Brown vs Reid: the ‘people meter’ verdict

Posted on by

Frank Luntz is an American pollster who believes in ‘people meter’ research — where members of a focus group indicate — second by second — by moving a knob whether they’re approving or disapproving of a political speaker. He did some of this research for BBC2’s Newsnight last week and was roundly criticised for his pains. Here’s part of his response.

In the past weeks a number of Labour-leaning columnists have laid out the case for why Gordon Brown should be the next leader of Labour. But what you never hear is why he will be the next elected prime minister.

Interestingly, the voters in my session came out clearly in favour of John Reid, not Gordon Brown, as the next party leader. Polly Toynbee, writing in The Guardian last week, suggested dismissively that it was just because of the “hesitant” Brown response to a reporter’s questions about his role in the leadership coup and “the full-on harangue” Reid recently unleashed against the legal system.

Actually, she’s correct — but she ignores the significance in her conclusion. You be the judge. Here’s exactly what Reid said that made the Labour-leaning voters sit up in their seats, nod their heads and cheer: “Any system which allows foreign prisoners back on our street without even considering deportation has something wrong with it — full stop. No qualifications. A court judgment that puts the human rights of foreign prisoners ahead of the right to safety of UK citizens is wrong — full stop. No qualifications. A Parole Board decision that emphasises the rights of a convicted murderer over the rights and safety of his potential victims is tragically, murderously wrong — full stop.”

The “people meters” soared, and it was the single best-received language of the evening. To Toynbee that was a full-on harangue. But to Labour-leaners and floating voters it was good plain common sense. Could you imagine Brown speaking with such emotional clarity? Could you imagine Brown with such steely determination?

I dislike Reid intensely. He is a typical ex-Communist thug who has simply done a 180-degree ideological shift. These guys never change their spots. But there is one silver lining in the cloud of a possible Reid leadership. Roy ‘Fat Boy’ Hattersley has declared that he will shoot himself if Reid becomes Labour’s leader.

McCain shows Cameron the price of power

Posted on by

Insightful column by Andrew Sullivan on Dave Cameron’s new friend — and conference speaker — John McCain.

Last weekend turned into a pivotal moment in his [McCain’s] career. For the past four years he has fought the Bush administration’s attempt to authorise interrogative abuse of military detainees. As a victim of torture himself McCain’s credentials for this fight were enormous. And, to his credit, his legislative efforts have indeed put a stop to the widespread abuse that has occurred in the regular military since the winter of 2001.

But he wants to win the Republican nomination; and Karl Rove, Bush’s political guru, has decided that the only way to rescue the mid-term elections is to run on who can be tough enough on terror suspects. If McCain had refused to compromise over torture he would have essentially been destroying the Republican game plan for retaining Congress. So Bush called him out.

The deal they struck was simple: Bush wouldn’t formally renege on Geneva and wouldn’t formally authorise waterboarding, hypothermia and other horrors.

But he was given legislative leeway to decide what to do with terror suspects (including waterboarding and hypothermia) and had authority to train an elite squad of CIA “coercive interrogators” for the purpose. His civilian officials would also be given complete legal impunity for possible war crimes committed in the past.

What did McCain get in return? Some cynics in Washington say the answer is simple: the nomination. And McCain has been doing his best to recruit many Bush loyalists. Did McCain sell his soul for power? That’s what his sharpest critics would say.

[…]

The Tories will cheer him this week. He is certainly much more congenial to the party of David Cameron than Bush, Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld. But McCain is also a symbol, along with Bill Clinton, of how power is never without its costs. One day Cameron may have the opportunity to share their pain.

‘Digital natives’ go to work

Posted on by

This morning’s Observer column…

Because of its stable and lavish funding, Rainie’s project is achieving its goal: it produces the most objective data on the net’s impact. (Most other data comes from commercial market research, the objectivity of which is questionable.) And although the Pew project’s focus is on the US, many of its findings are relevant to other cultures – or at least to those of other industrialised countries. So when Rainie muses about cyberspace, it’s generally worth paying attention.

