A few months ago I a gave presentation on old and new media to a group of people from around the world who run tax bodies.
In discussing old and new media, I got to thinking that in fact you had to deal with both in the same way. I didn't really flesh out my thoughts enough to write about it here but it has been on my mind for a while.
What I didn't know at the time is that Steve Rubel was making that argument on his blog for quite a while.
His post - Three Internet Careers That Soon Won't Exist - sums it up perfectly.
Sunday, 30 March 2008
Friday, 28 March 2008
All of a Twitter
I have been on Twitter for about a month now. It works very simply. You sign up, find people to follow and follow them. You can post brief messages via Twitter. If someone is following you they will see the message when they log on via the web or they can sign-up for a text messaging service.
During the last four weeks, Mick Fealty 'twittered' about the Budget, Lynne Featherstone became the first MP to Twitter (according to one blogger but if there is an MP who beat her to it apologises to them) and No 10 Downing Street signed up.
I am now following No 10 and they are following me. If you go to someone's home page on Twitter you can see who the person or organisation is following and, if you want to, follow them.
No 10 is using Twitter as a news feed. Friends can also use it as a quick way to share information.
At the moment it is hard to say where Twitter will take us. It could be the next Facebook. It has yet to reach a tipping point and that will be crucial to its success. The really intriguing thing is its natural mobility. Enhancing the mobile phone experience could be its break through moment and may very well change how we use our phones.
If you would like to follow me, please do.
PS I have just discovered the New York Times Twitters.
During the last four weeks, Mick Fealty 'twittered' about the Budget, Lynne Featherstone became the first MP to Twitter (according to one blogger but if there is an MP who beat her to it apologises to them) and No 10 Downing Street signed up.
I am now following No 10 and they are following me. If you go to someone's home page on Twitter you can see who the person or organisation is following and, if you want to, follow them.
No 10 is using Twitter as a news feed. Friends can also use it as a quick way to share information.
At the moment it is hard to say where Twitter will take us. It could be the next Facebook. It has yet to reach a tipping point and that will be crucial to its success. The really intriguing thing is its natural mobility. Enhancing the mobile phone experience could be its break through moment and may very well change how we use our phones.
If you would like to follow me, please do.
PS I have just discovered the New York Times Twitters.
The Liberal Duck
In my last post, I discussed how to spot a liberal duck.
This got me thinking about what a liberal duck might do. Well a career in parliament would be no bad thing. So let us assume that our liberal duck, Ms Quack, has been elected to the Commons.
The last blog was an attempt to broadly establish what liberalism is, the next thing to do is try and discover how it works in practice.
Banning smoking in public is a good test for Ms Quack, MP.
Liberals don't like banning things. They prefer to let people make decisions. Ms Quack might back a public health campaign that informs her constituents about the dangers of smoking but would she vote to stop people doing it in public places?
If she had read her Mill she would know that the liberal creed accepts intervention when an action will cause harm. And being an informed duck she will have read up on passive smoking. But is she convinced that passive smoking is really doing the damage that some scientists claim? If she is, she can easily vote for the ban. If she isn't, she has a problem.
Should Ms Quack conclude that smoking is so bad for people it should be banned in public places regardless? Should she make a pragmatic decision and ignore her liberal instincts? Or is there another argument for the ban?
The UK has a public funded health service free at the point of use. The principle behind this is, if you are sick you will receive medical help. There has been some discussion during the last decade about denying help to people who abuse their health. But is that fair and where do you draw the line? How do you really assess what is a healthy lifestyle?
The accepted view is that smoking causes severe health problems. This inevitably leads to a financial drain on the resources of a public funded system. In that case, is it sensible to try and minimise that drain by banning smoking in a public place in order to encourage people to quit?
Ms Quack MP could support the ban on the basis that a lot of very ill smokers are doing harm to the national health service. Indirectly that means they are harming other patients and in general the UK taxpayer.
Is this argument robust enough to convince her? If she wasn't a liberal life would be so much easier: she just wouldn't face such dilemmas.
