Presentation:

1. On foreign correspondents: John MacArthur (publisher of Harper's) made reference to the fact that they have a reporter on the ground in Iran doing some pretty intense work for Harper's, and that it costs money to keep him sustained. I'm sure that it does. However, it made me wonder a couple of things–using this case as a jumping off point, not as a target itself necessarily–namely, is the best journalism in a situation like what we're seeing in Iran produced by an American (presumably white) man? (Even if the person in question "speaks Farsi and has an Iranian wife.") Not that this would save the magazine any money, but couldn't we be thinking less about foreign correspondents and more about using local journalists/citizens to aid with not just reporting, but contextualizing the events?

2. On authority — who has it, who gives it: Mario Murillo made the point that a lot of news or information isn't valid until it appears on CNN or any of the other cable news networks. This is at least partially true for a lot of people, but I firmly believe that's shifting. We're moving into an age of shifting authority. Think about how we recommend movies to one another– we have an idea of who our friend is doing the recommending, what movies they've liked in the past, and how much we have in common, amongst a myriad of other factors. Based on those, we figure out if the awesome movie review is really going to be all that awesome for us.

There's a similar process happening for news: in an older model of news gathering and dissemination, it did require a large organization with tons of resources to say, "This is what's happening." But because of elimination of need for lots of resources when it comes to telling stories, we can know judge what's valid or true with an entirely different set of criteria. Do I trust this person or organization? Why? What kind of track record do they have?

That's not to say that social media hasn't been problematic when it comes to live reporting. Just last weekend, there was a building collapse in Brooklyn, and two false addresses were posted to Twitter before the correct one was. (and I admittedly re-tweeted false addresses, too!) We have to refrain, however, from demonizing the tools as faulty, and instead create solutions using the same or other tools. Check out what Amanda Michel says about volume as verification– when a number of people post, say, similar videos from a protest, we might then assume that the protest is happening as depicted.

3. On future models of media: At the roundtable, I suggested that trying squeeze an open framework (the Internet) into a capitalist, market-based system is misguided (much to the chagrin of MacArthur next to me, who praised Harper's use of a paywall, but spoke nothing about their overall funding model). I'm no business-side expert of publishing, and most of my media beliefs come out of an activist mindset. What I do know, though, is that it's not just silly and dismissive, but also dangerous to suggest that social media are the cause of the desperate state that many news organizations find themselves in.

Again, I ask: what are the tools we need to solve our problems here? When I'm doing work with my clients, it's easy for them to get caught up in the buzziest, shiniest new things. "We need a blog! We've got to get on Facebook! Let's start Twittering!" Of course I've totally drunk the Kool-Aid on all those services, but I don't always advocate their use for everyone. Instead, I ask folks to take a step back and look at what mission they're trying to achieve. From there, we'll find or develop tech to fit that mission.

A couple of folks are taking this approach to investigative journalism, as I mentioned in the show– David Cohn's Spot.Us always comes to mind first. Steve Katz of Mother Jones has wondered how to turn this into a larger model of sustainable journalism, and I recommend his blog for excellent musings on the subject. But please, media folk: I swear, we come in peace. Don't throw the tech out with the bathwater.

4. Decrying the end of Good Journalism™: In which I let the idealist in me speak, more than I already normally do… I don't know anyone, honestly, that gets a huge kick out of watching cable news regurgitate infotainment like they do. So, using that as a model of what we think Americans want when it comes to news reporting is not the right model. I firmly believe that good journalism–whether it's "professional" or "amateur"–will rise above the mediocre and less-than-savvy.

I think about the format change that New York Magazine made earlier this year; it now includes a more schizoid-designed front section that I presume is supposed to replicate my experience with websites. Thing is, I don't subscribe to NY Magazine for it to be like a website; I actually like the long-form articles (and the Strategist section). I also recently started subscribing to the New Yorker because I wanted more in-depth stuff around the house, trees be damned. Me, the darling of all-things-140-characters! I don't think I'm an anamoly, either. I don't have the solution (yet! muwahaha), but I know it's coming.

5. This is why media literacy education is critical. That was Simin's final point at the roundtable, and I couldn't agree more. We don't teach our kids and young adults to understand the processes of media, that they might develop a more fundamental sense of the ever-increasingly complicated landscape that they face. But there are some good projects out there; I know up in Canada, my friend Dr. Mark Lipton is running the Media Education Project. (What are the American counterparts? Maybe Bernie over at PopPolitics can tell us, poke poke.)