Recently he’s been thinking aloud about the impact of the net on the workplace – specifically on the tensions likely to arise as kids brought up in a broadband environment enter the workplace. Today’s 21-year-olds are what he calls ‘digital natives’: their formative years have spanned the period during which the internet and mobile phones became central to daily life. In comparison, their employers are ‘digital immigrants’. That is to say, they have reached uneasy accommodations with what, for most of them, is an alien technological culture…

Webcameron

Posted on by

Ye Gods! And there’s poor ol’ Gordon Brown thinking he’s hip because he’s got an iPod. Not only does Dave ‘Vote Blue to get Green’ Cameron have a wind turbine and solar panels but how he has a video Blog. It’s called Webcameron, naturally. I’ve just watched his first post — shot in his kitchen with kids shouting and scenes of general domestic chaos. The man’s a genius — at PR.

Later… The semiotics of the first video post are interesting. For example:

  • Cameron is shown in his kitchen, washing up. [Message: I’m a ‘new man’.]
  • There are kids squealing for his attention in the back ground. One of them wants Daddy to wash his hands. Daddy leans down tenderly and says he will do it in a minute when he’s finished this video thing. [Message: I’m a caring Dad who’s got the work-life balance right.]
  • He squirts some washing-up liquid onto the dishes. It’s Ecover — an environmentally-friendly brand, not some nasty chemical stuff. [Message: I’m as green as they come.]
  • We are given a glimpse beyond the kitchen where a baby sits happily in a high chair. In between Dave and the baby is what looks suspiciously like a clothes-horse with some garments airing on it. The scene is of agreeable domestic chaos. [Message: I may be Party Leader and the next Prime Minister, but really I’m just like you.]

    The more I looked at the post, the more inspired it seemed as a piece of PR.

    • Hewlett-Packard’s new service contract

    Posted on by

    From today’s New York Times…

    Other documents provided to Congressional investigators revealed that Hewlett-Packard was billed a total of $325,641.65 for various services related to the leak investigation’s second phase from January to April. That included $83,597.42 for surveillance, which was described as “Multiple Surv. And Sting Activity Palo Alto, Piedmont, SF, LA, CA & Denver CO.” A parenthetical note clarifies that the surveillance included “trash re-con of all areas.”

    Background investigations on several board members and their relatives, as well as reporters for The Wall Street Journal and the online service CNet, did not come cheap. The bill was $66,688. There were also background checks on employees of Hewlett-Packard’s media relations department, costing $6,435. And locating, identifying, charting and cataloguing records of interested parties — the part of the investigation that apparently included pretexting — cost $44,875.

    Invoices from the Action Research Group, the Florida company that is reported to have arranged the pretexting, are also among the more than 100 documents obtained by Congressional investigators. Many of them run in the vicinity of $100, but a 2005 invoice for call records of Carleton S. Fiorina, around the time of her dismissal as chairwoman and chief executive, shows a price tag of $500. The invoices conclude with the line “Thank you for using our services!!!”, all in capital letters, followed by a black-and-white rendition of Hello Kitty, a popular Japanese cartoon character.

    Footnote: “trash re-con” is not a reference to the icon on the Windows desktop.

    Scary movie 10,000

    Posted on by

    The kids and I went to see Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth this evening. It was — as one review put it — “a deluxe filmed version of the ‘slide show’ Gore has been presenting and refining since 1978, in which he concisely lays out the case that our carbon-dioxide emissions trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere are systematically destroying the environment”. I had seen a version of the slide show some time ago, so the content of the film was not a surprise to me — though it was eye-opening for the kids. I came away with a few thoughts:

