Crazyworld

I should've kept a tally.

Now that we've all had a chance to catch our breath, though, there's a potential lesson to be learned from Gov. Mark Sanford's admission of having an affair with an Argentine woman and the subsequent fallout. Actually, there's probably several. But the one I have in mind involves newspapers.

For roughly a two-week period, nearly every day it seemed there was a story -- or series of stories -- that broke, whether it involved him lying to his staff, his romantic e-mails, his wife Jenny's reaction, his travel, calls for his resignation, his "love story" account of the whole thing, and so on.

If you're familiar with our Web site, you've seen the "Most Read" tab over on the right. News about Sanford dominated that list -- so much, in fact, that I began to wonder if we were really offering readers anything by putting those same (or extremely similar) stories in the paper the next day. Many days, by 10 a.m., there was more breaking news that somehow made stories that were still fresh off the press seem like "old news." Granted, not everyone gets their news from the Web (yet?), but everyone was running with the wire copy, especially once the infamous Associated Press "soul mate" interview broke. If you didn't read it online, you probably heard about it on television.

It's the classic problem that's plagued newspapers since they realized the Internet existed: Do you risk de-valuing the news by putting it up (for free) on your Web site the day it moves, which is what readers want and have come to expect, or do you save it for the next day? I can't help but wonder if "reverse publishing" breaking news in the paper after it had been on the Web meant taking up valuable space in the newspaper with information people already had consumed.

Now, this doesn't apply to everything. Bob Dalton had several good stories in this mix, and I got a piece of the action every now and again. (Here's one.) But what we were doing had a local angle, or involved analysis... It was a different kind of content than what was filtering onto our Web site (and, later, into the paper).

Those are the kind of stories that are best suited for the paper, in my opinion.

Now might be a good time to say I can't speak for our paper or our company, but as a journalist, it's in my best interest to at least be aware of the best channels to use to get the most information to the most people. And everything that's been said about the way our paper handled the Sanford affair could easily apply to nearly every newspaper in the state. (Kudos, of course, to The State, for breaking the story in the first place.)

In retrospect, I wonder if producing more stories like Bob (and some of the rest of us) wrote, and simply supplementing those with bullet points from the prior day's breaking news would have provided the best value to our readers?

It's a question that needs to be answered -- or at least thought about. If there's a better model out there, it could be applied to any kind of crisis coverage, whether it involves a love-struck governor, a serial killer or any other news story that develops over time in rapid-fire daily bursts.

Like I said, I'm not able to speak for the paper. I've actually been encouraged by some conversations I've had about differentiating some online versus print content based on space and the likely audience for certain stories. Extremely encouraged, in fact.

I can see why there'd be reluctance to try a new approach, especially on such a hot topic as Sanford's sex life. It takes guts to risk not putting a story that screams "front page" on... well, on the front page.

But the Internet isn't going away, and the number of people who get their news online can only grow -- whether it's through our Web site, Twitter feed, on their phone or on their computer, whatever. The print to digital avalanche isn't slowing down, and it's best to look for a way to ride the technological wave into the future rather than be buried under it.

How do you review a masterpiece?

DC Comics occasionally sends me stuff to review. (Marvel, not so much.) Often, I simply don't have time to write about these books, because time is limited and I have to devote what little I have at work to the news the most people will read -- not necessarily what I want people to read, mind you.

But when I got a hardback copy of "Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?" by Neil Gaiman and Andy Kubert a few weeks ago, I knew I had to do something.

But I didn't know what.

Quite frankly, I felt guilty getting a beautiful $24.99 hardback free of charge -- even though I'd already bought the two main issues it collects, and had some of the other Gaiman-penned stories included in the book. (It went on sale Wednesday, by the way, and The Tangled Web in Spartanburg says they ordered plenty of copies.)

I've read it several times over, trying to find what to say.

If you're not in the know, in the current DC Comics universe, Bruce Wayne, Batman, is dead. Sure, there are hints that he may be alive in some form at the beginning or end of time, living in a cave -- but that doesn't matter. Dick Grayson, the first of (now) several people to don the mantle of Robin, has taken up the cape and cowl of the bat, trying to live up to Bruce Wayne's legacy -- but that really doesn't matter much, either.

"Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?" is a love letter, a eulogy, a deconstruction of an American icon, a look at Batman, the mythological figure, his past, his present and his future. It's narrated by the late Bruce Wayne -- ever the detective -- putting together the clues as to what's going on.

Characters -- or rather, interpretations of characters -- from the Batman mythos take turns telling how they say Batman died. All of them are different, yet all of them are correct.

What got me was when I read the cover flap one last time. It described Batman as an American icon. Now, I have friends from other countries and cultures, but my world travel has (sadly) been limited to a couple of Mexican border towns that are not the most flattering that country had to offer.

An American icon. A man who dressed up as a flying rodent and beat up bad guys.

Who was Batman? Who is Batman? Who will Batman always be?

Batman was a man who never stopped fighting a battle, knowing the whole while he would never fully win. He was a lover who would never know the bliss of being in love -- by choice. He was a an actor on a large stage, filling the hero's role, swooping in and defeating the villains with theatrics on both parts, a Gothic John Wayne who, despite his dark side, everyone could cheer for. He was a product of gun violence. He was the inheritor of millions, and a philanthropist. He was a narcissist, a loner, a perfectionist, a grim workaholic who never gave in to compromise. He was the embodiment of something every young (and old) boy could relate to, and probably every girl as well.

Batman was a man who saw his parents murdered and never, ever gave up trying to rid the world of the evil that caused that.

I hate just associating those characteristics with Americans, but that's really all I can do. I truly believe that people driven by the level of passion Batman possessed exist all over the world. Indeed, Gaiman himself is an English author currently living in America. In his introduction, or "love letter," as he calls it, he talks about getting reprints of American comics as a young boy overseas and being exposed to Batman for the first time.

The fantastic memories that his cast of characters shares in a crowded back room off Crime Alley -- the place Bruce watched his parents gunned down as a young boy -- are twisted and varied. A decades-old interpretation of the character Catwoman looks at him lovingly and says, "We could be normal together." A frazzled butler tells his master that he's instigated many of the horrific crimes Batman has been called to solve "because you needed it." The Joker laments that Batman's death, despite his best intentions, was not funny. A young Grayson, in the series of remembrances by friends and foes, colleagues and provocateurs, calls Batman "holy," and says he was capable of preforming miracles. A gruff police detective says simply that he never gave up. And Superman, torn between his friendship with the man and the realization that the villains of Gotham demanded a single target, recalls Batman telling him, "While they're trying to kill me, they're not killing innocents."

I've probably given away too many of the surprises. There are more. Any fan of the Batman mythology needs this book, needs to reflect on it and, in my personal opinion, needs to delve into some of the back issues that inspired this work of art.

Batman is an American icon -- perhaps the most complex of them all.

Comics buffs know that the title is a play on the classic early '80s story by Alan Moore, "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" -- a final chapter to the Silver Age version of the embodiment of truth, justice and, yes, the American way. Gaiman's work has a similar purpose: it's the final chapter of the most accepted, increasingly dark, version of Batman that has infected generation after generation.

A new chapter awaits. But no matter what happens, this is the final Batman story. This is something that can be read today, tomorrow, next week or years from now, and it's still the same -- it's the epithet on the tombstone of someone who never gave in, never gave up and never, ever stopped trying to do good.

If ever there was a comic that could convince someone that sequential art was, in fact, art, this is it.

Goodnight, Bruce. And goodnight, Caped Crusader.

"Hi! Thanks for following me. This is truly amazing, sharing ideas and knowledge..."

"Thanks~Yeah~ Let's trade Tweets! if you're open here's a treat- the best 100% FREE PPC Training EVER..."

"Thanks for the follow! Live for today...|Thanks for the follow...give a smile get a smile|Been down-sized? Do something now..."

Yeah, I don't know what that last one means, either.

Suffice it to say I was blown away that my short story on brand strategist Olivier Blanchard's presentation yesterday at the Social Media Club Spartanburg's July meeting was the most-read story on our Web site today. I mean, I can't talk about numbers, but this is getting the attention usually only reserved for heinous crimes, scandals... or stories about restaurants. People love restaurant news, particularly stories about Wild Wing Cafe, it seems.

Since this story had a lot to do with Twitter, it was only natural to assume that Twitter users would be among the people reading it.

