I re-read my last post and after our last class I have to say (again) that I probably shoudn’t believe everything somebody writes, only because I like his or her style of writing etc. I now think more critically about Joe Trippi, his book and John Edwards.

Just had to say that before you all have a look at my blog tomorrow…

My first thought was that it is a real long afterword, more like another chapter in the book…

I like his idea, that most of the things in society don’t work from top-down or only from top-down.. He is right, that a bottom-up approach is a lot more useful.. Not only in politcal campaigning. I remember my class last semester about Hurricane Katrina and in one text a journalist wrote, that it wouldn’t be a good thing to rebuild New Orleans with a top-down approach, because the city once grew up from the bottom…

Anyways, I was also very impressed that Trippi has this disease and still he likes his job that much that he just HAS to do it…  To me it seems like that this is a real passion to him.

I already had the link to his website in a previous post and I also shared it with you on twitter.com, but now after reading the afterword I finally really understand the “Hair”-clip… I thought it was an interesting clip before I had read the text, but now I think it is brillant..

Don’t know what else I can write in response to the afterword, but I’m really impressed by Trippi and can’t he hold a guest lecture in Dortmund?

So, here’s the short version:

Before I started our class I was a Media Mover.

If you are a Media Mover, you have a wide range of online and mobile habits, and you are bound to find or create an information nugget, such as a digital photo, and pass it on. These social exchanges are central to your use of information and communication technology. Cyberspace, as a path to personal productivity or an outlet for creativity, is less important to you.

I agree with this, although I am not really sure what a “wide range” means… But I think that the internet (internet=cyberspace?) helped me with my productivity also before I started the class, because when I need information about whatever, I always looked it up on the internet.

Because I don’t want to write my in-depth comparison a second time, you can now read what I am today: an ambivalent networker:

If you are an Ambivalent Networker, you have folded mobile devices into how you run your social life, whether through texting or online social networking tools. You also rely on ICTs for entertainment. At the same time – perhaps because of the volume of digital pings from others – you may sometimes find all your connectivity to be intrusive. You are confident in your ability to troubleshoot your various information devices and services.

Wow. Okay, I defenitely already used my mobile device (my cell phone) before starting the class, e.g. for texting. And I certainly used online social networking tools (studivz!) before. I have to admit, that I had to look up what ICT is (I probably should know it, if I really am an ambivalent networker… but if you also don’t know it, click here). Now that I know, I agree, I sometimes use the internet for my entertainment, but have done that also like a year ago.

But I like the sentence about the internet being intrusive best of all, because it’s one with which I truely agree. I like the internet and most other ICTs (ha!), but sometimes I feel like it’s all too much, so many tools and it seems like there are new technological inventions every other day…

“You are confident in your ability to troubleshoot your various information devices and services.”

Does this mean that I know how to repair my computer or my cell phone? Nooo…

So, all in all doing this test is a neat thing, but although it says that I changed from the media mover to the ambivalent networker because of our class, I cannot really find I change in my media abilities.. Of course, now I know how to write a blog and I know more about different tools, but I don’t suddenly know how to troubleshoot information devices and I used social networking tools before..

But: What kind of Tech user are you?

“(…) But there could be an opposite effect, Wilder said.

“There’s going to be a reverse Wilder or Bradley effect. … There are some Republicans who are not going to say out front that they’re going to be voting for Obama, but they’re going to be, because the economy is what’s driving people to consider what’s in their best interest,” he said. (…)”

Anyways, I wanted to know a bit more about Joe Trippi and my starting point was of course wikipedia. It mostly describes his career, but an interesting fact is that he has been hired by the Libertas political party to help with their campaign for the European Parliament election this year. I was kind of surprised because I thought that he was “only” working on campaigns for US politicians…

Okay, but on wikipedia was also a link to Trippi’s media firm and I want to share this link with you. There you can watch Trippi’s ads for John Edwards, some were made for TV, some for the web. On the one hand, I think it’s interesting to see some of Trippi’s (and his firm’s) works and on the other hand, I think there are some differences between the TV ads and the internet clips… You might want to have a look

I just found a very interesting poll on people-press.org… The Pew Research Center compared people’s impressions of Obama from September last year (this means during his campaign) and April 2009. I don’t want to analyze the findings in detail here, because it’s much more fun to try it yourself (it’s a little bit interactive…), but some results are noticable.

