe Facebook brought home in 2008 was enough to make Mark Zuckerberg forget about the little guys. I guess we will wait until Facebook Pages with less than 1,000 fans are eligible for their own vanity url on Sunday, June 28, 2009.

The articles that I have found most helpful on the Facebook Vanity URL phenomena:

CNET News http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10263034-36.html

Facebook http://www.facebook.com/help.php?topic=username

Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-handel/trademark-protection-and_b_213756.html