Making Ripples: post-corporate adventures in Floyd County Virginia

A simple credibility test

The next time you are exposed to widely differing stories about anything, take a hard look at which side is trying hardest to shut off the debate by force or by legal threats. That side of the issue is hiding something that cannot stand scrutiny.

If an idea is worth defending, it should be defended openly with an exchange of facts as well as opinions.

Shutting off debate using paid goons to interrupt speakers is as old as civilization. "Spontaneous" demonstrations staged by professional agitators provide eye catching news photos for journalists especially when these demonstrations disrupt an ongoing event..

Suppressing dissent takes different forms. PR professionals craft action campaigns where callers jam radio station lines to create the effect of mass disapproval in hopes of forcing the show to shut down.

Lawyers are sent to threaten media outlets with suits for running ads unfavorable to a particular cause or candidate.

This is not limited to politics. One can see this "stamping out dissent" activity around the subjects of global warming, construction of power plants, harvesting of trees, etc.

Using force or legal threats to shut off discussion of important matters is a sign that something is being hidden from view. Any group using this technique should be considered unworthy of trust. It becomes very important in these situations to see who is making money on each side of the controversy.

How can one apply this?

Take a subject like global warming which has passionate adherents and reputable critics in the scientific community. The ad hominum attacks on those who question the measurements and computer models suggests that critical inquiry is heresy of the worst sort. When we can no longer ask questions, we enter the province of religious belief. Climate change is a matter for science, not zealotry and faith.

I have no particular insight on this matter even after extensive historical studies, so I see the efforts to shut down critics of the current global warming debate as a sign of a cover up of some magnitude. As a result, I have a healthy distrust of the whole global warming movement. There may be some merit to the arguments, but the actions of the proponents makes me think it is a money making scam.

What is there to cover up? Perhaps the sale of carbon offsets by the oracle of global warming. Perhaps a "green washing" of polluting businesses through the purchase of "dispensations". Perhaps the creation of government grants to "study" the problem and guarantee employment to those who are properly aligned.

Until there is continued open and intelligent discussion of the situation, I will not believe those who cry wolf and attempt to use our tax money to line their pockets.

The next time you find yourself unable to make up your mind about an important situation, take a look at how the parties involved are handling their critics. That may tell you more about their intentions than what they are actually saying.

Deeds are more important than words in determining what to expect from someone or some group.

A politician will run on promises to "throw the bums out", but you should take careful note who is contributing to him and whether they are under indictment or investigation.

Why a debate is different than a campaign stop

The presidential debate showed a different side of both Barack Obama and John McCain than I had ever seen before. This is probably because the debate environment is closer to what an executive experiences on the job has to deal with as opposed to campaigning and interviews which are more like sales situations.

Barack Obama is a gifted speaker and has the ability to arouse an audience and to get others to follow his dreams. He is an incredibly persuasive orator and his rapid rise to political prominence reflects that ability.

John McCain is no salesman and on the campaign trail his speeches have not seemed inspiring, only reassuring us that he means well. Until Sarah Palin joined his campaign, there was no sizzle. A sales campaign without sizzle is a non-event.

A live, in-person debate is much more like the kind of challenge executives face every day in the business world and in the political world. Courage and the confidence that comes from actual experience are essential for handling pressure and making decisions when there is a lot at stake.

There are no retakes or Photoshopping in real life situations. In a presidential debate, as in real life, your opposition can see you sweat and every tremor and bit of nervousness is there for all to see. There is no provision for a "Do Over" call. What goes down in a crunch situation is there for all to see.

In last night's debate John McCain's experience served him well. Barack Obama's obvious brilliance and oratorical ability were on display and were tested to the fullest. Only the voters can decide which man is the better choice to be President of the United States for the next four years.

Do children come prewired for Internet access now?

I ask because, in Floyd, it often seems like anything is possible.

Porter is one and half years old. When I saw him at the computer at the Cafe Del Sol, I was taken aback at his certainty.

