Minutes after President Obama finished his address to Congress Tuesday, Idaho Rep. Walt Minnick posted his reaction at Facebook, the ubiquitous social networking site.
“These times are too tough and there is too much to be done to linger over the points where we differ. ... And all of us, especially those who recently lost their jobs, are ready to roll up their sleeves and go to work. I join the president, my fellow Americans and Idahoans in standing up, ready to go to work.”
Within minutes, the debate began: civil but pointed. Some of the 30-plus comments reminded the Democrat Minnick of his vote against the Obama economic stimulus bill: “My wife and I voted for you, but you have betrayed our trust and confidence. I now see you as a small and fearful man caring more about votes than principle.” Other commenters stuck up for Minnick: “Nothing like consistently letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. ... Is Rep. Minnick a ‘traditional’ liberal Democrat? Of course not, and if he was, he could never have won Idaho's 1st Congressional District.”
For a political watcher, this is fascinating stuff. It pays to have a congressman for a Facebook "friend."
Social networking sites are changing, before our eyes, the way politicians interact with voters. And it will change the way journalists keep tabs on the politicians.
I'm an accidental Facebook fan (and, continuing the evolution, I became an Twitter newbie this week). I joined Facebook at my 18-year-old son’s urging, mostly to stay in touch with old classmates and former co-workers. And yes, I waste far too much time (at home, I add, for my supervisors' benefit) playing Bumper Stars and Kidnap! and collecting Flair.
Pretty quickly, though, I could see Facebook's value to journalists.
The site gives journalists a little anecdotal insight into the political discourse: Who has a politico's ear, and what are they whispering into it? The messaging function, I'm sure, will someday help me get a hold of an elusive source on deadline. Facebook is even an occasional source of a scoop: I learned Minnick planned to vote against one of the economic stimulus bills through an alert posted by spokesman John Foster. Foster posted an alert to Minnick's 1,000 or so Facebook friends hours before issuing a conventional press release.
The pluses more than offset the downsides. Some journalists resist “befriending” elected officials, lobbyists and staffers, and I can understand: Listing any politico as a "friend" just feels awkward. (Why can't we just be "contacts" or "obligatory acquaintances?") And I'm a little uneasy about allowing movers and shakers to read 25 Random Facts About Kevin Richert or see my high school photos. Oh well.
The only approach that makes sense to me is to be as inclusive as possible. If a politico sends me a friend invite, I accept it. When I stumble on a politician in my Facebook travels, I shoot out an invite. It's a good way to see grassroots politics in action.
Even if my “friends” can see what I looked like in high school.
Speaking of social media, here’s my shameless promo for the day. You can now get updates on Statesman editorials and my blogs and columns through Twitter. I’m @KevinRichert.
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo
Deadlines- I note your
Deadlines- I note your constant doom of press deadlines. I offer that writers ought to be more concernced about content than deadlines.
Politicos on Facebook- KR, maybe you can trick Ullman into becoming a friend of an alter-ego on Facebook and then you can get bits and pieces from her to use out of context in your next hurry to beat the deadline editorial.
You wrote, "..I could see Facebook's news value". Really??? Let me reflect back to my first point of CONTENT.
Newspapers are closing their printing presses because they lack content. It's not an advertising problem. It's content. IF your paper had good content, it would have devoted readers. Devoted readers are different than captured readers (Boise's only daily) and devoted readers are willing to pay for online content and paper content- that brings advertisers. Oh well, I guess you're busy reading the content of Facebook.
OK ...
I changed one phrase, "news value," to "value to journalists." That more clearly reflects my point: Facebook is a useful tool to news-gatherers.
Beyond that, I'm lost about your point. Should journalists not use social media to see what elected officials are saying to their constituents? Should journalists not use a Facebook application to try to get an answer, on deadline, from an elected official? Should they not check Facebook to look for breaking news?
I read social networking sites — especially Facebook, where people post and interact under their real names — for the same reason I read comments at this blog. I am hoping to gather information and gain insight. That's journalism.
And I cannot let your conspiracy theory go unchallenged — the idea that I would use some shadow persona to "trick" an elected official into revealing information. Everything I write — on my blog or at Facebook and Twitter — appears under my name. Misrepresentation to gather information is a cardinal journalistic sin — which, Udapimp, is one more reason that I make sure to be completely transparent online.
Questions? Call me at (208) 377-6437 or e-mail me at krichert@idahostatesman.com
Kevin Richert
editorial page editor
okay
you are lost about my point.... for some reason, that doesn't surprise me. My point is the majority of your editorials lack good content. Your paper and your writes need better content. And apparently you don't "get it" either. Let me throw you a bone here- this is my point:
http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2009/02/google_devalues.php
*****
Last week you were effectively 'baggin' on Ullman for using her blog to respond to your questions, because you said it was "certainly cumbersome" and a "ridiculous rigmarole" -- despite the fact you got a detailed response to your questions in a timely fashion.
NOW you rave about the wonderfulness of Facebook because you got the info BEFORE the press release. And Obama's team used text messaging too. Are you now going to lament about the journalist value of broadcast text messages? It's technology. Email works well too. A morning press conference works well too. Keep in mind YOU and constituents have to have a Facebook profile to get the information (and what Facebook does with that profile to make money is just around the corner).
