Facebook on The Huffington Post

Job Hunting Tips: 5 Simple Ways To Get A Job This Holiday Season

2009-12-22T15:46:29Z

There are five easy things you can do right now, in December, while you're cramming your face with sugar and carbs, to set yourself up for a successful job search in January.

Ru Freeman: Facebook Etiquette for Authors

2009-12-21T14:54:11Z

A lot has been written about Facebook's various attempts to mis/manage our online data. In general, I am of the opinion that we can forgo a few minutes of updating our status about, say, whether or not we've brushed our teeth or exactly how many papers we have left to grade, in order to take charge of our own privacy settings. We do not need Mark Zuckerberg to hold our hand or reassure us. Come on, people, aren't we all more grown up than that by now? The real problem is that many of us writers have begun to use Facebook for marketing rather than for networking. This irked me so much that I had to update my status thus:

"I don't buy things from telemarketers or from direct marketing mailings to my address. I won't suddenly think it is a brilliant idea to buy things marketed to me on FB. Which is to say, FB is a place to browse and consider, but rarely to buy. Unless you are far more interesting than your product."

'Tis the season when people who have things to sell - be they Chop-Yer-Own-Fir Farms or Independent booksellers or, indeed, authors - have to give their wares an extra push. I know. But after the zillionth status update in the course of three months about one book or another streaming onto my screen via Facebook's live news feed, I realized that we were all descending, en masse, into a vast swamp of self-promotion that is just not becoming of the writerly class. So, with the blessings of a few good people who happen to be authors, I have come up with ten-step pathway to grace for writers. Here goes:

Rule #1. Share information about the successes of your writer friends more frequently than you share information about your own. Bragging is never pretty but it is particularly tiresome on Facebook. An indication that you are overdoing the self-promotional posts? More 'likes this' checks and few or no comments. There is a lot more exposure for your book when it is talked up on someone else's wall where it is more likely to be seen by people who may have never heard of your existence, than the exposure you might get when it is talked up on yours. So, return the favor.

Rule #2. When responding to a comment left on your wall by a fellow writer, do so on their wall, not yours. When you write a response on your wall, you are kind of talking to yourself. Unless they keep revisiting you in which case they need to learn the lyrics to 'I Can Be Your Facebook Stalker' and broadcast themselves on YouTube. Again, when you write on their wall you expand your FB world. This is what networking is all about.

Rule #3. If you truly just want to talk about yourself and your book, be straight about it and set up a Fan page. Nobody is forced to join your fan page and you can go crazy-mad with self-referential information on it if you truly want to and it's okay. Your fans won't mind and your friends (who wouldn't be fans if they didn't want to support you and who probably already know everything you are talking about), will simply ignore it.

Rule #4. Don't join Facebook because you've heard it is a Good Way To Promote Your Book. It is a good way to promote your book, but it is primarily a - say it with me - Tool for Networking. That's right. It's a bar. It's a soirée, it's a gigantic party, it's a flat out junket, but it is not Ebay, it is not Etsy, it is not LastMinuteDeals, it is notAmazon.com.

Rule #5. When you do - and you should! - post some good news about your book, short story, essay, blog posts etc., keep it light. Learn from these pros:

Jennine Capó Crucet Check it out! HTLH named a Best Book of 2009 on the Latinidad List! (Note: Non-Latinos are welcome to read any of these books as well. We're cool.)

(the Latinidad List)

Marie Mockett In which I explain that, no, I am not a vegetarian (and never have been) and why I think a ghost is scarier than your generic western devil.

(the nervousbreakdown interview)

Antonya Nelson promises never ever to do this again (please don't HIDE me!) but wishes to announce the publication of paperback Nothing Right. Is it fit for holiday gifting? Probably not. Will it make you feel like hanging out with or hugging your family? Doubtful. And yet, I announce its arrival nonetheless. And now I solemnly... renounce any further shameless self-promotion on facebook.

Rule #6. If you are genuinely thrilled about the success enjoyed by a friend - and posted by them on FB - write it, share it, brag on their behalf. The 'likes this' icon should only be clicked if your friend is breaking Rule #1. Or there's a psychopath at your door and you have no time for more than a quick click before you do whatever you have to do at such moments. Otherwise, get serious about getting happy for them. Like in various other situations in our lives, both on and off the page, faking it just kind of fake.

Rule #7. Express gratitude to the magazine editors, bloggers, online reviewers who carry or praise your work. Make that an ongoing expression of gratitude by keeping up with the other artists they carry or praise, and by handing over at least a few of your updates to talking about them.

Rule #8. It's okay to friend people you find interesting judging by their erudite posts on other peoples' walls. All they can say is no. Don't freak out and talk about it on your wall; aren't we all immune to rejection by this time?

Rule #9. It is okay to friend someone who happens to be friends with more than seventy five other writers. Chances are they are one of two things: a writer or a reader and do we really have a beef with either group? And don't we all know that when we get a friend invite from someone it doesn't necessarily mean they want to couch-surf at our place next time they are in town but rather, would like to keep up with whatever it is we are doing or saying for a few minutes each day? Well, maybe more than a few minutes, but still.

Rule #10. Every now and again, throw out something interesting to enliven our web-surf-dead brains. Here are a few favorites:

Alexander Chee is cold as ______________________.
Which generated responses ranging from "Joe Lieberman's conscience" to "an overused simile."

Cheryl Strayed Note to holiday card senders: if two people marry and both keep their names, they are not "Mr. & Mrs. Husband's name" nor are they "The Husband's Name Family." Is that really so hard?

Antonya Nelson Holiday Hostess Hint #3 True or false: Pouring cheap (plastic-bounces-back-to-the-bum's-hand-when-he-drops-the-bottle-type) vodka through a Brita water filter twenty times will result in an elixir of Grey Goose quality. (True.)

Giuseppe Taurino is wondering what happens to people who die at home? The interweb is giving me conflicting info about how you get from a) finding a body to b) getting it to the funeral home.

Meakin Armstrong Oh, the stupid drama of rewriting something on deadline. I should just sell ice cream from a truck. We'd all be happier.
Fave response: "food trucks are really 'in' right now."

Jen De Leon always thought it was 'up and adam' but recently learned it's 'up and at them.'
Response #1: "Pretty sure my mom used to get me out of bed with, 'Up and at 'em, Adam Ant.' Who is Adam Ant?"

Who indeed. Happy networking!

Mark Blankenship: What Does It Mean When British Pop Fans Rage Against the Machine?

2009-12-21T11:09:35Z

How often do the pop charts become a tool for a social statement? This week in Britain, that's just what they are.

Every year in the U.K., the pop singles chart that's dated for Christmas week is a very big deal. Music fans and media outlets attach enormous significance to whatever song happens to hit number one that week, as it tends to be the highest sales week of the year. (Unlike the Billboard Hot 100 in America, which ranks singles based on sales, airplay, and live streaming from top music websites, the U.K. chart is compiled entirely from sales data.)

