Rehearsal day: Redford and Smith prepare for Thursday

UPDATED: April 11, 2012 (see bottom of story for report from Highwood)

You might say today was a warm-up for Thursday’s leader’s debate. Both Alison Redford and Danielle Smith were scheduled for debate “dry-runs” in their home ridings.

Progressive Conservative Redford was courting voters in Calgary-Elbow at an event at Mount Royal University. The “Voting Game” format of “dating” the candidates was an easy one for Redford. A short list of predetermined questions were playfully lobbed at the candidates over the lunch hour, as students gathered in Wyckham House food court. The forum was organized by the Students’ Association and Redford received a warm welcome, garnering the most applause both at the beginning and at the end. Of course, she had the last word (by accident or?), given the final speaking slot on the closing remarks.

Wildrose candidate James Cole read mostly from a prepared script and didn’t seem to really connect with the crowd. A few of his jokes just didn’t play well. He strayed briefly from his notes to talk about property rights, the only time he seemed to be “winging it.” It is obviously an issue close to his heart (and pumping a lot of energy into the Wildrose campaign).

Alberta Party candidate Greg Clark scored the most points with his statements about both Redford’s PC’s and Smith’s Wildrose party. He wrapped up his remarks by attacking both conservative parties. He pointed out that the Tories had been in power since he was six months old–obviously too long since he’s a man in his 40′s. He also took a shot at the Wildrose saying they did not represent change since they were mostly comprised of former PC organizers and elected officials.

Evergreen Party candidate William Hamilton seemed very sincere but read almost completely from his notes. New Democrat Craig Coolahan was pretty relaxed and confident, although his campaign has been virtually non-existent in the riding. I’ve seen no lawn signs or doorknocking at all thus far. (I live in the riding and work from home). The Liberals’ newly-nominated candidate Beena Ashar was not in attendance, which was a missed opportunity.

Alison Redford started off a little shaky when asked about her perfect date (she and her husband rarely go on dates without their daughter, she says) and then quickly picked up steam, gaining confidence. She referred several times to the AOSTRA 2 announcement and defended her government’s record on several fronts. Just an hour prior to the event, the PC’s had announced $650 million in funding for post-secondary education, with funds earmarked for Mount Royal University.

She ended the forum by, what else, attacking the Wildrose on social issues (specifically, conscience rights) and got a good response from the crowd. Three women standing next to me were getting their lunch and didn’t hear most of the debate but yelled approval loudly when Redford criticized the Wildrose on this issue (as they waited in line for their pizza slices).

Tonight, Danielle Smith will be in Okotoks squaring off with candidates in Highwood. The debate is hosted by the Western Wheel and the Okotoks Chamber of Commerce. The PC candidate in the riding is an associate publisher at the Wheel so she’s not exactly walking into neutral territory.

I wouldn’t be surprised if debate organizers aren’t comprised almost completely of Tory supporters. Only questions submitted in advance will be addressed to the candidates. It’ll be interesting to see how newcomer John Barlow does against Smith. I’ll update you later this evening after the debate!

Full Flickr photo set here.

HIGHWOOD UPDATE:

It was quite a contrast at the election forum in the riding of Highwood last night.

About 600 people crammed into the Foothills Centennial Centre in the evening to hear from three of the four candidates nominated in Highwood. The crowd was spilling out into the hallway and there was a lot of booing and shouting throughout the evening.

The format for the debate was much more challenging than the lunch hour “dating game” flirtation at Mount Royal University with Redford. PC Candidate Barlow also didn’t have a multi-million dollar funding announcement just prior to the forum to gain favour with the crowd.

Initially, it was reported that only questions submitted in advance would be allowed, but the floor was opened up to questions submitted in writing and they were coming in fast and furious. Each candidate had only one minute per question, which proved to be a real test even for Smith, who was cut off frequently. In terms of debate preparation, this forum likely put her through the paces in a much more challenging way than Redford’s did.

