Twitter, Facebook, and similar information sharing social media networks usually inform followers what someone is doing, what is new with them, or what is on their mind. However, former governor Rod Blagojevich are using social media to update followers on their corruption trial. This is a slightly different way to incorporate social media into one’s daily life. Talk about finding a new way to get the media on your side. Blagojevich’s corruption trial involving his activities while governor of Illinois began this week and Blagojevich tweeted that he was excited for the trial to begin. Blagojevich is charged with racketeering, bribery conspiracy, extortion, and wire fraud. Clearly, Blagojevich is using social media to his advantage. He has constantly affirmed that he did nothing wrong while he was in office and revealed his confidence again via Twitter saying, “The truth is on our side.”

Former Governor Rod Blagojevich
Often, media is restricted in high profile court proceedings. Here, Blagojevich is doing his part to share what is happening inside with everyone interested on the outside. This brings up a unique issue between those in the public eye and the public itself. I feel that frequently we here celebrities, politicians, and other high profile individuals complaining about a lack of privacy. They say they are never actually alone and that they don’t like what it has done to their daily lives. In this case, Blagojevich is inviting the public to be more involved in his life. Most politicians would prefer to keep events inside the court room strictly inside the court room, regardless of guilt or innocence. I find it intriguing that Blagojevich’s newest campaign is not for an election, but merely for support and he eliminates all barriers in his power to reach his audience. Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, and YouTube provide the means to share any information with social media users. This is both good and bad information; biased and unbiased. There is also a greater element of freedom which is also a risk. Politicians know this. Celebrities know this. That being said, is there really room for a private life when you put yourself in the public eye? It will be interesting to see if Blagojevich can win a victory of support through his information sharing as the trial goes on. Despite any public favor gained through his latest campaign, those inside the court will be the ones to decide regardless of how many tweets Blagojevich makes protesting his innocence.
The major news network CNN and anchor Rick Sanchez have bridged the gap between airtime and watchers. Rick’s List airs daily from 3-5 pm ET on CNN during which Rick discusses hot topics, news, and other issues, which sounds like any ordinary news show. The catch is this: Rick uses social media to connect to watchers in real time. He shows on air the tweets at him and facebook wall posts consumers leave in response to different segments on the show allowing the audience to actually participate in the broadcast! Prior to the show, Rick will even ask his twitter followers for input. Recently, Al and Tipper Gore have announced their plans to separate. The Gulf Spill is still suffering massive setbacks to stop the oil from spewing out. Israel unrest is becoming a major threat and concern for the US. In response to these events, Rick asked his followers “u guys want more gore, oil, or Israeli?” via twitter giving them the chance to weigh in on what they want to hear about.
The downside to this infiltration of social media and news is that it leaves room for bias. Rick’s recent tweet exemplifies what I’m getting at. On the news of the Gore separation, “Breaking News! We just got word about the Gores. Working guests now. What do you think? How much of this is NEWS & how much GOSSIP?” That is the question: how much of this is gossip and how much is real? This feeds into a bigger issue. How much of this is opinion and how much is fact? The news is supposed to be an unbiased representation of what is occurring in the world at-large. Yes, the audience deserves to have its voice be heard but in an already dramatically polarized society, have we crossed the line? Is there still such a thing as an unbiased media?
The ongoing war in Iraq does not appear to be coming to an end anytime soon. Our troops have been out there risking their lives and fighting for our country and their loved ones. Many of the men and women stationed out there are away from their families, boyfriends girlfriends and friends for at least a year a time with maybe one or two weeks of leave to visit, definitely making it hard on the soldier and his or her loved ones. But our soldiers now are in a different league then the men from World War II, Vietnam and even the Gulf War, they have the internet at their disposal. Social media allows them to keep in constant contact with their family and friends.
It may seem insignificant to you and I- we see our friends and family all the time, and may take Facebook and Skype for granted, however, for our troops overseas, it keeps them in the loop. they can see their children grow, they can make Skype dates with their girlfriends and wives and have an instant chat on Facebook or AIM with their friends. The thought that social media was keeping our troops sane and happy never crossed my mind until last week when a friend of mine sent me an instant chat on Facebook. He is stationed in Iraq and will be there for another 10 months, yet we were able to chat and catch up as if he was just around the corner. He was telling me that he Skypes with his wife once a week and loves to see new pictures that she uploads; often times that is the best part of his day. To talk to my friend, and to hear him tell me how much he values social media really hit me hard. It reminded me to not take the information that is passed and the conversations had for granted. It also reminded me of the power that the internet has and how social media is breaking so many barriers that once existed.
Here is the first of 3 great blog articles on Social Media & Politics, written by Jackson West of SF Appeal Online Newspaper.