Artists like the Beatles and Cliff Richard (a U.K. superstar) have topped the Christmas chart, as have recent British biggies like Spice Girls. There's also a tradition of actual Christmas songs (i.e. "Do They Know It's Christmas?") taking the top spot.

Since 2005, however, the Christmas-week number one has been a song by the winner of X Factor, the American Idol-like competition show that Simon Cowell hosts in Britain. Since each season's winner releases their coronation single (meaning the song they sing the night they win the show) just in time for the Christmas week chart, it understandably zooms to the top.

Is this a slick marketing move on the part of X Factor? Absolutely. By timing their victory show with Christmas Week, the producers are carefully manipulating the public for maximum results.

Not that X Factor only matters a Christmastime. Just like with American Idol, established artists who perform on X Factor almost always see their singles zoom up the next week's chart.

For some people, this type of dominance is infuriating, since it lets X Factor's particular brand of pop dominate the U.K. music charts. (Think Leona Lewis, who rose to fame on the show.)

This year, a Facebook group was created to do something about that. The plan? Rally people across the U.K. to buy online copies of Rage Against the Machine's 1992 song "Killing in the Name" during the sales period covered in the Christmas week chart. Since the U.K. chart is based entirely on sales and allows any track to chart, no matter how old it is, it was conceivable that if enough people bought the Rage song that it would zoom to number one ahead of X Factor's latest winner.

And that's what happened. Selling over 500,000 digital copies, "Killing in the Name" hit number one for the U.K. Christmas week ahead of X Factor winner Joe McElderry's cover of "The Climb," originally by Miley Cyrus. The McElderry single sold around 450,000 copies and easily would have topped the chart without this grassroots campaign. (For that matter, sales that high would've let it top the American chart, too.)

In one way, this is a crazy-awesome coup. A true rage against the machine of corporate entertainment. Some random kids on Facebook decided to protest X Factor and challenge its market-savvy release structure, and they succeeded.

Their victory suggests that many people in the U.K. are disdainful of the show and its music. The U.K. chart company has systems in place to keep, like, one guy from downloading 300,000 copies of a song and skewing the chart, so this really can be seen as a large-scale countercultural protest.

As Billboard.com reports, Rage Against the Machine are responding to this sudden movement by donating most of the proceeds to charity and playing a free show in England. So the protester's purchases will lead to charitable donations and free live music. That's cool.

Personally, I enjoy seeing a public movement gain so much momentum. I mean, I don't especially care for RAtM, and anyone I enjoy a lot of the pop music dispensed from Simon Cowell's empire, but it's just exciting to see a campaign like this take hold. Like the Twitter movement that reported on the post-election riots in Iran, this gesture demonstrates that "the people" can use technology to upset the so-called "natural order" created by those in power.

Not that the U.K. singles chart is as important as the riots in Iran, of course, but the underlying premise is the same.

It's also true that this type of action doesn't mean anything by itself. If people really want to change the way popular music is distributed and consumed in Britain, then they'll have to do more than buy some old rock song. But what if by demonstrating the enormous dissatisfaction that many people have with the way things are, the Christmas Chart Massacre is the first step toward some kind of real change? I'm not calling for the end of Simon Cowell's influence---it's not going to happen, and again, I like a lot of the pop he's ushered into the world---but I would be inspired to see something so grassroots create a long-lasting impact on popular culture. Power to the people!

On the other hand, this entire brouhaha could be construed as the apex of jerkdom. It's like that kid in your high school who said you were an idiot for liking a network sitcom, and that you couldn't possibly understand A Catcher in the Rye, just managed to get elected head of the prom committee. And now the theme of the prom is "Killing in the Name," and the decorations will be black, and anyone caught humming "The Climb" in the bathroom will be mocked over a loudspeaker. What's being presented as a thrilling turn of the tables could also been seen as a spiteful chance to get back at a vaguely identified force that makes some people feel pushed to the outside of the culture.

James Masterton, who writes about the U.K. charts for Yahoo.com, decries the Rage victory like this:

Proper music fans will see it as a matter of some considerable regret that the biggest selling single of the week is not a record that has been bought by people appreciating the way it sounds but instead downloaded by people because it was a joke, something that seemed like a good idea, a misguided statement against something they didn't previously know they disagreed with or because a guy they knew on Facebook sent them a message suggesting that they do it. If ever there was a downside to the free for all that the download era of music brought to the table then this is it, a record topping the charts in a drive by attack and for the most part purchased by people for what it represents rather than as a reflection of its cultural popularity and the way it actually sounds. Just as Elton John and his turgid Diana record sits as a stain on the list of biggest selling singles, so too the Christmas Number One of 2009 forever requires a footnote to explain the reasons behind it. I can't pretend that is anything particularly worth celebrating. That said, having just seen the instigator of the campaign appear on Sky News and suggest with a straight face that "the chart doesn't represent the music that people in the UK like" it is a matter of some considerable joy to note that people have participated in bringing to fruition an idea conjured up by a total idiot.

I certainly see his point. Right now, though, I'm still coming down on the side of the rebellion, just because these things so rarely happen.

If this becomes a trend and, say, "Bulls on Parade" hits the top for Valentine's Day, it'll be annoying. Ultimately, the U.K. charts really should reflect the music that people like. That's helpful and interesting information. But taking one week to remember that the people can speak in unexpected ways is helpful, too.

For more, please join me at The Critical Condition

Facebook Fueling Divorce: STUDY

2009-12-21T08:58:29Z

The social networking site, which connects old friends and allows users to make new ones online, is being blamed for an increasing number of marital breakdowns.

Divorce lawyers claim the explosion in the popularity of websites such as Facebook and Bebo is tempting to people to cheat on their partners.

Andy Selsberg: Breaking Up And Old Love Lessons: Change Your Passwords

2009-12-18T11:45:52Z

Curating "Dear Old Love", a website and now book of short, anonymous notes to old loves, has provided me with an email box full of insight into the ways relationships pull apart. This evidence is highly unscientific, largely because the site's most active users skew young. "Dear Old Love", like much of pop music, is oiled with the blood of teen heartbreak and yearning. (Well, also collegiate and 20-something heartbreak and yearning.) Still, there are some universal patterns to splitting up, and from these patterns maybe I can provide a little bit of guidance and advice.

First, if a relationship ends badly, change your passwords! I am amazed by the number of submissions I've gotten about situations where an affair has ended, but one party is still poking around the other's email or Facebook account. The primary "Dear Old Love" lament on this topic is: "Please change your email password. I'm addicted." We just can't help ourselves.

It would probably also be prudent to change the passions and interests you use to generate passwords. Proof is this ex who wonders if a former love and ardent Yankee fan updated his password "to reflect the 27 wins." I know of some older folks who continue to have a "family" email address, often an old AOL, that's joint property. This baffles me. In this Age of the Overshare--condos and hotels with glass walls, scatological blogs (I assume), our email seems to be a last zone of privacy--nobody else knows exactly what our inbox looks like. I figured we take these accounts with us to the grave. And yet, young people are sharing not only their bodies and hearts, but their passwords. Who is ready for that level of intimacy? No one. But if you're going to be promiscuous about this stuff, do a password sweep after you cut it off. However, the following technique of one Dear Old Lover is not necessarily recommended: "You'd shake your head when I couldn't remember passwords. I've changed them all to something I can't forget: your name."