PC supporters out in force

Barlow had strong support from the crowd, but he was hard-pressed to defend the PC record on many issues. He appeared to contradict his government’s position on some issues, had some wildly overstated numbers relating to Smith’s spending promises and generally, came out swinging for most of the latter part of the debate. Smith got a lot of applause for her comments on accountability and on the issues of concern to many landowners–the various bills passed recently giving Cabinet extraordinary powers of decision-making (often labelled as “property rights” by both sides in the debate to try and polarize the issue).

Elephant in the room

Smith finally clarified her personal position, saying she was pro-choice and in favour of gay marriage. Other members of her party may not be in agreement with her position, though.

The Tories don’t exactly have the best record on social issues themselves (often forgotten in the hysteria of late, see this related blog post). The question is whether either Smith or Redford can be trusted to keep their right wing at bay on these sticky issues. One of the first things Redford did as Premier was extend an olive branch to Ted Morton by making him Energy Minister, one of the most powerful positions in Cabinet. Morton is one of the most conservative members of the PC caucus and has denied gay marriage is a right.

Local boy does good

Most surprising and refreshing was the foil provided by Alberta Liberal candidate Keegan Gibson, a university student who grew up in the area (the NDP candidate did not attend). Gibson lightened up the forum by admitting that a month ago, he never would’ve believed he’d be running for MLA and went on to say that he hadn’t always voted Liberal. He had the best quote of the evening in his closing remarks when he said he believed in the “power of an idea, rather than the idea of power.” He received a fair amount of applause and appreciative handshakes at the end of the evening.

The debate ended with both Smith and Barlow receiving a strong show of support from the crowd for their closing remarks. It was a good warm-up for Smith prior to the Thursday debate.

For more background reading on the Highwood riding, see this post.

Tags: "Alison Redford", Alberta, Alberta New Democrats, Danielle Smith, election, Evergreen Party, Mount Royal University, Okotoks, Redford, Wildrose, WildRose Alliance

Photographic fail: How Danielle Smith is winning the image war

One of my least favourite things about public relations is the dreaded “photo opp.” Even professional photographers know how difficult it is to make someone look comfortably attractive under studio conditions. Imagine how much more challenging it is in poor lighting and with a moving target, tons of distractions, a whole zoo of characters and unpredictable situations.

So, I have sympathy for political campaign strategists who have to manage the photo opportunities for their candidate.

That being said, the Progressive Conservatives have the biggest budget of any campaign and yet, inexplicably, they have done a terrible job of getting good quality images of Alison Redford out there on social media. They appear to not understand how to make their candidate look her best and how to share images on Twitter. Strange, given how successful the Naheed Nenshi mayoralty campaign was at doing this and knowing that one of their chief strategists, Stephen Carter, is now working on Redford’s campaign. Their use of images has fallen terribly flat.

A “Smith-fest” of cuddly animals and beer

Early in the campaign, I started collecting images from the campaign as they were being shared on the #abvote hashtag on Twitter. It become obvious very quickly that my Alberta Election pinboard was awkwardly missing good images of Redford. So, I began making an extra effort to try and find those images to balance the “Smith-fest” and kept coming up blank.

The photos being posted to Twitter by PC’s were mostly poor quality, out-of-focus and to be blunt–boring. It seems like someone was deliberately trying to portray this exceptionally bright woman, as dour and all-business. There were a couple of attempts, one of her teetering on a skateboard (that was just taking things a bit too far!) but I couldn’t find anything on Twitter that made her look natural, friendly and someone you might want to sit down with over a glass of wine.

By contrast, we see Smith smiling mostly, wearing bright colours, serving donuts, horsebacking riding, petting lambs, walking her dogs, pouring beer–I could go on and on. I should also mention that the Alberta Liberals have done a good job of getting their photos out on Twitter and Raj Sherman is a natural in front of the camera. He has been photographed in his suit, in his scrubs, with a bull-horn standing in the back of his pick-up truck (the Sherman tank). Even New Democrat Brian Mason, who can come across as stern and stiff, can be found relaxing over a beer with people, sitting at a picnic table and touring a brewery. The Alberta Party has also put out some good quality photos also, but I haven’t seen many of their leader, Glen Taylor. See the pinboard here.