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other popular sites for publishing online have become ubiquitous in the news media, if not in everyone’s actual day to day lives. Recently, public officials have successfully made it onto the bandwagon by adopting these tools in their campaigns, fundraising, volunteer recruitment and, of course, garnering publicity. But are these tools truly being used to connect directly to voters and their concerns, or are they just another way to campaign?
Barack Obama certainly made hay online, with plaudits, publicity and private contributions rolling in over the course of the campaign thanks to a popular Twitter stream, Facebook chatter, and a social network, MyBarackObama.com, powered by software from local company Six Apart. Yet once elected, the new media music died. His Twitter stream went silent for weeks, and only four updates have been made since election day.
Local politicians who are “tweeting,” or regularly posting messages to Twitter, include State Attorney General Jerry Brown, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, State Senator Leland Yee, State Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, and San Francisco Board of Supervisors Clerk Angela Calvillo, on the Board’s behalf. Befitting a brand new form of communication, they’re all using it differently. The one common thread is that they would presumably all be relatively easy to reach, especially by a constituent and member of the press.
Adriel Hampton works as an investigator for the San Francisco City Attorney’s office and has kicked off a congressional campaign for California’s tenth district. An avid user of Twitter personally, he maintains a profile on Facebook, and is an active participant in a social network called GovLoop, where public employees are exploring ways to better connect public service with private taxpayers. It was at his urging that the City Attorney’s office created an account on Twitter.
“We’re trying to be transparent and apolitical in a way that advances the public interest, the public’s right to know and builds public trust in the office,” Hampton said of the tone and impetus of discussion on the site. Certainly transparency and authenticity seem to be two benefits most often cited by proponents using these new communications tools in government.
Some of the decisions made San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and his large communications staff and coterie of campaign aides seem to belie those types of good intentions. Newsom recently used Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to officially announce his entry into California’s 2010 gubernatorial election, garnering much media coverage and a few donations in the process.
Newsom’s aides in City Hall and his campaign team have been using these and other online tools for some time, but his office is not known for embracing radical transparency. For instance, while Newsom’s account often features replies to other Twitter users, responding to questions from the press is another matter. Repeated emails to his press secretary Nathan Ballard went unanswered (as did an email to Newsom’s likely gubernatorial opponent Brown).
Maybe the emails got lost in the shuffle. So why not play along and get in touch using Twitter? Because asking questions publicly using the service’s reply feature has gotten reporters in hot water.
“We don’t ask the mayor questions on his Twitter feed,” said San Francisco Chronicle city desk editor Audrey Cooper. There’s no need, she argued. “A press office has a lot of different ways to communicate with the press.” And they probably won’t start any time soon, especially in the wake of San Francisco Bay Guardian reporter Steven T. Jones’ experience.

Having been blocked from accessing Newsom’s updates after he asked a question publicly, Jones was accused of “flaming” or harassing the mayor online, and declared the equivalent of a -DCohn1 5/3/09 2:05 AM “troll” by Ballard. Not that it came as a particular surprise to Jones. “We’ve literally had the office door shut in our face before,” he said of his paper’s relationship with the mayor’s communications team.
So tools like Twitter don’t necessarily level the playing field for access, but they do offer an opportunity to make an end run around tough questions from critics and appeal directly to potential supporters without having to go through traditional media channels.
Tomorrow, in part two of this three part series, we’ll take a look at how well online tools work for organizing and funding campaigns. A candidate who could win office with only passionate volunteers and lots of small donations would presumably prove less beholden to the status quo of institutional support and corporate interests. Sounds great in theory, but does it work in practice?
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Wired:
“In-Q-Tel, the investment arm of the CIA and the wider intelligence community, is putting cash into Visible Technologies, a software firm that specializes in monitoring social media. It’s part of a larger movement within the spy services to get better at using ‘open source intelligence’ — information that’s publicly available… Visible Technologies crawls over half a million web 2.0 sites a day, scraping more than a million posts and conversations taking place on blogs, online forums, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter and Amazon. (It doesn’t touch closed social networks, like Facebook, at the moment.) Customers get customized, real-time feeds of what’s being said on these sites, based on a series of keywords. ‘That’s kind of the basic step — get in and monitor,’ says company senior vice president Blake Cahill. Then Visible ’scores’ each post, labeling it as positive or negative, mixed or neutral. It examines how influential a conversation or an author is. (’Trying to determine who really matters,’ as Cahill puts it.) Finally, Visible gives users a chance to tag posts, forward them to colleagues and allow them to response through a web interface.”
Apropos: Another anonymous reader points out an article making the point that users don’t even realize how much private information they’re sharing over these services.