The Twitter Vote Report was promoted as a “non-partisan, all-volunteer network” in which voters with cell phones and accounts on the micro-blogging site Twitter could text message or post voting experiences. An analysis of the Twitter Vote Report shows, however, that the volunteer, social media project aimed at publicly identifying voting problems in the 2008 election was subject to indeterminate amounts of human judgment and technological error.

In running data on Nevada’s publicly posted reports and in email correspondence with Twitter Vote Report volunteers, I found that the Twitter Vote Report had so many potential loopholes that the report’s results should be interpreted only as a glimpse at the sharing of views of a relatively small number of voters — just over 11,000 out of more than 110 million. [NOTE: Read the complete data analysis here: Twitter Vote Report Data Analysis.]

The Twitter Vote Report provided a novel opportunity for people to share their voting experiences in real-time. At the same time, the report’s processes for collecting and posting user experiences indicates too many subjective interpretations of what to post and what not to post in order to be considered reliable examples of the average voter experience. 

Other problems were that:

Vote reports did not follow recommended use of hashtags (hashtags are words preceded with a number sign and are searchable in Twitter)

Vote reports were potentially dominated by a minority of users (one user in Nevada had 38% of the posted reports for that state)

Vote reports were subjectively approved to be publicly posted on the Vote Report site 

Vote reports were subjectively “dismissed” from public posting using inconsistently enforced criteria (see below)

Vote reports were duplicated

Vote reports were posted that appeared irrelevant as to intent of the Vote Report (one example from Nevada: “@DwayneH dude I love egg salad sandwiches, but liquor store is scary. downtown scarier, even. best of luck. #votereport”).

Based on a data analysis of Nevada’s 72 posted reports (retrieved November 7, 2008), combined with posts that ended up only being viewed on individual Twitter accounts and not on the Twitter Vote Report Web site, it is clear the Twitter Vote Report did not post an undetermined number of vote reports because of user error, volunteer judgment and because of technological factors.

In an email to me, the Vote Report’s Allison Fine says,

“All of the tweets that had the vote report hashtag made in into the datastream that was ran down the middle of the site — or could be seen on Twitter directly. If the message didn’t have a location (which automatically came through the cell phone apps on iphone and android but had to be included in the message if straight through Twitter) then it couldn’t be posted on the visuals. One thing that became clear as a lesson learned for us was that we were successful in getting the word out (all by word of mouth and free media, btw, there was no money spent on this effort at all) about the votereport hashtag, but users didn’t pay much attention to the other hashtags of zip code, machines or registration if they were having problems which makes visualizing tweets challenging.”

To test the system, I posted my vote report on election day, a link to my audio log of my own voter experience (in which I had a lot of fun). I simply posted my tweet with the #votereport hashtag. My friend Ryan, who was blogging for Reno-area newspapers during the election, also noticed a number of tweets were not being displayed on the Vote Report site. We wanted to know why. What criteria were being used to prevent posts from being publicly viewed?

So I asked a Vote Report volunteer. He said:

“Our sweepers were empowered to ‘dismiss’ certain reports. Nothing was deleted from the archive of reports, but anything dismissed was kept out of the live stream (emphasis added). The guideline for accepting a report was that it needed to have location and at least one other valid tag (#machine, #registration, #wait, etc.). When possible, the sweepers appended a valid tag if it was implied by the content of the report.”*

In analyzing what was publicly posted, it appears a good deal of empowerment was going on. Results of what was actually posted in Nevada indicate volunteers did not follow their own guidelines, or significant technological errors occurred which led to the appearance of widespread “dismissal” of vote reports. (In the world of quantitative research, anytime data is “dismissed,” ignored or thrown out, a red flag should be raised and results should be considered suspect.)

Had the Twitter Vote Report followed clearly specified criteria for posting reports, in addition to employing a system for rectifying possible volunteer bias, it is likely many of these problems would not have occurred.

The irony is that in the process of trying to identify so-called voter suppression, the 2008 election’s results ended up more accurate and reliable than the Twitter Vote Report.

Nevertheless, the report is considered a success by supporters. Allison Fine says that the Twitter Vote Report,

“was an amazing ride that went from an idea posted on a blog to a real-life site in less than a month powered entirely by volunteers. It is the continuation of ways that open-source efforts using cell phones can contribute to large-scale events like natural disasters and elections — and it’s just the beginning of what we’ll see develop over the next few years.”

Let us hope that better protocols are developed and followed before that happens.

