#SOTU: State of the Union Goes Social

President Obama gave the annual State of the Union address Tuesday evening, a topic that wasn't just trending in traditional media but on social media as well. I myself viewed the address on one screen and had my Twitter feed on another to keep up with public responses. I was surprised to find that my newsfeed consisted of almost exclusively State of the Union posts (along with a number of Flyers vs. Penguins tweets as the game between the rivals headed into overtime).

According to the White House’s Twitter account, it was the most interactive State of the Union address ever with 1.2 million views and Twitter reported that over 2.6 million tweets were posted using the hashtag #SOTU. Facebook also had similar results, announcing that “5.7 million people on Facebook made 13.8 million interactions (posts, likes, comments, shares) related to the President’s State of the Union address” that day.

In an effort to create a broader audience for the traditionally “old-media” event, the White House communications team  decided to revamp the way they promote the address. This year, they focused not just on traditional media like newspapers and television, but creating videos, digital op-eds and even six-second GIFs. The White House twitter account also live tweeted infographics, images and quotes in real time as Obama discussed various topics like sustainable energy and education costs. The same images appeared on television in a split screen with the live speech itself.

“To not have an aggressive social media strategy in 2015 would be the equivalent of not having an aggressive TV strategy in the 1950s.” –Dan Pfeiffer, White House Director of Communications

This year was the first time ever that the White House released the SOTU speech to the public prior to the address. In keeping with efforts to bring politics to the digital generation, it was released via Medium, a blogging platform created by the founders of Twitter.

But out of all the points President Obama made in his address to the American people, the most talked about moment on social media was by far:

 

Celebrity Political Endorsements: A Hindrance or Help to Presidential Candidates?

Celebrity endorsements have become increasingly more influential in our celebrity-fixated culture. Everywhere you look it seems that celebrities are rallying behind some product or brand. In light of the upcoming Presidential Election, those celebrity endorsements have turned political, as famous individuals are vocally supporting the Presidential candidates. Beyonce, Jay-Z and George Clooney are well-known Obama campaign supporters while Romney has received political endorsements from Clint Eastwood, Donald Trump and Cindy Crawford. Celebrity endorsements have proven to be successful when it comes to product marketing, but when these celebrities and politics mix- are these endorsements helping or hurting the candidates?

The audience a celebrity appeals to can potentially have a great impact on how those individuals vote. If a particular celebrity appeals to young individuals, these potential new voters may actively seek more information about the candidate and be more motivated to head to the polls. How the youth of America votes has been regarded as of crucial importance in this upcoming election. Candidates are employing several tactics in order to secure those young votes and celebrity endorsements can be a way to do just that.

On the other hand, the public’s perception of an endorser can adversely affect the candidate. It is no coincidence that brands often pick celebrities who are relatively scandal-free to be a spokesperson for their product. For example, Lindsay Lohan, a recent Romney supporter, has been a controversial endorser as her public image is marred by a party-girl reputation and numerous stints in rehab. The credibility of a celebrity can be reflective upon the candidate.

Celebrities have been more vocal about their political affiliation in recent years than ever before. Among the many factors that motivate us to vote for a certain candidate, should celebrity endorsements be one or is it already? Let us know what you think!

This guest blog post was written by PRowl Public Relations staff member Cara Graeff.

Election 2012 as a PR Learning Tool

Whether you’re a political news junkie or someone who has never really had interest in Washington, as a PR student it is important to pay close attention to this election season. So many skills we use in PR will be put to use by candidates over the next seven months, and it is important that we are able to pick up on them. Here are a few things to look out for along the campaign trail:

The Language of Persuasion

PR rhetoric and political rhetoric have a deep rooted bond when it comes to persuasion. The goal of both is to identify and capture audiences, then eventually get those captivated audiences to act on their opinions and beliefs.

Watch the next GOP debate and focus on one candidate. Get familiar with their beliefs and policies, then watch that same candidate speak at a college or at a small town hall meeting. Notice how drastically the language changes. The key ideas are the same, but the rhetoric is totally different and tailored to the specific audience.

