DISQUS

This, Robert, is possibly the most important thing you've ever linked me to. Ever.

Thank you.

I guess you have to explain what you consider transparency to mean.

If you're asking a "what did the President know and when did he know it?" type of question, I'd answer your question with two other questions:

1) "Is it possible the President made a decision based on merit and not appearances?"

2) "would 'warning' the President violate any ethical duties that a prosecutor or law enforcement officer owes?

The reason I ask #1 is because if a) Kundra has been judged as the best man for the job and b) is not a target and has done nothing wrong, than there is no reason not to move ahead with business as usual. The fact that he is taking a leave of absence to let things work themselves clear is a sign of transparency in and of itself, I think. Past administrations might have pushed the arrests back or not pursued the cases.

And regarding #2, sometimes a "lack of transparency" is a sign of a healthy executive branch, especially when it comes to the justice system. An independent judiciary, law enforcement, and independent prosecutors that do their jobs without regard to political concerns will often operate within a "chinese wall" that means there are things the President cannot, should not, and does not want to know because if someone "leaked" information up the chain of command, it would be as egregious an ethical lapse as leaking privileged information to an adverse party, or a newspaper.

When an investigation goes off without a hitch, the people who are targeted are arrested and the ones who aren't are left alone, it's a good thing.

So in this case, I would say transparency is knowing no one had a thumb on the scale to make the administration look better or worse. Everyone did their job. If we want to know more, we can always check court documents or go to the trial.

As a journalist covering technology issues before Congress and other Federal agencies, I have to take issue with just about every single way this story is presented.

First of all, we know absolutely nothing about the charges because the indictment is under seal. Second, we know that Kundra is -not- a target (as reported by both Fox News, AP, and CNet's Declan McCullagh and Stephanie Condon -- who I would probably go to before Fox or AP (Declan is one of the most clued-in journalists I know, and Stephanie is no slouch).

Third, because he's not a target and we don't know specifics of the charges, we have no way to connect this to Kundra more the I would connect the pot smoking pizza delivery boy to the guy who owns the Dominos franchise.

I look for "scandals" for a living, and II don't see this as a "Vivek Kundra scandal" story at all.

And if you want to go with Valleywag's Owen Thomas as a provider of informed opinion on D.C. local or national political news, there are a few choice words I'd say about your news judgment that I won't say because I love my mother and she would not be pleased with me.

Last time I checked, we have the presumption of innocence on this country. And when I looked again, being in charge of idiots doesn't make you an idiot yourself.

Oh, yeah. Beltway Bandits do business with the Federal government. the D.C. government is not the same thing.

(disclaimer: this post reflects my own personal opinion and does not reflect the views of my employer, nor am I claiming to be reporting any original news)

Robert,

Lest we forget our excellent conversation with Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein of the FCC last summer. I'm surprised you didn't link back to this.

http://www.fastcompany.tv/video/talking-child-p...

You divulge it, of course. And how is it less genuine? The result and the quality of service that comes from a SM outreach is what matters. While I agree that putting a human face on CS w/ social media is important, I think that when the operation becomes large enough to warrant a team the "face" should be one of responsiveness, transparency and aggressive outreach to customers when trying to solve problems. That goes beyond one person. In fact, if your SM outreach effort is so reliant on one person that a well-trained team can't follow that person's example and provide the same level of satisfaction on a more granular level, the idea of corporate SM in your operation is a total failure.

Changing the culture in customer service with SM means it should become the norm, not the exception. It's ok to have lots of small faces, but they should be positive enough to give the business a friendly face and keep the customers well-served.

I interviewed Frank back in April when he was first "blowing up" and we've spoken several times since. What I've found is that his success has been through sheer ubiquity. But he has a team backing him up. While he has become the face of a commendable SM outreach program and proactive customer service, the model we expect needs to shift away from Frank and move towards teams of a bit more anonymous "Frankettes" (he can use that term if he wants) who have the same work ethic and commitment to customer service, but don't leave the company dependent on one person as a face of their SM outreach.

In a perfect world, the SM outreach could be localized, so instead of Frank @comcastcares who lives in Philly spending all night on Twitter, Joe the SM Outreach Rep @ComcastCaresBay could handle Bay area when it's 3am in Philly, @ComcastCaresDC could handle DC-related problems, etc etc.

We know Frank has a great team that he has built...but the next step in a good SM operation has to be letting operation become more than just one person.