She might begin to question the way this publicly funded health service operates. Would it be better to give the patient control over his or her budget? That way the patient can make decisions over their treatment. If there was an insurance based system, those at risk would pay a higher premium. This would send a very strong message about what is good for you and what isn't. But the British public like the national health service. If change was going to take place it would take a long time and would be likely to replicate the Danish health system and not an insurance based one. And she has no way of knowing if it would lead to people being more health conscious. Not forgetting that our plucky MP has to make a decision on the ban now.
The last option is abstention.
Not all liberals will be racked by such questions. They might simply vote against. But the point is that one has to apply the values you believe in to the world you live in. There are no easy answers.
This got me thinking about what a liberal duck might do. Well a career in parliament would be no bad thing. So let us assume that our liberal duck, Ms Quack, has been elected to the Commons.
The last blog was an attempt to broadly establish what liberalism is, the next thing to do is try and discover how it works in practice.
Banning smoking in public is a good test for Ms Quack, MP.
Liberals don't like banning things. They prefer to let people make decisions. Ms Quack might back a public health campaign that informs her constituents about the dangers of smoking but would she vote to stop people doing it in public places?
If she had read her Mill she would know that the liberal creed accepts intervention when an action will cause harm. And being an informed duck she will have read up on passive smoking. But is she convinced that passive smoking is really doing the damage that some scientists claim? If she is, she can easily vote for the ban. If she isn't, she has a problem.
Should Ms Quack conclude that smoking is so bad for people it should be banned in public places regardless? Should she make a pragmatic decision and ignore her liberal instincts? Or is there another argument for the ban?
The UK has a public funded health service free at the point of use. The principle behind this is, if you are sick you will receive medical help. There has been some discussion during the last decade about denying help to people who abuse their health. But is that fair and where do you draw the line? How do you really assess what is a healthy lifestyle?
The accepted view is that smoking causes severe health problems. This inevitably leads to a financial drain on the resources of a public funded system. In that case, is it sensible to try and minimise that drain by banning smoking in a public place in order to encourage people to quit?
Ms Quack MP could support the ban on the basis that a lot of very ill smokers are doing harm to the national health service. Indirectly that means they are harming other patients and in general the UK taxpayer.
Is this argument robust enough to convince her? If she wasn't a liberal life would be so much easier: she just wouldn't face such dilemmas.
She might begin to question the way this publicly funded health service operates. Would it be better to give the patient control over his or her budget? That way the patient can make decisions over their treatment. If there was an insurance based system, those at risk would pay a higher premium. This would send a very strong message about what is good for you and what isn't. But the British public like the national health service. If change was going to take place it would take a long time and would be likely to replicate the Danish health system and not an insurance based one. And she has no way of knowing if it would lead to people being more health conscious. Not forgetting that our plucky MP has to make a decision on the ban now.
The last option is abstention.
Not all liberals will be racked by such questions. They might simply vote against. But the point is that one has to apply the values you believe in to the world you live in. There are no easy answers.
Tuesday, 25 March 2008
Here comes liberalism...
...with apologises to Clay Shirky.
Tristan Mills recently asked What is Liberalism? on his blog Liberty Alone. His question came at around the time that the UK got its very own Libertarian party.
Mills makes some very interesting points, as do the people who have commented on his site.
What is liberalism? Well one way of judging is to go off and read David Hume, John Milton, John Locke, John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith. I don't include Jeremy Bentham but some might. Bentham for me is part of the social democratic tradition but that is probably for another post.
Another way is to look at what Gladstone and Lloyd George did in government. Of course, some argue that they veered off the course of liberalism. But by reading some of those authors and looking at liberals in action you at least get a sense of what liberalism is about.
Perhaps what I am really saying is, if it looks like a duck, if it waddles like a duck, then it is a liberal... I mean a duck. In other words, you know it when you see it.
There are lots of other writers to read as well. I am currently working my way through Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty. It is a big book. Apparently, Mrs Thatcher used to carry it with her in her handbag in the Seventies. Which might explain why people were so afraid of being handbagged by her.
Hayek has been appropriated by conservatives. Mind you, they would say he really is a conservative or that they are the true inheritors of liberalism.
I am only up to page 70 so don't feel I am in a position to give a considered opinion. After reading his Road to Serfdom I felt he was definitely a duck, I mean a liberal. For proof one has only to read his argument for what sounds very much like the European Union and his acceptance of the need for the odd Keynesian intervention.
