SO NOW I'M A CITIZEN JOURNALIST??

As I get deeper into the social media phenomenon, I'm learning that sites like Facebook and Twitter really are changing the face of the news.  Today, I learned about the murder of a pro-choice doctor in Wichita, KS, from Facebook before I saw it on MSNBC.  I read about Susan Boyle's second-place showing on the Britain's Got Talent (BGT) finals on Twitter before most of the major news websites had posted the results.  I don't mean to compare these two events in importance because, obviously, there is a world of difference.  But I'm fascinated by the immediacy of this new "citizen journalism."  

Think about this.  Through cell phones and on-line social media, each one of us has the tools to be a news-breaking reporter.  You're at the scene of an accident and take video shots on your cell phone before police and camera crews arrive.  You're at a conference where a politician makes a sexist joke--you Twitter about it, and the next thing you know, mainstream media reporters are asking that politician to explain his (or her) comments. It appears that the center of news reporting power is beginning to shift away from traditional print and broadcast media to on-line social media driven by everyday people like you and me.

The impact of this shift has profound implications.  While one could argue that the mainstream media have never been completely "objective," the values of objectivity and balance are still considered essential to excellence in professional journalism.  Citizen journalists, on the other hand, are not necessarily engaged in a search for objectivity or balance.  They (we) tend to view social media forums as places where we can share our own personal views, and support them with selected links to others who share our beliefs. We are not held to the same standards as professional journalists because that's not who we are. 

Does this mean we have no responsibility for the things we post on Facebook or Twitter? Absolutely not. In fact, I would argue that we are obligated to exercise an extra measure of caution when expressing our views on-line. Just as we understand the risks of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, so too must we recognize the risks of firing words out into cyberspace without regard for where and how they land.  

Having been in the PR business for almost forty years (ouch, it hurts to say that...), I made a commitment long ago to fair and accurate presentation of the facts in the practice of my profession.  I've never intentionally conveyed inaccurate information about a client's actions or behavior; in fact, I've never even been asked to do so.  I am careful always to make sure that I can verify and document every claim I make in the process of presenting a client's case.  I couldn't function any other way; it would be a violation of trust.

That makes it easy for me to make the transition to Facebook, Twitter and the on-line world of citizen journalism.  I just follow the simple rule my old boss, Jim Tills, taught me in 1972.  "Do the right thing, and then tell people about it." Jim was one of the smartest people I ever knew, and that was the best piece of advice I ever got.

I NEVER META TAG I UNDERSTOOD

I knew it would come to this; I guess it was inevitable.  I was hoping to dodge the bullet, but I came face to face with it yesterday--the mystifying and mysterious meta tag.  I've met it, and I can tell you I don't like it much so far.

Yesterday I was doing some research on search engine optimization (SEO), strategies for making sure that your website appears in the first few results when someone searches for websites in your category. It turns out that meta tags are key to this process.

Here's what I learned (I think).  A meta tag is a special invisible HTML code that you add to your website so that search engines can find it.  I always thought that search engines looked for keywords in the text of your website, but that's not true.  Although, as I understand it, some search engines pick up a few words of visible text, most of them look for these hidden descriptions and keywords to recognize your site as relevant to the searcher's quest.  

First, I must say that the whole meta tag thing seems ridiculously and unnecessarily complicated.  If the visible text of your website doesn't explain who you are and what you do, it's a lousy website and probably doesn't deserve to be seen.  So why do you need to insert invisible code describing what you do so that it can be recognized by search engines?  

Clearly, the meta tag is an insidious tool in the on-going war against the technologically impaired.  I resent the hell out of it, but I can't change it, so let's move on.

I found a couple of on-line guides that described the process of inserting meta tags, and followed the instructions.  I took me more than an hour, and when I was done, I had no idea whether I got it right.  I still don't know for sure.  BECAUSE THE DAMN THINGS ARE INVISIBLE!!

So my question is, if you meta tag on your website but you couldn't see it, would it really be there?

I guess that's next week's challenge.  Ugh.

Me and My Mojo

Warning: profound insight ahead.  I have figured out the reason why so many people get addicted to social networking and on-line engagement.  It's about mojo.  

As every Austin Powers fan knows, mojo is about personal power and potency.  Building an on-line image through social networking gives us a sense of personal power in a world where we are otherwise impersonal, invisible and powerless.