[NOTE: Read the complete data analysis here: Twitter Vote Report Data Analysis.]

———————————————————–

*Here is the email from the Twitter Vote Report’s “lead sweeper”:

“1. Our sweepers were empowered to “dismiss” certain reports. Nothing was deleted from the archive of reports, but anything dismissed was kept out of the live stream.  The guideline for accepting a report was that it needed to have location and at least one other valid tag (#machine, #registration, #wait, etc.).  When possible, the sweepers appended a valid tag if it was implied by the content of the report.

“Ultimately, it was up to individual judgment, and errors were possible as well.  Also, there were a number of other technological factors that might have led to a report not being posted.  

“To explain the reports that you saw that seemed not to meet any criterion for relevance:

• you may have seen reports to which sweepers had appended appropriate tags.  we did not display those tags alongside the reports, because we wanted to publish the reports as the user submitted them
• some reports never got swept.  all reports went live automatically, and were pulled later if they were dismissed

“2. I’m fairly certain that all the data is available and queryable if you know where to look and how to query.  I’ll follow up woth the tech team to facilitate your  request.”

Despite my asserted virtue (however ill thought at times) of not taking sides in many matters, there are of course many things that deserve a definitive view of being, for lack of better terms, “right” and “wrong.”

I’m not convinced the presidential election necessarily fits this mold, despite the fervent efforts of so many who have spent considerable effort advocating for one side or another.

After the 2004 election, a sunken advocate of the losing side entered my office clearly dejected. My response to him: “This is why I don’t get attached to outcomes.”

Which is what I consider to be the lesson now, just as it was then. The point isn’t who wins, it is how we manage our responses to who wins and who loses. Of course I have my favorites. But when the odds of something so portentous as a presidential election, with noted worldwide consequences, is at stake, there isn’t much an individual can do at the end of the day.

The election therefore becomes an opportunity for how to handle both success and failure. Bemoaning AND celebrating outcomes can become an exercise in self-indulgence, which can be harmful regardless of which sides win.

Psychologist Bert Hellinger puts it better than I ever could. This is his poem, called “The Players.”

The declare themselves
Opponents.
Face to face
They play
On one common board
With many figures,
And complex rules,
Move for move,
The ancient Game of Kings

Each sacrifices
Many pieces
In their game,
And seeks advantage
Until there are no moves to make
And then their match is done

Then, changing sides
And colors,
They begin another round
Of that same Game of Kings 

But whoever plays enough
And often wins
And often loses
Becomes a master

–Of both sides 

Heard it? The term social media, that is. For the unknowing, social media and its oft associated terms, such as wikis, blogs, Youtube, Myspace, Facebook, Twitter and so on, can be intimidating and confusing for people not familiar with these words and terms.

Here’s a simple definition: Social media is best understood as technology that is first, online, and second, is interactive. More and more you are seeing less and less on the Web where you are merely a passive reader or viewer.

Now, you have the ability to talk back. You can review the books you’ve read on Amazon. You can rate and comment on videos on Youtube. You can even post your own video response. You don’t like what a news reporter writes? Many news sites allow you to write back and publicly post your comments.

For many of us, especially those in the communications fields, there’s a tendency to jump into the social media fray and attempt exploit the hell out of it. I remember viewing one person’s online profile somewhere. He had every way to contact him listed, including his Myspace page, Skype number, Facebook page, Twitter page, LinkedIn profile, website, blog and so on.

This is overboard. I recommend more judicious use of social media. Used effectively, social media can be very effective for communications. Used without critical thought, though, and social media can be expensive in terms of spending vast amounts of time on something that doesn’t show a significant return.

Here are five strategies for approaching the use of social media in ways that are less time intensive and more effective for communications.