So I used the little do-dad at http://backtweets.com to see who all was helping disseminate the information. I mean, it wasn't like this was a story I had spent weeks on, tireless hours devoted to research and writing. It was a drive-by piece that attempted to touch on some of the themes Blanchard spoke on.

Anyway, I started following several of these people who appeared to find interest in my work. (It's considered polite.) Almost immediately, it started happening: Private messages sent automatically via Twitter telling me how to triple my followers, make money fast or whatnot. A few are posted above. It's been hours, and they're still filtering in.

Before dropping these peoplebots, I glanced at their page one last time... and a lot of them were the same or similar. Many were social media "experts," entrepreneurs, enthusiasts or whatever other name wayward public relations and marketing people have coined for themselves to try to take advantage of the Next Big Thing.

And that's when I realized it. I've had a series of conversations with people lately, about public relations in general and social media in particular. When I heard that in one large U.S. city, 80 percent of the public relations people didn't understand the media, I found it hard to believe. When I heard that out-of-work marketing people have begun to (sometimes indignantly) take up the mantle of "social media expert" -- whatever that is -- yet these people don't understand how to use social media, I scratched my head again. Things were starting to make sense, though. And then today, everything became crystal clear.

I should point out that there are plenty of people in news, in public relations and in marketing who do, in fact, get it. I just didn't think there were so few.

There's a good number right here in the Upstate -- I've mentioned Blanchard, who goes by thebrandbuilder. There's also Trey Pennington, Doug Cone and, a bit further away, Kristi Colvin. There are others. I'm sure I'm leaving someone out, and if you are one of them, my apologies. This is written on the fly as I take a break from deleting people who have accounts that are programmed to say how thrilled they are to meet me. (And this AFTER I had this conversation with Jason Zacher about how auto-DMs -- Twitter lingo, sorry -- were bothersome.) I mean, if you're really happy to meet me, it takes less than a minute to look at my profile and get a hint that I don't want your auto-gratitude. Seriously, one person's handle was something like "I FOLLOW BACK." Well, that's a #fail.

In the unfollowing frenzy that... umm, followed, I noticed that nearly every person I was distancing myself from had something in common: They didn't interact with anyone. They just pushed links and information onto people.

Is it really that hard to listen? To have a conversation?

As a reporter, I remind myself often to listen. Sometimes, during interviews. Sometimes, when I'm listening to audio recordings of interviews after the fact and realize I talked too much.

But to successfully use social media you have to listen. You don't have a choice. Or else you might as well be a robot.

This was a topic Blanchard talked about recently. One quote from an earlier story I didn't have room for, when we were talking about social media: "This isn't a fad, because it's not about technology," he said. "People aren't going to stop talking to one another."

The platforms may change. Some of you may have "outgrown" MySpace. Some think Facebook is on the way out. Some of you, particularly if you are a knitter or a Second-Lifer, may Plurk. There are tons of other platforms. One that intrigues me that I haven't spent much time with is Tumblr. Former state GOP director Jay W. Ragley recently devised a stellar way to use that platform, posting pictures, videos and comments about a cross-country trip he took.

If you are familiar with Twitter, you've probably seen people brag about the number of followers they have. I've mentioned before it isn't a popularity contest. All you have to do is listen, participate, and whatever success you were looking for will probably find you with less effort than you were putting into it in the first place.

When it comes to social media, whatever platform you use, if you participate, you are a leader. If you just listen but don't feel the need to chime in just yet -- that's fine, too. But if you just try to accumulate followers and bombard them with information they may not want or need, you're not leading. You're in the way.

In all the hub-bub that followed Gov. Mark Sanford's admission that he had an Argentine mistress, that he lied to his staff, that he actually saw her more times than he originally admitted, that some of his closest allies and Republican Party leaders have been urging him to resign... there was a promise.

That promise: His public schedule would be released in the future. It's been a busy month and, perhaps to the governor's surprise, other things have been going on. But I seem to remember hearing that timeless word in politics, that such a move would aid in "transparency" and help the governor build back trust.

While the likelihood of that happening is debatable, here goes the governor's schedule as released to the media today. Read below the press release for more on this.

