Politics & Communication with Joshua Gee

I have been a little disappointed in The Fix recently. It was, along with FiveThirtyEight, one of my favorite blogs during the Presidential election. Chris Cilizza has excellent political instincts and a good sense of humor that enabled him to give insights into the ups and downs of campaigns all over the country and into the daily life of a major newspaper reporter.

However, since the election, Cilizza hasn’t been interesting me as much. Maybe it is because Obama already won, so I don’t really care whether his plan to save the economy is popular with Republicans or not; I would rather read some policy blogs about whether it will work. But that can’t be it, since I love to hear about the machinations of Congress and the White House. It seems that Cilizza just doesn’t seem to give the insight into the sausage-making of policy that he was able to give to the campaigns. I have also worried that Cilizza was losing his touch. He did just cover the campaign of a lifetime and has a new baby, so it is understandable if they guy wants to phone it in for a while.

However, as soon as you give up on someone they smack you in the face. I was delighted to see a great post yesterday, right in Cilizza’s wheelhouse, about the NY-20 special election. I was just saying that I have no idea what is going on with this election and probably should. So Chris, what are the basics?

The special election in New York’s 20th district is just one week away and the level of national interest — and involvement — is growing rapidly.

What’s clear is that businessman Scott Murphy, the Democrat, has the momentum over state Assemblyman Jim Tedisco (R), and a loss for Republicans could be potentially disastrous for a party looking for good news.

The Albany-area district went for Obama narrowly in November, according to tabulations by Swing State Project.

Thanks! What are five things I need to know to be aware of the issues at stake in this election? And do you mind if I summarize what you wrote?

• Will Obama get Involved? (He endorsed Murphy this morning)
• Which third-party groups (e.g., Unions) will be able to position themselves to claim victory for whoever wins?
• The campaign is coming down to a debate over the stimulus,  as such it could be seen as a national referendum on President Obama’s plans.
• Apparently the ads are almost 100% negative. Will either candidate tack against the wind and go positive or will someone devise a new negative ad that floors his opponent.
• GOTV – with a week left that is really all that matters. Have campaigns done their homework? Do they know where the votes are? Also will Obama’s endorsement affect that effort.

Great! I will be keeping an eye on this race and The Fix has earned itself a few more months in my RSS reader.

Since all I really want out of life is to be Matt Yglesias, here is a little news about a local public transportation issue. Today the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) will vote on a plan to raise fares and cut service in order to try to meet a projected $1.2 billion budget gap. The measure has the support of the Mayor and the Governor and is likely to pass. Thankfully, my route won’t be hit by service changes (fewer cars) in this round of cuts, but I will be affected by a price increase to the tune of $264/year:

The base subway and bus fare in New York City would rise to $2.50, up from $2. A 30-day MetroCard would cost $103, up from $81. A monthly ticket on the Long Island Rail Road for a commuter who travels between Ronkonkoma and Pennsylvania Station would increase to $352, up from $278.

The Times yesterday asked the Chairman of the MTA whether he had a message for lawmakers in Albany: “Mr. Hemmerdinger said, with his voice cracking slightly: ‘How about just, Help.’” The drama of that statement plus all of the quotes coming from MTA affiliates and commuter groups blaming Albany (usually those groups are quick to attack the MTA) gave me the impression that the MTA was playing hardball with the state government. The great thing about working at a large PR firm is that, regardless of the topic, there is someone who knows a lot about it. I talked with a coworker and he very politely informed me that I have no idea what I was talking about.

His first point is that the MTA is required to balance its budget every year so they never really play politics, they just try to meet their dealines. I think this is somewhat unique to the MTA since I remember in Boston people bemoaning the massive debt of the MBTA. I also found out that the main source of the MTA’s revenue (after ridership fees)  is real estate transfer taxes. If I buy a brownstone, or if Trader Joe’s opens a new store in Brooklyn Heights, there is a surcharge that goes to the MTA. This worked great when Tishmen-Speyer was buying multi-billion dollar developments and the taxes from that transaction alone were able to fund the MTA for an entire year. However, the real estate market has collapsed and along with it that revenue stream.

- More after the jump -

Read more

Sorry for the absence. I was on vacation this weekend (including Monday) and got back to work to find a mountain of things waiting to be done. It struck me earlier that I started a blog called “Politics and Communication” and then left a picture of Gaius Baltar on the front page for it’s inaugural weekend. Here is what I didn’t have time to blog about today:

• Woody Allen is funny. Though all reading that did was make me look up and reread this, which is really funny.
• I haven’t read this article on debate tactics yet and I was about to toss it when I saw that the author is the founder of the Young Conservative Coalition; I will find time later.
• I did have time to listen to a few Planet Money podcasts, so I now understand the bank bailout plan. This article from Slate is a good perspective. Good in the “I hate Wall Street” vein.
• Best. counter-terrorism. plan. ever. I am trying to friend Osama Bin Laden on Google Latitude – once he accepts we will have this whole thing wrapped up pretty quick.
• Weird title, good blog post on social media.

I didn’t finish the Battlestar Galactica  finale until around 3:3o am EST because I was on a bus for most of the night. So I basically finished the finale, said “oh my god” over and over with my hands to my head for about five minutes, then passed out.

All in all it was a rather jarring experience that didn’t give me the opportunity to fully consider and understand last night’s finale. As such, I spent today trying to read all the BSG commentary I could. I found it surprisingly hard to come by so I thought I would aggregate what I could find here.