Online networking has made parting ways a lot stickier since when we loved in analog. In college, my friends and I liked to say, "Clean break!" Rarely was this motto followed, but it was simple at least to know what you were supposed to do: After you break up, don't call or have sex with them. That's it! And news of exes wasn't always easy to come by. You had to wait for someone you knew to run into someone they knew. Or sometimes for parents to run into parents. Now, when you get mixed up on the the web, it's temping to keep an eye on an ex: "I'm still waiting for the day I check the boy I'm dating's Facebook page before yours." A search for "Facebook" yields 29 "Dear Old Love" notes (nearly 200 have been submitted on the topic)--from creeped out to devastated.

Obviously, I can't suggest that when starting with someone new you avoid all online interaction. New relationships are nurtured, if not born, online. The intertwining of various web-fingers is now one of the thrills of courtship. So, we might just do well to revise the classic breakup line to say, "I think we should just be friends. But not on the internet."

Going lo-fi, I'm surprised by the number of submissions that reference bathroom implements, but I shouldn't be. Toothbrushes have long been a tangible sign of intimacy. Do you share one? Do you keep one at his place? If you believe in toothbrush voodoo, you should probably do whatever it takes to get your brush back after a rough split. Otherwise, you might end up with a funny taste in your mouth. As one note declares, "I finally threw out your toothbrush, but before I tossed it I used it to clean the toilet. I've never enjoyed cleaning the bathroom more." If you don't believe in toothbrush voodoo, this is at least an oblique way of encouraging, if not exactly doing, more housework.

Then again, there may not be any reason to worry about changing passwords or chasing down toothbrushes. While the site proves bitterness is out there, it also highlights much fondness: "Snowfalls, to me, are your body under mine, on a sled, flying." No matter how jerky you were, someone may very well be masturbating to you. Whether you're losing your hair or holding onto it, it's likely being thought about. And chances are good that even if you don't celebrate your birthday any more, there is some old lover who still does, whether they want to or not.

Facebook Privacy Tips: 9 Ways To Protect Your Privacy On Facebook

2009-12-17T16:19:19Z

NEW YORK — Over the past week, Facebook has been nudging its users – first gently, then firmly – to review and update their privacy settings.

You may have procrastinated by hitting "skip for now," but Facebook eventually took away that button and forced you to update your settings before continuing to use the site.

Facebook Privacy Changes Spark Federal Complaint

2009-12-17T15:09:20Z

NEW YORK — A Washington-based privacy advocacy group and nine other organizations have filed a complaint against Facebook over the social network's latest privacy changes.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center said Thursday it has asked the Federal Trade Commission to look into the changes Facebook has made to its users' privacy settings and to force Facebook to restore its old privacy safeguards.

Facebook Makes Anniversaries The New Birthdays

2009-12-17T10:02:21Z

Since the beginning, Facebook has incorporated birthdays into its social DNA. Part of the fun and utility of Facebook is wishing each of your friends a Happy Birthday note on their walls while rushing to the store to buy gifts for them at the last minute.

Now Facebook is (finally) including another important annual celebration into the social network's mix: the anniversary.

The Village Church Updates Status Of Pastor Matt Chandler Via Twitter, Facebook

2009-12-16T18:09:01Z

The Village Church, a megachurch in Texas encompassing three communities, is utilizing the social networking sites Twitter and Facebook to update its parish and others on the status of its Pastor Matt Chandler.

Chandler was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor and had a 7-hour surgery earlier this month to remove the tumor.

But today, Chandler's doctor said the tumor was not encapsulated.

This afternoon, The Village Church shared the grim news, posting to its more than 8,000 followers on Twitter (@villagechurchtx), "Pastor\'s Blog: Pathology results revealed http://bit.ly/6h4JYc."

Due to server overload on its Web site, The Village Church posted the information again but this time linking to Facebook as a note.

The Village Church, which has campuses in Flower Mound, Denton and Dallas Northway, has been overwhelmed with responses. The Twitter update has been circulating via tweets all day and the Facebook note has received 66 comments (and counting).

Caroline Giegerich: Picture Yourself in Times Square: I'm on TV

2009-12-16T17:06:26Z

Sunday, December 13th, 2009. 1:00PM. Times Square. If you happened to be walking through the tourist-infested crowd in Times Square over the weekend, you might have seen me and my red hoodie smiling back at you. My inner monologue would have been, "I don't know why you're braving Times Square at the holidays in the rain either."

As part of Toshiba's countdown to New Year's Eve, the company is launching a marketing campaign dubbed "I'm on TV." Eighteen videos will be selected each day to air up to three times on Toshiba's LED screen in Times Square. Participants are asked to record their vision for the next decade in eight seconds of silent video. Several of the submitted videos will then be chosen to air on New Year's Eve during the countdown festivities from 6 p.m. to midnight.

The social marketer in me feels like this campaign missed pretty much every aspect of social opportunity in focusing on the glamour of Times Square.

Viral Opportunities Lost

Video Post to Twitter, Facebook, etc: Give each user an easy way to post their video immediately to Twitter or Facebook and advertise the campaign to friends. Based on the Times Square Alliance, an ad in Times Square generates about 1.5 million impressions a day. On New Year's Eve, that number rises exponentially. So yes, Times Square generates some serious awareness. Social networks like Facebook and Twitter apply a different sort of marketing, one that prioritizes engagement over the number of impressions. As a marketer, the opportunity to have someone not only see something about your brand but interact with it is priceless. Quality and critical mass is the ideal.

Email videos to a friend. The Elf Yourself campaign has used this simple feature to virally spread their notes of personalized Christmas cheer. This campaign would clearly benefit. After a video has been selected and broadcast, Toshiba sends an email with a link to the 18 videos to each user. I don't want to see 18 videos. I just want to see mine. Plus, I'm guessing my friends and family don't want to sit through 17 videos to see my silly face either.

Facebook Connect: Simply, allowing a user to log in with their Facebook details provides additional demographic data and provides a seamless user experience. Log-in shouldn't be required but offered if so interested.

Foursquare: Create a Times Square badge for those users who have successfully made it to the big screen. If that user has enabled Twitter in their Foursquare settings, this new badge message will also been communicated via the social network.

Mash-ups: Allow friends and family to stitch their videos together with pre-selected music options to easily share and additionally personalize the experience.

Merchandise Opportunities: It's pretty cool to say that you were broadcast in Times Square. Allow users to remember and market the event with some merchandise.

So go, wax poetic about the New Year. I'll see you in Times Square.

Jason Pinter: Does Social Networking Kill the Author Mystique?