Crisis Communication

Let’s face it--blunders, embarrassing mistakes and misused words are inevitable and expected in presidential campaigns. Every GOP candidate has been under fire for one thing or another throughout this campaign. It’s not necessarily what happens but how it gets resolved. Most slip-ups are forgotten about a week later, however if they’re handled poorly they never go away.

The next time a candidate has something negative surface from their past, watch how they handle the crisis. Do they spin the story into a new, positive idea? Do they own up to their past and move on? Think of how you would handle the situation, and how you would advise the candidate to move forward.

Get Your News from a Variety of Sources

This is the most important aspect to keep in mind during an election for everyone, not just those in PR. The only way to fully understand an issue is to hear both sides of the story. If you’re politically conservative and only watch Fox News or politically liberal and only get your information from MSNBC, you aren’t seeing the whole picture. Listen to an opposing view-- it could allow you to see an issue in a completely different light or could ultimately strengthen your own original beliefs.

What other PR tactics have you been paying attention to this election season?

This guest blog was written by PRowl Public Relations staff member Mackenzie Krott.

Election Media Coverage Goes Digital

Any student in public relations knows, or should know, how important it is to keep up with news. So in the face of a current election year, it is that much more important to be in the know. Some students, maybe even professionals, may have found it hard to keep up with every single aspect of past political campaigns; however, in this “age of technology,” it is easier than ever.

Using the power of new media during a political campaign is not a new tactic; you may recall when CNN and YouTube held a joint debate in which the public sent in videotaped questions. Politicians have since caught up on the trend, using outlets like Twitter and Facebook to be engaged with the public 24/7. This election season, not only have politicians been deploying digital tools in new and innovative ways, the media outlets and journalists covering them have been doing the same.

Besides individual journalists and news outlets tweeting and uploading photos, the 2012 battle for the White House is the first time that web apps dedicated to political coverage have been introduced. These new and innovative apps are allowing readers to have unprecedented access to all things related to the election. Online features such as these are changing the name of the game in political journalism.

Here are a few other ways in which media coverage of the election is going digital:

1. Election Centers: Major news sites like CNN, MSNBC and Fox are featuring online election portals in which visitors can learn about the candidates and their stances on the issues that matter, access links to candidates’ social media profiles or find out more about their financial backers.

2. Interactive Maps: NBC has actually teamed up with Foursquare to map the campaign trail. Other news sites like CNN are offering calendar like maps to show visitors where and when upcoming primaries and caucuses are being held. Politico actually takes this map concept a step further by telling visitors not only where, but why candidates are doing particular events.

3. Social Debates: This idea isn’t new for 2012, but it has become more mainstream. Fox News used to Twitter to get instant opinions from the public on each candidate’s performance in a debate. Facebook and NBC teamed up to co-host a Republican debate in which viewers asked questions via the social networking site.

Have you seen other unique digital tools used in this year’s political campaign? Or, do you find one of these tools extremely beneficial? If so, let us know!

This guest blog was written by PRowl Public Relations staff member Kaitlyn Sutton.

Santorum Attracts Media Spotlight, For Now

Rick Santorum received a huge PR boost this week after winning three state primaries out west. While Santorum is still unlikely to win the Republican Presidential Nomination, the hype generated from his recent victories will be enough to bring in some large donations and attract much-needed media coverage for his campaign.

Santorum, a former Pennsylvania Senator and avid sweater vest enthusiast, won the primaries of Missouri, Colorado and Minnesota on Tuesday. He’s already raised almost $1 million in donations since the three-way victory and has even begun to edge out Newt Gingrich as the Mitt Romney alternative.

Santorum’s recent victories have caught the media’s spotlight for the moment but his recent victories and the fast cash won’t be enough to win his party’s nomination. Romney and Restore Our Future, his extremely well-off Super PAC, have loads of cash and the majority of the delegates so far. Gingrich and Ron Paul would have to drop out immediately and endorse Santorum for him to even have chance.

Keeping It Classy

Let’s be honest, when you want something in today’s world, you have to “go out and grab it”. Below are a few tips to keep in mind when you’re planning your next move or countering accusations from competitors.