Where’s Alison?

So, I did some checking and discovered the “Alison4Premier” Facebook page and the votepc.ca website both have a large number of good quality photos–better than any of the photos I’ve seen shared on Twitter. I came to the conclusion the PC’s are expecting you to come to them and look for the photos. This is typical of a party used to being in first place and not having to work to get their photos out there. When you are the ruling party for 40 years, you are pretty confident that people will make that effort to come and find your photos, because you are, after all, in first place. Oh, wait…

Or maybe I’m reading too much into this. Things have been a little busy, I’m sure, over at the PC campaign headquarters.

So, I have been promoting my pinboard quite a bit on Twitter and am on social media every day since the beginning of the campaign pulling photos from the Twitter election hashtag and reposting them. I’ve even sent out a tweet to the #pcaa hashtag telling them we’d all like to see a few more photos from their camp and no response. It’s surprising–the PC’s unresponsive?

Last chance saloon

Anyway, this is my last attempt to try and give them a chance to correct this. We are now entering the second half of the campaign and time is running out.

A good social media manager understands that large numbers of photos in albums posted en masse without any sorting and curating of the best images, is a photographic fail. Research has shown that people are way too busy to scroll through dozens of images. You have to select the best and highlight them. Not only that, but you have to push them out using Twitter to have them shared widely.

Otherwise, I guess, you are relying on the images of your leader in the mainstream media, which may or may not cast her in the best light (see recent photo capture of Redford on CBC website).

Now, ask me why I even care. I’m a Liberal, after all. And I’m supporting Raj Sherman. But, I hate to see any worthy candidate being unnecessarily sidelined in the photo wars when it doesn’t have to be this way. This is political campaigning 101. We may not agree with this rather shallow aspect of politics, but it’s a reality.

Oh, and go Raj!

Tags: "Alison Redford", abvote, Alberta, Brian Mason, campaigning, Danielle Smith, election, Glen Taylor, photo opportunities, politics, Raj Sherman

Miss Cranky Pants: Stop using positivity as a weapon

This post appeared originally on the Change Alberta blog.

I’ll admit to a little crankiness occasionally. So, it may not be a big surprise that I’m not always fond of perky cheerleader types who think they’ve cornered the market on positivity. I’m also a little tired of rigid, holier-than-thou political preachers who pass judgment on others from their high horse.

Consider this. What gives anyone the right to tell another person not only WHO to vote for but HOW they should make that decision? Who says there is a right and a wrong way to make a decision about how to cast your ballot in an election? Apparently, some candidates, when questioned about vote splitting, are claiming that strategic voting is wrong.

 No right vs. wrong way to mark your X

Now, I have no problem with candidates trying to convince me to vote for them. That is their job, after all. What I do have a problem with is a candidate pronouncing that I’m going about making my decision the wrong way. If I choose to vote for a candidate because I not only agree with their thinking–but I also believe they have the best chance of winning when compared with a crowded slate of similar candidates—it is unfair to tell me this is wrong or negative.

It’s outrageous to suggest that my vote is not “for” anything, but “against” something. It’s called voting FOR an idea, a philosophy and for a set of values that transcend party lines. It’s about deciding who best represents those ideas, then considering which of those people has the best chance of being successful. This is the idea behind ChangeAlberta.ca, which began not long after the last election and has been building support ever since.

Bigger than a logo

It’s okay to believe in something bigger than a logo and a colour scheme. In fact, it’s downright honourable and inspiring! It seems those candidates slamming the ChangeAlberta.ca initiative are simply afraid of not making the final cut on election day.

Democracy is incredibly powerful and exciting. It’s also nuanced and complex. It’s bizarre that some people think that there is only one correct way to make a decision when you’re at the voting booth. Honestly, we should all just be thrilled to death that people are giving their vote that much consideration. Thinking strategically and making a thoughtful, reasoned decision should be celebrated.

Out of touch with reality

This “plague of positivity” where people are declaring that marking your X for this reason is “good,” but for marking your X for this reason is “bad,” just goes too far. And making people feel bad about being non-partisan doesn’t make any sense.

