Every since a Facebook/Real Life friend of mine began talking about his culling of Facebook friends in order to make the community more relevant to him, I’ve been reflecting on my own collection of connections on this site. Having an account for several years, I was around when you added people simply because you had a connection of some kind, and you were both using Facebook. Novelty, pure and simple; but not much beyond that. As a result, I realized that there were a lot of people listed whom I never interacted with beyond accepting their friend request, or having them accept mine.

I’m sorry, that is stupid.

Other than voyeurism, I saw no point in hoarding these connections with people I never spoke to, visited, etc., and who had no real interest in (re)connecting with me either. If you’ve been paying attention, I like to be fairly honest and occasionally less-than-tactful on my FB profile, so it became increasingly unnerving having a whack of lurkers reading my posts, looking at my pictures, etc. It’s not that I want to say anything particularly damaging or incriminating, but I do want to be able to conduct myself within FB to some extent how I would conduct myself in a room full of friends. Someone I kinda knew in, but haven’t seen since high school ended almost 15 years ago is not someone I think of as a "friend." Frankly, my experience on FB was taking on a creepy vibe.

So, rather than allow Facebook (and the larger Internet) to impose it’s revised meaning of the word "friend" on my, I decided to take it back by culling my network to better reflect the reality of my relationship with the people in it. Those of you left reading this on my profile are people I actually interact with with reasonable frequency and in a meaningful way. Nothing against those of you cut. I hope that someday Life crosses our paths again; but in a more organic,and genuinely engaging scenario. Facebook is just not the place for that, at least not for me.

And of course this is all about me, my preferences, my needs and my conception of friendships and the value I place on them. Facebook is many different things to many different people, and I do not for a second portend to have the "right" understanding of how and why it should be used. Some people prefer to not only add anyone they’re even remotely connected to, but actually seek out new friends and acquaintances on Facebook–which is, in fact, more in line with the "networking" aspect of "social networking." There is no correct or incorrect way of thinking about social networks, which is the beauty of them.

For me, though, I needed to do some serious reshaping of my own Facebook community to again make it a place where I can feel comfortable. I guess I’m not all that social after all.

Over the past few months, several names from the past have resurfaced under a wide variety of circumstances. A common denominator in many of these cases is the relatively negative way these people left the spotlight, and the surprisingly positive responses their reappearances have been receiving.

The cases in point that have jumped out for me include:

The return of Bill Vander Zalm in British Columbia

In the later ‘80s Bill Vander Zalm (who’s always reminded me of Jack Nicholson’s rendition of The Joker in the 1989 Batman movie) was the colourful premiere of British Columbia. His leadership (and arguably his party’s viability) ended in 1991 amidst a real estate scandal, and the usual voter dissatisfaction most politicians garner in the run of a career. In the end, he was a fairly ridiculed and disliked character. Fast forward two decades, though, and you have a very popular movement against the very unpopular harmonized sales tax introduction in BC. And who is at the helm, raising cheers and smiles from the crowds he attracts along the campaign trail, but Mr. Bill Vander Zalm!  

Imelda Marcos walks back into politics…in what pair of shoes is anyone’s guess

Best known as the wife of former Philippine president (dictator) Ferdinand Marcos, and owner of over 3000 pairs of shoes assumed to have been bought with stolen public money, Imelda is the last person I expected to see return to the spotlight in any positive way. Yet, more than 20 years after a revolution ousted the Marcos from the Philippines, she has come back and run a successful campaign for congress. Drawing a gaggle of gawkers and admirers wherever she goes, Imelda Marcos has not only returned to the country she helped oppress, but has become a celebrity part of its new, legitimate government.