Lots more to explore here, for sure. I'm hoping to go more in depth into each of these areas in future posts; what would you like see addressed and discussed?

I've got more thoughts on the subject (if ya couldn't tell by the look on my face at different points in the clip) that I hope to round up later this morning I wrote up here…

–

As you may well know by now………..

I have been promoted to "Supplies Orderer". Although this promotion has added no monetary addition to my income, I take great pride in this endeavor and am looking forward to serving you all to the very best of my ability. I have listed a few suggestions below. Your cooperation is absolutely imperative to "make me look good" in this new position. After all, it *is* all about me, isn't it. (I'm a Leo….)

When you see the forms in the drawer(s) are less than ten, pls enter the form number and description along with your name to the order form taped so neatly to the outside of the file cabinet. Pencils are available nearby in a make-shift (but ever so classy) plastic pencil holder. If you prefer to use ink, you certainly may do so. However, you will be required to provide your own pen. A favorite color preference for me is green. It won't get the order filled any faster, but it will add color to the sheet and therefore, also add color to my new life as "Supplies Orderer." The lower portion of the form is for pens, pencils, sticky notes and all that other misc stuff. Items such as hair spray, aftershave and alcohol are not included.

Orders will be submitted to G.S. every Friday and hopefully filled by Monday or at the latest Tuesday. HOWEVER, if you need something that is not readily available to you PLEASE CONTACT ME via email and I will make certain you have it asap.

Feel free to make any suggestions to improve service, but pls keep them simple as I am easily confused.

Yours very truly.
Rachael, Supplies Orderer

–

Friends, colleagues, clients! Lend me your ears…

I'm writing you with some exciting news that makes me very happy. I just signed a contract from Berrett-Koehler publishers to write a book I've been imagining for a long time. But it's going to take some very hard work on my part, and I hope you can help me succeed.

The book I'm writing is on the topic that has been all the rage in the media — social networking and all that implies with Twitter, Facebook, and much more. Here's the purpose of the book: how do we ensure that these tools are in being used most effectively by those who have too often been on the sidelines of technology advances– women, people of color, queer folk, and more?

This is a fabulous opportunity for many social change advocates to jump into the new tech conversations and help shape the future, and I want to make sure that happens. Specific topics I want to cover about women's experiences online include privacy and security, as well as shifting cultural values through organizing and action. I'm also going to be highlighting the voices of experts working in with social media in communities of color and more– voices you don't hear when tech is being talked about.

Here's my challenge and why I need your help: Berrett-Koehler is an incredible publisher — supportive, collaborative, and incredibly innovative– and I'm thrilled to be working with them. But they don't pay advances. So, to do this book (and it is incredibly fast-tracked), I need to stop working as a consultant for the next three months and do nothing but write the book. Thus, I need investors. I need you to help me raise $15,000 to cover my expenses, travel, and research. Please toss some money into a "Feed Deanna" pot!

I'm off to a good start: the Hightower Lowdown (Jim Hightower's monthly newsletter), where I've worked for 4 years, is covering my rent through the summer. And Don Hazen, editor of AlterNet.org (where I also have worked) and Doug Kreeger (AlterNet's board chair) will put the first $2,000 in if people will match it. All donations of $250 and over can be made through the Independent Media Institute, so they'll be tax-deductible.

So, here I am, hat in hand for a good cause. I'll make you proud. You can donate via PayPal at http://www.deannazandt.com/chipin or send a check to me (address below).

I know it is a tough time to be asking for money with many people out of work and struggling. I hope you'll forgive my chutzpah. Yet I want this all to happen so badly I can taste it; it's more than anything I've wanted in a very long time. It's a dream come true in many ways, and I hope even if you can't give at this time, you'll join me in celebrating the moment.

much love,
deanna

P.S. — For anyone who donates $100 or more, I will give you a copy of the book with an inscription of my heartfelt thanks. One more time, that donation link is:

http://www.deannazandt.com/chipin

P.P.S. — Thanks in advance for anything and everything that you can do to support this wildly excited, somewhat humbled first-time author. Here's more info about the book: http://www.deannazandt.com/bookannounce , and I'll be blogging as much of the book's content as possible at http://www.deannazandt.com/ throughout the summer.