• The New York Times wrote a combination review of last night’s episode/eulogy for the series. My mom loved the article, but that is because it was written for people who have never watched the show. It raised some good points about the characters overall, but the stuff about the Book of Mormon and Alcoholics Anonymous really lost me.
• The LA Times, in contrast, had nothing but accolades. They loved the show, and they loved the finale. Since I liked the finale, I like this review  even though it is less ambitious than some of the others.
• Salon had a critical review of the finale/a summation of the final season. They had me playing along until the review called Admiral Adama the series’ most controversial figure (wtf?) and started hating on Edward James Olmos’ acting ability. REVIEW FAIL. Don’t frak with the old man.
• TV Squad loved it. Their review features lists of the episode’s high and low moments. Literary junk food to be sure, but worth scanning for the “ZOMG THAT WAS AWESOME” factor.
• Yglesias didn’t care for the finale but doesn’t say why. Sad.
• Friend Greg went to the cast and crew screening of the finale at the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences theater. Friend Greg is now known as “that asshole named Greg I used to be friends with who is married to that actress from Battlestar.” Shmuck.

I will keep an eye out but probably not post any other reviews here except for my own. Check my tumblr for other reviews I come across. I am still working out my own thoughts about the episode so I might try to write something up later.

For those that don’t subscribe, this week the President used his weekly online address to celebrate the Iranian New Year. Full video below:

Most blogs I have read hold this up as a token of how much administration has changed and also make jokes at the idea of President Bush speaking Farsi – fair points both. Ezra Klein does it best:

There are times when it’s hard to believe that this is how my country acts now. That somewhere in government, some young bureaucrat had the idea that the President should publicly honor the Iranian New Year, and that bureaucrat felt that her superiors would also think this a good idea, and, indeed, the thought went all the way to the President, who agreed that a display of engagement and goodwill was consonant with our national values and foreign policy goals. It is hard to believe that five years after we were ordering “freedom fries” in the congressional cafeteria, we’re posting Persian translations at Whitehouse.gov.

Hear hear. But, I think it is also worth comparing this to the previous administrations’ attempts at using public statements to influence Iran. In 2005, on the eve of elections in Iran that looked like they might unseat Ahmadinejad in favor of a slightly more moderate government, President Bush gave a speech saying that Iran’s electoral process failed to meet “the basic requirements of democracy” that the “oppressive record” of the country’s rulers would undercut the legitimacy of the upcoming vote. The result was Iranians getting upset that President Bush was trying to meddle in their affairs. President Ahmadinejad’s party won renewed support and the election. Good job there, I would have preferred he tried to speak Farsi.

I don’t know enough about Nowruz or Iran to say whether or not President Obama’s message contained cultural tones and phrases that wouldn’t make sense to an American but would be significant to Iranians that were listening for them (I would guess they did, but that is me giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt). I can say that I think this is the best medium to reach out to Iran.

Fun Fact: Iran has the most bloggers per capita of any country in the world. If you think the media won’t give you a fair shake (which Iran’s state-run media probably won’t), then take your message around the media and straight to the people. Online and Social media efforts to connect with the people of Iran may be the best bet to bring about real change to the perception of the United States.

Those who looked at yesterday’s tab dump may have seen a link from the Conversation Agent asking, “Are PR Agencies a Dying Breed.”

It grates when a wide swath of social media people I think are smart write off my profession in a somewhat self-serving manner. That kind of thinking was in evidence with the title of that panel: “Are PR Agencies a Dying Breed?” A more accurate panel (and what the panel and the post were really about) is “How are PR Agencies Changing.” It is also hard to not get exasperated when the points that were brought up in the panel and in the post as things that agencies should do are things that agencies are doing right now!

If it’s also true that, as Brian said, as an agency they’re not charging to write press releases or for media campaigns anymore, how are PR agencies going to make money? One of my thoughts is to help create the context for relationships with the media and third parties.

The other thought I had was that agencies can help clients move from reactive – and yes, thinking of PR as just press releases is in some way reactive – to a more proactive stance. That would include the integration of many tools that allow for putting the “public” back in public relations.

This was the thing that surprised me most about starting in the agency world. I expected my job to be writing press releases and pitching reporters. I have been thrilled to be able to work on teams that design social media strategies, help companies engage in high-level influencer relations, engage in traditional media relations and to work with clients to design internal Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives and policies. PR Agencies, and I think Edelman especially, are more farther along the curve than a lot of people are willing to give them credit for.

Richard Edelman, on his blog, recently touched upon this topic in his rebuttal to Jeff Jarvis’ predictions about PR agencies in What Would Google Do.

In Jeff’s world, companies speak directly with consumers, giving up control of product development, focusing on customer service instead of marketing/advertising, building strong relationships within communities of interest. Public relations actually plays a vital role in this new construct by making valuable information easily accessible and open for improvement. We provide big ideas that bring together constituencies (such as the Quaker Oats Substance) for action. We also offer advice to companies, encouraging them to take on the big issues of our day that inspire employees while offering new opportunities to make money.

I think agencies will be around for a while yet, in one form or another. Their history hasn’t always been auspicious and many still, frankly, don’t get it. But I think it is time for a lot of people to stop basing their perception of them on what they were and start thinking about what they are and what they will become.