The Empire Strikes Black

Just a scant few years ago, Lord Conrad Black was a name/title evoking distain from a lot of Canadians. The man built an incredible news media empire (some would  argue on the backs of others) and made no bones about constantly reminding all of us how great he is for it. Racking up political enemies seemed almost like fun to him. He didn’t mind getting his lordly hands dirty if it meant a good fight. Canadians were rankled by Black’s effective dis’sing of his homeland when he renounced his citizenship in favour of a British title of “Lord.” Many feared and/or sucked up to Lord Black, afraid he’d unleash the Dark Side on them, and wasn’t a widely beloved figure. Thus, there was plenty of smug glee upon his sentencing to six years in prison for fraud by an American court. However, in recent weeks there have been legal developments in the United States rendering Conrad Black eligible for bail, and possibly nixing some of his convictions. The news sparked a frenzy of coverage here in Canada, which is understandable given the entertaining nature of the case and the personalities involved. What has been surprising, though, are the almost warm and fuzzy feelings for Black implied by the coverage, subtly and overtly. Somehow the passage of two years has transformed him from an arrogant, corrupt, aristocratic villain into some sort of underdog being persecuted by the big bad US government. It’s like for him prison was a cocoon seeing the criminal caterpillar emerge as some sort of folk hero butterfly, with many now pulling for him in his bid to vindicate himself and return to the country he so flippantly rejected not that long ago.

What’s interesting in all of these situations is how public figures can go from notoriety to admiration simply by disappearing for a while, and coming back in a very public manner. In a sense, time itself becomes public relations tool, inadvertently or by design. If you somehow go down in flames, just standby and wait for your chance to re-emerge victorious, with all sins forgotten.

It seems alarmingly effective. Simply by triggering our seemingly innate nostalgia—our baseless fondness for all that used to be—public figures are able to appear desirable, regardless of how undesirable they were back when they disappeared. They represent an earlier time, which, seemingly for a lot of us, is comforting and attractive, at least in comparison with the here and now.

I suspect that this is not a new trend—that rulers, politicians and others reliant on public acclaim have recognized and capitalized on these opportunities all throughout history. But I wonder if, in our day and age of analyzed, strategized, measured and managed communications and reputations, this phenomenon will be become less about chance, and more about creating one’s re-entry into the public sphere. Are we going to start seeing more celebrities, political leaders, business stars and others in the public eye being advised to go away when things get bad in hopes of staging a comeback a few years down the road?

So a few weeks ago I threw up a recording of a blog post I was having no luck getting into writing, for a variety of reasons. This got me thinking about changing the W-lister blog to a podcast. It felt like a quicker and straightforward process that still conveyed the point like a written post would have.

Or did it?

There was a notable lack of response to my audio post, leading me to believe that the engagement I seek with readers is reached best through text. Your comments and the conversations they create are pretty much the driving force of the blog, and audio doesn’t seem to be a medium suited to our exchange of ideas.

Or is it?

Perhaps it was just the crude media player I used and its failure to work in Facebook…or some other technological snag stemming from it being a somewhat jury-rigged, impromptu nature of the post. Maybe if I make the W-lister into a more formalized podcast it would set up a more productive channel of conversation.

Or not?…

Point is, I just don’t know if text is preferable to audio or vice versa, so I’d like to experiment with doing both for a while and see where it goes.

Now I don’t like the idea of writing a post that’s more or less a transcript of every audio clip, so I’m certainly not proposing I do the same post twice in two different forms. Instead I”m envisioning more of a hybrid text/audio blog (or audio/text podcast) at times with overlap in the subjects covered, but both also being independent of each other.

So, you are welcome to continue reading and start listening to the podcast; listening to the podcast only, or just reading the blog. You can find both here, at this site (www.wlister.com); and sooner or later you’ll be able to subscribe to the podcast in iTunes.

Whatever the case, I’m eager to continue getting your comments, and keep building these conversations.

Thanks for your time; it’s always appreciated…as is praise and adoration.

In the second audio installment for this blog I weigh in on Facebook’s monkey business with their privacy settings and all of the supposed outrage.

I’m trying something a little different this time around, by way of an audio post. Please have a listen and let me know what you think. Hopefully, the experiment is of some value to you…or at least not that much of a time waste.