Know what you or your client wants to achieve right away. Then, keep your message clear and truthful as you communicate your plan to the audience. Speak in the language of the people you want to reach. Absolutely do not fabricate or exaggerate anything, someone WILL call you out. Whether it be a journalist or your competitor, there are people just waiting for you to slip up.

No matter what you or your client is accused of, keep your cool and always make a comment. When responding to an accusation, do not reply with the lethal phrase “no comment”...ever. When Newt Gingrich was questioned about his marital affairs during the final GOP debate in South Carolina, Gingrich responded with “ I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.” Notice that while he did not answer the question, he did have a comment.

When competing, the aim is to present yourself and your client as the premier choice, the most fit for the title, and most worthy of support. You are aiming to look like the shining ray of hope and your competitor the sinister opponent. However, DO NOT name call. Even if provoked, which will absolutely happen, resist the urge to act unprofessionally.

During President Obama’s State of the Union Address, he placed a particular emphasis on a few points within his speech. He did not mention his competitor Mitt Romney, however his reference to levying a millionaire’s taxes may have been an elusive reminder of Romney’s newly released tax return. Additional issues subliminally linked to Romney could have been the automotive industry bail out, and his call for housing assistance that would bring relief to responsible homeowners.

Instead of stooping to a level that is beneath you or the organization you are representing remember instead to; keep your cool, make a comment, be clear and truthful, and avoid calling out.

This guest blog was written by PRowl Public Relations staff member Emily Storz.

Polls Show that Office Holders, Candidates Need PR Boost

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll and NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll show all-time lows in public approval for both the administration and Congress after this summer’s debt ceiling crisis and S&P credit downgrade. Obama’s approval now rests between 43 and 44 percent, according to the two polls, while the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that Congressional approval has fallen to just 13 percent.

The ABC News/Washington Post poll also slams congressional Republicans, finding that only 28 percent of the country approves of the job that they’re doing. The poll did not measure the approval rating of congressional Democrats.

So, are Obama’s reelection hopes in jeopardy? It’s possible; however, there is no clear frontrunner in the GOP Presidential Primary. According to the ABC News/Washington Post poll, Texas Gov. Rick Perry is leading with 27 percent of registered Republican voters behind him. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is close behind with 22 percent and potential candidate Sarah Palin rounds out the top three with 14 percent support.

If Palin stays out, the Republican Party may split between the hard-line conservatives and tea party activists who will likely support Perry and the moderate conservatives and independents who will unite behind Romney. To complicate the mix even more, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows Obama up five points on Perry while he trails Romney by one point.

Regardless, all this data is premature at this point since there is still over a year until the general election and various Republican debates to come. Whatever happens, look for office holders and candidates to vie for public relations points within the next months because - let’s be honest - most of them need it.

Mayor Booker Tweets Through the Storm

While some area residents may have turned to liquor to make it through Hurricane Irene, Newark Mayor Cory Booker turned on his Twitter.

The social media savvy mayor garnered a bit of attention this week after keeping up real-time Twitter interaction with constituents during last weekend’s hurricane. He counteracted much of the sensationalism bouncing around the microblogging service with helpful and positive messages, many of which were in direct reply to his city’s residents. On a few occasions, he even asked constituents to direct message their phone numbers and addresses to him so he could help them immediately. When constituents came to him with less-severe problems, he provided them with important emergency phone numbers and advice within minutes.

Booker’s extremely effective Twitter communication is almost unprecedented during a natural disaster, with the only exception coming last winter when Booker helped constituents during #snowpocalypse. Newark residents were snowed into their houses and it was Booker’s use of social media that helped clear the roads. He used Twitter to find the worst-hit areas of the city to help coordinate plowing and cleanup efforts. He even went so far as to show up at residents doorsteps with supplies; one of his Newarkian tweeted at Booker that the blizzard had prevented his sister from buying diapers, so Booker picked some up and hand delivered them.

Mayor Booker’s use of Twitter is revolutionary, especially when compared to other mayors in the area. Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter tweeted over 20 times during the hurricane, but his tweets look pathetic when compared to those of Booker. Nutter rarely responded to constituents and his best piece of information was essentially to keep off the streets. I’m sure Nutter had his hands full during Hurricane Irene, but more effective social media outreach could have gone a long way to help Philadelphia’s residents – many of which were victims of flooding and power blackouts. It’s a classic tale of two cities and Newark seems to have come out on top.