If I belong to a party, but decide to vote for another party, well, that is my right. If I don’t belong to any party and I’m trying to choose between 2-3 people, what is wrong with choosing the person I think has the best chance of winning, regardless of the party? The expectation that everyone should stick to their favourite party, no matter what, is just out of touch with the reality of the majority of the population.

Furthermore, wanting to see your candidate win is not a bad thing or a sell-out, it’s the chance to actually bring about change instead of being sidelined from the decision-making. Accusing those who want to vote strategically of not being part of the “positivity posse,” is a pretty shallow argument.

Democracy revisited

There’s no doubt this election is unlike any other election we’ve seen in more than a decade. The sudden exposure to real democracy may have some people confused. They are used to just voting by rote and ritual and a new way of thinking is almost too big and scary to comprehend. So, they are trying to tell the rest of us with open minds that we are doing something terribly fiendish by coming up with a creative solution.

Excuse me, but when our healthcare, our children’s education, our jobs and our environment are threatened by “groupthink,” those of us who want to think outside of the ballot box are focused on making the honest-to-goodness changes we need.

We need to roar our disapproval, demand more of our politicians (not less) and wrestle our future back from the brink!

It takes courage to stand up to the status quo, toe-the-line, “now play nicely by our rules” crowd.

The great battles for democracy are fought not with pom-poms and prissiness; they are won with a strong dose of piss and vinegar!

Miss Cranky Pants (aka Jody MacPherson) is a communications consultant, politico, soccer mom, divorcee (is it any wonder?) and coffee addict who gets a little testy without regular caffeine. 

Tags: Alberta, Alberta Liberals, Alberta New Democrats, Ballot box, democracy, Evergreen Party, politics, Progressives, Reason, Voting

The Okotoks Erratic: Assessing the changing climate in Highwood

Front page story credits "Conservatives" for a taxpayer-funded purchase of a community hall. Barlow is the associate publisher.

This appeared originally as a guest post on www.daveberta.ca.

The commute to Okotoks from Calgary is a scenic drive southwest with truly spectacular mountain views on a clear day. Having travelled the route almost daily for about 15 years, I saw something this week I’ve never seen before.

Beginning at the turnoff to Dunbow Road on Highway 2, there is a series of election signs for a party other than the Progressive Conservatives (PC’s). The Wildrose Party’s Danielle Smith has a half dozen or more signs at regular intervals all the way into Okotoks. Not one PC sign could be found along the same stretch of road. The first sign of Smith’s PC rival, John Barlow, isn’t visible until just outside the town boundaries.

Glacial shift

Okotoks is adjacent to the famous Okotoks erratic, the largest of its kind in the world. It’s a town where political sensibilities shift as slowly as this “big rock,” left behind as the glaciers retreated 10,000 years ago.

Don’t let the town’s sleepy, peaceful appearance fool you, though. There’s an epic battle being waged in the community on several fronts. The traditional power base in the town has been frustrated in its attempts to overturn the sustainable Okotoks model in favour of expanding residential development. They want to build a water pipeline to the community from Calgary to fuel growth in a town that has literally “tapped out” its water supply.

Bullying hits home

In the surrounding Municipal District of Foothills, it’s a different story. The MD politicians have been a burr in the sides of the provincial government for several years now, resisting attempts at regionalization. Their motives are less about protecting the environment and more about preserving the rights of their constituents to control their land. Land use planning is the enemy in these parts.

Promises to property owners

It’s not surprising Alison Redford kicked off the race with an olive branch at her fundraiser in High River last week. She assured cantankerous landowners she was sympathetic to their concerns about property rights and about the voting structure of the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP). The governance model gives Calgary a veto over rural planning decisions and Redford surprised everyone by promising to get rid of the veto. But, as the U2 song lyric says, “she’s the promise, in the year of election.”