–

For donations over $250, checks can be made payable to:

Independent Media Institute
77 Federal St
San Francisco, CA 94107

Memo: Deanna Zandt Project

http://www.lets-panic.com/

Deanna Zandt on WRHU: Iranian elections, social media and more

First, from an American media perspective, here was another great moment for folks to demand what they wanted to see covered on national news media. What a moment of media dissonance: As protests erupted — and in some cases, turned violent –  in the streets of Tehran and elsewhere in Iran, major broadcast media in the US had little to no news on the events at all. By using the hashtag¹ #CNNfail to collect all of the dissatisfaction on Twitter, Americans were able to shift the focus of the conversation and eventually influence CNN's decision makers to start covering stories by Sunday.

It's reminiscent of #AmazonFAIL (when Amazon accidentally delisted 58,000 books, fueling a social media revolt), in the sense that within a pretty short timeframe (less than 24 hours), major news organizations simply could not ignore the story unfolding — via reportage and commentary — on social media. I remind folks to think about how this sort of situation would have unfolded even five years ago: Bloggers would blog, perhaps media watchdog organizations would get a grassroots campaign together, and maybe within a week, if we were lucky, we'd see some influence. Now, with so many people participating in the conversation, we have immense power to quickly shift both focus and perception.

This is why, when it comes to politics and advocacy work, it's important to look at a bigger picture beyond just who's using Facebook to get votes, or which representatives of governments tweet with pizazz. It's less about celebrity and more about connection, humanity and the ability to inject our values into the wider culture in a fundamentally populist way.

Another fascinating angle of this story is the bootstrapping of access to technology after the Iranian government began blocking access. Facebook was blocked in late May, when reformist candidate Moussavi had around 5,200 supporters. Not long into the protests this weekend, access to major portions of the Internet (including Twitter), as well as SMS texting, were blocked. Not to be stopped, protesters within Iran are receiving information about accessing proxy servers from folks setting them up outside of the country, and stories continue to flood out.

Honestly, there is just no blocking The Internet, y'all. What the Iranian government is trying to do is, in effect, akin to trying to stop water or electricity from flowing. There is so much infrastructure in place at this point, they'd basically have to blow up most of it to stop people from accessing the outside world. Of course, I wouldn't put it past Ahmadinejad, now that I think about it…

–

¹ What's a hashtag? It's a keyword that people add to their tweets, so that conversations around a particular topic can be easily tracked.

Here's some links to the presentations and workshops that I led and co-led all week; thanks to the participants who took killer notes. There's tons of incredible info on, and being added to, this wiki, so check back often:

• Inspiration: Social Networks (midway down the page). Day one was all about showing our participants the myriad of tools at their disposal and some successes that others have had. [PowerPoint preso here]
• Measure THIS! Social Media ROI. How to think about metrics for social media work. [No session notes yet, but PowerPoint preso here.]
• Engaging business leaders and decision-makers through social media, led with Eric Squair.
• Twitter for Individuals and Organizations. (shocker, right?)

I talked in pretty simple terms about some different approaches in "The non-fanatical beginner's guide to Twitter." With this post, I'm going to flesh out some of the nitty gritty and help to answer some of the tougher questions.

It used to be said with one of the very first popular online social tools — email — that you shouldn't write anything in a message that you wouldn't want to appear in the New York Times. Few people ever followed that rule, thank goodness. How boring would our lives be if we all subjected ourselves to Grey Lady standards of information sharing?

Nowadays, new tools make it easier to share as much of ourselves as we want, and especially if you're just getting going, it can be difficult to know what's okay to post and what isn't. A flat-out easy beginner's guidepost comes from the illustrious Susan Mernit, who told participants in a workshop we led: "If you're wondering whether you should post something or not, you probably shouldn't."

The genesis of this proverb comes from a key principle of social media: Authenticity is king. That word is being thrown around quite a bit these days ("authenticity," not "king," heh).  Social media "gurus" and "mavens" often slip "authenticity" into smarmy marketing posts. Ignore them. They are not the guides you are looking for. But authenticity is.

First of all, let's make it clear that despite technology's best efforts, we still have multiple authentic selves. We are the same person, for sure, at work and at home, but the mix of personality components we use is at least a little bit different in each setting. Social media makes the mix slightly more transparent, thus we have to think more about which parts we present, as well as when and how. But just like our personalities in the offline world, it's those different parts that make us unique — and our perspective and experiences interesting.