I asked his mother if she thought this was his first lifetime using a computer.
She just smiled.

Meanwhile, Porter made a determined effort at logging in on Netflix.

Orchestrated "grassroots" smear campaigns are business, not personal

If you ever wondered how some of these stories about candidates seem to spread "spontaneously", this detailed analysis on the Jawa Report will give you more information than you ever imagined.

The basic formula is that a professional PR firm plants imaginatively creative and false videos on YouTube and gets a cadre of sockpuppets to spread the word.

Once the smear is exposed, the original videos are taken down from YouTube and all traces of upload are removed. This leaves copies of the video circulating as a "Grassroots Phenomenon". This is Astroturfing at its finest.

The Jawa Report story points out that the voiceover on one particular "grassroots" attack video is performed by the same person who does the voiceovers for one of the candidates. The PR firm behind the grassroots campaign is tightly connected to the same candidate and the uploads and sockpuppet comments were done during normal working hours. This would strongly indicate that this smear campaign was business, not personal.

Actions such as this will lead back to the candidate involved and will generate extreme negative publicity.

Neither party should allow this to happen on their behalf as it will rebound on them.

UPDATE: Within hours of the posting of the Jawa Report, all of the videos were removed from YouTube and the accounts of those who had uploaded the videos had been closed. Exposure was all it took to make this orchestrated "grassroots" smear campaign vanish. If it had been an actual campaign by real people, they would have been basking in the attention and the heavy traffic they had generated.

Obama and Palin spoke to large crowds Sunday

Barack Obama spoke to 20,000 supporters in Charlotte, NC on Sunday 9/21/08. Campaign staff estimated that there were another 10,000 people outside.

The WRAL video was the only one I could find and the talking heads kept interjecting comments when they should have just covered Obama's speech. This video does provide some close-up views of Barack that give more insight to his character.

If you can find a better video, let me know and I will add a link to it. The important thing for me is hearing what the candidate says and how he or she says it. Critiques by talking heads add little value. In fact, WRAL showed their bias against Obama in the same way that CNN, NBC, etc show their bias against McCain and Palin.  A pox on all their houses. If this continues, TV news may follow the newspaper industry into the dumpster.

Sarah Palin was also on the campaign trail on Sunday. She spoke to 60,000 people in The Villages, a senior community in Florida where people waited in line for hours to hear her.

She was accompanied by her husband Todd and her children. She had great rapport with the audience and it was a delight to hear her speak.

Watch the video. Her message about small businesses and energy independence resonated with her audience.

More about her speech at Gateway Pundit.

A campaign with bounce

This video about an Australian cellphone company's new product is delightful.

Smiling Aussies bounce and roll throughout the city of Sydney, Australia, until finally crashing into the sea, all to the tune of Lisa Mitchell’s song “Neopolitan Dreams.”

Watch the video.

Thanks to Very Short List for the link.

Astroturfing

Astroturfing is the dishonest technique of inserting carefully prepared political messages into public forums where the writers claim to be  "real citizens" who are "independent".

This technique tries to create a "grassroots" phenomenon -- but it's artificial and inorganic. Hence, "Astroturf." It is also a technique that is likely to backfire with independent voters who are increasingly Internet savvy.

Astroturfing is played with both volunteer and paid help and seems to be increasing as we get closer to Election Day. This is not confined to Campaign HQ for either party because there are independent regional efforts by Democratic and Republican partisans alike.

The two common versions go like this:

I have voted Republican (Democratic) for the past two elections, but the smears spread by John McCain (Barack Obama) and his minions have convinced me to switch parties at last and vote for the man who will lead America out of the mess it is in.
Signed, Rita from Ohio.

A more sophisticated version goes like this:

Democratic version:
1. Claim to be conservative or Christian,
2. say some weakly charitable things about McCain and/or Palin to "prove" you're not a partisan,
3. But we had no idea McCain was so craven and ridiculous. Sara Palin is no more qualified and tested than Julia Roberts.