Does this mean you're going to put a border fence around your house and issue passports and currency?

And could you make me an ambassador so I can park wherever I want? Mmmm...diplomatic license tags...

Sadly I have some early experience with this. Just under three years ago, a close friend from my undergraduate days passed away suddenly. His Facebook profile remains "frozen in time" save for a notice that he is no longer alive, and his sister maintains the profile.

Somehow it remains an online "gathering point" for his friends, who still post notes as if he were living. Silly? Perhaps. But his family has reached out to many of us in the intervening years, allowing us to share memories of our friend with them that they never would have otherwise know. They have gained an understanding of how much their son meant to the people around him.

Far from an online graveyard, in this sad situation social networks have helped my friend's family as well as other friends of his deal with a tragedy that like it or not, we are all united by.

As a former Division I athlete, I can tell you this is nothing new. Big money collegiate athletics have incredibly thick codes of conduct for their "student"-athletes, mostly so they don't embarrass the school.

At my alma mater, there was a bit of a blow-up over a group called "Rowers are Sexually Charged" that led to some threats of people being kicked off teams. Groups were made private, etc etc.

Now some schools with large football programs are making it official and teaching that what you post stays out there. It's actually not a bad idea. I just wish they extended the opportunity to all students, not just athletes.

There should be a process for credentialing bloggers. Right now the only "bloggers" who can get access to the House and Senate press galleries are people like Kara Swisher who are actually print journalists who have sponsored blogs. True online media outlets are not considered to be media by the Congress, who incidentally handles most press accreditation for the conventions.

The "blogger" accreditation is done by the parties themselves, which already makes it a second-class process. When you're not considered part of the media, it's a "privilege" for you to get access. The "real" journalists aren't getting access because of some benevolent understanding, they get it because the process allows for it.

The Speaker of the House has the authority to designate a "new media" gallery, or the members of the Standing Committee of Correspondents (the self-elected body of "elite media" that run the galleries in DC) could vote to accredit new media publications. But they won't.

The first thing we need to do is STOP USING THE WORD "BLOG." It screams "unprofessional." Same with "blogger." If we found a lexicon that afforded us more self-respect, we'd get treated with more respect. How about "reporter" or "journalist" or "editor?" You wanna be taken seriously? Stop calling yourself a blogger.

My Dearest Steven,

First of all, thank you for reading my sadly neglected blog and responding, even though the post is a bit old.

Second, I'd like to say that at no point did I imply what you have to say has no value. What I said was that one can communicate more clearly if the message is articulated in a clear and unambiguous manner. If I can't tell what you are saying, how can I evaluate the quality and substance of message?

I'd like to point something out. Does you receive income from blogging? If so, you should be taking care that your words and message are both clear. That's why you are getting paid. If a sentence is ambiguously constructed and as a result I don't know what you mean, you haven't done your job.

I don't get paid to be on podcasts, by the way.

And as far as "delusions of self-importance" are concerned, those only exist in other people's heads. As I am reminded every day, the only thing I know is how little I know.

I'll let you rant and rave about how much of a jerk I am despite the fact that we have never actually met and all you really have to judge me on is some podcasts. I'm...not very good at them, and I've always been willing to admit that.

So, you're angry that I think your writing should be more clear. Fine.

But did I suggest it has no value? No.

Oh, one more thing: what do podcasting and the written word have anything to do with one another? If you want to defend yourself and your writing, fine. I'll take it. But going after my (admitted) lack of verbal facility in response to a short, weeks old blog post is nothing but a personal attack that only undermines your argument.

That being said, no hurt feelings on my end.

Andrew

Leslie,

Paperless isn't so much a "green" initiative as it has been one to reduce costs. Often one can be a result of another. Often the structure of government itself can be a source of "un-green-ness." Take the legislative branch, for instance. Did you know each member and committee office has its own IT system? Yes, that nearly 600 separate systems that could easily be reduced in number with proper use of virtualization, lowering the Capitol's "IT Footprint." Of course, all the juice comes from a gigantic coal power plant, but that's another story...

The state of blogging and journalism aside, I can state with certainty although you may be many things, a feminine hygiene product is not one of them. I would be willing to be quoted on this, as I believe I am a reliable source. However, some might argue that a second, and even a third source would be a best practice. In this case I believe the photographic proof makes this unnecessary.