Twitter policy mobilization? Not so fast.

Politicians and political campaigns regularly use Twitter to connect with their constituents. Recently some politicians have started to use Twitter to connect with other politicians’ constituents over policy issues with mixed results.

A couple of weeks ago President Barack Obama held a nationally televised press conference to ask the American people to support compromise legislation to raise the nation’s debt ceiling. He asked the electorate to call their representatives to make it clear how important it was to avoid a national default. Obama failed to mention in this press conference that there was another contact method he supported: tweeting.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the White House instituted a communication initiative last week to educate the public on fiscal policy and urge bipartisan legislation through Twitter. Barack Obama’s Twitter account began posting the twitter handles of Republican legislators from across the country and urged their constituents to tweet towards a #compromise.

Obama’s account may have actually gone a little overboard with its policy mobilization strategy. The account tweeted nearly 100 times on July 29, mostly to post the Twitter handles of Republican legislators from Illinois to Florida. News outlets have reported that the initiative may have spurred a massive unfollowing of Obama’s Twitter accounts, with reports putting the exodus at between 33,000 and 40,000 followers in a single day.

Politicians should definitely use Twitter to help mobilize grassroots support but they must be careful about the spamming followers. Spread the communications initiative out over a week and focus on smaller geographical areas each day to avoid subjecting followers to a deluge of tweets. Obama’s #compromise Twitter initiative is an example of a great idea with a botched execution.

Politics and PR: Don't Stop Using Social Media!

The following post was written by Jason Mollica, '97 Temple Alum.

Rep. Anthony Weiner’s (D-NY) social scandal garnered plenty of headlines in June. You remember the story: Weiner tweeted lewd pictures to a 21-year old college student. Then it was found out he did the same to a few other Twitter followers. Weiner resigned under the pressure of first lying about sending the photos.

Now this isn’t going to be a blog on what Rep. Weiner did wrong or how some need a re-education with social media. What I would like this to be is a call for politicians nationwide to continue to use social media.

Yes, do NOT stop your tweeting and posting to Facebook because of this, or a few other missteps by your political brethren. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube can be powerful tools in your arsenal. But, they also need to understand that social media can build you up and in one tweet, take you down.

Meghan McCain, the daughter of Arizona Sen. John McCain (also an avid tweeter), wrote a column on “The Daily Beast” in June. In it, she wondered if politicians should be on Twitter period. She said:

So I have to ask: What do politicians really gain by using Twitter? There are only a handful of politicians who are truly great on Twitter—the rest rely on their account to release press releases. But even the entertaining Tweeters stumble because the only way to succeed in the medium is to be unscripted.

I believe politicians have a ton to gain on Twitter. Newark, N.J. Mayor Cory Booker has been doing outstanding things with his social media efforts. Philly’s own Mayor Michael Nutter is also a great example that if politicians understand what social media can do, it can affect change.

Ms. McCain is right when she says during the election cycle that tweets will be more powerful and dangerous. It’s up to the politicians to be smart and savvy, though.

Jason Mollica is a 1997 graduate of Temple University's School of Communication and Theater. Since then, he has worked in television and radio in Philadelphia and New York City. Upon leaving the industry in 2005, he began a career in public relations and marketing. He is currently the public relations manager for Carr Marketing Communications in Amherst, N.Y. You can follow him on Twitter, @JasMollica, and read his blog at http://oneguysjourney.wordpress.com

When Does Who Become More Important Than What?

Apparently, it’s the moment a United States president uses social media.

In 2008, for the first time ever, the battle for the presidential election was waged and won by President Barack Obama through social media. This is not news. It happened roughly 4 years ago and was the topic of much conversation at the time. So much so, that now it is considered standard practice.

This is why I took interest in an article published by The New York Times entitled, “Obama Starts Tweeting for Himself”. I had always assumed that during the 2008 election the majority of the social media posts, especially on Twitter, were composed by a group of communications staffers, but I was surprised that Obama did not write a single tweet himself.