One thing he does say in the Constitution of Liberty is that a free society allows spontaneity. It is a society where people can decide to group together and do things like network, share and to sort of organize without organizations...
Hayek also discusses why liberalism rather lost out to its rival view of liberty - the social democratic version. Whether one agrees with him or not, his point seems to be that we lost the tools to make liberalism work.
But as we all know, the tools to do what he is talking about are now here and people like Clay Shirky are writing books about them.
Tristan Mills recently asked What is Liberalism? on his blog Liberty Alone. His question came at around the time that the UK got its very own Libertarian party.
Mills makes some very interesting points, as do the people who have commented on his site.
What is liberalism? Well one way of judging is to go off and read David Hume, John Milton, John Locke, John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith. I don't include Jeremy Bentham but some might. Bentham for me is part of the social democratic tradition but that is probably for another post.
Another way is to look at what Gladstone and Lloyd George did in government. Of course, some argue that they veered off the course of liberalism. But by reading some of those authors and looking at liberals in action you at least get a sense of what liberalism is about.
Perhaps what I am really saying is, if it looks like a duck, if it waddles like a duck, then it is a liberal... I mean a duck. In other words, you know it when you see it.
There are lots of other writers to read as well. I am currently working my way through Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty. It is a big book. Apparently, Mrs Thatcher used to carry it with her in her handbag in the Seventies. Which might explain why people were so afraid of being handbagged by her.
Hayek has been appropriated by conservatives. Mind you, they would say he really is a conservative or that they are the true inheritors of liberalism.
I am only up to page 70 so don't feel I am in a position to give a considered opinion. After reading his Road to Serfdom I felt he was definitely a duck, I mean a liberal. For proof one has only to read his argument for what sounds very much like the European Union and his acceptance of the need for the odd Keynesian intervention.
One thing he does say in the Constitution of Liberty is that a free society allows spontaneity. It is a society where people can decide to group together and do things like network, share and to sort of organize without organizations...
Hayek also discusses why liberalism rather lost out to its rival view of liberty - the social democratic version. Whether one agrees with him or not, his point seems to be that we lost the tools to make liberalism work.
But as we all know, the tools to do what he is talking about are now here and people like Clay Shirky are writing books about them.
Saturday, 22 March 2008
A political waiting for Godot?
Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it's awful.
Samuel Beckett
In a recent post - But actually nobody comes - on his blog, Same as all the others, Simon R discusses the latest book by Clay Shirky - Here comes everybody - and how Shirky's ideas translate to the world of parliamentary politics.
For those not familiar with Shirky, here is a brief explanation. He believes that people can organize without being in organizations. These ideas have been around for a while, ask any anarchist or even some liberals, but they have grown in popularity since the 1960s. Steven Johnson in Emergence discussed how this works and The Starfish and the Spider also looked at how one can organize without leaders. As an aside, this is one of David Muir's favourite books, it's sub-title is 'unstoppable power of leaderless organisations'. Not sure what Muir's new boss at Number 10 would make of that.
Fast forward to 2008 and the problem of all-party parliamentary groups. Simon R says that this is a classic example of organizing something and waiting for something to happen. It struck me as the political equivalent of Waiting for Godot. Our heroes wait but Godot never turns up: nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it's awful.
Simon R argues that the reason all-party groups work as they do is the fact that they have been organized by someone outside of parliament. That person or organization has suggested a parliamentary group is needed. The idea hasn't some from MPs.
Let MPs organize something that they actually need and they will make it theirs and then something will happen. Some people might not like what happens but that is part of the deal. The same principle applies to all of us. The message is: let people organize themselves.
If we want to see this in action then look no further than this blog. Google set up Blogger and that allowed me to create the blog and this post. But here's the rub. Google had to set up Blogger. And for that to happen someone else had to set up the software to do it and someone else had to set up the web...
Whether that was Godot or not is another matter.
Samuel Beckett
In a recent post - But actually nobody comes - on his blog, Same as all the others, Simon R discusses the latest book by Clay Shirky - Here comes everybody - and how Shirky's ideas translate to the world of parliamentary politics.