----------

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
MARK SANFORD, GOVERNOR

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:   Joel Sawyer - 803-734-2100 - jsawyer@gov.sc.gov

Gov. Sanford's Public Schedule - Mon., July 13 - Fri., July 17, 2009

Columbia, S.C. - July 13, 2009 - No public events are currently scheduled for this week, but we will advise individually for any event added. Gov. Sanford will be working in Columbia for the week, with intermittent trips to Sullivan's Island.

Meetings and briefings Gov. Sanford will take part in this week include:

- Meeting with staff and First Steps Director Susan DeVenny regarding the potential transfer of the Baby Net program from DHEC to First Steps

- Meeting with new Emergency Management Division Director Ricky Platt, who was named recently to succeed retiring director Ron Osborne

- Briefing by Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom regarding the work of the Stimulus Oversight Task Force

- Briefing by Board of Economic Advisors Chairman John Rainey regarding revenue forecasts in advance of the following week's BEA meeting

- Receive a revenue update from state Department of Revenue Director Ray Stevens

- Receive an economic development briefing from Secretary of Commerce Joe Taylor and Deputy Secretary for New Investment Jack Ellenberg

- Briefing by Department of Social Services Director Kathleen Hayes regarding the upcoming release of an LAC audit of DSS.

-###-

----------

Now, you wouldn't have found this information out by looking at the governor's Web site, as the press release section hasn't been updated in weeks.

But, really, does this go far enough in detailing the governor's schedule?

When I first heard of this, I thought we'd see something more along the lines of a daily itinerary... you know, something with much more useful information. (BECAUSE INFORMATION IS REALLY THE KEY TO TRANSPARENCY.)

I thought we'd see a day-by-day breakdown, specific meetings with specific times, the occasional redacted items that pertained to personal business or things like economic development. Personally, I feel those things should be made public, too, but I'm just one small voice. I also thought travel details would be included -- by car, by plane, whatever.

To me, this isn't transparent. It's translucent at best. (I know I've used that line before somewhere, but -- hey -- it fits.)

But what do you think? Is this enough? Are you comfortable knowing Sanford will receive a handful of briefings this week? Are we in the media too obsessed with this poor man's personal life and need to get one of our own? Let me know. Feedback and (constructive) criticism is always appreciated.

Less than an hour after the State Law Enforcement Division announced that Gov. Mark Sanford did nothing criminal during his tryst with an Argentine woman, S.C. Republican Party Chairwoman Karen Floyd released the following statement:

“I have confidence in the findings of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division.  But the fact remains that there is clearly a growing view that the time may have come for Governor Sanford  to remove himself and his family from the limelight, so that he can devote his efforts full-time to repairing the damage in his personal life.”

Also, during (or immediately before) the SLED press conference, news surfaced that the embattled governor would be spending the Fourth of July weekend with his wife and her family in Florida.

One note on Floyd, who runs the Spartanburg-based Palladian Group. Her public relations firm had a contract with Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer -- who would take the reigns of the state if Sanford were to resign, be impeached or be forcibly removed by a select group of constitutional officers.

Palladian Group Chief Operating Officer Angel Cox said in a recent interview that the firm ended its contract with Bauer on Feb. 9 (a few days before Floyd announced her intention to seek state party chairmanship). The two payments from Bauer's campaign to the Palladian Group since then -- about $4,850 on Feb. 13 and $1,500 on March 19 -- were for past services, Cox said.

Bauer's camp has also made payments to the Campaign Connection LLC, according to his first quarter disclosure statements. Floyd said the Campaign Connection was run by people who did freelance work for her in the past and have since struck out on their own.

The Palladian Group is located at 113 W. Main St., Spartanburg. The Campaign Connection is at 115 W. Main St.

This statement just landed in my inbox from S.C. Sen. David Thomas regarding embattled Gov. Mark Sanford:

“With all of the information that has come to light in the past few days, particularly the truth which differed from his original news conference, I believe he should resign. If it is proven that he misused state money to conduct the affair, he should be impeached.”

It should be pointed out that the impeachment process would start in the House, but you get the drift. There is a growing number of state senators calling for Sanford's resignation.

But Thomas is one of several Republicans challenging incumbent U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis -- and Inglis' take on the Sanford affair is quite different.

Inglis also faces four other Republicans: 7th Circuit Solicitor Trey Gowdy, Wofford College professor Christina Jeffrey, Duke Sandwich Co. owner Andrew Smart and Air Force veteran Jim Lee. No Democrat candidates have formally announced for the seat yet.