2009-12-16T14:42:33Z

Steven Spielberg does not record commentaries for the DVD editions of his movies. For film buffs like me, commentaries are an insightful play-by-play of just what went into the making of a film. I love listening as the director, cast, and crew provide entertaining and informative (ok, and sometimes boring) tidbits about what went into a particular scene, or sometimes simply amusing anecdotes from the set. Yet Spielberg, perhaps the most influential and popular director of the past fifty years, refuses to record commentaries. And it's not because Spielberg is an old fart, he has simply stated that he believes commentaries reduce some of the movie's magic. This got me thinking...

I have a Facebook account. Twitter page. MySpace page. Website. Blog. I even think I have an old Friendster account (come on, you know you used to have one too). All of these were started after my first book deal in the Spring of 2006, in the hopes of reaching readers and building an audience through the magic of online social networking. And I'm far from the only one who had that idea.

With just a few clicks, you can find hundreds if not thousands of authors divulging their innermost thoughts about their books, their writing process, and occasionally the intimate and mundane details of their life. Some of these comments are interesting and insightful, offering candid looks into the process of writing and the career of publishing. Some of them are pithy, funny, irreverent, about their lives and relationships. Some are pointless, nothing more than daily itineraries or dietary choices. Some turn you off from an author entirely due to lewdness, crudeness, or endless and shameless hawking of their own wares.

So in the end, with all of this detritus floating around, does online social networking actually help authors sell books?

John Scalzi, New York Times bestselling author of Zoe's Tale and proprietor of the popular blog "Whatever" says, "A lot of people who friend or follow me are already fans, so I expect they may already know what I'm doing in terms of sales. With new people my feeling is that over time, the feeling they "know" you may increase their likelihood to take a chance on a novel. In both cases, however, you probably shouldn't assume every Facebook friend or Twitter follower is going to buy your work."

I have no doubt that some people buy books based on their online connection or discovery of an author through those means. But I also believe that what helps can also hurt if not done in moderation. I have never seen a movie based on an interview with a star or director. As a matter of fact, the oversaturation of an artist might make me less apt to try out their work (unfair, perhaps, but it's the truth). If you are subjected to a person ad nauseum, you eventually lose the curiosity factor. It becomes redundant. Familiarity breeds contempt. So I wondered ... does knowing too much about authors take away some of the magic of their books?

Growing up, I was obsessed with Stephen King. As much as I loved his books, the man himself was something of an enigma. I learned about his life only through his entertaining "Authors Notes" included in the paperback editions of his books. Even his author photos looked creepy. You looked at them and thought to yourself, yeah, this guy totally looks like the kind of person who would write about child-murdering clowns.

Now, King has written a partial memoir, On Writing (a brilliant and inspiring book, by the way). He has a pop culture column in Entertainment Weekly. He contributes numerous reviews and stories to magazines on a monthly, if not weekly basis. Now, Stephen King is, shall I say, 'grandfathered in'. He is an American icon, and not just in the literary sense. He is perhaps the most recognizable authorial name alive today after J.K. Rowling. King has remained relevant, if not vital, to popular culture. But someone like King is also the recipient of hefty marketing campaigns for every one of his books. A poor seller for him will still net hundreds of thousands of copies. His name doesn't sit above the marquee -- it is the marquee. He doesn't need to put himself out there, doesn't need all those bylines -- I think he simply enjoys it.

Yet the vast majority of authors do not have anywhere near the following of a King, Rowling, Grisham, or Meyer. Most are forced to augment relatively meager marketing and publicity budgets by drumming up noise about their own work. Most authors, I believe, are introverts. I include myself in this statement. However, Social Media has made it easier than ever for authors to 'put themselves out there'. Even the most technologically inept writers can maintain Twitter pages, cross post to a Facebook page, or do a blog tour without leaving their couch. Many writers, myself included, post several updates a day and communicate regularly with readers. Not just about our work, but about our lives. Our likes and dislikes. Anything and everything that might (or often might not) interest readers. Anything that might help us rise about the cacophony of authors trying to do the exact same thing everyone else is ... only better.

But does all of this networking white noise drown out the books? Does knowing too much about an author kill the magic?

Not necessarily. Allison Winn Scotch, bestselling author of Time of My Life, says, "Facebook has been truly helpful because I've reconnected with so many people from my past, people who have a vested interest in me and who have definitely gone out and bought my books because at some point in my life, they knew me. Twitter has been amazing, in terms of getting my name out there to an audience I'd otherwise never have reached ... But yes, a small percentage have (they tweet me to let me know), and given that I enjoy tweeting and the entire idea of Twitter, that small percentage is worth my time AND who knows who else will buy my books in the future."

Yet there is something mysterious about J.K Rowling. Cormac McCarthy. Even King, who years from now I suspect might shed his skin and morph into some sort of giant winged creature or bloodthirsty zombie (don't believe me? Check out his author photo for Cell). The $64,000 question always asked by authors and publicists is how much does all of it really help? The prevailing feeling tends to be that it can't hurt (provided you don't have an Alice Hoffman or Anne Rice-ian freakout). And as long as it doesn't hurt -- and doesn't get in the way of the actual writing -- you will be encouraged to Tweet like your life depends on it.

That said, Winn Scotch seems to nail what every author hopes for when networking: "On places like Twitter, I really try to toe the line between personal and professional. What I mean by that is that I don't think readers just want to hear about my writing life - what they enjoy is sort of like what the general public enjoys in those "Stars, They're Just Like Us!" features: they like hearing about the mundane, albeit, hilarious details of your life, they like glancing behind the scenes, hearing how your kids are driving you crazy or your dog is totally bananas. It opens up a dialogue that you wouldn't have been able to have a few years ago with readers and you develop a common ground, and yes, you also develop friendships."

The trick seems to be, as Winn Scotch says, toeing the line between being a professional writer and a human being. Promoting your work without coming off as a used car salesmen. Writing posts that readers can relate to, coming off as someone they might even want to spend time with. If an author's Tweets or blogs are funny, inspiring or meaningful, it is reasonable to think their books might be as well.

Yet as Scalzi succinctly states, "People aren't stupid; they know when Twitter is being used for enjoyment's sake and when it's being used as a calculated marketing channel. Guess which they respond to better."

Susan Wilson Solovic: Social Media in the Workplace: Reasonableness Standard

2009-12-16T13:28:58Z

Social media is a hot new marketing tool that is helping many small businesses grow without spending a fortune. However, social networking can create problems for small firms when employees spend too much time using the technology for personal rather than business reasons.

I remember when I started my career employers were concerned about employees receiving too many personal phone calls during the work day. Now, the phone has been replaced by social media sites.

Recently I posed this question on my Facebook page: Should employees use time at work to post personal items on sites such as Facebook? In general, most of the responses said that unless something is work related employees should use non-work hours to post personal items.

"Facebook can be time consuming and employers should not pay for their personal time on Facebook," one friend commented.

