It’s been a busy weeked for bloggers, podcasters and politics. On Friday, Ted Hu inundated me with a stream of political comments on a variety of subjects. Indeed, Ted opened the firehose on his email list. Ted, I love the fact that you have mastered multi-channel marketing of your political thoughts. But, sometimes, it’s too much. I got your fifteen emails on Friday. You might try rolling some of these into your blog (which I love, when you take the time to post). Ted understands how to speak his political opinions (which I usually disagree with). It is refreshing to see how he manages to be a product evangelist for Microsoft yet can still proudly espouse his personal political sensibilities. He walks a fine line – and does it fairly well.
But not everyone in Microsoft follows the same approach as Ted. The Scobleizer has gotten himself into quite a political discourse. Over the past few days, he has taken issue with politcal positions that Microsoft has taken. Stated more precisely, he has taken issues with Microsoft’s _withdrawal_ from certain political issues.
In the past, Microsoft executives have taken very affirmative stances on gay rights. Recently, Microsoft has received a good deal of criticism from its local community and the more conservative members of the company (and its shareholders) for taking such public stances on political issues. Consequently, Steve Ballmer made a point of noting that Microsoft needs to maintain a certain degree of separation from obviously political agendas. Most Microsoft shareholders have not invested in Microsoft stock because of its historical stances on gay rights. Instead, Microsoft shareholders have invested because of the economic returns associated with Windows and the Office product family.
But how does a corporate leader adequately separate his/her own political opinions and sensibilities from the needs of the shareholders (whom he/she serves)? That is a tough question. I have rarely been able to compartmentalize myself in such an easy (or clean) fashion. Apparently, Scoble cannot quietly compartmentalize himself either.
Therefore, Scoble is in a pickle. He feels quite strongly about the human rights issues involved. Yet he is now part of the Microsoft brand (not just an employee). His words and actions have a greater impact upon brand identity than the average Joe Programmer in Redmond. And he may even have a modest impact upon stock prices (albeit indirectly, as expressed through individual shareholder transactions). Consequently, his public statements have public impact upon the brand and how it is viewed by the growing number of blog readers.
So a cautious person would recommend that Scoble just drop the issue. But here is the rub. Scoble (and the entire blogging community) is predicated upon commentary and not just reporting. In a lot of ways, he is like Fox News Channel. I am sure Robert will hate the analogy, but it is apt. Fox News is watched because people want to hear the side comments from Fox & Friends and not just hear someone read the facts out loud. Indeed, a strict recitation of the facts can be gotten from any number of other sources.
But blogs are a means of getting news – and a whole lot more. People want to hear the news from people who care. They want to reach out to the personality that they have come to trust. People reached out to Walter Cronkite because they invested in who he was and what he said. Whether you were conservative or liberal, you would listen to Walter Cronkite because you trusted him to provide honest news.
Well, people trust Scoble’s thoughts on technology. And people invest in Microsoft. And those two paths have been synonomous for some time. But now there is some divergence between the two. So what should Robert do? I don’t have a clue. I don’t know him well enough to speak for his heart and soul. If I were in his shoes, I would urge Robert to listen to his heart and spirit. I disagree (vehemently) with Robert on this issue. But I find myself urging him to maintain his voice of honesty. Sometimes, you can do this and maintain your voice as a spokesperson for the company. Sometimes, you can’t. But in the end, you have to be able to look at yourself in the mirror and like the person you see.
BTW, Dave Winer has even gotten in on the discussion. While I think he agrees with Robert (from a political viewpoint), he disagrees with him from a corporate viewpoint. Dave believes that Microsoft is correct in removing itself from this political discussion. And I think Dave is right. The company is not a “non-profit” or “not-for-profit” organization with a political mission statement. Rather, it is a “for-profit” corporation with a specific mission: make profits for the shareholders. Consequently, the managers of the company must refrain from injecting their own political opinions that might otherwise divert the company from its core mission. Now, if the board wants to approve a change to the corporate mission statement, then that’s a different situation.
Starbucks is a good example of this. Their publicly-stated core mission is larger than just a good cup of coffee. Take a look at their recent press releases regarding the acquisition of Ethos Water. Clearly, the brand and corporate mission are larger than just coffee. Starbucks has a clear mission (articulated from the board) that includes political activism.
But this is not the case for Microsoft.
Dave Winer’s recommendation is that the company [Microsoft] disengage from such overtly political matters. So what is Dave’s advice for Robert? Should Robert continue to pursue his personal sense of “right and wrong” or acquiesce to the needs of the corporation? Only Robert can answer that. In my estimation, Robert is doing the right thing in taking the matter directly to board members (like Ballmer). Robert is trying to change the mission statement to extend beyond profitability and product. But Robert is doing this out in the open. That is his biggest challenge. By making his challenge publicly, he is not giving the board (or its members) any room for a quiet or thorough discussion. He may be forcing the issue into the realm of the soundbite. That’s too bad. My basic recommendation to Robert is to take this issue out of the blogosphere (and say so in your blog). Then take it up privately with relevant board members. Only then will mission statement reconsideration be plausible.
-CyclingRoo-