For those not familiar with Shirky, here is a brief explanation. He believes that people can organize without being in organizations. These ideas have been around for a while, ask any anarchist or even some liberals, but they have grown in popularity since the 1960s. Steven Johnson in Emergence discussed how this works and The Starfish and the Spider also looked at how one can organize without leaders. As an aside, this is one of David Muir's favourite books, it's sub-title is 'unstoppable power of leaderless organisations'. Not sure what Muir's new boss at Number 10 would make of that.
Fast forward to 2008 and the problem of all-party parliamentary groups. Simon R says that this is a classic example of organizing something and waiting for something to happen. It struck me as the political equivalent of Waiting for Godot. Our heroes wait but Godot never turns up: nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it's awful.
Simon R argues that the reason all-party groups work as they do is the fact that they have been organized by someone outside of parliament. That person or organization has suggested a parliamentary group is needed. The idea hasn't some from MPs.
Let MPs organize something that they actually need and they will make it theirs and then something will happen. Some people might not like what happens but that is part of the deal. The same principle applies to all of us. The message is: let people organize themselves.
If we want to see this in action then look no further than this blog. Google set up Blogger and that allowed me to create the blog and this post. But here's the rub. Google had to set up Blogger. And for that to happen someone else had to set up the software to do it and someone else had to set up the web...
Whether that was Godot or not is another matter.
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
Writing that press release
And while I am discussing posts on the PR and Comms Network site allow me to draw your attention to a post by James Gilheany - Correction, I'm right.
It's quite true that people always change things. A script writer once told me he would always throw in a few bad passages so that the producer would focus on them, cut them out and then feel satisfied that the cuts had been made.
It's quite true that people always change things. A script writer once told me he would always throw in a few bad passages so that the producer would focus on them, cut them out and then feel satisfied that the cuts had been made.
Brand delivery
Delivering on your brand promise is vital. Once again the PR and Comms Network hit nail on head with Alain Desmier's post Whatever happened to customer service?
Sadly, I have my own story to tell. I have been using the Phone Co-op for my calls and paying BT for line rental. BT has been pushing hard to bring customers back and two weeks ago I got the pitch. I was perfectly happy with the Phone Co-op's service and like their ethos. I listened to the pitch and thought if BT is going to give me a better deal I guess I should take it. And, I know they are a professional organisation that delivers: before I switched their customer service was very good.
But there was a slip. Since the slip they have been pretty good in sorting the problem out and they have apologised. What worries me is that they slipped. I won't go into details, suffice to say there was confusion over what exactly they were offering me.
They failed to deliver on their brand promise. The result is I have returned to the Phone Co-op and have decided to rent my line from them as well. With so many providers out there no organisation can afford to make basic mistakes because people will go elsewhere.
I should declare an interest here. I have invested the sum of £30 in the Co-op.
Sadly, I have my own story to tell. I have been using the Phone Co-op for my calls and paying BT for line rental. BT has been pushing hard to bring customers back and two weeks ago I got the pitch. I was perfectly happy with the Phone Co-op's service and like their ethos. I listened to the pitch and thought if BT is going to give me a better deal I guess I should take it. And, I know they are a professional organisation that delivers: before I switched their customer service was very good.
But there was a slip. Since the slip they have been pretty good in sorting the problem out and they have apologised. What worries me is that they slipped. I won't go into details, suffice to say there was confusion over what exactly they were offering me.
They failed to deliver on their brand promise. The result is I have returned to the Phone Co-op and have decided to rent my line from them as well. With so many providers out there no organisation can afford to make basic mistakes because people will go elsewhere.
I should declare an interest here. I have invested the sum of £30 in the Co-op.
Sunday, 16 March 2008
Facebook groups: why?
I have been having a Facebook group dilemma. When I joined Facebook I signed up to quite a few of these. And as one builds up friends on the social networking site the tendency is for people to invite you to join a group they have formed or know about it.
This is one aspect of social networking. And it can work very well. I noticed someone who works in PR, and who I repsect, had become a member of the PR and Communications Network. I joined. Subsequently, I have gone to several real events. It has been useful professionally and socially.
Other groups work like social or political graffiti. You join because you want to say yes to their cause. But what happens if the group doesn't do very much?