A business owner said, "Absolutely not. If it's personal, it's not business. Employers are struggling to keep each employee on their payroll and that means each employee has to be as productive as possible. As a small business owner, if my employees don't get daily jobs done-I have to do it. Paying them to update their FB page while I'm scrubbing the restrooms or baking scones doesn't bode well with me. Maybe larger companies can absorb the nonproductive time, but I would guess most small businesses just can't afford it. Great question, Susan."

A couple of people noted the difference between hourly and salaried workers. "As long as the work is being done and you are salaried and the postings are not inappropriate, no real harm in it. Many studies show that small, frequent breaks actually increase productivity."

Additionally, one of my FB friends noted many employees are "virtual" today, which often results in a blending of work and personal time. "Many executives are writing and responding to work e-mails at midnight . . . and I include myself in that group. For some virtual workers, Facebook replaces the social conversations found in more traditional office environments. In that context, most 'employees' are giving their employers 50-60 hours of work per week and are on call 24/7 . . . so a little bit of Facebook connection is probably a healthy thing," she wrote.

Personally, I think each business owner needs to set guidelines for their employees and apply the rule of reasonableness. There are always going to be times when we need to handle personal issues during working hours. That's a simple reality.

But taking advantage of an employer's time to network via social media sites is basically like stealing from the company. You are being paid to focus on business, not promote your personal agenda.

Let me know your thoughts on the subject. Join my Facebook Fan Page.

Penny C. Sansevieri: Marketing 101: Never (Ever) Sell Your Book

2009-12-16T13:02:02Z

So you're all ready to promote your book. You've got a great press kit, a polished bio, and a letter-perfect press release. Now you're ready to sell, sell, sell, right? Wrong. One of the biggest mistakes authors make is selling their book. Remember it's not about the book; it's about what the book can do for the reader.

Finding the benefits to your book might seem like a pretty simple task, but touting that "It's a great read!" won't get you very far. To determine what your book will do for your reader, you'll have to dig deep, sometimes deeper than you thought. Especially if your book is fiction, this task of finding benefits will require some serious brainstorming. The key here is, be different. If you have a diet book, don't offer the same benefits a million other books do: you'll lose weight. Instead, offer a benefit that is decidedly different than anything that's out there. Or, try to couch a similar benefit in a different way. At the end of the day, it's all about the WIIFM factor: what's in it for me? If your reader likes what's in it for them, they'll buy your book -- otherwise they'll just move on.

The idea of not selling your book also holds true when you're doing an interview. Never, ever answer an interviewer's question with: "You'll find it in my book." Because the fact is you're an author, of course the answer is in your book, but right now you're there to help them with their interview -- save the sales pitches for another time.

The uniqueness of your benefits can also directly relate to the particular audience you're speaking to. For example, if you have different levels of readers or readers from different backgrounds, it's a good idea to work up a set of benefits for each of them. Then any interview you do (or speaking engagement) will offer benefits with that audience in mind as opposed to a more generic form of, "Here's what my book can do for you!" Creating a list of benefits for your book can aid your campaign in a number of ways: first, it'll help you get away from a more "salesy" type of approach, and second, it will help you create the tip sheets that can add substance to your press kit. If you're working on the benefit angle of your book early enough, you can incorporate these into the back copy of your book.

The point is, never, ever sell your book. Be a step ahead of the competition and sell what your book can do for the reader, and let them know why it's better than the competition. In the end, that's all anyone will care about.

Facebook's Privacy Move Violates Contract With Users: ANALYSIS

2009-12-16T12:58:17Z

Your name, profile picture, gender, current city, networks, Friends List, and all the pages you subscribe to are now publicly available information on Facebook. This means everyone on the web can see it; it is searchable.

This represents just the latest instance of Facebook violating the contract it holds with its users. This is no small matter, either. Lots of people will have very real and valid objections to this arbitrary change to what's public and what's private on Facebook.

Jose Antonio Vargas: With The Rise of Social Media, No Privacy for Tiger Woods

2009-12-16T10:56:10Z

What do Google CEO Eric Schmidt, the Supreme Court of the United States and golfing giant Tiger Woods have in common?

Privacy.

More specifically, how we define privacy in our texting, tweeting, Facebooking, YouTubing, Googling era.

Earlier this month, after Sprint, Verizon and Yahoo were blasted following revelations that they've shared customer data with the authorities, Google's Eric Schmidt declared in an interview with CNBC: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." Boom! It was as if Schmidt had planted a bomb in the blogosphere. And he wasn't done: Since Google is subject to the country's Patriot Act, "it is possible that information could be made available to the authorities," Schmidt went on. Ka-boom! Quite a statement coming from the head honcho of the Internet's biggest company. The reaction was swift and damning. Wrote John C. Dvorak of Market Watch: "For a chief executive to make what amounts to a threat to its users is absolutely astonishing."

And it's not just about Google. It's about privacy in our digital world at large, where data is shared in computers and phones, where information spreads from one social network to another. The issue has finally reached the highest court in the land. As the New York Times reported Monday, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Ontario Police Department in southern California violated the constitutional privacy rights of Sgt. Jeff Quon. The department inspected Quon's text messages that were sent and received on a government pager -- many of them "sexually explicit in nature," The Times wrote.

In an interview, Marc Rotenberg of the D.C.-based Electronic Privacy Information Center told me that Quon's case is "without question the most important online privacy case, addressing all sorts of questions that we've all been grappling with." Rotenberg, one of the leading experts on digital privacy rights, defined what he calls "modern privacy" in a blog for HuffPostTech in September. First, "modern privacy begins with the understanding that personal information will be widely accessible," he wrote. In other words, we all leave digital footprints -- in our blogs, Twitter feeds and Facebook updates, etc. Second, "modern privacy is about what happens to information once it's held by others -- whether it's a government agency, a bank, a cell phone company, or a social network site." Translation: It's not about the technology, it's about how people use the technology. It's about our behavior.

More than a decade ago, Rotenberg predicted that "privacy will be to the information economy of the next century what consumer protection and environmental concerns have been to the industrial society of the 20th century." He was absolutely right. And privacy in our information economy extends far beyond our own individual, ordinary lives. It also impacts how we view others.

Which brings us to Tiger Woods, arguably the most private of our sports stars.

Last Friday, Woods posted a 165-word statement on his site, apologizing to his family and fans for his "infidelity." The statement ended with, "Again, I ask for privacy..." But the moment Woods crashed his Cadillac Escalade and hit a fire hydrant nearly three weeks ago, his privacy was gone. An unstoppable flood of information -- a hurricane, really -- continued circulating online: the list of women, the text messages from his phone, the voice mail he allegedly left to Jaimee Grubbs. And we -- yes, we , you and me -- started spreading them around. On Twitter, where #tigerwoods has been a popular hashtag since Thanksgiving weekend. On Facebook, where we posted the news and shared it with our "friends." There's even a Facebook group called "I Have Also Slept With Tiger Woods," and it has more than 139,000 members.