The ground game

Okotoks is the largest town in the large, mostly rural riding of Highwood. Driving around, viewing the lawn signs, it looks as though Smith’s campaign has not yet penetrated these neighbourhoods.  After the first week of the campaign, Barlow’s lawn signs seem to slightly outnumber Smith’s in most areas of town. In such a conservative stronghold, with an unprecedented battle unfolding, it’s surprising there are not more signs.

Media on side

Barlow is a likeable candidate, strongly backed by business interests and younger families who can identify with his balance of community-mindedness and conservative sensibilities. He’s the comfortable choice. He’s also the associate publisher of the Western Wheel newspaper and showed questionable judgment by not stepping down from his duties immediately after being nominated as the PC candidate. He continued at the newspaper while also campaigning, not stepping down until after the writ was dropped. It’s worth noting that his backers are some of the same people who are calling for a water pipeline.

Duelling trailers on the highway south of town.

When the National Post came to town to do a story on Highwood, they reported their conversation with former pharmacist Allen King, who they described as  “tidying up” around Barlow’s office. They likely didn’t realize they had stumbled on one of the town’s biggest power brokers. King is an unapologetic, anti-sustainability, conservative columnist for the Wheel and true blue Tory royalty.

Also on the ballot

Let’s be up front here. I’m a liberal, but I’ll admit Highwood shows no signs of electing a centre-left candidate any time soon. The PC’s captured 65 per cent of the popular vote in 2008. So, I’m not going to spend time on the other candidates. This is a showdown between Smith and Barlow.

Showdown at the OK-otoks corral

At first blush, Barlow might seem outgunned by the savvy, sophisticated Smith. A master politician, she’s demonstrated how to win votes, even when in unfamiliar territory and in a riding that doesn’t always welcome newcomers. This is Barlow’s first real foray into politics, but I’m not prepared to underestimate the Tory dynasty yet. They are likely putting significant effort into this race and Smith has to cover an entire province, by comparison.

The riding was also one of redrawn to give it more of a “rurban” flavour.  Rural residents are likely favouring the Wildrose, but their influence may have been neutralized somewhat by the boundary changes. I’d wager the Wildrose is strong in High River as well.

Shades of the republic

Some of the more progressive voters might fear Smith’s right wing views and decide to vote for Barlow to try and keep her from winning. The worst possible outcome for Barlow is a low voter turnout. If disaffected PCs decide to stay home, rather than defend their party against the Wildrose onslaught, Smith will easily win. Given the dismal performance of the Tories thus far in the election, this seems like a serious concern for Barlow. He’s fighting an uphill battle with Smith’s political skill and Redford’s inability to control her wayward party.

Okotoks will no doubt be the main battleground. A debate organized by the chamber of commerce and scheduled for April 10 will be standing room only. Smith and Barlow will go head to head.

As I left town, I noticed yet another large billboard of Smith’s smiling face adorning a property south on Highway 2. Next to her sign, on the same property owner’s fence is a sign that reads, “Vote Ron Paul.” At this intersection, I turned left and drove back to Calgary.

Jody MacPherson raised a family in Okotoks, where she has extended family and many valued friends. She has since moved into Calgary and has been active in the Alberta Liberal Party for several years. Coincidentally, she now lives in Calgary-Elbow, Alison Redford’s home riding.

Tags: Alberta, Canadian politics, Danielle Smith, election, High River, Highwood, John Barlow, Okotoks, Western Wheel

Miss Cranky Pants: Mad as hell

Things reached a boiling point for many today.

The Twitterverse is in a furor today over a tweet from a staffer in Alison Redford’s office. The unfortunate comment about Danielle Smith’s commitment to families, questioned the Wildrose leader’s reasons for not having children.

It’s an utterly crass and insensitive thing to say. It never should have been uttered, whether in a tweet, in person or anywhere else. All I can say is that I’m glad the light is being shone on attitudes such as this. Maybe others will start to realize how unfair and unacceptable this type of behaviour truly is. Exposing it is sometimes the best way to stop it…for good.

Alison Redford immediately responded with an apology and made a personal phone call to Danielle Smith. Smith reacted with grace and dignity, then issued a very personal statement about her reasons for not having any children of her own, not that it was anyone’s business at all!