Well, that’s all changing. As of Father’s Day, Obama will start composing his own tweets. Or at least the ones signed, –BO. Here is what the president had to say in his inaugural tweet:

"Being a father is sometimes my hardest but always my most rewarding job. Happy Father’s Day to all the dads out there. –BO."

What does this mean for his upcoming campaign? Well, staffers are hoping it will help voters feel more connected to the president, and that messages sent directly from him will have a greater impact. Personally, I am hoping we will get to see a glimpse of the individual style that is Obama. But I haven’t decided if this matters to me as a voter.

As a communications student, I expect a team of communications professionals to meticulously write and rewrite every piece of information that we receive from the White House and the president. So I am not sure if this personal signature will mean that much. Personally, I kind of doubt it. But if the president can make people feel as if they have access to him, then it just might mean a whole heck of a lot.

What do you think about the situation? Will you feel more connected to the President if he types in his own tweets? Will this bring something new to the political table, giving the everyday voter access to the candidate?

To read the full article from The New York Times click here.


This guest blog was written by PRowl Public Relations staff member Jacob DeChant.

Cleaning Up the WikiLeaks

The Obama Administration is working to contain the damage incurred by a leak of 250,000 classified documents. The information released included "unflattering assessments" of world leaders, and may have a negative impact on foreign policy with both allies and foes.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke about the leaks and promised an aggressive response. Clinton stressed the importance of candid and confidential communications in every profession. While this is true, the confidential information at stake is not comparable to information leaked in a business setting. This breach of information could cause more than embarrassment for the United States.

There are many audiences which the United States must now respond to, including the countries mentioned in the documents and the U.S. citizens. Damage control is needed to both mend any severed relationships with the other countries and to address U.S. citizens' national security concerns.

What do you think about the U.S. response to the WikiLeaks? Click here to watch Clinton's press conference.

Can John Stewart and Stephen Colbert Make You Vote?

On October 30, Comedy Central comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert decided to try to make a difference. Their Rally to Restore Sanity, held in Washington D.C., was aimed at people who think the loudest voices aren’t the only ones that should be heard. According to CBS News, the rally had a turnout of 215,000 people. This great turnout could be attributed to Stewart and Colbert’s use of social media.

One may think the 2008 election boosted the voter turnout of the country’s youth. However, despite Obama’s Facebook page personally designed by the founders of Facebook, his campaign only boosted youth turnout by a meager 2.1 percent. These statistics may raise doubts about whether two Comedy Central comedian-hosts will be able to use social media to raise numbers.

Stewart and Colbert may be able to increase youth voting through their presence on Facebook and Twitter. Colbert has already raised an abundance of funds online, and both his and Stewart’s late-night shows appeal to the demographic in which they are trying to encourage voting.

Attendees of the Rally to Restore Sanity were encouraged to RSVP to the Facebook event “Election Day.” On Election Day, voters also got to display an “I Voted” badge on their Facebook page for their friends to see. As more people clicked that they voted, the numbers continued to increase throughout the day, showing the amount of Facebook users who were headed to the polls.

Stewart and Colbert encouraged attendees to sign in to the rally using Foursquare or Gowalla, which display location checkpoints on users’ friends’ news feeds. Voters could also use these sites to check into their polling locations. If that wasn’t enough to spread the word, there is a Rally for Sanity iPhone application and a #RallyForSanity hashtag, which Twitter users could include in their posts to make the rally a trending topic.

What do you think about Stewart and Colbert’s social media outreach?

Poor Candidate or Poor Public Relations?

As you may have seen in recent news, Alan Grayson, the Democratic representative for the state of Florida, has debuted a political commercial that implies his opponent, Daniel Webster, is a member of the Taliban. In the clip, Webster is portrayed as a sexist, controlling and misogynistic conservative who claims wives should “submit themselves to their husbands.” While Mr. Webster’s quote is taken directly out of a speech he delivered, Grayson pushed the code of Public Relations ethics by publicizing the small excerpt completely out of context.