The relationship between athlete and fan, between celebrities and the people who follow their every move, has changed. In the past, celebrities dealt with only the media -- mainstream news organizations, from Sports Illustrated to 60 Minutes, but also the tabloids. It was the National Enquirer, after all, that published the story of Woods' alleged affair with nightclub manager Rachel Uchitel. But now, in addition to traditional media, celebrities are dealing with the rise of social media. That means us. As we pass around each nugget of Woods-related information -- may it be gossip or innuendo, serious or silly -- we chip away at the very privacy that Woods has asked for.

Privacy, as Woods probably defines it, is dead. Not even a billionaire athlete can afford to buy it. But "modern privacy," as Rotenberg explained it, is just beginning.

Rotenberg said: "This will be the defining issue of the next decade" -- whether you're Tiger Woods or just an ordinary citizen tweeting, Facebooking, YouTubing and Googling away.

David Saranga: Social Media as a Platform for Dialogue in the Middle East

2009-12-16T08:38:02Z

How can a conflict to which writers have devoted entire books, and which journalists attempt to explain in a few thousand words of copy be encapsulated in a mere 140 characters? This was the central question posed by the New York Times reporter who interviewed me for an article he was preparing about the initiative to hold a press conference on Twitter during the war in Gaza a year ago. This question was essentially a paraphrase on a comment by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who, in a tone that was part query and part criticism, voiced the same concern live, regarding the first press conference in history ever held by any governmental body on Twitter.

Last week the President of the State of Israel, Shimon Peres, inaugurated a new YouTube channel, where he calls citizens from all over the world to share their thoughts with him, emphasizing his desire to "hear" what they have to say - to "hear" their words and not to "sound" his own. For the first time an Israeli leader is prepared and willing to engage in a non-hierarchical dialogue with world public opinion through a direct and unmediated channel. Coming from an Israeli leader, this development is unusual, unique, and extremely unexpected. With the initiative to create a YouTube channel, Peres has joined rank with a select number of world leaders who have embraced technological progress, among them President Obama, Pope Benedict XVI, and Queen Rania of Jordan.

For some time now I have been following with interest the dialogue that Queen Rania has been holding over the social network sites with citizens from around the world. The goal of this dialogue is to improve the image of the Arab world in Western eyes and to try and explain that Islam is not synonymous with terror, and that not every Arab citizen is a potential terrorist. This welcome initiative by Queen Rania, which has been harshly criticized in Jordan, is held only in English, and is oriented to the Western public. Yet since it is held in English it cannot be viewed as an internal Arab dialogue, in which citizens of the Arab world might also share their views with their leaders. Nonetheless, the initiative is important - a significant, if small step, indicating openness to dialogue.

Unlike Queen Rania, President Peres was chosen by the Israeli parliament; unlike the Queen, Peres has inaugurated the YouTube channel in Hebrew and in English, in order to engage in conversation with the citizens of his country aswell; and, unlike Queen Rania's, his YouTube channel will eventually be translated into other languages, Arabic among them. Despite the differences between the approaches of these two leaders, this is an important development, in which key statesmen and public figures are engaging in dialogue with citizens of the world and not only with the citizens of their own country. As such, it represents a new phase in the evolution of public diplomacy. Unlike the past, when transparency and accountability were demanded of democratic leaders vis-à-vis their voters, today these leaders are also involved in dialogue with international public opinion and with a global citizenry. This is a revolution that could only have taken place thanks to the existence of internet-based social networks.

The answer I gave to the New York Times correspondent one year ago is still valid today:

Since the definition of war has changed, the definition of public diplomacy has to change as well.

I was referring to the need of governments to adapt to progress. This answer is also true in times of peace: as the definition of the media has changed, now that social networks have emerged as a central source for information, governments and state leaders must embrace social networks and use them as a platform for conveying their messages in a direct and unmediated fashion. It is time for direct and frank dialogue between governments and global public opinion. Today this is a real possibility for leaders, and it lies directly at their fingertips, within reach of the keyboard.

Anna Brones: This Season, Holiday Giving is Online

2009-12-15T17:24:51Z

Bell-ringing Salvation Army volunteers are always a telltale sign of the holiday season, and although they certainly still have their place, this year holiday giving has turned to a new outlet: social media.

From The Baltimore Sun:

Organizations such as the United Way, Salvation Army and the American Red Cross are using Facebook pages and Twitter accounts to reach younger volunteers and donors.

Facebook fans of the Salvation Army can create virtual kettles on their pages and ask their friends to make donations without ever visiting a real storefront kettle. The United Way and Red Cross are tweeting their latest news of families helped and fund drives launched.

No one can yet say whether the new social media approaches are effective ways to raise money, but that's the goal, charities say. "We're hoping to get this new audience, and we hope in the end there is a fundraising component with it," said Amrit Dhillon, communications director for the United Way of Central Maryland.

But for organizations that seek out donations online via social media channels, there are plenty of success stories. Take Passports With Purpose, a campaign to raise funds to build a school in Cambodia. Having already reached their goal of $13,000 thanks to many efforts on blogs, Facebook and in the Twitter-verse, the initiative's co-founders upped the stakes and doubled the donation goal to $26,000, which will help to cover costs like providing a school nurse and building a garden.

Matador Network is raising money for the Brave New Travelers Youth Scholarship Fund, which will send as many as 15 inner city students abroad for the first time. Knowing that not everyone that wants to give has an extra pile of cash lying around, they allow donations to be as little as $1 and Matador Network has already raised 10 percent of its total goal.

International charity organizations are also seeing the benefits, like charity: water. The organization has a whole section of their website devoted to Twitter backgrounds that users can download and put on their Twitter pages to help spread the word as well as facts about water on the micro-blogging network. At the beginning of this year charity: water also hosted a Twestival (Twitter + festival) to bring communities from all over the world together. The result? They raised $250,000. Is social media a helpful tool for nonprofits and charities? Most definitely!

But why are social media tools so helpful to causes like these? Because it helps spread the word, quickly and efficiently, without the need for large investments in labor time or printing and sending out letters asking for annual donations.

"I'm a huge fan of Twitter for instant concise communication and it's been a great place for people to ask us, "How can I help?" It's not the be-all end-all, but it's an excellent place to initiate conversation and to help spread the word," says Passports With Purpose co-founder Pam Mandel.

Now all you have to do is go decide which of the many online holiday campaigns to donate to!

This post has been cross-posted from Under Solen Media's blog.

Giulia Rozzi: Defriended: The Politics Of Social Networking

2009-12-15T15:52:53Z

Last week my procrastination led me to conduct a classmate search on Facebook in which I noticed that a girl who had been my friend now had a "add as a friend" rectangle next to her face. "Add as a friend? But we already were..." And then it hit me, this chick had DE-FRIENDED ME! Sure, it happens all the time, but when it hits so close to home, well that's a different story. I mean, who the hell was she to cut-off cyber ties with me when she was the one who not only added me but took our virtual relationship a step further by also sending along a "how have you been" message? Perhaps she was sick of me linking to my awesome Huffington Post articles, or maybe she realized that our "friendship" would never go beyond an annual "Happy Birthday" wall post, or maybe, just maybe she doesn't (gasp!) like me.