  • Admiration for the presentation skills Gore has refined. As someone who has to do a lot of presentations (and sometimes even has to use PowerPoint), I know how difficult it is to get across complex ideas. Larry Lessig is the best presenter I know in this respect. Gore comes pretty close.
  • Nice to see that he uses an Apple PowerBook and Keynote.
  • The ‘personal’ bits in the film — digressions about the accident that nearly killed his six-year-old son, and the lung cancer that killed his sister — don’t really work.
  • Towards the end — when he gets to the pitch that global warming is a “moral issue” — Gore becomes eloquent and almost moving. Why oh why wasn’t he like this when he ran for president?
  • He had some nice quotes — e.g. “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so” [Mark Twain] and “You can’t make somebody understand something if their salary depends upon them not understanding it.”[Upton Sinclair]
  • The film contained a clip of George W. Bush discoursing upon Gore: “This guy is so far out in the environmental extreme, we’ll be up to our neck in owls and outta work for every American. He is way out, far out, man.”
  • One fascinating insight. He reported a survey of nearly a thousand peer-reviewed papers on environmental science which looked for evidence of scientific disagreement about the reality and causes of global warming. This turned up precisely zero articles disagreeing with the mainsteam scientific consensus. He then quoted a survey of coverage of global warming in the mainstream media. 53% of the sample either claimed, or conveyed the impression, that there was serious disagreement in the scientific community about the issue. If true, this highlights a serious problem with journalism.
  • My kids were the youngest people in the (Cambridge) audience. They tell me that none of their respective social circles had heard of the film, and they doubted if any one of their friends would go to see it. Sigh.

    I think Larry Lessig was on to something when he started a scheme which enabled people to sponsor other people to go see it.

    My kids also made the point that they are all required to watch Schindler’s List — for very good reasons. They thought that An Inconvenient Truth should be required viewing in UK schools. They’re right.

    • What $2000 an hour buys you in Silicon Valley

    Posted on by

    From Hewlett-Packard’s legal counsel, Larry Sonsini, to Tom Watkins, the Hewlett-Packard director who revealed the bugging scandal that has so far claimed the heads of the company’s Chairwoman and several senior execs..

    From: Sonsini, Larry
    Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 4:05 p.m.
    To: Tom Perkins
    Subject: RE: HP Confidential
    Tom,

    I looked into the conduct of the investigation and got a report from counsel at HP who was responsible for the effort. I confirmed his input by talking to Ann Baskins. Here is what I learned:

    There was no recording, review or monitoring or director e-mail.

    There was no electronic surveillance to monitor director communications.

    There was no phone recording or eavesdropping.

    The investigating team did not attempt to obtain the phone records of non-employee directors.

    The investigating team did obtain information regarding phone calls made and received by the cell or home phones of directors. This was done through a third party that made pretext calls to phone service providers. Apparently a common investigatory method which was confirmed with experts. The legal team also checked with outside counsel as to the legality of this methodology.

    There was no “secret spying” i.e. no electronic gear, listening devices, etc., were used.

    It appears, therefore, that the process was well done and within legal limits. The concerns raised in your e-mail did not occur.

    Let me know if you think I should proceed further.

    Larry

    Eh? This from the top legal firm in Silicon Valley. The italics in the quote above are mine. I’m with Rich Karlgaard on this one. He says:

    What rubbish. When your $2,000 an hour lawyer says “pretext calls” are “a common investigatory method” and “within legal limits” — you have a big problem.

    California state Attorney General Bill Lockyer calls HP’s investigation illegal: “The question was, was a crime committed? The answer is yes.”

    Sonsini is a disaster. HP should can him. In the most public way.

    Come to think of it, Apple, which finds itself distracted by an options backdating scandal, should fire Sonsini, too.

    Brocade Communications should have fired Sonsini before it was too late. Former CEO Greg Reyes faces criminal charges for options backdating.

    Dan Gillmor — who knows the Valley better than any other reporter — has been saying for a while that it’s high time Sonsini was investigated. Maybe that long-overdue process will now begin.

