SOTU TV Ratings. So what?

The television ratings are in for this week's State of the Union Address and they're the lowest of the three such speeches delivered by President Obama.

So less people are watching them on TV, but how might we otherwise be following the speech?

How about things like satellite radio? Or the Internet, or simply following coverage by reporters and pundits via Twitter, Facebook or running Blogs?

While less people may be watching in the traditional sense, more may be following along digitally. More importantly we can now interact with the coverage, no longer tied to what a small group of reporters and pundits report in what used to be a one-way line of communication.

Choice and interaction. The ability to listen and respond. A good thing for Democracy.

Brian Olson
Conversation Starters Public Relations
"We start the conversation about you"

"Net Neutrality" Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

If you're reading this, it's safe to surmise (as opposed to assume) you have access to the Internet. In a way, the 'Net is a 21st century version of the wild, wild west. But like it or not, it's the main venue for commerce and communication in our world.

There's also plenty of competition to provide access to it from a myriad of providers. Competition has always been good for consumers. It's when you try and regulate it where we get the short end of the digital stick.

Yesterday the FCC voted along party lines to implement so-called "Net Neutrality." It's supposedly designed to protect us. Protect us from what? Competition? It's supposedly designed to make sure we all have access to all things on the 'Net. At least in my case, I have no problems doing that now.

I'm going to yield the rest of my time to Denver Post Columnist David Harsanyi who makes a well-reasoned argument to save the 'Net and abolish the FCC. I'm all for the former, not so much about the latter. The FCC does serve a purpose but in this case it's a bad case of over-reach.

Read David Harsanyi's Opinion Piece here.

The problem about rules is, more rules always follow. When it comes to the 'Net, let's leave it up to consumers. We're a heck of a lot smarter than government gives us credit for.

Brian Olson
Conversation Starters Public Relations
"We start the conversation about you" (And like using the Internet to do just that)

When is more...too much?

"When is more...to much?"

That's a line from the most recent edition of CSI New York said by CSI Danny Messer. (Carmine Giovinazzo.) The plot line involved another one of the CSI's witnessing a murder live while on a chat room. Danny, in the scene, is talking to his wife about the huge potential dangers of the Internet, all created by the plethora of technology available to us all.

There are a myriad of pipelines available to all of us to post just about anything we want. Most, but not all of us use these pipelines in positive and creative ways. Most.

It brought to mind the current case of the college student who killed himself after a "friend" posted a video of him in a sexual act; a case of "Cyber Bullying" as profiled in this report on Minnesota Public Radio.

CSI New York isn't the first television plot line involving online crime.

So when does Cyber Bullying cross the line established by the 1st Amendment? For now, it seems the law says it's ok to yell fire in a digital theater. Not so much in a real one. There are other examples. The Washington Post for example has very strict rules about fairness and making sure both sides are heard in a story in its print edition. Their online edition however plays by different rules. Many stories posted are ones-sided to the extreme. But their position is that the online edition is essentially a bookshelf and they are not responsible for the "books" on those shelves. It's a lesson I learned the hard way some time ago.

All of course by the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court starts its latest session today, and free speech is first on the docket.

Free speech is a precious thing. The 1st Amendment makes us unique in the world. It's worked wonderfully for a few hundred years. At least up until now. The good news is everyone has access to the Internet. The bad news is everyone has access to the Internet.

As a member of the Board of Directors of the Radio-Digital-Television News Association (RTDNA) I spoke in defense of the 1st Amendment across the country including twice at the National Judicial College. Thankfully, the 1st Amendment isn't going anywhere.

Sadly, abuses of it aren't going anywhere either. How we deal with it all remains very unclear.

Brian Olson
Conversation Starters LLC
"We start the conversation about you"

Bob Schieffer on 'Net Nuts

The great thing about the Internet is pretty much everyone has access to it. The bad thing about the Internet is pretty much everyone has access to it.

Remember the old saying that a lie gets half-way around the world before truth gets it pants on? That quote is often attributed to Winston Churchill, some say it was Mark Twain. Either way, it's a point well taken. The Internet just speeds up the process.

This was all the subject of this commentary by Bob Schieffer of CBS News this past Sunday. Schieffer is "old school" and as a Texan, he talks plain. He makes the point that "Ignorance Travels Fast on Internet." He was reacting to the recent poll about people's perception of President Obama's religion. I won't weigh in on that debate, but do agree with many of the points Schieffer makes about the danger of believing everything you read or see on the Internet.

Schieffer isn't the first person to make the point that the Internet provides a platform for a lot of misguided folks who use the Internet to validate their own misguidedness. Shari Julian, a Texas psychologist says, "When you have a venue for ventilating rage, your belief in that rage is ratified. It increases their belief that their behavior is acceptable. Their behavior is applauded, seconded. In that case, it's scary. It does seem to roll and escalate."

You can pretty much post the most outrageous things about anyone or anything on the Internet. There are lots of websites that provide the platform for you. It's all protected by free speech and the folks who run these websites defend themselves by saying they're essentially a digital book-shelf and not responsible for the content of the books on that shelf.

To be fair, the Internet is an incredible source for information, research and news. But as Ronald Reagan famously said, "Trust but verify."

Just like a good journalist, seek out more than just one source for information. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't make it true. Be especially aware of anonymous posters. Anyone who posts a thought, idea or opinion anonymously makes what they say about as worthless as spit.

Imagine if John Hancock had signed the Declaration of Independence as "FreedomGuy76?"

Brian Olson
Conversation Starters LLC
"We start the conversation about you"

Lies, pants, polls and fact-checking

I came came across this article on the Politico website this morning. It brings new meaning to the old saying about a lie making it half-way around the world before truth has a chance to put its pants on.

At issue is the accuracy or lack thereof, of political polls. An hour doesn't go by without out poll results about this political race or issue being released with the numbers being breathlessly read on air or posted on the Internet.

They have to be accurate right? I mean it's a POLL! As Lee Corso would say, "Not so fast my friend."

One of the most watched races this political primary season was the Democratic primary campaign for Senate in Arkansas. Incumbent Blanche Lincoln was all but written off because polls said she was trailing challenger Bill Halter.

"Halter Surges!"

Turns out the poll data may not only have been bad, but deliberately manipulated. Lincoln of course, ended up winning, "surprising" the very same people who reported/wrote/blogged she was going to lose.

"DEWEY WINS!" 2.0.

As a journalist, I never liked polls. At best they were a momentary snapshot from a sample of a few hundred claiming to represent the views of thousands. There are, to be fair, solid and respected pollsters.

But in this 24-7 news environment and (mis)information spread at the speed of light on the Internet, everyone needs to take a moment, take a deep breath and do a little fact checking.

Before the advent of what we know now as the Internet, my friend, former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson told me, "Show me two people with a mimeograph machine and I'll show you a lobby group." An analog description that works just as well in today's digital world.

It's easy for any group or cause to create an official looking website, post polls or anything else and as long as one person believes it and shares it, truth might as well not even get out of bed.

It worked, almost, in Arkansas.

Brian Olson
Conversation Starters LLC
"We get the conversation started about you!"