In what Webster had intended the public to hear, he explained how he valued the unification of a family and making moral decisions, which may not necessarily be what is said in the Bible. He tells husbands to move past meaningless sexism and see their wives as equals. In the actual speech (clip available here), Webster said:

“So, write a journal. Second, find a verse. I have a verse for my wife, I have verses for my wife. Don't pick the ones that say, 'She should submit to me.' That's in the Bible, but pick the ones that you're supposed to do. So instead, 'love your wife, even as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it' as opposed to 'wives submit to your own husbands.' She can pray that, if she wants to, but don't you pray it.”

Any informed voter would have taken the time to cross reference the three-second phrase used in Grayson's ad with Webster's original speech. The speech had intended to show Webster's family values, but instead it gained him the unjustified nickname of “Taliban Dan.” The creators of this commercial believed they could tear down their opponent by misrepresenting him and trying to persuade the public he would control the senate in the same way he “controls” his wife.

One would like to believe all voters take the time to research the validity of each campaign before casting their votes. However, this is not always the case. For the sake of public affairs, and specifically the upcoming Florida election, we are lucky this commercial has received the attention it has. Had this commercial not made the nightly news, many voters may have believed what they were told and cast a vote based off of ignorance and misguidance.

As a Public Relations fan, do you think the creators of this commercial were successful? Do you think they have done well by Grayon, or will the backlash from the commercial negatively affect his campaign?

Perhaps this article touches upon a commonly asked question in the world of PR: Is it better to get negative press than to get no press at all?

This guest blog was written by PRowl Public Relations staff member Meagan Prescott.

New to Twitter: Israel

This week, the country Israel acquired the user name @israel on Twitter.

This speaks volumes for the growth of social media in general--and especially for Twitter. According to an article by Raphael Minder and Ethan Bronner in the New York Times, this move was "intended to help Israel exercise more influence over its image."

The user name was originally held by a Spanish pornographic company, but it went largely unused; "'I was getting dozens of replies every day from people who thought the account belonged to the state of Israel,'" the owner of the Spanish company said.

But now, people who follow the account are in fact following Israel the nation. "'We thought we could put it to better use,'" a spokesperson for the Israel Foreign Ministry said in the article. The sale price for the account has not been made public, but the spokesperson said that "'it was not pro bono.'"

Israel has expressed interest in using social media, and has also launched a YouTube channel.

I look forward to following Israel's tweets. Do you think Twitter is an effective tool for countries looking to improve their image?

Arizona Tries to Put Itself Back on the Tourist Map

Arizona, most recently known for its infamous and controversial new immigration law, is now planning to spend $250,000 on a public relations campaign to counter its negative image and promote itself as a "safe and welcoming destination." According to the Associated Press, the state's hotel trade group will also contribute $30,000 to the effort.

The USA Today article goes on to state that the PR campaign was publicly presented by a tourism task force appointed by Arizona governor, Jan Brewer. With major economic fall-outs for the tourism industry due to several boycotts and travel bans from cities across the country, the AP article goes on to state that Arizona should hire a PR firm "to help manage the existing dialogue and clarify the facts" regarding the immigration law.

Brewer approved the recommendations of the task force, one of which also directs Arizona to "change the tone of the dialogue to reflect the true implications and tangible effects that boycotts have on the lives and families on the most vulnerable tourism employees," AP reports.

Will a PR campaign help improve Arizona's damaged reputation or is the damage irreversible?

Let us know what you think!

White House Launches Post-Healthcare Reform PR Campaign

The news of the passing of healthcare reform through Congress broke late Sunday night to completely mixed reviews. Some news stations praised Obama for completing a task begun a century ago while others shared harsh criticisms of a Congress that pushed legislation through without listening to the people. Personally, I was confused about the details of the 2,700+ page bill and how it would effect me and other Americans. I spent Monday morning reading article after article in a handful of publications and finished my search for information only slightly less confused.

After being kicked off of my mother's health insurance at age 19 (even though I am still a full-time student at Temple University) I'm excited to see that the bill will allow people like me to stay on their parents health insurance through age 26. That was one of the only details that I could clearly make out in the several articles that summarized the legislation, however.