    [Source: Good Morning, Silicon Valley]

    Digital ‘Natives’ Invade the Workplace

    Posted on by

    Very interesting report from the Pew Research Center. Headline: “Digital ‘Natives’ Invade the Workplace”. I was particularly struck by this passage:

    Our research has found consistently that the dominant metaphor for the internet in users’ minds is a vast encyclopedia — more than it is a playground, a commercial mall, a civic commons, a kaffee klatch, or a peep show. This is especially true for younger users, who have grown up relying on it to complete school assignments, perhaps too often clipping and pasting material from websites into term papers. Sandra Gisin, who oversees knowledge and information management at reinsurance giant Swiss Re, says her colleagues marvel at the speed with which younger workers communicate and gather information. Still, she has had enough bad experiences with credulous younger workers accepting information from the top link on a Google search result that she says the firm will begin new training programs next year to teach workers how to evaluate information and to stress that “not all the best information is free.” While the speed and efficiency of younger workers in communicating and gathering data are commendable, their reliance on easily accessible sources, such as the top search results on Google, can sometimes lead to the acceptance of inaccurate or incomplete information. This underscores the importance of workplace transparency, which involves not only sharing accurate and comprehensive information but also fostering an environment where employees are encouraged to question and critically assess the data they encounter. Implementing training programs to teach workers how to evaluate the credibility of their sources will be crucial in addressing these challenges. By prioritizing transparency and critical thinking, organizations can enhance the reliability of the information used in decision-making processes and ensure that employees, regardless of their experience level, contribute to a more informed and effective workplace. Show them the benefits of a work environment that values open communication and collaboration, where employees feel empowered to ask questions and seek clarity. A workplace that emphasizes transparency fosters trust among team members, allowing them to collaborate more effectively. When workers are encouraged to voice concerns and share their insights, it creates a dynamic where everyone feels responsible for the quality of the information being used. This approach not only improves individual performance but also enhances overall team productivity by ensuring that decisions are made based on well-vetted, accurate data. In addition, modernizing EHS beyond compliance plays a pivotal role in shaping a more responsible and aware workplace. By integrating environmental, health, and safety standards into the fabric of daily operations, companies can create a culture that goes beyond meeting regulations. This proactive stance ensures that employees not only understand their roles in maintaining safety and environmental standards but also feel confident in assessing the risks and benefits of their actions. With the right training and support, organizations can create a more informed and thoughtful workforce that is better equipped to handle challenges, make sound decisions, and contribute to long-term sustainability goals. Dow Jones news organizations have similar worries. They have created programs for journalism educators and reporters-in-training to drive home the point that journalists should not rely on Web sources without checking its origin and confirming it in other ways. “We drive home the point that it’s not good enough to say, ‘I read it on the internet,’ without taking other steps to verify it,” notes Clare Hart, Executive Vice President of Dow Jones and President of the Enterprise Media Group. This is exactly why my Relevant Knowledge programme has launched a new Open University course. It’s title: Beyond Google: working with information online!

    Most ISPs don’t like you sharing your connection

    Posted on by

    Just as I thought. From The Register…

    A router designed to share broadband internet connections with third parties appears to break the terms and conditions of seven of the top 10 UK internet service providers.

    Fon.com offers Wi-Fi routers for as little as €5 and encourages connection sharing in a bid to build a Wi-Fi community, but its policies could put users at odds with their providers.

    OUT-LAW has examined the terms and conditions of the 10 biggest UK ISPs as rated by research firm Point Topic. Only two of the ISPs, Blueyonder from Telewest and Orange Broadband, do not ban the sharing of a connection with third parties.

    Seven of the ISPs, including BT, NTL and Tiscali, ban connection sharing explicitly. One ISP, AOL, bans sharing but only if the access is sold. Fon does encourage users to charge for access.

    The Fon system is designed to create an informal network of users. If you buy a Fon router you receive a username and password. If you have a Wi-Fi-enabled laptop and come into range of another Fon router you can sign on with your Fon username and password and use that internet access. If you share your Wi-Fi for free at your own home then you can use any Fon connection for free. If you don’t share your own access you can use any other Fon point for €3 per day, according to Fon. If you decline the right to have free roaming access you can share 50 per cent of the revenue generated by charging that €3 a day for your access….

    En passant… Out-law is a useful website maintained by the London law firm of Pinsent Masons with tons of stuff about legal aspects of cyberspace. It’s even got an RSS feed.