Crazyworld

...along with the rest of our blogs, as we switch to WordPress.

You can now find me over at http://crazyworld.blogs.goupstate.com

Hopefully, the comments, categories and easy-to-find URL will follow.

See you there!

In in the interest of full disclosure, yes, I am a reporter. Been one for nearly a decade now.

So I was pretty shocked while watching an online stream of the lastest so-called "media availability" held by embattled Gov. Mark Sanford today in Conway -- not far, incidentally, from where House Republicans are spending the weekend at a retreat where impeachment is almost certainly going to be a topic.

After speaking about transparency and openness, Sanford didn't take any questions. In fact, he blatantly told a reporter for The State newspaper, "I don't work for you."

It's hard to put personal feelings aside on this one. But I'll try.

Last I checked, reporters paid taxes and most, if not all, register to vote. They tend to take their civic responsibilities seriously.

Last I checked, many reporters were more informed about the processes of government than the average man on the street and, sometimes, even elected officials.

Last I checked, elected officials should look at EVERY reporter -- from the smallest weekly to the largest daily -- as virtually thousands of people rolled into one. People as in taxpayers, constituents, residents. It's a bit of advice I got from an editor at the first weekly I worked at after college. The Internet only exponentially increases a news organization's reach.

Last I checked, millions of people still rely on news organizations to not only report information, but to do so in the larger context of how that information is presented. (Sanford complained that The State reported on his current conflict, and not as much on the records his staff pulled on past administrations and even sitting lawmakers.)

Last I checked, newspapers still employee people in this state, pay taxes of their own and have to deal with travel budgets. Many of those travel budgets are shrinking or in some cases being eliminated -- and they are wasted when media outlets send reporters all over the state for press conferences in which the person speaking refuses to answer any questions.

Last I checked, Elected Office 101 taught elected officials never to pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrell. Or, today, has access to unlimited space online. Why? They'll never get the last word. Ever.

And, last I checked, every reporter is keenly aware that it's not always obvious ethical or other infractions that must be avoided -- it's the appearance of impropriety that can cost a someone his/her credibility.

Perhaps, governor, that last part is the most important lesson of all.

If you haven’t had to deal with this question yet — and still have more than a year or two left before you retire — then you will, and sooner than you’d probably like.

The blending of personal and professional life is something I’ve struggled with for a long time. And based on comments I’ve heard from people in a variety of other businesses, I’m not alone.

As a journalist, I have a few extra concerns, but we’ll get to those in a bit. Let’s talk about the general implications of this sweeping societal change first.

It can be gradual or abrupt, liberating or jarring, and either help facilitate your career or end it.

If you’re reading this — which, if you’re not a regular Herald-Journal/GoUpstate reader, you probably found through Twitter or a link on someone else’s blog — chances are you’ve heard horror stories about people losing their jobs because of a stray comment on a social networking site like Facebook. You’ve probably heard of college students cleaning up their online profiles or deleting them completely before looking for their first job. You may have your own experiences with someone you haven’t talked to in a decade or two tracking you down on a social networking site, posting a “Remember when...?” story and then had to offer an uncomfortable explanation of it to your colleagues.

But, you’ve hopefully also heard about people using social networking to find a new job, to build relationships with customers, clients or colleagues and perhaps even used blogging as a therapeutic tool to share your thoughts with anyone in the world who cares enough to listen.

This public-private dichotomy came up not too long ago during an interview with former Clemson University professor Mihaela Vorvoreanu -- who’s now at Purdue -- about research she had done on social norms she’d observed among a specific group of college students on Facebook,

“It’s becoming a major issue in society — one that I haven’t quite figured out yet,” she said. “Are you an employee 100 percent of the time? From a personal perspective, I don’t think most of us are paid enough to consider that. On the other hand, something you say …will be associated with your employer. So it’s hard to figure this out. But both sides have valid points.”