At this point I should admit to listing as my favourite quote the Groucho Marx line: I would never join a club that would have me as a member.
On that basis I probably shouldn't be on Facebook at all and I certainly shouldn't be joining any groups. To add to my hypocrisy, I started up The Jack Taxable Group for the CIOT on Facebook. Thus I double my sin by encouraging people to join a group.
With The Jack Taxable Group I make sure I regulalry post press releases and email the members about things they might find useful.
To resolve my dilemma, I left groups that never did anything except exist and stayed a member of ones that hold events or send me messages. Of course, there is always an exception to the rule. I stayed with one about stopping hate being used in political campaigning because I felt this was very worth while. And my new rule is not to join a group unless it actually does something.
This is one aspect of social networking. And it can work very well. I noticed someone who works in PR, and who I repsect, had become a member of the PR and Communications Network. I joined. Subsequently, I have gone to several real events. It has been useful professionally and socially.
Other groups work like social or political graffiti. You join because you want to say yes to their cause. But what happens if the group doesn't do very much?
At this point I should admit to listing as my favourite quote the Groucho Marx line: I would never join a club that would have me as a member.
On that basis I probably shouldn't be on Facebook at all and I certainly shouldn't be joining any groups. To add to my hypocrisy, I started up The Jack Taxable Group for the CIOT on Facebook. Thus I double my sin by encouraging people to join a group.
With The Jack Taxable Group I make sure I regulalry post press releases and email the members about things they might find useful.
To resolve my dilemma, I left groups that never did anything except exist and stayed a member of ones that hold events or send me messages. Of course, there is always an exception to the rule. I stayed with one about stopping hate being used in political campaigning because I felt this was very worth while. And my new rule is not to join a group unless it actually does something.
A cut above blogger: Alix Mortimer
There are many well written and interesting blogs. But there is one that has its own distinct voice with a take on the issues that is decidely liberal without hectoring. Normally, if I like a post I discuss it and provide a link. But, I simply want to encourage people to have a read of Alix Mortimer's blog.
Friday, 7 March 2008
Mad Men
Mad Men arrived on British television this week. It can be seen on BBC Four on Sundays and on BBC Two on Thursdays.
Set in the 1960s, Mad Men tells the tale of the ad execs of Madison Avenue. Its central focus is Don Draper, a Creative Director on the edge. He is as amoral and cynical: exactly as the stereotype requires. Given that Draper's job is to sell a brand or narrative, is his own narrative a lie he puts out to excuse himself from what he does? Only time will tell and it is absolutely clear from the first episode that the show deserves your undivided attention.
Created by Matthew Weiner, a scriptwriter on The Sopranos, the programme is exceptionally well executed. And it is peppered with terrific jokes. Some are only for those who know their history, others for those who know the industry. My two favourites, so far, are the comment about how absurd it would be to put a skull and crossbones on a cigarette packet (it was done a few years back) and the dismissal of Sigmund Freud's ideas because he doesn't own an agency (except Freud does now, not Sigmund but Matthew).
Enjoy.
Set in the 1960s, Mad Men tells the tale of the ad execs of Madison Avenue. Its central focus is Don Draper, a Creative Director on the edge. He is as amoral and cynical: exactly as the stereotype requires. Given that Draper's job is to sell a brand or narrative, is his own narrative a lie he puts out to excuse himself from what he does? Only time will tell and it is absolutely clear from the first episode that the show deserves your undivided attention.
Created by Matthew Weiner, a scriptwriter on The Sopranos, the programme is exceptionally well executed. And it is peppered with terrific jokes. Some are only for those who know their history, others for those who know the industry. My two favourites, so far, are the comment about how absurd it would be to put a skull and crossbones on a cigarette packet (it was done a few years back) and the dismissal of Sigmund Freud's ideas because he doesn't own an agency (except Freud does now, not Sigmund but Matthew).
Enjoy.
Calamity or clever?
In the 24/7 world we live in people are quick to judge. The press and blog response about the referendum vote and how Nick Clegg handled it was fairly damaging and issued very quickly. It was assumed that what Clegg did was a miscalculation. That led to people talking about ineptitude and to begin questioning how good a leader he is.