I'm sure this isn't the first time someone has visited my page and clicked "remove friend" but it's one of the first times I noticed. For the most part, I try not to take social networking too personally (although it did hurt my feelings that I was not invited to your b-day bash). Hey, I wasn't friends with everyone at my High school when I was in High school, why do I expect to be now? Nonetheless, I couldn't help but wonder why this girl removed me. I almost wished there was one of those little explanation boxes that pops up when you remove a friend sort of like they have when you unsubscribe from a mailing list and it says "we hate to see you go, do you mind telling us why?"

Removing friends happens all the time. It's the easiest, least confrontational way to tell someone you're just not that into them. This new way of telling people how you feel, without saying anything at all has become so important-ish that the New Oxford American Dictionary named "unfriend" its 2009 Word of the Year. Am I the only one who finds this amazingly weird?

Personally I have a strict zero bullshit policy on Facebook; if someone pushes my buttons, I simply push the delete button. For example I recently posted that I'm moving and my room in my soon-to-be old apartment is available if anyone was interested. Apparently this was a faux paux to one idiot who acted like the Facebook police and commented "No, we don't want your apartment. Um this would be more appropriate on Craigslist." Really person I hardly know? Me posting a sweet apartment deal to my network is inappropriate but people posting a play-by-play of their grandmothers death (seriously, someone did this. Please, get off the Internet and go spend these last few moments with your grandma) is totally okay. Rather than comment back to this moron, I just removed him. I use my page to share info about my shows, share news (like about an open apartment) and share an occasional silly thought, not to publicly argue with people I have no vested interest in, I'd rather just delete you.

Status policing is just one of the many reasons to de-friend someone. I asked my Facebook friends to share their de-friending stories with me and these were the top reasons people remove people as "friends":

Stream of conscious status's: Many people de-friended someone who updated their status way too often especially if those updates are about mundane things that no one cares about (ie: "I ate a sandwich" followed 30 seconds later with "sandwich was delicious" followed 30 seconds later with "now drinking a soda" and so on and so forth.

Self-promoting on other pages: You want to use Facebook to promote yourself? Great! Just do it on your own page. If you post your lame bands stupid homemade music video on my page to help advertise your dumb concert, then expect your 4,000 friend count to go down to 3,999. I'd also like to add to this category those folks who suggest you become their "fan" everyday. Personal I'm a fan of being humble.

Political differences: Lots of folks unfriended someone based on political views they shared. Obama, Stupak, Palin, Prop 8, these words have destroyed cyber friendships left and right (literally).

Break-ups: To avoid drama, snooping, and the risk of seeing tagged pics of your ex's new lover, most people end their Facebook relationship when they end their romantic relationship. One guy I know deleted a girl after going a few dates with her because he got the vibe that she was a little crazy. The "crazy" girl then sent him this message:
"It's not like I want to be your friend in real life or on facebook. I suppose it just seems extreme to go to the trouble of actually looking me up just to unfriend me... Really, who does that? For you to care enough to take that time... It makes me think you have some warped idea of who I am. Ugh. You must think I am a crazy person or something.... And I hate knowing someone out there doesn't like me and thinks I'm nuts"... And, I rest my case.

Michael Jackson: Either they liked MJ and de-friended people who disrespected him on the day he died or people disliked MJ and deleted people who were too publicly mournful on Facebook. I deleted one guy because within 3 hours of Jackson's death he posted 20 tacky molestation jokes. Come on, just let the guy rest in peace!

At first this article was going to be an article about how to deal with being de-friended as if it's something so tragic it deserves coping mechanisms. But the truth is, getting unfriended should only bother you if it's done by one of your genuine friends and in that case I would think you could just call them and say "why did you unfriend me?" But if you got unfriended by someone you barely know and are upset and confused, perhaps you can look to one of the reasons above. And if you got unfriended by someone you barely know and are you are upset, perhaps you can look to focusing more on making some real, offline friends.

Leslie Harris: Feds on Your Friends List

2009-12-15T10:37:03Z

There is no shortage of sad stories involving the loss of one's dignity, job, or significant other, thanks to some embarrassing picture, bit of information, or errant one-liner cluelessly tossed into the fast moving bitstream of some social media network. When we hear these stories, we cluck at such oversight, shake our heads in amazement, or whisper to ourselves some version of "there but for the grace of ... go I."

But when we learn that revealing tidbits are being culled from social networking sites by someone wearing a badge and used as "evidence" in the course of a federal investigation, the discussion ratchets up to a different level altogether.

That the Feds are trolling social networking sites looking for scraps of information to help break a case should come as no surprise; several stories this year have chronicled how federal agents have used sites like Twitter and Facebook to obtain information. However, because social media is a new and largely unregulated environment, law enforcement is advancing into the field unchecked. We need to start laying down some guidelines for law enforcement access to social networking data.

So far, however, agencies won't even allow the discussion to begin. "Although the Federal Government clearly uses social-networking websites to collect information, often for laudable reasons, it has not clarified the scope of its use of social networking websites or disclosed what restrictions and oversight is in place to prevent abuse," says a law suit filed earlier this month by EFF and the Samuelson Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley. The suit is filed against a half-dozen government agencies for refusing to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request asking for agency policies that apply when using social networking sites for investigations, data-collection, and surveillance.

Before we go too far, let's agree on the obvious: what you put on Facebook and allow the whole world to see is public information and people shouldn't be surprised to find that anyone from the deputy sheriff to the FBI might be accessing it. However, information that you place on Facebook to share only with a select group of friends is private and should be available to law enforcement only with a judicial warrant. Current law does not clearly protect private postings and should be updated to provide adequate protection.

And what happens if you "over friend" your information? What happens if you "friend the world?" Here the law is even less clear. The threat of police entering social networks undercover deserves special attention. Without strict guidelines, undercover "friending" could quickly make the Net a "no privacy zone."

We can build privacy rules incrementally. For example, fishing expeditions should be headed off; there should be no routine monitoring of Twitter feeds without a tip or a lead that suggests criminal activity or a threat to national security. The FBI has better things to do, and every minute spent monitoring innocent activity is one less minute that can be spent chasing down a real lead.

In terms of undercover access, there is already a kind of playbook for how Internet operations should be carried out, in the form of the FBI's own guidelines for undercover operations in the physical world. These guidelines, which govern all FBI criminal investigations outside of the national security context, contain some useful concepts that could be adapted for Internet-based investigations, such as: Headquarters approval for sensitive operations, including investigation of possible criminal conduct by a political or news organization; time limits that end unproductive monitoring; and consideration of privacy implications before the undercover activity begins.

The debate over the breadth of these guidelines will likely be a difficult one; there are many variables to consider. But nothing will happen if law enforcement agencies refuse to even talk about their practices. The courts, Congress and those in the Obama Administration committed to openness should all push for disclosure of current practices, so the process of setting reasonable laws and guidelines for this new environment can begin in earnest.