Olivier Blanchard also touched on this in my recent story about businesses using social media:

“Obviously, you want to be careful who speaks officially for your company — and those lines are getting blurred,” he said. “If I have a blog, and it’s not a company blog, but people know I work for company x, and I say something offensive… Even if I have a disclaimer, I’m probably going to get a call from human resources.”

Everything you post becomes part of your online identity.

So, even if you’re off the clock, you’re not. You’re a representative of your company -- or, rather, a potential representative. Your personal brand has become assimilated by the brand you work for. (More on this point in an upcoming post.) And the vulnerability an organization might feel in having its employees freely interacting on the world wild web comes with it.

Ideally, as the social web continues to grow and expand, old-school thinking at companies that could intimidate or otherwise limit a person’s ability to express themselves online will die out. If it doesn’t, the companies home to such thinking probably will.

In the meantime, Big Brother may not be looking over your shoulder, but the person who signs your paycheck may be. Companies have begun forming policies for using social media technology, but the more they try to muzzle their employees, the more likely they’ll get bitten in the process. If that’s not happening now, it will. Each successive generation is more and more acclimated to using the social web as a free forum for conversations. It’s only a matter of time before the iPhone generation outnumbers the Baby Boomers in the workforce. (That’s not to say there aren’t some very forward-thinking Baby Boomers online. I’m generalizing.)

And then, there’s me. Or rather, people like me.

Journalists. Reporters. Agents of the MSM.

Reporters, as you know, are supposed to always be objective. I know, I know. I can hear the laughter through the screen. But really, we try. And most real reporters do a good job of presenting an accurate portrayal of a situation. There’s an old saying in this business that if all sides are mad at you, then you did something right.

Well, as journalists, we should be aware of and attempting to make the best use of new channels of communication. After all, that’s what we’ve been trained to do: communicate.

But the blurring line between the public and the private is all the more dangerous for us.

On one hand, social media is a great way to build relationships with potential new readers and sources. I’ve done it for a while now — slowly but surely. But I can’t even begin to count the number of times someone has told me, “Don’t tweet that.” Don’t give someone a reason not to trust you. Don’t sacrifice your credibility. Those are all valid concerns.

Journalists have long had to divorce themselves from their personal feelings when covering a story. But now, with social media, it’s almost as if you have to divorce yourself from who you are every time you plug in. With so many people ready to blame the media -- ironically, most of this comes from politicians, or at least people who avidly follow politics, and from other members of the media -- you have to be extra careful.

It’s true even on “safe” topics: If I tweet that I’m listening to Phil Ochs, do I have to listen to Merle Haggard afterward and share that with the world, too?

I think -- I’m hopeful, actually -- that this industry, too, will one day accept that its biggest assets are the identities of the people working in it and evolve from the days of old. You can have an opinion about something and still cover it fairly. It’s just more and more, people expect to know that opinion up front. After all, we (the press) often demand such disclosures from anyone else who dares post content online. And sometimes, the best writing comes from people who wear their biases on their sleeves.

There’s already been some discussion of this, of “coming out from behind the byline.” But it’s pretty controversial right now.

Perhaps, though, for all facets of the communications industry, embracing the social web and using it to facilitate individuality is the most credible approach of all.

Republican U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis stood in front of a verbal firing squad for more than 90 minutes tonight, trying to keep a lid on the fear and anger in the room enough to have a rational discussion about health care.

But in the end, things bubbled over.

I filed my story from the Upstate Family Resource Center in Boiling Springs well over an hour into the town hall, tweeting before, during and after writing it. I figured I had enough material.