Considering this, I was excited to hear in a PRWeek article by Jaimy Lee posted on Monday that the White House will launch a three phase, post-healthcare reform informational public relations campaign to answer the important question, "what's in it for me?" The campaign will aim to cut through all of the opinionated media noise surrounding this historic legislation to provide Americans with factual information about the bill in an attempt to change public opinion.

The first phase of the campaign will focus on the immediate aftermath of the legislation, the second will handle the seven months leading up to the crucial November midterm elections and the third will handle the years after as the legislation begins to take effect.

I'm excited to see the campaign play out in the next few years and I'm hopeful that it will remain informational without being tainted by propaganda. It will also be interesting to see how oppositional groups communicate their messages against the bill. How do you feel about the White House's new PR campaign? What would you like to see them do?

Never Such Thing As Too Much?

Tonight should be a busy night for President Obama. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal by Elizabeth Williamson, entitled "TV Blitz Will Test Obama's Star Power," Obama "will appear on five news programs [tonight], followed by a comedy show Monday night," as part of his mission to gain public support for his plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system.

Writes Williamson, "the president's heavy media schedule raises questions about whether his ubiquitous presence will dilute his effectiveness as a pitchman, " pointing out that previous presidents have reserved personal appearances for large, select occasions.

Is Obama's campaign to raise awareness and support - and to boost the image of - his new health-care plan likely to strengthen or undermine his cause? That remains to be seen.

We'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter!

It's All About Perspective

I visited my dad at work for lunch on Friday and we got to talking with one of his friends in the cafeteria. My dad's friend owns the catering service that operates the building's cafeteria, and he and my dad were exchanging stories about how bad the economy is right now.

I guess the conversation had made me a little depressed, and, seeing it on my face, my dad's friend asked me what was wrong.

"I can't figure out if the economy will be better or worse when I'm ready to join the workforce," I said.

Here's what he said in reply: "It doesn't matter. Whether the economy is good or bad, you'll have no choice but to get up everyday and make the most of it. We all have our issues, and the economy is certainly a big one right now. But there have always been serious issues affecting all generations, and we have always found ways to make things work. No matter what issues your generation faces when you join the workforce, you'll get up everyday and try your best. And if you do that, you will always eat."

I thought his take on things was really insightful, and it sort of put the whole issue of the economy in perspective for me; the circumstances are what they are, and we have no choice but to try our best, stay optimistic and keep moving through each day. I think he's right: if you are willing to bust your butt, you'll always find a way to get by.

Out With the Old and In With the New? Not So Fast.

"The so-called 'new media' - Internet utterings, cell phone photos and footage, Twitter tweets and the like - are demonstrating both their potential for journalism and their hopelessness as journalism in the post-election Iranian uprising," wrote the Atlanta Journal Constitution's Tom Teepen in a recent article called "Why 'Old Media' is Still Needed" in the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal.

As Teepen points out, new media has been extremely instrumental in getting around government-imposed information barriers during the Iranian uprising. He compares these new media tidbits to "messages in a bottle." These "snippets of text and flashes of image arrive outside Iran, satellite ricochets carrying provocative indications of conditions and activities in the politically lurching Islamic Republic," he said.

Teepen also makes an interesting observation: "without means for verification, without explanation or narrative, unconnected to one another and of uncertain provenance, these raw data of news are as frustrating to readers, listeners and watchers as they are intriguing," he explains. This has led him to characterize the bits of information that escape from the troubled country as "chaos, not coverage." What's missing, he says, is journalism, which would act as a "filter," a means of providing explanation and detail to go along with the little information that is received. This can not only spur confusion, but it can give an unbalanced view of the conflict to outsiders.

Teepen suggests that, for this reason, "old media" is still needed; new media cannot or should not stand alone. I found this idea to be really interesting, as I had not previously considered the important ramifications of having a detailed, unbiased intermediary between the impassioned civilians on either side of the conflict -- and for that matter, on either side of Iran's borders. What do you think, is new media alone a valuable means of getting information in this conflict? Or is it an important part of a larger whole? In emphasizing new media as much as we do today, are we throwing the baby out with the bath water?