Shawn Healy: Canvassing in Cyberspace

2009-12-14T13:20:30Z

Via Twitter, Illinois Comptroller and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dan Hynes likes Notre Dame's hire of Brian Kelly as head football coach and hopes he brings the school their first national championship in more than two decades.

On his home page, State Senator Dan Rutherford and treasurer candidate just sent "Bonnie," his Pontiac with 315,000 miles, to the "recycler in the sky" and replaced her with another of the same make, "Pongee."

Current State Treasurer and Senate wannabe Alexi Giannoulias is more direct in his courting of digital voters, urging them to "Get involved in the campaign by donating, volunteering, writing a letter to the editor or suggesting our Facebook page to your friends."

The common denominator here is that the social media tactics critical to President Obama's victory last fall have trickled down to state-level races in Illinois and bridged the partisan divide.

Republicans have scurried to level the netroots landscape in light of the dramatic shift of young voters (18-29) to the Democratic Party. Candidates of all stripes seek low-cost means of mobilizing supporters in a primary season that straddles the holidays and where turnout in the Feb. 2 election is expected to be lackluster at best.

They negotiate a fragmented media environment where target audiences are elusive and expensive to reach via traditional techniques. More than anything, they exploit an all-of-the-above approach, broadcasting a personalized message that they hope will resonate with faceless partisans on the other end of a wireless connection, the latest manifestation of the candidate-centered campaign.

The jury is still out on the effectiveness of an integrated social media platform, but there are numbers to support the democratizing impact of these tools on political consumers. According to data from the National Conference in Citizenship's 2009 Civic Health Index, the "civic engagement gap" is narrower for those who utilize online tools. They collectively undermine the so-called "democracy divide" where engagement is tied to educational achievement and income, adding to the diversity of political participants. Social media tools provide more organic, less-structured, grass-roots opportunities for civic engagement, and these are especially important during recessional times when formal institutional structures crumble.

On many measures of civic health, Illinois fares poorly in comparison to the national average, but state citizens are 7% more likely to use new media tools to stay informed and get involved. According to the Illinois Civic Health Index, a state counterpart to the aforementioned national survey, 63% of Illinoisans generally follow news about government and public affairs. Nearly a quarter (22%) of state residents report using the Internet on a weekly basis to gather information about politics, a social issue, or a community problem, while 25% have watched a candidates' speech online. Twenty-three percent have watched an online video in support of or opposition to a presidential candidate.

Truth be told, the Digital Age is still in its early reaches, especially as far as political outreach goes, and experimental reigns. By comparison, Ronald Reagan was arguably the first president to master the Television Age even though it was at least thirty years in the making. Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean elevated the promise of digital media during his dark horse and ultimately unsuccessful bid for the Democratic president nomination in 2004. Barack Obama certainly took it to another level, and has continued his use of social media tools as a means of governance, from maintaining a White House blog to using YouTube to broadcast his weekly addresses. His meteoric rise shook the political world, and fellow office seekers have since sought to capture the same "lightning in a bottle."

Questions remain about the uniqueness of the Obama candidacy and the degree to which social media success can be duplicated at lower levels of office. One could argue that the "rock star" status of our national candidates lends itself favorably to celebrity tweets along these lines, but does a comptroller or county coroner candidate have similar Facebook appeal? On the other hand, given the smaller campaign war chests at the state and local level, not to mention the resonance of "front porch" issues in these campaigns, a personal touch from a hometown candidate may be the modern equivalent of door-to-door canvassing.

While the jury contemplates the verdict on these counts, the candidates continue to post movie reviews and dinner recipes, voting overwhelmingly in favor of Web 2.0.

Jacqueline Leo: Digital Dieting

2009-12-14T10:36:06Z

Why do we group so many things in sevens? Seven is more than a lucky number or a famous baseball player's uniform. It's the brain's natural shepherd, herding vast amounts of information into manageable chunks. It's also a special tool that can help you make smart decisions and sift through all the choices of modern life. Even more important, seven can filter the digital static that comes from being connected to our cell phones, iPods, email, TV, and the Internet. This useful digit can help untangle a complicated life, leaving time for real work, family and friends.

In the early days of desktop computing, the idea of a digital revolution was talked about in the rarified worlds of M.I.T., Stanford and Cal Tech. The average person didn't think they needed to have one, but businesses took the plunge and invested in computers believing they would increase productivity. And they did, until the built in solitaire games that were embedded in computer operating systems became a secret addiction for thousands of workers. The boss would walk toward an employee's cube, and with one click, the worker would turn FreeCell into a spreadsheet. It didn't take long for IT departments to eliminate games all together from the workplace as productivity dipped in direct proportion to the number of hours spent on entertaining distractions.

Today, even without the games, networking applications like Twitter, Facebook, Linked In and many others, along with the constant ping of emails and rss feeds, is costing an estimated $900 billion in lost productivity. It's gotten so bad that a host of new programs have been designed to block certain sites and manage email delivery in time chunks, rather than through a steady stream. But these solutions are like trying to stop a roaring forest fire with a bucket of water.

According to a new study by UC San Diego researchers, Americans consumed an average daily diet last year of 34 gigabytes and 100,000 words (about a 400 page book). To be sure, these are averages that probably include all the information that's transferred from super computers to hospitals, the military, and other high-user specialty areas. Nevertheless, we've become gluttons of digital "stuff," a distinction rivaled only by our rising obesity rates.

Putting people on a digital diet isn't going to solve the underlying problem of mental hop scotching. We are a society suffering from a new mental pandemic: ADD. We've all been there. You read two paragraphs of a book or a magazine article, lose your concentration, and then read those same paragraphs again, and again. One look at an email can rob you of 15 minutes of focus. One call on your cell phone, one tweet, one instant message can destroy your schedule, forcing you to move meetings, or blow off really important things, like love, and friendship.

There are no simple answers to information overload. But there are 7 ways to start taking back your life:

YES: Ask for help, pay for help or say yes to an offer of help when you feel overwhelmed.

NO: Learn how to say no to too many social engagements, too many favors, too many extra projects at work.

STOP: The clock. Life isn't a 24/7 merry go round. If it were, you wouldn't get the 7 hours of sleep necessary to keep you fit and sane.

GO: Keep in shape with an exercise routine you can stick to.

START: Use technology so it doesn't use you up. On line banking, for instance, will save you time, money, and stress because your mortgage will be paid automatically.

END: Clear the clutter, trash the trivial stuff. Get organized.

BE: Make time for friends, lovers, family. Learn how to breathe and daydream. Be your true self and find your humanity.

Crooks Hijack Facebook Accounts, Attack Dignity

2009-12-14T08:32:44Z

It used to be that computer viruses attacked only your hard drive. Now they attack your dignity.

Malicious programs are rampaging through Web sites like Facebook and Twitter, spreading themselves by taking over people's accounts and sending out messages to all of their friends and followers. The result is that people are inadvertently telling their co-workers and loved ones how to raise their I.Q.'s or make money instantly, or urging them to watch an awesome new video in which they star.