I can't find a link to it, so I'm just copying and pasting the e-mail that was just sent out.

----------------

Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell issued the following statement today:
 
"The Governor’s personal failings have become widely known in the last week.  Those personal failings are his alone and we should allow him and his family to deal with them privately.  However, the Governor has offered up details about his indiscretions very publicly and they have been widely reported. Those admissions and the reaction of the public have raised in my mind whether the Governor can effectively lead the state in the days, weeks, and months to come.  The Governor does not need to be a paragon of virtue, but the people need to know that he is trustworthy and he is committed to serving them.

The Governor has admitted he lied to his staff in order to travel out of the country.  In doing that, he left the state with no leadership for five days and with no ability to handle an emergency if one arose.

Now, after his latest admissions, we must wonder has the Governor come completely clean.  Each time the press uncovers a new issue or the Governor volunteers new details, both he and our state are embarrassed.
 
The Governor is to the citizens of this state, the people of the United States, and those around the world the face of our state government.  For people who seek to bring new business or expand existing business in South Carolina, he represents South Carolina.  He can either be a great asset or a tremendous liability.

Neither I nor my colleagues in the General Assembly can require that the Governor resign.  That decision is his alone.    I do believe, however, that the Governor has lost the support of the people that is needed to govern.  Therefore, I would ask the Governor to look in his heart and decide whether with his family situation and the public uproar over what he has done and said locally and nationally whether he can lead our state for the remainder of his term.
 
This is not about Mark Sanford the person.  This must be about the government of South Carolina and making sure it operates effectively for the next 18 months.  He needs to decide immediately if he is an asset or a liability for our state.
 
I would beseech the Governor to do the right thing for himself, his family and our state.  I believe he knows what the right thing to do is and I hope that he will do what is right."

If you saw the wire story we ran in today's paper about embattled S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford, you may have noticed quotes from a few local fellows inserted in. What started out as a localized story (with me helping out master reporter Bob Dalton) quickly turned into an, "OK, this AP story is just too good." So, they took what I had and I was off to work on other things.

But because very few people seem to be defending Sanford these days - and fewer every time he bares his soul in an emotional press conference or interview, it seems - I felt I should post all of U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis' comments on the matter. Inglis makes a case that I think would resonate with some people in this state, particularly the Upstate. My interview with him reminded me of some of the comments a few political experts made a few years ago about the Christian/faith community's ability to forgive. At the time, we were talking about then-presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, but the underlying concept is the same, or at least similar, I think.

Anyway, from the interview...

On Tuesday's breaking news:

“I don’t think these additional meetings with the woman in Argentina, nor the contacts with additional women, change the essential nature of the problem, and that is that Mark has admitted to this infidelity, and now is having to deal with the consequences of that. …And I hope and pray he’s seeking reconciliation with his wife.”

On Sanford's ability to govern while dealing with a personal crisis:

“I don’t think that’s a problem. We are all coping in our private lives with personal issues. That would be like saying Sarah Palin shouldn’t be governor of Alaska because she has a special-needs child. Gov. Palin is coping with a special-needs child. That’s a lot to put on somebody. That’s a lot to put on a marriage. And yet she’s effectively serving as governor of Alaska.”

On whether Sanford can still be effective:

“Mark can be a more effective governor now than he’s ever been. Because now, he may have found the humility that could cause him to be able to see other people’s points of view better. He’s been so certain that it must be his way of restructuring, and his way of dealing with the stimulus, and his way of balancing the budget, that he may now be able to see other people’s perspectives. Because of the humility borne of this humiliation. So, in a strange sort of way, I think it could make the next 18 months the best of his tenure.”

Inglis then talked about the three years following his failed Senate run in 1998, a time he spent “complaining to God.” Through that, he said, he saw his own need for grace, and the need to extend grace to other people.

“That will make you different. And that’s what may happen for Mark Sanford. Everybody sees his need for grace. That may enable him to extend grace to other people. That works on a high spiritual plane, but also works in your daily dealings in politics.”

On the Republican brand:

“This is a great opportunity to lose the rot of self-righteousness — just cut it loose — and say we are not morally superior to the next guy. We are all sinners just like the next guy, in need of grace. Because the whole world sees us as completely not morally superior to anybody.”