-
Website
http://www.scobleizer.com/ -
Original page
http://scobleizer.com/2005/12/16/corporate-and-political-blogging-get-rid-of-the-fear-be-yourself/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
http://www.darcyburner.com/blog.php?p=15
So her entire platform is "I'm not Dave Reichert"? Yeah, that worked REALLY well for Kerry in 2004 didn't it?
Maybe if the Democrats would solve their rectal-cranial insertion syndrome and start putting up viable candidates, we independants would have a better choice on election day.
Glad I live in Seattle instead of Redmond.
What a waste of time. Plus, the only reason she is talking to you is because she's an ex-Softie.
That being said, given who frenzied the political bloggers are, I'd have to agree that blogging is a great way to get your message out. The problem with political blogging is that it's not very honest. It's all honed and polished for effect. I have the same problem with corporate "blogging", most of it isn't really blogging in my mind. Just press releases. (See the majority of blogs.msdn.com for examples).
Bah
The "Aw Shucks" thing doesn't work - you're an Evangelist for Microsoft - one of the single largest forces in the technology industry. Don't, for one minute, believe your stuff wouldn't stink without that wind behind you. Heheh, indeed.
But, she'll be visiting here cause I just emailed her my post, so I'm sure she'll see your words. How much clearer do you want to see her words get?
You're hardly a corporate blogger. If your tag line wasn't "Microsoft Geek Blogger", most people wouldn't know who you work for. I wouldn't be surprised if you stopped working at Microsoft before the end of 2006.
You seem to go out of your way to talk about how great Google and Yahoo and others are and how bad Microsoft is to prove that you are "objective". The occassional Channel 9 video/interview is the only apparent justification for your continued employment in Redmond. It's not clear why Microsoft pays you other than management is generally clueless out there.
Your blog is good and the kudos you give to G, Y and others are on target. It's just that Microsoft shouldn't be paying you, particularly recently when you made a point of writing about anything BUT Microsoft. Of course, you're readers really liked that. It's clear where your loyalty lies.
I'm not suggesting that you should spin a bunch of dishonest BS about Microsoft. Ballmer and the marketing department has that well in hand. But you could and should do more to represent the very under-represented pro-Microsoft position in the blogosphere. There are a lot of objective, positive things you could be saying about Microsoft, but instead you choose to pander to your readers. Maybe they should pay you instead.
Keep up the good work.
There's a big difference between saying you are going to do something and explaining HOW you are going to do something. Politicians are always telling us what they are going to do, but not how they are going to do it.
Lets take one point. This is one of my favorite topics because there is no way a lay person could understand what stem cell research actually means.
He voted AGAINST Stem Cell Research. (HR 810)
Darcy SUPPORTS Stem Cell Research.
How is she going to support stem cell research? Is she going to try and overturn the ban on federal funding? Is she going to have a sill born baby and donate it's stem cells? Does she plan on buying lunch for every researcher that does stem cell research? What KIND of stem cell research? What does it mean to vote against stem cell research? What does it mean to support it?
Let's see what the P.I. says.
"The ad says that Reichert opposes stem cell research. Although he opposes the expansion of embryonic stem-cell research, Reichert does not oppose stem cell research in general, Mathis said. "
Hmmmmm, so he doesn't oppose stem cell research in general. That seems very different from what she's implying. She makes it sound like Reichert opposes ALL stem cell research, when really he's just as vague about what he supports as she is.
She, and most politicos, post meaningless words. Hell, it's easy to say you support something. Watch.
I support the withdrawl of troops from Iraq.
Now, what's my timeline? When do I think the troops should be withdrawn? How? Do I mean all of the troops or just some? See, politicians rely on our lack of follow-up for their power. They know they can get away with meaningless statements like that and no one will call them on it.
Not to mention, she implies connections without providing any facts. Look at this simple statement.
Reichert voted WITH Tom DeLay 91.3% of the time. (Congressional Record)
Darcy OPPOSES Tom Delay and SUPPORTS investigating his Ethics violations.
She's trying to say that Reichert is as bad as Delay, and may be unethical JUST BECAUSE HE VOTED THE SAME WAY AS DELAY. Maybe Reichert supports the Delay investigations as well. How do we know that she wouldn't have voted with Delay on a good majority of those bills? See, again she's just playing the "Democrats good, Republicans bad" card which is absolute pandering bullshit. Tom Delay and Dave Reichert both voted yes on this bill "Urging the President to issue a proclamation for the observance of an American Jewish History Month". Does this mean that Darcy would have voted no just because Delay did?
Heck, I'm tearing apart her platform and I don't even CARE about politics and I've been LOOKING for reasons to vote Democrat more often. Imagine what would happen is someone who paid close attention to such things really took an interest in her campaign. Hope she didn't burn any bridges at MS when she left.
She may have written the posts, but they were posted by "Zach"? Who's Zach?
First of all, my Channel 9 work is more than just "occassional." I've posted more than 600 videos. Go and watch today's video on fonts for instance. http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=1...
I did that and it sure doesn't demonstrate any amnity on my part toward Microsoft.