One of my cousins, who's a therapist in D.C., told me recently about a model of thinking about intimacy in relationships as a stereo equalizer, where things like reliability, trust, availability, etc., are the main components. Skew one of those bands outta whack, and the whole mix is off.

Social media authenticity works much the same way. It's a mix of personal insights, professional announcements, expertise (whether it's a job or a hobby), general passion, lots of opinion, and often humor. (Question to advanced users: What other bands would you add to the equalizer?) It takes some experimentation to figure out what mix sounds right to you. This is why Susan's advice is so dead-on: What you perceive to be good, what you feel comfortable with, that's what people will pick up on as they share in your experiences. For people who are largely private folks who don't want to tell the world about the silly stuff their kid just did, that's fine. Share more about what you thought when you read an article related to your work. It also doesn't have to be your most familiar voice, either, if that doesn't make you feel comfortable. You can maintain a fairly professional tone in social media (though do try not to be emotionless) and still provide value.

It's all about the mix that's going to make your voice sound good — to you and others.

For some people, it's easy to share personal news and events. Me, I have no bones about tweeting funny things my mom says, details of a party I'm at, or (loads of) pictures of my dog. It's a way for me to keep a running log of things that are important to me. That said, my guidepost is to not share things that would make me feel vulnerable, like details of my dating life. I share things once in a while about my health, either to reach out for help or to show solidarity with others, but I consciously keep it to a minimum — simply because that's what feels right to me.

The experimentation can be uncomfortable to start with, but know that it's okay to make mistakes here and there; social media is quite a bit more forgiving than more traditional forms of media (and I would say, also more forgiving than blogging). Worried about it all being Out There? Jaclyn Friedman made a great point recently in a workshop I was leading about how our perception of social media is rapidly changing, similar to how our perception of tattoos has changed in the last 50 years. Think about the attitudes toward a person who got a tattoo in 1959, versus attitudes now. It's the same with social media. Ten years ago, someone getting a swig of TMI via Google might have had an adverse reaction, versus today, when seeing something a little off-topic in a Twitter stream is no big whoop.

That said, I do want to mention that there are some folks in jobs where more attention needs to be paid to privacy and security (you know who you are). There are different parameters to work with when establishing your mix, but you shouldn't keep yourself out of social media altogether. Almost all of us are, in some way, already represented online. Social media sites generally appear within the top 10 search results; you should do your best to influence how you appear, even if it's to show that you're largely a very private person.

In a really big picture sense, I see all of our social media voices combining into this huge, glorious mix that has a real chance to change our cultural perceptions and values. (Note: this is the premise of the book I'm writing this summer for Berrett-Koehler.) All of this social technology has a humanizing effect on our digital interactions. Much like everyone getting tattoos, if we're all presenting our authentic selves and experiences — versus relying on gatekeepers to tell our stories — we stand a chance to cause a tidal wave of change and inject our values, finally, into a culture that has long ignored too many of our experiences.

http://www.deannazandt.com/presentations/nssr/

One of the biggest complaints I get from clients and friends who join a new social network (besides the pain of setting up the profile) is the feeling of info overload. I've talked about how the paradigm of email has set us all up for disaster in this department, and I always come back to that Clay Shirky quote: "There is no such thing as information overload, there’s only filter failure."

In the past, we left the responsibility to others to filter our information for us in a number of ways, mostly because there wasn't any other way to get the goods. Media organizations, through their hierarchies of gatekeepers, have determined for ages what the important stories are. Businesses have decided what demands needed to be met with the products they produced. Whenever we did get information via social means,  we could manage the incoming info because there wasn't that much of it to handle — our networks were considerably more closed and less overlapping.

Now, with social media, we have the ability to connect with a previously unimaginable amount of stuff coming at us, often from multiple directions. And people are thus crying out for help in managing the flood. Top complaint of the day is email — if only people knew how to use filters and rules in their email programs better, heh. Facebook  gave us the ability to make lists of people and then filter the news feed based on those lists. Tweetdeck is one of the most popular Twitter apps primarly because it allows you to create groups of people to follow.