PEOPLE, PLACES AND THINGS MENTIONED IN THIS POST:

Inside PR Podcast

Martin Waxman

Gini Dietrich

Joe Thornley

Terry Fallis

Dave Jones

I’m trying something a little different this time around, by way of an audio post. Please have a listen and let me know what you think. Hopefully, the experiment is of some value to you…or at least not that much of a time waste.

 W-lister Audio Post May 1, 2010

PEOPLE, PLACES AND THINGS MENTIONED IN THIS POST:

Inside PR Podcast

Martin Waxman

Gini Dietrich

Joe Thornley

Terry Fallis

Dave Jones

[EDITOR'S NOTE: My sincere apologies to Gord for not finding this excellent post in the guts of my blog until now. Unfortunately, it got lost in the shuffle...which is exacerbated by my stupidity.]

The news that CBC TV Parliamentary reporter Krista Erickson was registered to receive free government flights by Calgary Centre MP Lee Richardson came to me as quite a shock. Journalists aren’t supposed to accept substantial gifts from those they are covering and free flights would count as substantial in my books. On its face there is no question that this is a breach of one of the most basis tenants of journalistic ethics. (Full disclosure, I have accepted small value give-away type items and have eaten for free during dinners I have attended while working on a story.)

But there’s more to the story.

Richardson isn’t offering Erickson free air travel in an attempt to get favourable stories planted in the national media about the government’s agenda or what a great guy Stephen Harper really is. No, the two are a couple and according to the Chronicle Herald have been so for a few years. Now that doesn’t seem so bad does it? I mean should either Erickson or Richardson have to pay for her to fly to Calgary to attend some event in the riding not related to her journalistic job? If Erikson was a cocktail waitress rather than a reporter it would be no big deal, right?

Right, but she is a reporter.

Not only is she a reporter, but her boyfriend is a player on her beat. The Herald reports that the Mother Corp. has rules in place that prevents her from covering Richardson or Conservative events. A quick search of the CBC website shows that lately she’s been covering non-partisan federal issues (a Canadian Forces court martial, a missing Chalk River scientist, how the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is dealing with swine flu). In fact, it seems that the closest she’d gotten to a story about Parliament Hill was a piece on a decision to serve seal meat in the building’s dining room.

So really, what’s the big deal? She’s a reporter with access to free taxpayer funded flights courtesy of an MP, but she’d dating that MP. She’s assigned to the Parliamentary bureau, but she doesn’t seem to report on anything actually Parliamentary. Is this a case of bad journalistic ethics or a love story where the female journalist is sacrificing access to the good stories for the man she loves?

The romantic in me truly wants to believe the love story angle, but then this is the same Krista Erickson who was tufted from the Parliamentary bureau by the CBC (although was reinstated after a union grievance process) for feeding questions to a Liberal senator during testimony of former prime minister Brian Mulroney.

The CBC’s ombudsman Vince Carlin concluded after his review of the Mulroney question affair that: “Ms. Erickson clearly did go “over the line” in allowing the appearance that she was providing “script” for certain sources to use. However, it appears to me that she lacked the experience and sensitivity to realize where the line was.”

He went on to castigate CBC management for not ensuring that she understood where the ethical lines actually were drawn.

“The CBC must insure that its journalists understand the implications of the policy (on credibility) in their daily reporting lives. If journalists do appear not to have an understanding of ethical behaviour, they should be closely supervised, or not assigned to the most difficult postings.”

Love or not, Erickson’s involvement with Richardson does erode the perception of her credibility. The fact that he has also given her access to a free flights perk just adds fuel to the ethical fire.

She may very well feel that her romantic connection with a sitting government MP doesn’t change how she does her job (just as I feel that a mini-slinky and a plate of overcooked buffalo didn’t change how I did mine) and in the eyes of God she might be right. But ethics aren’t always about acting ethically, they’re also about being seen to be acting ethically.