1. Think of social media as one strategy among many. Social media’s newness doesn’t inherently make it more superior as another ingredient in the marketing mix. Just as a strategy embracing display advertising, of which one tactic could be roadside billboards, is part of the mix, social media should also be considered among many other strategies.
2. Consider your audience. Embrace social media if your target audience also embraces social media. This is basic targeting. If a Huffington Post writer loves your company’s blog but your top-level constituents aren’t reading the blog, your use of a blog isn’t being as effective as it could be. Many people still don’t use computers, and if they do, there’s no guarantee your audience will embrace your social media efforts.
3. Reside somewhere between early adopters and the early majority. Being too hungry as an early adopter can be risky (and incredibly rewarding), as many innovations, especially those with quickly advancing technologies, fail to catch on. The much-hyped Second Life is a case in point. Major buzz ultimately couldn’t salvage this once pinnacle of social media. There’s a valid return-on-investment reason to wait to embrace the latest online trend: time. Social media is not inherently expensive, but the time investment is immense. Test the waters before jumping into them.
4. Monitor the innovators. I take a three-part stance toward new social media hype. I typically recommend, 1. watching what the innovators are doing, until I am 2. seeing the utility of a social media outlet/technology for my purposes, and then am 3. Finding a way to effectively use it to meet communication objectives. It took me months to see the usefulness of Twitter. Twitter may be a helpful technology in part because its hype is being played out in the numbers of users joining. This is as opposed to Plurk.
5. Use what works (well). If your goal is higher views of your DIY video clip, loading the video into an online video engine few people know about simply because the engine is cooler and more robust than Youtube’s, your priorities may be askew. Youtube remains (one of) the most visited video sites so including it as part of your online media should be considered.

There are many other considerations about using social media. More and more of our lives are moving online, but our experience will likely never be entirely digital. Our level of hype, therefore, should keep this in mind.

It was a sad day yesterday for Northern Nevada blogging

Around Carson. Scott Schrantz’ unassuming commentary on my second hometown of Carson City is always of the variety not seen in other media outlets. Scott doesn’t have an ax to grind; yet, he tells it as he sees it, and his updates are nearly always relevant and interesting, such as when local restaurants open or close. Or construction updates, or the town’s history. Around Carson is always interesting, and anybody can post to it.

MrJerz. I’ve been a longtime reader of Ryan’s blog and always appreciated his honest tone and willingness to call out dirt when he sees it. Ryan’s gotten into trouble, some of it serious, only for standing up for what he believes in (and, I have to add, with offensively little support from his fellow bloggers). Most of the time he’s right. Because of this, he has made enemies and burned bridges, which probably contributed to why he didn’t make the “Best Of” list this year.

Inside Nevada Polics. Done by the Reno Gazette-Journal’s political reporter Anjeanette Damon, INP publishes political news not found in regular news stories. Anjeanette seems to always get scoops nobody else does and is highly dedicated to her craft. While I wish she was more interactive with her readers, she reports politics well and her blog remains the source for Northern Nevada political updates.

www.twitter.com/mehwolfy. Mike Henderson’s Twitter is a laugh a minute. Whether he’s biking the cheatgrass outback or drinking at his favorite pub, mehwolfy’s Twitter is a mandatory one to follow as he combines social media know-how with sardonic, 140-character commentary.  (Toilet humor warning.) 

Mostly Dogs. I have a love/hate thing with Mostly Dogs. I am in complete disagreement with Mark Robison’s fundamental animal rights/”animals are part of the family” stance; at the same time, his blog is timely, relevant, informative, funny and, best of all, Mark responds to his readers and corrects obvious misinformation as he follows stories from start to finish — a rarity in the news business these days, it seems. As a dog lover, I find Mostly Dogs to be an incredibly valuable read, and Mark sets the blogging example for his journalist peers.

Bike Carson. This is another (second) hometown favorite done by my longtime friend (since middle school, maybe earlier!), Jeff Moser. I’m not a bike fanatic, nor am I generally interested in the topic, but the, uh, spin Jeff puts on biking in town and his advocacy of cycling as a mode of transportation is done with wit and honesty and is minus the dogmatism sometimes seen with the more edgy pro-bike crowd. I even partially commute by bike now because of Jeff’s blog.

Dullard Mush. I don’t know the person (not keen on the anonymity) and I’ve only began reading this blog recently, but the Mush(man/woman) takes a refreshingly honest stab at political commentary not seen in most other so-called political blogs here up north.

As a final word, I think it’s important not  to take popularity contests too seriously. We’re all familiar with Alexis de Tocqueville’s famous observations of America and democracy, in which he pointedly mentions the fundamental underpinnings of the curse of the thinking of the majority. So it is with irony that we continue the de facto celebration of this underpinning while giving lip service toward the marginalized. Such is the nature of “Best Of” contests in the so-called alternative media.

Berlin-Icthyosaur State Park. Photo: Bob Conrad.

After reading my local paper’s articles online, I often skim down to the comments below the article. It is here where I begin to feel so very unclean.

With the advent of attempts at creating more transparent journalism, many news media outlets allow ordinary folks to comment on their news stories online. I’m not sure why.