Still, there's a mental hurdle for many of us to get over– just the mere fact that it's now in our hands to filter everything that comes at us. We're so used to waiting for things to be dished or pitched to us that we're not quite sure how to make the decisions on what to filter out and what to keep in. Figuring out what works is going to be very individually based and experimental, and that's often a painful process.

It makes me, as an info junkie and organizational nerd, exponentially more anxious to see how filters develop in the coming months and years. The semantic web is going to be particular intriguing here — when the machines learn our language, learn better how we think… are they going to be able to help us?

What do I want to do, I hear you asking yourself? In short — I do want you to buy the book, after all — I'm going to be describing the social media moment as a huge opportunity for social change and action. If you've read some of what I've written about Twitter and other services, and my ideas about the giant gene pool and the desperate need for diversity, you have an idea of where the book will go. Plus, it'll be stunningly entertaining to boot!

It was interesting to go from "I don't think I ever want to write a book" at the end of February to looking at what I've got to sign for the deal in the middle of May. I wanted to share this part of the story as both a testament to Johanna's powerful skillz of persuasion, as well as a revelatory moment about how these things can work– especially for women who think they have to know every detail of everything before they set off on sharing their expertise. Not that I know anything about that.

In the beginning, I couldn't identify what topic (of the myriad of things I'm interested in) I'd have enough passion, expertise and attention span to write an entire book about. Johanna asked me to complete an exercise as homework after our first official call, where I was to answer three questions:

• What community do I identify with, am affiliated with or otherwise care about?
• What is that community's point of pain? What's preventing them from getting to the next level?
• What book could I write to address that point of pain?

Well, jeez, that was easy. My community, through my work in feminism over the years, is women; their point of pain is an intimidation and/or distrust of new technologies, and yeah, I'm pretty sure I could write a book helping them get over that hump. As Johanna and I fleshed out my ideas, we both realized that what I'm talking about is larger than just women needing to take advantage of this moment. I'm going to be talking about and bringing in experts from the fields of racial justice, LGBTQQI organizing, the front lines of the class warfare… yeah. It's going to be one big party in my book.

So, there you have it. We're attempting to do this on a strikingly fast timetable, and I'm going to be looking to my community for help in a few areas. One of them is fundraising, but that's a separate story that I'll blog later this week. For now, I'll be over here just bouncin' off the walls.

PS– A big, big, big shoutout to Christine Cupaiuolo, the most fabulous editor ever, without whose help I seriously would not have been able to put together a proposal that knocked it out of the park as hard as it did. Can't wait to move on to the book work with you, CMC!

I wanted to share with you an amazing worldwide conference that I'm participating in next week. It's called "Women Who Tech," and it brings together hundreds of women who leverage their technology savvy to inspire change and transform the world. And it takes place all online and on the phone!

Women Who Tech
When: May 12, 2009. Panels are 50 min long and run from 11AM EDT to 6PM EDT.
Where: Everywhere via phone and web
http://womenwhotech.com/
A mere $10 for a whole day of goodness

I participated last year, and at first I thought the distance thing was going to be strange– but it's absolutely incredible, and I highly recommend joining in the fun. What's great is that this is really not just for women who currently tech– if you're interested social media, launching a startup, learning about new tools… this is *the* place to be.

I'll be moderating this panel:

What Shirky Didn't Tell Us – 4PM EDT
This panel will look at problems that are arising along gender, class and race lines within the new paradigms of Web 2.0, 3.0 and beyond. When we remove explicit structure from the organizing and tech equation, inherent structure arises– illustrating through technology just how far we have to go for social equality. But we don't want to just kvetch about the problems: this panel will present and brainstorm solutions together. Panelists: Allison Fine, techPresident and Personal Democracy Forum, Tanya Tarr, AFSCME.

Thennnnn, there are parties that evening in major cities for participants to get together and socialize. Shockingly, I'm throwing the NYC party. Details:

NYC Women Who Tech After-Party
6:30pm – 9:00pm
Donnybrook
35 Clinton St (corner of Stanton)
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=73623154033
Drink specials and noshy things galore!

Feel free to come by and say "hi" even if you're not attending the conference. Other parties are scheduled for DC, San Francisco, London and Atlanta, too.

I can't express enough how excited I am to be part of this gang. Please feel free to forward on, and if you're one of those journalist types and you want to write about the events or women in technology in general, drop me a line!