I’m no expert but in the social media era that’s no reason not to get on a soapbox, right?

Hope you like my admittedly-patronizing attempt to correct the record.

First and foremost, congratulations on your victory. You worked hard to earn it and if I were you I’d reward myself by heading over to the Cora’s next to your campaign office and treating yourself to the 1990s Harvest. The mountain of fruit makes it a responsible choice, even with the bacon and the brioche.

Right, so the reason I’m writing.

You probably don’t remember this but back in your first go-round as the mayor of Ottawa (a slightly smaller place though it was, being pre-amalgamation and all) you held court for a group of up and coming reporters from Carrie Buchanan’s second year reporting course at Carleton. Two things stick out at me from that day:

1. You treated us like real journalists and gave us the respect and attention that many other sources didn’t when they found out we were doing class assignments.
2. You cracked a joke when I introduced myself, dropping your voice a half-octave and saying “sounds like you’ve got a career in radio ahead of you, Joe.”

Both acts had the effect of showing us a great deal of respect, one by treating us like adults and one by allowing yourself to show a human side. I haven’t forgotten that.

Our paths crossed again a few years later when you agreed to toss the ceremonial first pitch at the once-annual alumni vs. staff softball game for the Charlatan. We joked that whoever got you to come out must have convinced you there would be some cameras there as you had (and still do, I guess) a reputation for never turning down a photo op. Nevertheless, you came, said a few words and tossed that pitch in the rain, stepping over puddles as you did it, then made the rounds to say hello to everyone even though there was no camera in sight.

It’s electoral politics 101, of course: never turn down the chance to press the flesh with a potential voter. But if it was simply a chance to get your face out you hid it well. If it was just politics, you clearly have a gift for it.

So now you’re back.

I tweeted last night that you were at the helm when I fell in love with this city and while I’m not sure if that’s causation or simply correlation I’m choosing to be optimistic. If nothing else, this city deserves a mayor that takes the job seriously. Your predecessor admitted that he didn’t, at least not for the first half of his mandate. So we’re already a step ahead in my books.

Because more than anything, Mr. Watson, I want a city I can be proud of again. A city helmed by someone who has a vision beyond balanced budgets and tax cuts. This is about more than light rail and Lansdowne; about more than whether or not zero means zero. I’m tired of making excuses for the place I choose to call home. We’re more than a government town but outside the 613 Ottawa is a pejorative, a synonym for the federal government that carries an air of dismissiveness that borders on malice.

More than 10 years ago you made me feel like my city respected me. Like the man at the top actually gave a shit for a bunch of students, most of whom were just passing through.

After four years of neglect we’re licking our wounds. There are deep divisions in this city. We need capable stewardship, to be sure, but we need more than that too. We need someone who can give us something to rally around – a vision of a community instead of some corporation driven by the bottom line.

Please, make us all feel as respected as I felt in your office so many years ago.
photo credit: ViaMoi

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.