I am not so much pointing out Facebook is hardly a source of NEWS (I suppose it can be if the 'newsmakers' want to use that channel, so is texting), but the fact that in your post you are negative toward the use of a Ullman's blog (a social network) and in the next breath you praise Minnick's Facebook. Are you sure you don't have a teenage daughter, or is it just your political preference?
****
Perhaps you could use more useful and NEWSworthy blogs like boiseguardian where currently a discussion is based on VRT's poor management? I have not seen ANY reporting of VRT from Statesman writers for editors. If you want to promote the transit system and the proposed "sales tax for buses" perhaps you could help us lowly citizens and bring those issues to light. Shoot, maybe Ms. Fairless has a Facebook profile.
And 'journalism' as you say you are doing, also includes writing about the Jonas Brothers and what they ate for breakfast, but I expect a little more value from a primary daily newspaper.
Plus, if you really want to gather information and gain insight spend some time at the local watering holes, and your nearest Stake-- that's where the things happen.
***
If a public official is being asked a question about policy or practice, does it matter if Mickey Mouse is asking the question or Kevin Richert? I hope Mickey gets the same answer.
***
BTW I only get one phone call per day, and I'm not using it to call you. :-)
A recap
Here are the first two paragraphs of my piece about Sharon Ullman:
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2009/02/13/krichert/sharon_ullman_media_policy_talk_my_blog
“Sharon Ullman is doing something every politician ought to do. She has joined the growing ranks of local blogging politicos.
“But here's where I part ways with the Ada County commissioner: She says she will post answers to reporters' questions at her blog instead of consenting to interviews.”
Blogging is a great way for politicians to communicate with voters. I hope more politicians follow suit.
I have no problem with Ullman blogging. I have a problem with an elected official who declines to be interviewed, opting to answer questions in writing. There’s a distinction.
Kevin Richert
editorial page editor
Exploding Social Media
Huge, engorged, enormous....ABC News AU reported most people wanting fire information turned to social media like Facebook to find out what was "really" going on. PIOs were too slow and often the last to know. So, ask a neighbor in the burning neighborhood.
Why not Facebook our Federal delegation? Our news is increasingly coming from social media (watch the FoxNews or CNN noon shows). We trust who we trust and most of those people we trust are showing up on Facebook. It's the new living room.
So, what are us good public servants doing with all of this? We're trying to figure out how to get the Government to let us on the Social Media so we can officially join the conversation. Someone said Local TV News plus Inciweb = the History Channel.
Your instincts are right on
As I read your blog, I'm working on a new post for the Idaho Business Review entitled "We are the media: now what?" While I think the example of Walt's use of social media is a good one (I suspect you can thank John Foster, late of the IBR, for that), I also think that it opens up a multitude of reportorial resources beyond the "usual suspects". The example that I'm basing my upcoming blog on is the brouhaha that occurred a few weeks ago over the decision by the Commerce Department to award a PR contract to an agency based in New York. A journalist covering that story would have been able to follow a conversation thread on Twitter, blog sites, and Facebook that covered dimensions of the issues that would have been impossible to have included in the pre-social media world of deadline journalism. Ultimately, one of the contributors to the conversation was the president of the agency in question. And just as the traditional media has shaped one than one political outcome from Watergate to Monica Lewinsky, I think that it's more than coincidence that 24 hours following the SM frenzy, Commerce reversed its decision. Far beyond access to elected officials, social media changes the journalist landscape in much more profound ways.
Having said that, I'm going to check out your high school photos on Facebook, then Twitter about them to my 300 devoted followers. Careful what you wish for.
Michael Boss
@MikeBoss
Excellent story
Kevin, So true. Facebook has arrived, and at a time when newspapers are folding like cheap suits, these new communication tools flourish. Real people can have meaningful communication with their Congressman, their newspaper, their television station--they can also--god forbid--disagree in real time.
I was a reporter for 17 years (we were colleagues in the old days at the Statehouse).I could never forsee a revolution in journalism--but here it is. I hope one day the 'media conspiracy theory' will go the way of the printing press.
Jake Putnam
Good post ...
Thanks for checking in, Jake
Kevin Richert
editorial page editor
journalist wonk question
This isn't a gotcha, I'm curious about what different people do -- what sort of vetting process do you (and other Statesman reporters) use on things you get from Facebook and other social media sites? Do you go for it (with or without a disclaimer on how you got it), use it as a clue to make a call or drop some email, or what?
Good question
In the case of John Foster's alert on the stimulus vote, it was an easy call. I think he had couched it as a release to the media — clearly signaling that it was fair game. Plus, it was breaking news.
Other times, I'd probably use Facebook as a starting point, and follow up with more reporting. Partly to make sure — even though identities on Facebook and Twitter are transparent. But also just to provide a head's up.
Kevin Richert
editorial page editor
I am a Democrat who
I am a Democrat who frequently disagrees with Kevin Richert. While my political views differ greatly from Kevin's, I have respect for his transparency and open door policy. His decision to post for review all of the interviews the Statesman did prior to the 2008 endorsements was appreciated. In addition he answers his phone and provides accurate information when I am trying to navigate the Statesman process. I am appreciative of his use of Facebook and his blog in the search for additional points of view.
Facebook isn't as stupid as Twitter, I'll give you that much.
----------
To read is wonderful. To comprehend art. Falling back to whatever you believed in is NORMAL.