The lay public is incredibly misinformed and it is difficult to be truly knowledgeable about the complex issues facing people today. [Edit 10/17/08: Click here for an unrelated but pointed, amusing and sad example of how misinformed we are.] Social psychologist Robert Cialdini calls this “paralysis of analysis.” As information is more readily available, it is more difficult to be critical about how and what we absorb.

What adds insult to injury is when newsrooms don’t talk back after their readers respond. This is where journalists can learn from their PR brethren.

[Edit 10/17/08: The same day of this posting, which was written a week prior to being posted, there was an interesting storm of criticism directed at the local daily, and it was being dealt over Twitter. What happened was the paper posted an endorsement of a political candidate that was viewed with criticism. I even weighed in. One problem, among a few: In moving the article around, the reader responses got deleted, or at least there was the appearance of being deleted, which created further furor -- again, expressed on Twitter. The next day, the paper reposted the comments under the article with an editorial pseudo apology. Ryan commented that "this would have never happened without Twitter."

Also, the following day, I posted another comment to another story, taking to task, once again, the Associated Press, for fear-mongering reporting of dubious sources. A reporter promptly took me to task in the comments section! The point being: Not all's black and white in the world of Bob Conrad. So a partial mea culpa is in order, and a kudos goes out to Steve Timko for his participation. On that order, I've gotten initial approval to interview another employee of the RGJ to discuss this topic directly. But please continue reading to get to what I hope is a larger point on newsroom transparency, one that appears to be changing.]

Embedded into (good) public relations is the notion of symmetrical communications. Past PR engaged in asymmetrical communications. A group or organization transmitted information to a public, and that was considered the chain of communication: me to you. Symmetrical communications takes into account the response from publics. In other words, in order to truly engage publics, and I would add, in order to truly have publics better informed –and conversely, organizations better informed of public views — communications needs to be two way.

Even this isn’t enough. The book Radically Transparent invokes the notion that in order to be truly transparent it is critical that publics are partners in organizations. Dell Computers engages its customers in product development ideas, for example.

Newsrooms, however, are still radically opaque. Here’s why:

1. We don’t really know what goes on in the newsroom, nor should we in many instances. Just as there is a need for ANY organization to conduct at least some parts of its business in private for proprietary — news scoops would fall under this — legal or personnel reasons, newsrooms have valid reasons to be operating behind closed doors. But the opportunity to comment on a news story is really just an extension of the old letter-to-the-editor. It’s containerized – there’s a word-count limit, for example – and it offers nothing up about what goes on behind the scenes of a newsroom.

2. Commenting on news stories does little to elevate dialogue. One reason is explained above – people are often ill-informed enough about issues that comments usually detract from news stories and actually contribute to misinformation. Because of diminished critical thinking, comments are too often fraught with conspiracies, name calling, allegation and innuendo.

3. Newsrooms are laissez faire about article comments. My colleague Ryan tells me that in fact, news outlets deliberately take a hands-off approach to their reader comments for legal reasons. The news media doesn’t want to be liable for the libel that is likely to be contained therein.

4. News reporters do not engage readers in dialogue, at least not publicly. This is the most problematic reason for offering up public comments: Reporters are trained to report, not to engage in conversation. It is often the case that when called upon to be accountable for a story, reporters will either clam up or simply say, “Our work speaks for itself.” A next-day ‘correction,’ may run, but the accountability is minimal. It is a rare occurrence that a paper has the guts to come out and boldly say on the front page, “We fucked up” (words that I think should automatically be at the top of the mind of every good public relations spokesperson). Even that is a minimal form of dialogue. It appears even rarer to see a reporter chiming in on the conversation below his or her story. (Who can blame them?)

So it is with public relations that news journalists can once again turn for counsel. Good public relations is all about engaging our various publics in dialogue, listening, giving feedback and, most importantly, acting upon what needs action.

By adopting a truly transparent stance, newsrooms will begin to empower their publics. In doing so, people can begin to be better informed. And hopefully more tolerant.

Mark Bellinghaus’ parody of the Vanity Fair magazine cover.

By Michael Shermer (republished from The Skeptic)

Two years ago we reported on the brilliant exposé by Mark Bellinghaus of a Marilyn Monroe hoax perpetrated at the Queen Mary in Long Beach, California, where included in a display of the movie star’s personal items were hair curlers.

As Bellinghaus reported, famed psychic James Van Praagh used those curlers (and the blond hair in them) to make contact with Marilyn, and he even carried on a conversation with her on the national television show Entertainment Tonight. Well, Bellinghaus tracked down the origin of those curlers through their maker, Clairol.