This latest revelation makes it appear that neither Erickson nor the CBC has learned anything from their past mistakes.

It’s 6:12 p.m. on Tuesday and my newsroom receives a release from the City of Toronto advising Hogtown’s media horde “Mayor David Miller to make important announcement“. Other than the date, time and location the communiqué reveals nothing more about the mysterious presser booked for just over 15 hours from now.

Given that media types tend to be imaginative sorts (and political journos chief among them) speculation about what could be so urgent and needed to be delivered so cryptically almost reached JFK assassination conspiracy theory proportions.

Some thought that Miller was going to announce that he had changed his mind and would seek a third term.  With his golden boy Adam Giambrone’s campaign stillborn (due to the TTC chair’s office couch tryst with a 19-year-old) and the leading mayoral candidates pledging to undo much of his legacy, many thought that Miller would grab his trusty broom from the closet and charge once more into the breach. Others felt that he would tell the world that he was quitting to give his new heir apparent Deputy Mayor Joe Pantalone a chance to run the city and prove to potential George Smitherman and Rocco Rossi voters that there was still life in the city’s left. The mayor’s flacks were as silent as monks on the matter so journalist and citizen alike were left to wait and ponder just what wonders of would await us with the dawn.

The city held its collective breath. Miller haters gnashed their teeth, worried that eight years of their antagonist may turn into a dozen. His acolytes slept well, dreaming dreams of a new term and four more years of Toronto the Good.

At the appointed hour the city’s media ground to a halt. Broadcasts were pre-empted so Miller’s historic words could be carried live to homes and offices across the Big Smoke. Newspapers were poised to flash the great revelation to their readers through all the methods at our disposal.

The moment came.

Miller started to speak.

At first his words seemed to confirm the prevailing wisdom. He spoke about announcing important plans for 2010 and 2011. He talked about Torontonians sharing his vision of a prosperous, liveable city.

And then…

He announced that the city had a $100-million budget surplus.

What?!?

Yep, this was nothing more than a budget announcement.

So why all the chicanery?

It’s the election stupid.

The big knock against Miller and his posse is that they aren’t good managers of city finances. Critics say all they want to do is throw tax money at whatever so-called progressive impulses come across their collective lefty mind without regard for the long-term financial consequences. It’s a perception that must be corrected before the election if Miller Time is to continue past October.

OK, but there’s no way that the press in the country’s most competitive market would have blown off a budget announcement of this magnitude, so why the ruse?

Miller knew that if he left the story in the hands of the media he’d get the coverage that news of this nature deserved – front page stories, hits on the local TV and radio news and discussion about it for a few days afterwards. Important, but blink and you might miss it. What it wouldn’t have seen were the satellite trucks, the live feeds and the buzz over what he might announce. Miller’s people wanted to disintermediate their message and talk directly to the voters. Not the public per se, but the sort of engaged folk who told their boss that their bus was late just so they wouldn’t miss the 9:30 statement. These are the people who will decide the election by answering the questions of their less engaged friends, by appearing intelligent during dinner party conversations about municipal politics and informed to strangers overhearing their opinions on some patio during the dénouement of summer.

The mayor and his people knew this and they took their shot.

Miller cried wolf and we in the media came a runnin’.

We fell for it… hard. So hard that it reminded me of a press conference once called by Tom Green and Monica Lewinsky. It received international attention as it was widely speculated the pair were going to get hitched (a match made in the National Enquirer to be sure). In the end it was a publicity stunt for her new line of purses and fodder for his TV show.

Green paid a price for abusing the media as we started to ignore his antics and choked off his conduit to fame.

But as much as some media people would like to do the same to Miller after his bait-and-switch, we can’t stop reporting on the mayor of Toronto. Even so, I don’t think Miller and his communications team would ever have contemplated such a move if he were seeking another term. Miller made us look foolish. We’re supposed to know what’s going on and tell the city what’s important and what isn’t. He pantsed us in front of the whole schoolyard. And while I don’t know any reporter who risk ruining their reputation to get Miller back over this incident, it has burned up a lot of goodwill between the mayor and the press gallery. But since he’s gone in seven months he’s got little to lose and a legacy he wants to protect.