Cheers

"Washington, DC Commentator for Technosailor.com?" I hope that's not what I'm best known for.

I think if telegraphs were in every home it would have been helpful for him to know Morse Code. Understanding of the tools and resources used in everyday life is key to being able to lead. Think slumlords being sentenced to live in their own buildings, or Mark Cuban working at Dairy Queen.

You need to be able to put yourself in someone else's shoes.

Ok, so you can use a computer but you shop at a small grocery store? Fine. You still see the distinction, though. One question: How am I "perpetuating" anything? The incident happened. Years later, we're being asked if a candidate's ability to understand and operate a different, more complex machine is a relevant factor in determining his fitness to serve.

Perhaps you misread my post the first time.

The ability to use a computer in and of itself isn't indicative of fitness to be President. In the greater context, it's about being able to do things ordinary Americans have to do themselves. Did you know that the Federal government is putting most forms for pensions, benefits, etc online? If McCain wants to get Social Security, he'd need to get to a computer. Same with the mother who needs food stamps. And so on and so forth.

The question we should be asking is: What aspects of everyday life are elected officials insulated from that they need to experience in order to understand the challenges facing Americans?

This should be required reading for all SXSW attendees. Period.

Nick,

Please do check your facts. Libel and slander laws in the UK are a completely different animal than over here. The court's decision was completely within the law in that country.

The damages had nothing to do with Facebook. They were awarded in accordance with a long line of British case law, which in fact does extend to the online space, whether you think it should or not. Especially when both parties are British citizens.

But NYRB is not storing and archiving those books for anyone to search through and comment on, either. Nor would an author or publisher be very happy with such a service (remember the Google book search blowup?).

The NYRB was also most likely provided with the text by the publisher.

You were not provided with the video by Fox or NBC. You obtained it via RedLasso.

If you yourself recorded, excerpted and commented on the same clip, we would have no problem.

But a third party was involved, RedLasso. And RedLasso most likely had permission to redistribute under a limited set of circumstances, which their service presumably violated, prompting the lawsuit.

TV -> you -> computer -> web == OK.
TV -> RedLasso -> you -> web == not so OK.

I am going to talk to another clipping service and a few copyright lawyers and see what they say.

Hopefully I can get done with my "real work" to watch the Par-Tay tonight. Thanks for reading, Jonny!

Mark, the Eastern District of Texas is well known as the forum of choice for patent litigation. Weird.

Creeeeeeeeepy.

Robert,

I just got around to reading this, and it almost brought me to tears with how right you are.

What do you care about? Not just the shiny objects, but how have they changed your life?

You have a job. This isn't your job. Write about you, your family, your interests, what you care about. Have a conversation, and I guarantee the less you engage in the "tech blogosphere" and the more I see of the guy I spent a week in DC with, you'll be on the right track.

What excites YOU?

Aaron Brazell had a great roundup of coverage and statements here: http://technosailor.com/2008/07/08/democrats-tr...

Here is the follow-up interview I did with Rep. Culberson on Wednesday: http://qik.com/video/125962

Rest assured, I am following this story and the DC press is aware of it. I will keep people updated as much as I can. Meanwhile, I have an article about it in this morning's Washington Internet Daily. Sadly, the website doesn't have the content...I'm working on it.

Arrington won't link to you because he's probably pissed that you got something he didn't get. I would happily have done the same for him. Hell, maybe I need ti arrange an annual "Tech Blogger Visit to DC" like some groups do.

If TechCrunch is in the business of entertainment, the Washington Post should cancel that syndication deal NOW NOW NOW.

Trust be told, I get many of my story leads for WID off of FriendFeed and follow the trail from there.

Don't know if I've said it, Robert, but I'm consistently pleased with your ability to stay above the fray. Maybe it's your J-school training, but you always seem more interested in the "What and Why and How" instead of the "Who." I hear way too much about Arrington this and Calacanis that and Shel and Loren and WIner and I think "WHERE IS THE NEWS?"

Maybe people like you need to shed the "blogger" moniker and actually find something that describes your role in media. You're a relatively humble guy, but maybe its' time to step up and demand serious conversations. Arrington wants to be CNet? Fine. You can be The Economist. They don't even sign their own bylines.

Social Media is interesting for delivering news, but when you deliver news, YOU at least keep the focus on the NEWS. I can't always say that for many others in this space.

Andrew