It turns out that those curlers were first manufactured in 1974, twelve years after Marilyn died, so it would be interesting to know just who Van Praagh was talking to! Perhaps there are Marilyn Monroe impersonators on the other side as well.

Psychics are not the only ones trying to cash in on Marilyn’s irresistible fame. Last April a news story broke about a newly surfaced Marilyn Monroe sex tape (what else?), which was also swiftly debunked by Mark Bellinghaus as yet another fake.

Marilyn is back in the news this month as Vanity Fair magazine featured her on their October cover in honor of their 25th anniversary issue, offering a potpourri of personal papers and items that promises readers will unlock the 45-year old “Marilyn Monroe mystery.” One such pictured item is Marilyn’s personal typewriter, on which she allegedly fingered letters to the rich and famous, which immediately set off Bellinghaus’s baloney detection alarm — Marilyn Monroe couldn’t type!

This is just one of numerous fakes and mistakes that Bellinghaus says are comparable to what Clifford Irving did when he faked Howard Hughes artifacts in order to sell his authorized biography of the billionaire to the McGraw Hill publishing company for one million dollars.

If you want to read the anatomy of a hoax, check out Mark Bellinghaus’extensive article. He’s a first rate skeptical investigator of all things Marilyn. For my money, the real “Marilyn Monroe Mystery” is why people won’t let this tragic woman R.I.P.

My list of pet peeves about journalists:

1. Lack of homework, or any attempt at doing homework, about the topic at hand. This is more true for television journalists. I quite often take calls at the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources where questions asked are easily answered with readily available information on our Web site. It’s usually clear the reporter hasn’t even bothered to begin to explore the information out there and instead want it to be spoon fed to them.
2. Creating illusory correlations (as in connect-the-dots journalism) and not understanding the difference between correlation and causation. Along with this, a lack of understanding about statistics in general. Too often, reporters turn one or two anecdotal sources of information into headline stories when, in reality, the “story” is one person’s often misguided opinion.
3. Drawing inappropriate conclusions based on given information. These conclusions tend to favor the “little guy”– and/or seek to heighten controversy — and tend to smear the larger entity, usually a corporation or government agency. This happens far too frequently (witness AP’s story about “drugs in the water,” which was fear-mongering journalism at its worst).

My list of great things journalists do that make life easier:

1. Calling well ahead of deadlines for information.
2. Being human. Seriously: A dose of humor or the sharing of information about one’s self goes a long way. I spoke with a reporter recently who overheard my background music and said, “I love that band!”
3. Approaching stories fairly and without an ax to grind. When a reporter is fair in his or her approach, and it shows in the end story, I consider this to be an honorable person to work with — whether or not my organization takes a hit in the piece.

The (failed) Mojave Experiment, a screen shot

I have, mostly by default, been a Microsoft software user since 1989. Despite advances through these nearly 20 years, I’ve never quite been wowed by much of what Microsoft produces.

In contrast, Adobe’s products, particularly Photoshop and InDesign, are exceedingly useful tools with myriad creative possibilities. One can make a life time’s worth of effort simply using and learning either of these two pieces of software.

Microsoft has always been regarded as basically just being there. Needed, but not necessarily wanted or even appreciated. Microsoft’s success has been in market dominance, not necessarily superior products.

Sure Word is a fairly good package, even if it’s way too full of features 95 percent of us will never use. Excel’s not bad (but I’m still sticking with SPSS to run my stats). PowerPoint is atrocious and always has been. Its auto-functions are deplorable, counterintuitive and messy. And Internet Explorer is simply a nuisance in light of Mozilla’s Firefox browser, and now, Google’s Chrome, both of which are superior products.

Microsoft, unwittingly perhaps, opened the floodgates to software innovation elsewhere by its lack of authentic vision geared toward concern for the end user. I’m a huge advocate of Google’s fairly easy-to-use – free! — online software, particularly Gmail, Google Docs, Google Calendar, Google Reader and iGoogle. I’m close to doing much of my daily business all online, eliminating more and more the need for desktop-based software (admittedly, I’m typing this in Word now, however).

It’s no secret that Microsoft as a software developer is behind the curve. The reasons are many, and one blogger cleverly published insider documents that hint at Microsoft’s dysfunctional culture, tellingly illuminating how Microsoft’s success has the company in disarray.

And now Microsoft is adding salt on widespread wounds by deliberately advertising the supposed hidden virtues of its problem-plagued Vista operating system. These ads, dubbed the “Mojave Experiment,” are misleading.