Republican version:
1. Claim to have been a long term Democrat
2. Say how much hope was generated by Obama's nomination
3. Express grave concern about Obama's donations from Fannie Mae, close ties to William Ayers, etc. and say will be voting McCain/Palin now

The giveaway in most cases is that the same wording appears in comment after comment on many different forums and the attacks are wildly partisan and not completely truthful or accurate. Their hope is that by repeating the big lie often enough it will convince voters that it is true.

What these people of both parties do not seem to know is that once a falsehood has been exposed, all credibility is lost. Continuing to spread a discredited story of how bad someone is only causes revulsion and rejection on the part of the public that votes.

Attack ads are a losing campaign strategy

Irresponsible and untrue ads can snatch defeat from victory in the current Presidential race. Right now, I think that either side could lose the election by continuing attack ads. The more either side attacks, the more the public will tune them out.

In a recent Fox News interview, Karl Rove had some words of wisdom for both McCain and Obama. He is quoted as saying candidates John McCain and Barack Obama have gone too far in their attacks on each other. It is well worth reading.

Rove spoke on Fox News Sunday, but I cannot find the entire video yet, only snippets taken out of context  to prove particular points. It seems some people have selective hearing because some media outlets are trumpeting triumphantly "Rove says McCain has gone too far". (His statements put both parties on notice.) 

Taking words out of context to support an argument is similarly self-destructive, because we can all look up the original transcripts and that destroys any credibility for that source of information.

If supporters claim that something isn't fair, or the opposition is hiding something really awful, the public sees these acts as the actions of a victim and rarely elect victims.

Watch the polls change back and forth as the tide of attack ads continues.

Megham McCain is blogging

If you ever wanted a vantage point from which to view a candidate from the inside of the campaign, you may enjoy Meghan McCain's blog. Be sure to check out the Video as well as the Photo sections.

There are images you will see nowhere else. I got a completely different view of John McCain and his family from this blog. Meghan does the writing and the video presentations. Photos are taken by Heather Brand and videos are shot by Shannon Bee.

She has a children's book out now and is doing book signings. The title is "My Dad John McCain."

Visit McCainBlogette.com. Go Meghan!

Tired of Slime? Try Factcheck.org for instant relief.

In the pre-Internet world, sliming a political opponent was fairly easy to do. You would get some well-known media figure to trumpet his or her "discoveries" about the opposing candidate and you would time it so there was no time for anyone to respond with the whole story.

Most of the media figureheads on the Left and the Right  still are working on that assumption, even after Rathergate.

Unfortunately for them, bloggers can locate the original transcripts on the "Intertubes" and publish corrections to false stories and misleading headlines within hours of the original slime. They also use factcheck.org to get the entire story and so can you.

Result? Extreme loss of credibility by the misleading media figure and a boost for the target of the slime.

A political campaign is a high level marketing activity and obeys the same fundamental rules of communication. If a group maligns a political opponent or even spends a lot of time discussing a political opponent, that group is spending their precious donated money advertising the opponent.

When a false statement is made, it can be easily detected through use of the Internet and the originator of the falsehood is tagged as an "unreliable source" meaning untrustworthy. Increasing the volume of the lies told is no use. It only makes those who are uncommitted more wary of your candidate.

Listen to the candidates yourself and understand what they are saying. If you listen to news, try to understand that 85% of all media figures vote for one political party. That is not wrong at all, but you should be aware that 85% is a long way from being fair and balanced.

As Election Day nears, there will be more pressure on all sides to support the "party" candidates. and the truth will get bent more and more. As a citizen, you will be better off finding out for yourself what the candidates have done and said.

If you find that you are enraged by what some candidate is supposedly going to do to the Constitution, the American Way, women's rights, your taxes, read factcheck.org first before sending emails to everyone you know. Chances are that the candidate never said or did what was claimed by opponents.

Factcheck.org is great for clearing slime from your life. Be sure and listen to "It's a Mess Out There."