A Pew study released last year found that of the blogs they studied, 99% of the stories on blogs originated from "legacy outlets" like newspapers and broadcast networks. It's absolutely foolish to abandon traditional media for social; a combined approach makes sense.

Thanks for commenting! RE: "can we really blame social media when we feel bad about ourselves?"--I've thought about this, and I guess where I come down is that blame doesn't really matter as much as causality. Can we blame social media? Should we? No.

But that doesn't matter if when we log on we end up feeling worse. The "Anti-social network" piece has a link to a Washington Post piece about how Facebook affected a group of women struggling with infertility. This article made me realize that yes, the actual tool is what is making these women sad. They were logging on and seeing friends post about pregnancies, babies, etc. Remove Facebook from this scenario, and how often would these women be confronted with this information, and more importantly--*how* would they come across it? Rather than an impersonal one-to-many delivery, it would be one-to-one, generally. I don't think we can ignore the fact that Facebook and other social tools allow us to broadcast information without receiving information back from the recipient, making it a very different way to communicate.

There's another aspect I didn't get into in this post because, well, it was getting long, and that's the role gender plays in all of this. Women are more prone to depression, more likely to compare themselves to one another, and, more likely to use Facebook (not causal, all three are separate observations). Women also make most of the purchasing decisions in a household. I'm not sure what it means in the long run, but if unhappy women (like the infertility group) drop out of Facebook because they recognize the impact it is having on their happiness, what does this mean for marketers?

I don't have any answers, just a lot of questions...!

And, you know I love having your opinion shared--it matters to me!

I think it depends on how critical writing is to the job for which they are being hired. While I certainly agree that the resumes should be reviewed carefully, you have no idea if the best friend who *can* write proofread the resume and suggested the needed corrections. If writing is integral to the job, then yes, a quick writing test should be given. I also always ask prospective hires what the last thing they read was (not for work). It's not a make or break question, but I've found that readers make strong writers.

And I agree with Ike--and love the term "team-written boredom."

I agree with you Ike, but skeptics aren't always treated just as those who challenge dubious tenets--they are sometimes cast as Luddites who just "don't get it." I believe in social media, but think that the overhype is getting darn close to a bubble. I think some are sensing this, and perhaps attributing too much to social media's influence.

Take for example the situation in Egypt. This is being described as proof of social media's power--but, I ask: where would this be without the images? The television footage of what happened in Tunisia is just as important, if not more so, than the social organizing tools.

Thanks for the comment Kim! Nice to know I'm not alone.

Lynette, that would turn me off big-time too. When I hear things like that, I truly wonder if those individuals know how they sound. It's like that dating site commercial where they show a couple on a first date, and she says "okay, tell me--first impression: Would you marry me?"

On the point about making money without a thank you or cup of coffee--yikes. That's appalling. I don't know how I'd address that--even actors/actresses, purportedly the most self-centered people ever, manage to thank the Academy, their moms, and God publicly for helping them achieve their goals. This ties back to one of Kami's points about people becoming increasingly self-centered. I'd wager some of those people think it was exclusively their own hard work that got them that bag full of money, not thinking about the ideas, structure and process that helped them get there. How does one screen for self-awareness?

Susan, you are of course correct--and I'm very familiar with the blogger aspect of this discussion too. I've seen the posts, and I've even passed some along to clients to illustrate a shift in mood that I felt they should be aware is occurring.

"Balance of value" is a good phrase--I really like that and think it is key to the discussion. Sometimes that balance is going to be concrete (say, acknowledgment, credit, or--dare I say a portion of the profit--when the brain "picker" achieves success). Other times, it's going to be a feeling of paying it forward, or good karma, such as helping a non-profit that clearly is barely able to pay their employees to do good work, much less afford hundreds of dollars an hour for a consulting fee.

Is Chip unique in getting value, or is he choosing to see value, where others see only a one-way contribution? This was what I was trying to get at about attitude. Sometimes just shifting our perspective can make us happier. It might not change the outcome, but changing our perspective can make us feel more at peace with our decision to help.

I guess ultimately my point is that complaining about being too much in demand and taken advantage of is within one's power to address. Thanks for commenting--your Tweets really did kick off the thought process.

Thanks for dropping by, Peter (and, wow, that was quick!).

Balance is indeed the key.

PS--How are your new abs? ;-)

(If that doesn't make sense to people reading, then you've missed one of the more hilarious advertising stunts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXHmIJtQmd8&fe... )

It was brilliant! Thanks for coming on the show.

I do think he's attacking the PR surrounding the disaster--but a lot of what the piece indicts is standard practice for PR in a disaster, isn't it? Managing the message, trying to keep the worst images out of the next round of news coverage, etc. is pretty much standard procedure, isn't it? So in that sense, BP is following the rule book--they just don't realize that the rules have changed. PR has changed. And this disaster? There's no way BP can come out of this looking anything other than the villain.

You are spot on that the profession can only communicate what an organization does--and the CEO's ill-advised remarks in a number of cases make this significantly worse than it needed to be. What would a PR practitioner need to do to improve upon their response? Some of the suggestions laid out by "Leroy" are overly simplistic at best (e.g. "don't use dispersants, just collect the oil!"--gee, thanks. Should have thought of that--All the best, BP).

I don't know what the answer is, but it seems to me that any attempt at explaining anything in this crisis is going to get criticized as being messaging or spin or attempts to minimize the disaster.