The congressman, after all, already had affirmed his belief in the Second Amendment, not to mention the First, Fourth, Tenth and maybe another one or two. He’d reminded everyone that he was a Republican, not a Libertarian. He had tried to convince them he wasn’t pushing a secret plan to force everyone to get vaccinated against the swine flu. He said he didn’t believe health care was a right, but that a Judeo-Christian nation would see to it that people who needed emergency treatment got it. He talked about the need for everyone to have health insurance, because “free riders,” as they are called, cause medical costs to go up for the rest of us. He criticized the current health care bill for not specifically including language that would prohibit taxpayer-funded abortions, and put forth the belief that a public option would drive private providers out of the market. He had, after all, a 16-point list of reasons why he was against the very health care bill that much of the fervent crowd had come to voice their opposition to.

He even said, when asked, that he would opt out of the health insurance program he has by virtue of his office and “join the rest of us” if the current legislation passes.

But he wouldn’t sign an undated letter of resignation to be submitted in case he didn’t. That certainly raised some eyebrows: “Why not?”

So, after I hit my send button, a woman stands up and starts saying repeatedly that she’s afraid of President Obama. Inglis asks her why she’s afraid. And that’s when it started.

“He has too much power!”

“What do you mean, why?”

“Go home, Bob!”

It’s kind of a blur here. Inglis told people to turn off Glenn Beck. He told them to turn off the fear-mongering.

Thankfully, Inglis called me later tonight, on his way home from the “after party” where he met with a dozen or so local Republican precinct chairmen. Just to make sure, I asked him if he used the specific term “fear-mongering.”

“Probably,” Inglis said. “That’s what he does. That’s what Glenn Beck is all about. And Lou Dobbs. I’ve had the misfortune of listening to those shows a couple of times.”

The Beck comment was the last straw for what was left of the 350-plus people who had come to the town hall – the seventh of 12 Inglis is hosting.

Afterward, there was some discussion among the Democrats and less extreme Republicans -- I used the word “moderate” on Twitter, but not everyone agrees with that label -- that they felt too intimidated to speak up tonight.

Inglis said his staff members got a similar sentiment, as several people came up to talk one-on-one with someone from the congressman’s office on their way out.

The atmosphere of fear at the town hall was markedly different than the one on the street, Inglis said. He went door-to-door in a nearby neighborhood before the town hall. (He often does that.) He said that gives him “a more standard distribution of people.”

He tried to explain the difference between being fearful and being aware of problem in order to try to fix it. He said the fearful crowd was predominantly rooted in the Libertarian and Constitutional parties.

“The conservative Republicans there realize that the Constitution is stronger than any president. We have every reason to have faith in the institutions that hold the country together,” Inglis said.

“But when fear takes over and people start thinking the Constitution is not strong enough to meet the challenge of a president they don’t like, you end up with some fairly hysterical reactions.”

Since we were on the subject, I asked him more about Beck.

“I don’t listen often to Glenn Beck, but when I have, I’ve come away just so disappointed with the negativity… the ‘We’ve just gone to pot as a country,’ and ‘All is lost’ and ‘There is no hope.’ It’s not consistent with the America that I know. The America I know was founded by people who took tiny boats across a big ocean, and pushed west in tiny wagons, and landed on the moon. That’s the America I heard on the streets of Boiling Springs.”

He continued: “The America that Glenn Beck seems to see is a place where we all should be fearful, thinking that our best days are behind us. It sure does sell soap, but it sure does a disservice to America.”

Now, given that I’m a journalist, I have an interest in the way the media works and how people perceive it. Lord knows, I can’t tell you how many times people have come up to me to let me know what a liberal rag I work for – despite the fact that many people who actually read our paper’s editorial page call it one of, if not the most conservative in South Carolina. And that’s saying something. So maybe this was giving Inglis a soapbox, but I wanted to hear it.

“If Walter Cronkite said something like Glenn Beck said recently on the air, about the president being a racist, Cronkite would’ve been fired on the spot,” Inglis said. “But I guess the executives of these cable news shows are more enamored with the profits that come from selling this negative message than they are with undermining the faith of people in this wonderful constitutional republic.”