A person’s decision to have or not have children is quite simply off limits, whether male or female, in any election. It’s distressing to see that it has come up at all.

Fertility is not grounds for discussion

Laurence Decore talked himself into a corner in 1993 by expressing anti-abortion sentiments. Even though the Liberals had a good showing in the election, many believe his comments caused an exodus from his campaign at the last minute. With Redford appealing to a lot of women voters, the last thing she needed was a reason for women to abandon her. Comments online so far show a very sympathetic nod going to Smith as a result of this. It doesn’t matter that the person has now resigned. The damage is done.

Redford apologetic

This egregious misstep by someone connected to Redford is just another in a series of errors thus far in the campaign. It seems clear that Redford is appalled by the comment. That she has been unable to make significant inroads in changing the backwards attitudes within her party is not surprising in the short time that she’s had. The truth is that I’m not sure anyone can. If the reaction to the no-meet committee wasn’t enough to convince them that they are out of step, then I don’t believe anything is going to make them understand.

Except a smackdown via the ballot box on election day.

Unfortunately, it seems the province is headed for a step in the wrong direction if a Wildrose government comes into power (as many are speculating). I sincerely hope the next government is reduced to a minority position with a strong  opposition on the opposite side of the political spectrum to keep them in check. What is needed is some accountability and balance of perspectives going forward. Too much power on one side of the spectrum will not result in any real change. Diversity of opinion is needed.

Bringing you bite-sized chunks of election crankiness when the mood hits me.

Miss Cranky Pants: Money For Nothing

Character is doing the right thing when nobody’s looking.  There are too many people who think that the only thing that’s right is to get by, and the only thing that’s wrong is to get caught.  ~J.C. Watts

How stupid do the Tories think we are?

Taking payment for a committee that never meets is wrong.

David Swann knew it was wrong and spoke up about it. When he couldn’t return the money, he decided to donate it to charity and/or his political party.

When Raj Sherman (kicked out of caucus for speaking against the government) joined the Alberta Liberals and was elected party leader, he decided to return every penny plus interest (about $40,000+, no small amount).

The Wildrose’s Heather Forsyth and Paul Hinman (reluctantly) returned their committee pay also, after public outrage grew.

New Democrat Rachel Notley says she won’t return the payment because, and this is not too tough to understand, given that her party has so few members, she sits on more than her fair share of committees without any pay at all!

Alberta Party MLA, Dave Taylor (a former Liberal) has said he won’t return the pay but assures us he donated an equivalent amount to charity. He’s retiring and not running for reelection. Enough said.

Not a single Progressive Conservative Party member on the committee stepped forward to willingly to return the committee pay. Even when party leader/Premier Alison Redford suggested it was the right thing to do–they still resisted.

The decision they made was to return the pay they had received since Redford became premier–about six months worth. I guess the suggestion here is that each MLA is only responsible for acting according to the direction of their leader–not in the best interests of their constituents or according to their conscience.

And, oh yes, there is an investigation underway, but conveniently, the results of the investigation have been delayed until after the election.

Gee whiz. And the Tories wonder why they are doing so poorly at the polls?

Bringing you bite-sized chunks of election crankiness when the mood hits me.

Tags: "Alison Redford", Alberta, alberta liberal party, David Swann, election, ethics, Heather Forsyth, Paul Hinman, Progressive conservative party of Alberta, Rachel Notley, Raj Sherman

Miss Cranky Pants: Dumb and Dumber

It’s only Day 3 of the election and we’ve already run out of real things to challenge Alison Redford and the Tories on?

Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith was quoted in the Edmonton Journal with this memorable line, “I think Ms. Redford doesn’t like Alberta all that much. She doesn’t like who we are. She doesn’t like our character. She wants to change it. I think that’s going to be the ballot question.”

Seriously? I mean the ballot question isn’t going to be about a healthcare system that is imploding? It isn’t about an education system that is failing? It isn’t about a government that has been in power so long they’ve forgotten who it is they work for?