But this morning Nick Robinson posted his thoughts - Lib Dems get noticed. If his analysis is right, things could have been a whole lot worse for the Liberal Democrats. According to Robinson, the majority of the parliamentary party might have voted for a referendum and the few Lib Dems voting against would have included Nick Clegg. If that is the case one can imagine the headlines the following day.
But this morning Nick Robinson posted his thoughts - Lib Dems get noticed. If his analysis is right, things could have been a whole lot worse for the Liberal Democrats. According to Robinson, the majority of the parliamentary party might have voted for a referendum and the few Lib Dems voting against would have included Nick Clegg. If that is the case one can imagine the headlines the following day.
Wednesday, 5 March 2008
Barack Obama
It looks like the Democratic race for the Presidential nomination could go to the wire. Obama continues to be the candidate of change: the yes we can generation, while Clinton offers a vision of getting it done. One charge that Hilary lays at Barack's door is that there is little substance underneath the inspirational speeches.
Steve Johnson has reproduced part of an article that says Barack Obama wants to be the President that encourages what Johnson has called 'emergence'. In his book of that name, Johnson describes how people make individual decisions that lead to change for communities. He argues that these ideas helped the development of open source software. Politically and socially it is a sort of organic empowerment.
This vision goes to the core of what America is about, it is liberal and not conservative or social democratic. And perhaps part of the reason Obama is successful in bringing over Republican voters is that it appeals to their belief in 'rugged individualism'. The twist is that Obama doesn't have a problem using government to make it happen. For it to work his Administration would need to recognise where to draw the line and pull the government back from trying to manipulate outcomes.
Steve Johnson has reproduced part of an article that says Barack Obama wants to be the President that encourages what Johnson has called 'emergence'. In his book of that name, Johnson describes how people make individual decisions that lead to change for communities. He argues that these ideas helped the development of open source software. Politically and socially it is a sort of organic empowerment.
This vision goes to the core of what America is about, it is liberal and not conservative or social democratic. And perhaps part of the reason Obama is successful in bringing over Republican voters is that it appeals to their belief in 'rugged individualism'. The twist is that Obama doesn't have a problem using government to make it happen. For it to work his Administration would need to recognise where to draw the line and pull the government back from trying to manipulate outcomes.
Sunday, 2 March 2008
Google reader v Bloglines
A few months ago I realised that I needed a better way to track the blogs and news pages that I read. I was aware of RSS feeds but had yet to get to grips with them.
Then I heard about bloglines and set my feeds up on that. I had a look at Google reader but for some reason couldn't quite understand how it worked. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of Google. I find everything they produce simple, intuitive and useful. I am writing this blog on Blogger, software provided by Google. I have a Google email account, have just started using iGoogle and use the Google caldendar. I have also got word and excel documents saved in Google documents for emergencies.
But for some reason I couldn't figure out reader. Maybe I was having a bad day.
Instead I began using bloglines. It is easy to use and it seemed a good product. But after a while it wasn't picking up feeds. Nor was it updating that regularly. This was happening with one feed in particular. And it was a feed I needed t keep an eye on for work.
So I decided to try Google reader. Once I did, I realised it was as good as every other Google product and service. Reliable, efficient and easy to use. It updates very regularly and stores several stories from the same feed unlike bloglines.
And with iGoogle I can keep up with the feeds and mail on one page.
Then I heard about bloglines and set my feeds up on that. I had a look at Google reader but for some reason couldn't quite understand how it worked. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of Google. I find everything they produce simple, intuitive and useful. I am writing this blog on Blogger, software provided by Google. I have a Google email account, have just started using iGoogle and use the Google caldendar. I have also got word and excel documents saved in Google documents for emergencies.
But for some reason I couldn't figure out reader. Maybe I was having a bad day.
Instead I began using bloglines. It is easy to use and it seemed a good product. But after a while it wasn't picking up feeds. Nor was it updating that regularly. This was happening with one feed in particular. And it was a feed I needed t keep an eye on for work.
So I decided to try Google reader. Once I did, I realised it was as good as every other Google product and service. Reliable, efficient and easy to use. It updates very regularly and stores several stories from the same feed unlike bloglines.
And with iGoogle I can keep up with the feeds and mail on one page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)