This blogger explains how. Such ‘research’ would likely never pass the muster of peer-review – it’s almost insulting to even think of these ads in terms related to science — but it’s important to note Microsoft’s attempts at ‘science’ are dishonest at best.

This blogger asks several on-point questions in response to the Mojave Experiment ads:

• The “Mojave Experiment” involved 120 people. But the Web site shows 55 people saying nice things about Vista. What did the other 65 people think?
• Most or all “Mojave Experiment” videos posted to date feature an expert or marketing person showing neato features to someone. If Vista is so great, why didn’t you let people touch the computers?
• When people were initially asked their opinion of Vista, was it clear yet that Microsoft was doing the focus groups? How about when asked the second time? (I’ve personally developed and conducted many focus groups, and once you tell who is sponsoring it, everybody gets very complimentary about that company’s products.)
• Did the Mac, Linux, Windows XP and Windows 2000 users run out and buy Vista? If so, what do they think now? How about some follow-up?
• Will you make all video footage available (not just the favorable bits), at least to the press? How about just me?
• How is getting people to respond to controlled demos superior to surveys of people who actually use Vista?

The ultimate irony is that when I went to the Mojave Experiment Web site to review it for this post, I got a message that the site couldn’t be view in my browser: Google Chrome.

Did I download the new Microsoft software to gain access or click through to the “non-Silverlight” version after the annoying pop-up?

Hell no.

Lest we forget, the ‘public’ in public relations refers to the constituents to which we are accountable.

So it irks me to hear about my colleagues who use their public relations positions to attempt to mold and control news stories to bizarre degrees. (When I was in a past position being encouraged to do the same, I couldn’t have felt more unclean.) Such attempts in fact translate as the authoritarian, “we know best” stance, which on the face of it, is just as arrogant as journalists who believe they also know what’s best for the public at large.

Consider: Both news journalists and public relations personnel constitute fairly measurable demographics. In PR, pros tend to be college-educated, (white) women of middle socioeconomic classes. News reporters tend to be college-educated white men from middle socioeconomic classes. Neither group reliably represents society as a whole yet both see fit to speak for us all. Remarkably.

For public relations, this phenomenon is in part manifested by the apparent and fundamental philosophical stance taken when one is representing one’s organization.

At a recent gathering of communications professionals, we each gave an update on our respective organizations. Half of the room was happy-go-lucky, talking only of the wonderful things their organizations are doing despite the fact that Nevada’s economy, like the rest of the nation’s, is in the shitter, which has resounding consequences on all fronts, including drastic impacts on our personnel and constituents. We all knew where the shit was sticking (we do read the paper, after all), but you wouldn’t know it by the spin being spun among the spinsters.

Fortunately, the other half of the room was more honest and discussed some of their challenges (I opened my three minutes by mentioning that we recently, and tragically, fished a body from the waters of one of our state parks.)

The latter half of the group was refreshingly more genuine primarily because of their honesty. By visibly acknowledging the elephants in the room, these folks end up being more credible sources for their publics and the news media. Social psychology research in fact validates the openness of shortcomings as a credibility builder.

So when spending time with, for example, a television news crew, guess which members of the above groups are mentioned as “good PIOs” when I have the fortune of hanging all day with such a news crew? The opportunity is a tremendous public relations learning experience. In spending that much time with in-the-trench reporters, which I occasionally get to do, I am quickly reminded of which practices go over well with the news media and which do not.

I’ve said it before: Good media relations is accommodating perhaps to a fault; poor media relations is fairly transparent and will become public very quickly. Amazingly, the poor practices are beyond basic in my book — and fairly commonplace.

I’m ashamed, though it wasn’t at all a surprise to me, to hear of my colleagues’ far-too frequent infractions, such as micro-managing what the news cameraman is allowed to shoot — well beyond reasonable expectations. Or forgetting to call back a news station after major news develops, only moments after talking to said news station. Or trying to insist nothing of importance is going on when SWAT-team members are on the roof of your organization’s building.

And so on.

I’ll be tweeting live tomorrow from the Tahoe backcountry on a media relations excursion (cell phone coverage depending, of course). A local TV news crew is doing a Lake Tahoe backcountry feature on horseback.

I’ll be tagging along and documenting it as we head from Spooner Lake to the grand vistas of the Sierras, which overlook both Lake Tahoe and the Reno/Carson areas.

Pics will be posted on the DCNR Flickr page hopefully by the end of the day. Please visit here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nevadadcnr/

Are you on Twitter? If not, you should be. Follow me here: www.twitter.com/nvbob.