I expected better. Or at least I didn’t expect it to get this silly so early. Let’s have an honest discussion about the problems we are facing. Let’s hear the solutions that each of the parties are offering. Let’s not begin with the schoolyard taunts before we even got started with an honest debate.

How about we discuss the fact that the Tories seem to be moving to commodify our water supply? How about we talk about investing in medical education and credentialing of foreign doctors? Let’s examine the Wildrose commitment to urban transit?

There are plenty of issues to call out Redford and the Progressive Conservatives on. I’m starting to wonder if the Wildrose are afraid to delve into the details of their platform. Perhaps they know that people really won’t like what they see.

Beyond promises to increase the legal drinking limit (after all, everyone wants to be a little more drunk when they drive) and shield the wealthy from even minor tax increases (protect the rich, let the seniors languish in acute care), the Wildrose want to take us back to another era instead of moving us forward. The Tories have had 40 years to figure this out and they are out of ideas.

There are more choices in this election than between “Dumb and Dumber.” Look at all of the candidates, including the voices on the centre-left who’ve been shut out of the Legislature for too long. It’s time for real change, Alberta.

Bringing you bite-sized chunks of election crankiness when the mood hits me.

Dissent not destruction: Give reason a chance

Protest is an essential part of any democracy. Rioting and destruction of property isn’t. What are the dynamics of a demonstration and what can we learn from it?

At a recent protest against election fraud held here in Calgary represented an opportunity to learn a few things about how to maintain civil discourse.

Balancing act

The event began with the usual rallying speeches. The organizers stated several times that they wanted to balance the female and male speakers and alternated the microphone to ensure different voices were heard. Some speakers were more radical than others and the calmer voices were given an opportunity to say their bit. The result was an even-handed description of the problem, rather than an escalation of tensions.

A movement needs momentum

The organizers then set the protest in motion, moving the group from its location in front of City Hall to the federal building nearby. This again creates a feeling of doing something concrete, making a statement by marching, which is a longstanding tradition and peaceful, yet powerful. The movement along the roadway also attracts attention (in this case, it generated a lot of honks of support) and spreads the exposure out over a greater distance, furthering the objectives of the protest.

After reaching the destination, the microphone was handed over to one of the more eloquent speakers to discuss the purpose of the protest, some possible solutions and give further encouragement to the participants that their voices do matter.

Smash vs speak

It was interesting to note that a couple of the protestors tried in vain several times to rally the group towards more radical solutions. That person yelled, “smash the state” at one point. Faced with this unwelcome interruption, and comparing it to the reasonable voice at the microphone talking about peaceful protest, the group simply ignored the rabble rousers. Full stop.

It may have gone differently if the police had moved to handcuff the guy. It may have gone differently if the media had turned their cameras to him and made him the story. But none of that happened.

Meanness rules the day

Consider this. We give an inordinate amount of attention in the media to the “smash the state” protestors. Or to the extremists who over-react and use unwarranted force. Very little attention is paid to those reasonable voices calling for very worthwhile solutions to achieve objectives that satisfy everyone. We elevate the vitriol, ridicule and name-calling, snickering over the meanness of it, all the while perpetuating it by passing it around and giving it attention (I’ve done it myself. We all have.)

When we do this, we do ourselves a grave disservice. And we lower the bar on our civil discourse such that we end up with polarization and partisanship from which no one gains much satisfaction. I’m not saying humour doesn’t have a place, but let’s make sure it is even-handed and genuinely funny, rather than mean-spirited and one-sided.

Let’s use our social media to spread reasonable solutions and elevate competent, knowledgeable voices. Perhaps we as citizens can drown out, or at least neutralize, those who would rather smash than speak to our challenges.

 

 

Tags: Activism, Calgary, Protest

Stop stalking, start talking

We all know that “stalking” someone is wrong. So why is that some decent political candidates start taking on stalker-like characteristics when an election is near?

Time to take a step back and realize how your behaviour appears to everyone who’s watching (except perhaps your most loyal supporters, in whose eyes you can do no wrong).