For instance, last September 55 of the registered voters (it’s not percent!) believed that Barack Obama is inexperienced. You can probably remember this, because it was also in German news like “Can Obama be a leading president, because compared to John McCain, he seems to be very young and inexperienced”. But in April only 13 persons (?? not quiet sure how this worked) still had this impression of their president. In my opinion, this is an interesting change.

Talking about change: Obama’s motto was strongly connected iwth him in September, but in 2009, only 10 voters think of “change” when they think of Obama. Does this mean he didn’t (yet?) achieve as much Change as he announced during his campaign? How would you have voted?

You can find the voting here

Oh and you have to keep in mind that it’s nit a prepresentative study, but I still find it interesting…

But did you notice after 50 seconds, there is this annotation which says “*except Nebraska and Maine”. I wondered why and tried to look it up, and I think here‘s at least some kind of explanation (but unfortunately not in plain English…). Although I have to admit, that I didn’t really get that point yet…

Yes we can.

It is a silly question to ask with whom you connect these three little words. Right, it’s Barack Obama!

And since our class is about the election campaigns in the US I just swapped through some videos of his speeches again. (If you can’t remember, just have a look here) No matter if you think that he’s a good president or not, in my opinion he makes you want to listen to what he has to say. Of course, you have to be an extraordinary speeker to be the US president, but that’s not what this post is about. What came to my mind were questions like “Who writes these so important words?” or “Who is able to come up with such a long speech to which such a huge number of people all over the world wants to listen to?”

(of course) it’s not Obama himself. It’s Jon Favreau, a 29-year-old speechwriter. And there are lots and lots and lots of information about him on the Internet. For example? He has been working for the Kerry campaign in 2004 when he first met Obama. And what happened? Wikipedia says that “he interrupted Obama’s rehearsal, advising the soon-to-be Senator that he needed a rewrite in the speech.”

And some years later, to me he sounds exactly like Obama himself when he describes his theory of speechwriting:

“A speech can broaden the circle of people who care about this stuff. How do you say to the average person that’s been hurting: ‘I hear you. I’m there. Even though you’ve been so disappointed and cynical about politics in the past, and with good reason, we can move in the right direction. Just give me a chance.’”

Anyways, my point is that you can find many interesting myth-like stories about this young succesful man (he always took Obama’s biography with him and he wrote Obama’s inauguration speech at Starbucks……).

And he is the one to be creditet for the catchy phrase “yes we can”. And since the beginning of 2009 Favreau is the director of speech writing at the White House.

Somehow, I see all these stories from a quiet critical perspective, because “Favs” seems to be pushed to this popstar-like status, too (by the (new) media?!). On the other hand, I’m really impressed, to see that he has the talent to make his thoughts and ideas seem to be straight out of Obama’s head.

Quite difficult to explain, but here are some useful links, if you’re interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Favreau_(speechwriter)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/20/barack-obama-inauguration-us-speech

http://www.newsweek.com/id/84756/page/1

Surely enough, everybody has her or his own opinion about emails/internet vs. letters. I do love the internet and most of the stuff you (I should better say I) can do with it. It definitely eases our lives. But sometimes I think our lives are already very easy and comfortable, so why not write a letter to a friend instead of writing an email? Every email looks the same, the letter is handwritten (that can be a lot of effort) and how great is that if you check your mailbox (the real – not the virtual – one) and there is a letter from a friend in it? I like the idea.

Anyways, thinking about emails vs. letters I found a neat little story about how hard it is to write a letter and if you e.g. google it you’ll find some interesting ongoing debates about this issue.