Perhaps the biggest question is how did the paid (and the voluntary) punditocarcy miss the fact that this “important announcement” likely had nothing to do with Miller’s political future?

The signs were there if anyone bothered to put the pieces together. Chief among them is the fact that the original release came not only from Don Wanagas (Miller’s personal director of communications) but Kevin Sack, Wanagas’ counterpart on city staff who normally wouldn’t have any part in political announcements.

In truth some did question the conventional wisdom. My friend and City Hall Bureau Chief Kris Scheuer did suggest via Twitter that the press conference might not have to do with Miller’s electoral future (although she later admitted that she was sucked in like everyone else), but those voices were drowned out by the intoxicating rhythm of what might be a really, really exciting story.

And in some ways that’s what it came down to for us in the media. We wanted an exciting story. We were lusting after another game changer in the 2010 election. We’d entered the phony war stage and we wanted to see some action.

Instead, we got punked.

It looks like Lewinsky handbags are in this spring for the journalistic class.

Let’s just hope they go out of style before fall.

Gordon Cameron is the Managing Editor of the Town Crier Newspapers in Toronto and frequent W-lister commentator.

(Cross-posted from www.lnmg.ca) Posed on February 3rd, 2010 by andymci

Our next official meeting will take place on Tuesday, February 23rd at the Kingston Centre Coffeeco from 7:00pm – 10:00pm.

This location/time will be status quo for all #LNMG meets from now on.

We’d like to thank Coffeeco (@coffeeco on Twitter) for being gracious enough to provide the space.

As with our previous meet, we ask that you RSVP for the event here.

Over the next few days we’ll update this post with more details about what’s being covered at the February meetup.

Update: The event is also being promoted on LinkedIn, so if you’re a LinkedIn user, feel free to RSVP instead. Totally your choice!

Thanks!

^am

Just as I’m feeling slimy for using a morbid pun in my post title, I wonder if folks at CTV and other news outlets are feeling any guilt over repeatedly showing Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili’s deadly crash.

Should they?

My thoughts on this were sparked by this post over at the Reflections in the Snow Covered Hills blog, belonging to my friend and communications colleague Megan. Among many interesting points it raised is this idea that modern news consumers can/should be given the choice of how much “gore,” for lack of a better term, they want in their stories—at least through online channels.

The internet has made it easy to level our news consumption. Once past the headlines, we can read only the basic facts, or drill way down into in-depth articles, related stories, and background pieces; all linked together with photos, audio and video clips.

I suppose it’s not a stretch to argue we should have the choice whether or not to read about, hear and/or view all of the available information, including any violent, gross or otherwise unsettling stuff which might exist. Theoretically, we can take only what we want and leave the rest.

Personally, I tend to side with the argument that most information should be freely accessible. Fundamentally, knowledge is power, and it is dangerous to censor it for the sake of  “protecting” ourselves or others.

So yes, I think there is something to be said for the idea of putting it all out there and letting us choose for ourselves what content we want.

Not in this case, though.

I also believe it is unethical to share sensational photos, videos, terms or any other information to hurt others and/or gain something for yourself. In the same vein, I think it is wrong to promote information that invades others’ privacy, and is of no real value to the public.

By showing the footage of the man crashing and sustaining fatal injuries, the media exposed what is really a private moment.What did it add to the story that can’t just be explained without showing the traumatic scene? Are there arguments for using the video that don’t involve boosting ratings?

I’m not saying the video should be destroyed and never seen again. Perhaps there is value for engineers and even athletes who build and use luge courses. They could examine the crash to see what went wrong and how to prevent similar tragedies in the future.

However, in terms of widespread public viewing, I see no point besides network greed.

What’s your take?