Political harassment

Stalking in its purest form is “obsessive attention by an individual or group to another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person and/or monitoring them.” (Source: Wikipedia)

In politics, this may manifest itself as a competitive obsession with the perceived frontrunner, your opponent. It happens to many politicians, especially those who are driven to succeed and believe passionately in their cause. But I’m here to tell you that your behaviour will alienate the very people you need to influence–those swing voters who are either truly undecided or who are soft supporters, capable of being swayed in a different direction. That’s because those people do not take kindly to stalking behaviour.

In the heat of an election, it’s easy to lose sight of this reality and get caught up in the shear adrenaline of the competition. And social media is a virtual stalking ground like we’ve never seen before.

So, what does stalking look like in the age of social media? Let’s look at the two biggest areas of social media in use right now:

Facebook frenzy

If you are visiting your opponent’s Facebook fan page and posting comments regularly on their page, or even worse, outright attacking them in writing on their own page, then you are officially a stalker. Engaging in arguments in the comments section of their posts is the ultimate act of futility. Ask yourself what you are trying to achieve? Do you really expect them to admit they’re wrong and you’re right?

What you are actually doing is putting yourself in a subservient position to your political competition. It’s their page, and you are a guest. Put yourself on equal footing with your opponent at all times. Do not accept a lesser position. You should be on an equal level with them, even if they are the incumbent. You are a candidate for their position and need to show that you are just as capable as they are. A better approach is to comment on your opponent on your own fan page and provide links to back up your argument as to why your opponent is wrong.

Taking exception

The only time you would ever consider visiting and commenting on an opponent’s fan page is if they were posting incorrect information about you personally. In that case, it’s probably better to leave the commenting up to your campaign manager, or if you don’t have a campaign manager, a trusted member of your team. That person should also clearly identify themself and state their association with your campaign so as not to appear dishonest or deceptive.

This is a very rare occurrence, but if ever did happen, the post should be short, succinct and definitive about the error. Keep emotions out of it, even though it may be very upsetting or annoying. Don’t stick around and engage in debate. Just go in, set the record straight and make a hasty exit.

Tweet out not at

The majority of your tweeting should be to create awareness of  your own website or Facebook fan page. Twitter is best at getting the word OUT so that people can find their way TO more in-depth information that you have to offer. This is where you build a following. The other most important function of Twitter is to spread your message to a wider audience, increasing your reach via your followers who retweet your tweets.

You can engage a little more directly with your opponent without stalking them. It’s perfectly okay to reply to your opponent’s tweets with a comment, just don’t do it obsessively on every single tweet. You may even want to bring a tweet of your own to the attention of your opponent on occasion by adding their @ Twitter handle to the beginning or end of a tweet. But, again the purpose is not to harass or taunt them. This should be a legitimate attempt to solicit their opinion or request their position on something.

Mischief-makers

Twitter is a truly awful place to engage in lengthy debates 140 characters at a time. Just don’t do it. Arrange to carry on any discussions that emerge via telephone, assuming that both sides want to continue the debate.

Be aware that there are people out there whose only purpose is to draw you into a time consuming Twitter debate just to cause mischief. They may also want to entice you off-line and away from Twitter as a way of silencing you, if you have an opinion they feel is detrimental to them or their cause.

Tags: Facebook, Harassment, politics, social media, Stalking, Twitter

What is Curation? | Video by Percolate

Via Scoop.it – Social Media Content Curation

This is the first in a series of videos explaining the shifts we’re seeing in the world of content creation. Curation has exploded with the growth of Twitter, Tumblr and now Pinterest. In this video, we wanted to try to get into the heads of some of our favorite curators to understand what makes them tick.

Featured curators include:
Maria Popova (twitter.com/brainpicker)
Joanne McNeil (twitter.com/rhizomedotorg)
Peter Hopkins (twitter.com/bigthink)
Edith Zimmerman (thehairpin.com/)
Anthony De Rosa (soupsoup.tumblr.com)
Rex Sorgatz (twitter.com/fimoculous)
Piers Fawkes (psfk.com)
Tina Roth Eisenberg (swiss-miss.com)

 

watch video in fullscreen HD here: http://vimeo.com/38524181

Via vimeo.com