Second, you're a damn coward not to use your real name. Total coward. At least I sign my name to every post.
Third, my bosses track what I'm doing quite closely and if they thought I was harming the company I don't think I'd be sent around the world to keynote conferences and speak to executives at, say, Target, Boeing, L'Oreal, EUFA, among others.
Fourth, it's pretty obvious you aren't a careful reader of my blog. I do take an occassional potshot at Microsoft stuff, yes, but it's always well reasoned out and it's aimed at getting a positive outcome for customers. Unlike the kind of blogging you're doing which is just cowardly and not transparent. For all I know you work for a Microsoft competitor.
Fifth: I say a LOT of positive things about Microsoft. You obviously haven't watched any of my videos or come to any of my speeches.
Translation: I want only smart readers who write from an informed position. You are not doing so. Please get with the program or go write this kind of crap somewhere else.
I guess I hit a nerve. That usually means there is something there. And actually, I am a careful reader of your blog, though I don't think you read my comment (or my blog) carefully at all.
The fact is, you spend most of your blogging on non-Microsoft topics. Remember the non-GYM posts? Or the saga on blog search results at Technorati vs Bloglines? Or the endless postings about Memeorandum? And on and on and on... The vast majority of your blogging is pointedly non-Microsoft.
These topics are fine and your coverage of them is fine, but they are covered elsewhere already ad nauseum. You add little with these me-too topics, even though you are in a position to add a lot more.
If your priority is a "positive outcome for customers", then you can do a lot better than to "take an occassional potshot at Microsoft stuff". You can bring more objective positives to the table. Plenty of people already take potshots. But the potshots make your readers happy and it is clear from your blogging that they are your real priority. Customers come second.
I never said you were "harming" the company (you're very defensive!), just not helping as much as you could *via your blog*. The topic of my comment was corporate blogging, not your speaches or videos.
As for your videos, I like your Channel 9 work. I think Channel 9 is a great concept and you guys do it well. Bring more of that kind of work to your blog, please.
Your ad hominem attacks (I'm a "damn coward" and not "smart") are childish and ridiculous. I'm a "competitor"??? Have you read my blog???
Maybe YOU should read your blog (and mine) more carefully.
I write about things that interest me. That's all. When I start getting compensated for my blog then maybe I'll start doing the marketing stuff you're asking for.
I visited your blog and just saw a copy of Mini-Microsoft. I don't see how you're helping Microsoft here. Especially by being a coward and not telling us who you are and who is employing you.
There you go with the name calling again. If you read the first post in my blog, you'd know who I am and why I'm writing. FWIW, I don't always agree with Mini-Microsoft, but I respect his/her position and effort. I think he/she is right to stay anonymous so that the blog is about serious issues and ideas and not the personality of the guy or gal behind the curtain.
Forgive me for steering this back to the topic of politicians and blogs (!), but your last statement in the post about Dean not blogging and not talking to us after Iowa caught my attention. As you know, I was pretty involved with the web team in the Dean campaign, and subsequently worked with the Obama campaign (including the Obama blog), and still chat with candidates from time to time about how to use the technology.
And I wonder whether it really matters that Dean (or, more broadly, any candidate) uses the platform to talk to us. The success of the Dean campaign was that it let supporters find and talk *to each other* - so that the campaign became, in a very real sense, about the supporters and not about Dean. Dean certainly could have used the technology to better effect (though his own attempts at blogging, like when he guest-blogged on Lessig's site, were pretty weak), but the creation of a real community was the legacy that campaign left.
Re: Darcy's campaign, I'd tell her to make it easy for her supporters to interact with each other. No candidate has enough time to give each supporter the one-on-one they'd like - it just doesn't scale (as you alluded to). And face it, most voters will make their decisions about whom to support based on fairly superficial assessments of the candidates... you say turn on comments, I say turn on the blogs.
That Dean ultimately ran a failed campaign doesn't diminish the power that was 600,000 Americans actively engaged in a Presidential campaign. Many are still involved in the local parties that they'd never visited before (I'm a great example; before the Dean campaign I'd never been to a local party meeting, now I'm the local party chair), running for office, working with other candidates to bring about change at all levels of government. They do that when they feel listened to - but the listening doesn't just have to be by the candidate.
Thanks for raising this, and for your advice to Darcy. Can't wait to see how her campaign plays out.
It's going to be interesting to watch Darcy, that's for sure.
Have you listened to the Obama podcast, or read his blog? He's even posted at dailykos periodically, and is actively engaging the community in person and online. (Like I said above, I did some work with them last year, but just keep in touch with them now, no ongoing work.) Good stuff, and I think he's the real deal.
* podcast: http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/
* blog: http://obama.senate.gov/blog/
* post to dailykos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/102745/165
Took him a while, but I think he's heading in the right direction... (and btw, in case you're interested: Senate rules prohibit the inclusion of comments on the site - so it's not that they don't want to listen, but in the case of comments left on the site, that'd run afoul of Senate rules. Unreal.)
Thanks for letting me know, I really like Obama.