But I’m seeing some trends and habits forming online that rub me the wrong way and I’m in the mood to call them out. If you see yourself in any of the below I hope you don’t take it personally; I’m just trying to get people to think critically about the way they work online. And I’m sure I’m guilty of doing some of these too so if you do take it personally, feel free to scroll back in the archives and call me on my shit.

So, without further ado, things that really grind my gears.

• Crowdsourcing entire projects – I like crowdsourcing. I think it’s a cool idea and it’s something I’ve done on many occasions. Like many others in my circle, I’ve cultivated a diverse professional network and, when the opportunity presents itself, I tap the knowledge in that network. All of that being said, though, I think we’ve all probably seen the people on Twitter that take it a bit far.One minute they’re “getting started on presentation on web trends for new non-profit client.” Then, a few minutes later, they’re “looking for stats on latest web trends.” Followed quickly by “looking for case studies of non-profits using new web tools,” “looking for aggregate data on web trends for non-profits,” and “wondering if anyone has a good graphic representing non-profits online.” Next thing you know they’re “finished that presentation – thanks all!”At what point does tapping into your knowledge network become faking your way through a client presentation

• Popularity contests – I follow a lot of agency-side communications and PR types. The vast majority of them have, at some point, vented about the challenge in convincing clients that traditional metrics don’t work when measuring the efficacy of online outreach. “It’s not about how many hits they get, it’s about building relationships with their customers! Why can’t they see that?”A valid, valid argument. Weakened only by the surprising number of these very same people who wig out when their Technorati rank drops, stress about their Twitter Grade and panic when Feedburner miscounts their RSS subscribers. Rightly or wrongly, it makes it sound like they don’t practice what they preach.

This post is getting long (and after only two entries) so perhaps I’ll sign off and save some for a future post. In the meantime, feel free to leave a comment and tell me what grinds your gears.

Now, Conservatives are understandably enraged at the prospect of being bounced from power after a political gamble gone wrong. And I understand that politicians (to put it mildly) have a unique talent for aligning the facts they need to make their message work. I don’t begrudge this and it certainly isn’t a skill unique to any one party of ideological affiliation.

But as a student of history as well as communications, I really, really hate lies and misinformation. It undermines the public’s faith in politics and it does a disservice to the democracy you purport to defend.

Say what you will about the tactics employed by the opposition to assemble this coalition, but for the love of Pete, can we get a few things straight?

• Stephen Harper was not elected to be the Prime Minister. Similarily, Stephane Dion was not rejected by 70-whatever-percent of the electorate. Unlike our neighbours to the south, we do not vote for PM here. We vote for a candidate in our riding. The candidates in each riding are elected to the House. The party with the most seats in the House is invited to form a government; the leader of that party is then sworn in as PM. In the case of the coalition, they have agreed to work together. This coalition now has the most seats in the House. The leader of said coalition should be invited to form a government if Harper’s government falls.
• The separatist party will not be part of the government. Gilles Duceppe was clear on this point from the start. The Bloc has agreed to support the coalition’s economic plan. That’s it. Beyond the economic plan, every caucus will be free to vote as it sees fit. The government will be made of Liberals and NDP’ers but the Bloc’s involvement goes no further than supporting the economic plan. Would the Conservatives have rejected the Bloc if it decided to support the fiscal update and keep the government afloat? Of course not, in a minority parliament you have to make concessions to other parties. The Bloc may want to separate from Canada (a position I wholeheartedly condemn) but until it succeeds it represents Canadians. Every single voter in each riding the Bloc represents is a Canadian and they deserve equal representation in Parliament no matter what their political leanings.

There. Now debate until your heart’s content. I personally love the idea of a coalition but mostly because I studied political history and I am curious to see how it plays out. I have no problem with people who oppose it but I DO take issue with those who base their opposition on misinformation.

That being said, though, I certainly believe the arts have a really, really important role to play in defining culture and generally making the world a better place.

And I believe the government should help support artists do their work. Call me a lousy socialist if you want but I like the idea of a few of my tax dollars going to help artists do their jobs. I truly believe it’s in the national interest.

Which is why I am so very bothered by the federal government’s gutting of arts programs.

As this article from the Globe and Mail reveals, the latest expenditure review at Heritage Canada has led to nearly $45 million in cuts to arts programs. Most distressingly, at least from my perspective:

• The $11.7-million Canadian Memory Fund, which gives federal agencies money to digitize collections and mount them online, is gone.
• The $2.1-million Northern Distribution Program, which distributes the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network signal to 96 Northern communities, is gone.

And just for good measure, funding has been reduced for the Canada Magazine Fund and the Book Publishing Industry Development Program.

Luckily the new director of communications for Prime Minister Harper has been dispatched to smooth things over.

To listen to some in the arts community and the opposition, you would think that there’s blood in the streets. When we find examples of programs that are clearly not meeting their objectives, without apologies we will cancel them.

Silly artists. Where’s the ROI on preserving historic museum collections and making them available across the country via the web?

For more and better scathe and cynicism, check out Paul Wells‘ musings on this topic. He seethes better than I do.

Anywho, on that note, if you haven’t already read The Greatest Story Ever Sold by Frank Rich I would encourage you to do so. It stands as a sobering reminder to all communications types of just how much of an impact our craft can have. For political junkies it is an excellent play-by-play of one of the more impressive (in a terrifying way) examples of an administration completely manipulating the media agenda.

And to further prove my point about my sluggish consumption habits, the next book on my table is Wikinomics. Seriously. That’s how far behind I get on these things sometimes. Thank God I have my wife to remind me when House is on.

But I kind of like our Senate.

Sure, the institution suffers for some of the less-than-desirables that call it home but can’t the same be said for just about any major national institution? There are also a lot of genuine, sincere people in the Senate who do great work for Canadians.

Have any of you ever actually read through (or at least skimmed) some of the many committee reports that the Senate generates?  In my experience (which is limited but likely exponentially greater than most Canadians), Senate reports are less partisan, better researched and more thoughtful than the reports generated by their equivalents in the lower chamber.

Why? For many of the same reasons that people want to abolish or reform the Senate in the first place. Senators aren’t bound by the tight schedules that MPs – who need to “show results for Canadians” before the next trip to the polls – are. They can take the time do do their homework on the complex issues they are dealing with. They also don’t feel the same pressure to bow to partisan pressures. Think of the headaches Liberal Senator Colin Kenny gave his party colleagues as chairman of the Senate defence committee during the Chretien and Martin years. Ditto for Senator Michael Kirby and his work on healthcare.

These rogues can get away with pissing all over the party line for the simple reason that they can’t be turfed out of office. For a nice juxtaposition, have a look at the way MPs Bill Casey and Joe Comuzzi have been marginalized since they ran afoul of their party masters.

Compounding all of this is the fact that the Senate can never really defend itself. With a few notable exceptions, Senators are largely unwilling to defend the institution because they inevitably get accused of defending their space at the federal trough.

I tend to agree that the Senate needs some sort of reform, just as I believe the House of Commons needs to be reformed. But I feel bad for the Senate, in a lot of ways. The low-key approach Senators take to their work all but guarantees they will continue to be a target of whichever party (lately the NDP and Tories) feels the need to score some cheap political points.

I just hope Canadians, should we be faced with a referendum on the issue, take the time to do a little research and don’t just vote on the reputation that the abolishionists have worked so hard to create.