He continued: “There is every reason to oppose President Obama’s health care package. It’s the wrong prescription. It needs to be stopped. But that doesn’t mean we need to abandon hope in America, and say the end is near, and people are going to force us to have immunizations. There’s no reason to go to that extreme.”

I should point out that Inglis is facing a crowded slate of challengers in next year’s Republican primary. If any of those candidates want to call and talk about FOX, MSNBC, CNN, talk radio or even good old-fashioned newspapers, they have my number.

Anyway, Inglis made a couple of final points in our conversation. It was getting late, and I was missing The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. ;)

“This is a constitutional republic that can withstand any president I disagree with,” Inglis said. “It withstood Bill Clinton. And if you were a George Bush-hater, it withstood George Bush. And it will withstand Barack Obama. And that’s just because there’s such confidence in the Constitution and the framers, who set up such an incredible system of checks and balances. …It’s inspiring to me to think about that.”

“What you saw tonight was people who had been convinced of this negativism, and are detaching from the communities and institutions that hold us together,” Inglis told me. “And I believe in the importance of strong institutions. I’m not an anarchist. And I’m not a Libertarian. I believe in a strong, smart federal government that is able to meet challenges like 9/11, and figure out how to correct its mistakes from Katrina…”

He lost his signal. (He was, after all, on Highway 11.) He called back and we wrapped up.

“I hope to convince people that there’s every reason to be optimistic, and there is a way forward. And I hope to help position the Republican Party as the party that presents a message that America can fall in love with, rather than a message that would drive fear in order to win votes."

UPDATE (1:46 a.m.): While I was writing this, at least one video clip from the night surfaced. The audio is difficult to decipher, but the crowd's reaction speaks volumes. It sounds like Inglis says "Turn that silly thing off." I'm going on memory at this point, but this was after the "I'm afraid of Obama!" woman and after the congressman brought Glenn Beck into the mix. There were a few people recording, so maybe the whole bit will show up. If so, send me the link (jason.spencer@shj.com) and I'll post it here.

UPDATE (11:09 a.m.): Just found a longer video on Twitter (thanks to @innovator82 for providing the link) from the town hall. Now, keep in mind that this video has been spliced together by someone who obviously wants "Anybody But Bob" to hold this seat. But within the first minute, you can clearly hear Inglis' original comments about Beck -- and the reaction . You can also hear more of the woman who is afraid of Obama. Keep watching to hear some of the audience questions (taken at the beginning of the meeting) and Inglis' answers (from the end of it).

U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis is facing a fierce crowd tonight at a health care town hall in Boiling Springs. After several rounds of questions, he's going over the reasons he opposes the current health care bill. Couldn't find a link, so here's the 16 reasons his press office sent out earlier today.

What's below is straight from the press release.

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

Reasons Rep. Bob Inglis opposes H.R. 3200

          o Inclusion of a public option competing with private insurers- lead to single payer system which will destroy choice and innovation, ultimately will ration by waiting
          o Taxpayer funded abortions could be provided – no exclusion language
          o Adds tax in a recession on individuals and small businesses
          o Job killer – Makes job creation more costly, rather than reducing cost
          o Does not address medical liability reform
          o Grows government
          o Creation of Insurance Exchange focuses on minimum benefits and mandates without incentive for innovation or specialization
          o No incentive for quality outcomes
          o Current private employer-offered plans will be driven into exchange program within five years
          o Public plan option will reimburse providers at Medicare-style negotiated rates which could be below private insurer rates- causing a major cost shift and undercut private insurers.
          o Adds entitlement program that will hamper recovery and add to the $32 trillion obligation of Medicare
          o Government mandate is the only way to control costs
          o Insufficient individual responsibility or choice
          o Insufficient reforms of Medicare and Medicaid
          o Expands Medicaid rather than transition those individuals to the private insurance to have ability to choose their own health plan
          o Inadequate incentive for healthy behaviors, prevention, and wellness from a patient and provider standpoint

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.