Rebecca MacKinnon (Berkman Center, Havard Law School) has just released the final notes from the January conference on Blogging, Journalism and Credibility. The discussion is well worth the few hours it will take to read, digest and reflect upon the content. The final conclusion of the conference was hightlighted as follows:

Strengthening the public discourse, and strengthening democracy, is indeed the common ground shared by professional journalists, bloggers, wikipedians and others involved in the creation of grassroots media.

The conference established two important things: 1) that this common ground does indeed exist, and 2) that all are eager to work together. The goal is to create a better society and better means of giving citizens both the information they need and the forums of discourse required to hold their leaders truly accountable. Now we need to figure out how to achieve that goal. This conference has helped point us in the right direction, but the journey has only just begun.

For dedicated bloggers, this conference provides a framework for considering our blogs in a much more socially aware context. Spend the time to read the conference PDF!

-CyclingRoo-

The arguments presented to the Supreme Court (in MGM v. Grokster) are quite fascinating. While there was a great deal of expected posturing and blustering, there were some very interesting assertions made by the MGM attorneys. Tim Armstrong took the time to document the goings on in his blog.
In yesterday’s entry, Tim noted several key points.

1. Many of the justices seemed tremendously concerned about an inventor’s right to create apart from the downstream (or unintended) consequences of such invetions. Armstrong wrote:
   

   At least some of the Justices, Scalia in particular, seemed troubled by how an inventor would know, at the time of inventing, how its invention might be marketed in the future.

2. When confronted with this line of questioning, the MGM attorneys admitted something that they may not have intended:
   

   They said that at the time the iPod was invented, it was clear that there were many perfectly lawful uses for it, such as ripping one’s own CD and storing it in the iPod. This was a very interesting point for them to make, not least because I would wager that there are a substantial number of people on MGM’s side of the case who don’t think that example is one bit legal. But they’ve now conceded the contrary in open court, so if they actually win this case they’ll be barred from challenging “ripping” in the future under the doctrine of judicial estoppel.

3. There was a great deal of discussion about “substantial non-infringing use” as described in Sony. I can’t wait to see the transcripts. I would really like to know how Grokster could make such a claim while the “marketing” of Grokster slyly implied infringing uses. This will be an interesting point to see how the Justices separate. I almost expect a separate concurring or dissenting opinion from Ginsberg on this one.

I am glad to hear that the justices were eager to consider fair use claims of consumers. I am surprised and heartened to hear that the justices are not eager to hold inventors liable for the actions of consumers that utilize their inventions. After all, would we hold “Smith & Wesson” guilty for a murder in a dark alley? Of course we wouldn’t. Nor should we hold Louisville Slugger culpable for the man that bludgeons his neighbor with a bat. So the court will have to wrangle through whether the “principal” (or intended) use of the product was to promote illegal activity. Barring such a finding, I doubt the court can hold Grokster developers as liable.
So what will the outcome be? Folks, I don’t have a clue. I am not a fortune-teller. And I really don’t know whether this court will simply wish to amend Sony or craft something far more expansive. Nevertheless, I’ll bet on marginal tweaks to Sony with no major “sea change” in sight.
-CyclingRoo-