There is a weird kind of empowerment that happens when you build yourself an on-line presence using tools like Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, ZoomInfo and others. When you actively engage on Twitter, build your Facebook page, or create a profile on LinkedIn or ZoomInfo, you are seizing the power to define yourself, instead of letting others define you. For control freaks like me, this is a major mojo-booster.

Here's one great example.  When I Googled my name, I saw several different entries on a site called ZoomInfo, a "people and company" finder.  Each entry showed a different name for my company--on one, it was "Kelly Media Consulting," on another "Kelly Media Relations."  

I went to the ZoomInfo site and found that there are at least two dozen Marsha Kellys listed, and about six of them were me (I??), each with a different company name or connection. Zoom allows you to "claim" all the entries that are yours, so you can consolidate them into one profile with current and corrected information that actually might be helpful to someone trying to find you or your business.  

When I finished cleaning up my ZoomInfo profile, and Googled again, the corrected entry appeared in the first five or six search results, along with my LinkedIn profile, my Facebook page, and my Twitter account--all my own sites, containing information that I know is right because I wrote it myself.

At that moment, I realized that social networking isn't just about technology.  It's about being visible instead of invisible.  It's about personal empowerment.

Austin Powers got it right.  It's about mojo.

Hello Facebook, Goodbye Privacy?

I may have mentioned in one of my earlier blogs that I have shied away from many of the social networking sites for years because of my admittedly compulsive desire for privacy.  (This, no doubt, is a psychosis developed during my brief and stomach-churning career as a political candidate, when perfect strangers felt entitled to confront me at the grocery store, show up at my door on Sunday morning to complain about potholes, and write nasty letters deriding my "sappy Irish face" when I'm not even Irish except by marriage.)  

In the interest of providing better client service, I've managed to overcome my privacy psychosis, at least to some extent.  I've joined LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Slideshare and a few other social networks, and I try to participate actively. For most of these sites, registration requires nothing more than your name and an e-mail address. But Facebook is an aggravating exception.

Facebook has a million little side operations that are designed, I suppose, to keep people engaged and active on the site.  You can take quizzes, pick your favorite book-movie-beer-candy-whatever, and engage in IQ duels with your friends.  Two of my Facebook friends--people I like and admire very much--have challenged me to an IQ face-off. I'm confident that I would beat their pitiful butts with room to spare, of course, but that's not the point.

The problem is that in order to participate, I have to give up my cell phone number.  And THAT, my friends, is just not going to happen. Facebook wants my cell number for one reason, and one reason only--to try to sell me stuff I don't want or need.  Under no circumstances would I be interested in receiving phone calls, texts or e-mails from Facebook or any of its affiliated sites and services.  I've unchecked every box it's possible to uncheck to ensure that I get no correspondence from these sites except that which is required in order to participate. Otherwise, my message to them has been, "Pretend you never heard of me and we'll get along just fine."

So, for my friends and family on Facebook, please don't be offended if I fail to respond to your invitations for extra Facebook gimmicks, especially if participating requires me to disclose my cell phone number or any other information beyond my e-mail address.  As Popeye would say, "That's all I can stands and I can't stands no more."

Spam: It's Not Just for E-Mail Anymore

Back in the days when e-mail was new and exciting, we all learned about spam--not the canned mystery meat from Minnesota, but the canned mystery messages from anonymous schmucks who want to sell us everything from weiner enhancements to "patented" get-rich-quick secrets. 

Now I've learned that the spammers are no longer limited to e-mail.  They, like me, have gotten wise to the role of social media, and they are Twittering up a storm.  In the last few days, I've received nearly a dozen messages notifying me of new Twitter followers whose names I don't recognize.  It turns out that many of them are spammers whose accounts have been suspended by Twitter for "weird activity."  A few of these sleazy Tweeps (that's Twitterese for Twitter people, I'm told) managed to dodge the Twitter cops (Twops??), but when I checked their profiles, it was clear that I would want no association with them, so I blocked them.

Unlike e-mail, Twitter makes it very easy to block any communication from an undesirable source.  When I receive notice that a new Tweep is following me, I check the person out. If he/she is legit, no problem.  If not (and it's easy to tell from their profiles and previous communications), I just click on "block" and I'll never hear from them again.

I guess everybody is trying to sell something.  Twitter is a place where people go to pitch their ideas, services, products, whatever.  But that's OK, as long as I have the power to decide whose pitches I'm willing to catch. Wow, I guess that makes me "the decider."  Cool.