This is an outgrowth of my position of Book Reviews Editor for the wonderful podcast For Immediate  Release, created by Shel Holtz and Neville Hobson.

In a quick 30 minutes, we’ll have a chat with an author and a call-in so that you can ask the author questions.

Our first guest on the FIR Book Club will be Christopher Barger, author of the new book “The Social Media Strategist.”

Join us on Blog Talk Radio on the 27th.

And two other book-related notes:

1. If you have a book you would like to hear reviewed — or if you’d like to do a review yourself! — get in touch and tell me about the title.
2. If you’re interested in being a guest reviewer, let me know what book you’re thinking about. In the past, we’ve had folks like Shel and the mellifluous Donna Papacosta do reviews. More voices are better.
3. If you’re a book publicist or an author of a book that is related to public relations, social media, communications, marketing — get in touch with me. I’d like to hear about your book and perhaps review it.

It’s a little surprising (maybe not very surprising, actually) that I don’t hear very often from authors or publishing companies asking me to review books. Try me.

“Hi Michael: longtime listener, first-time caller.

First off, I pay Senator Mike Duffy’s opinions on Twitter all the attention that someone who had a wonderful career as a journalist and then became a tiresome (dare I say banal) partisan patronage hack full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing, exactly the attention they deserve.

That being said, let’s take a look at what the banal drivel-purveying medium of Twitter has done. I’ll try to pick out Canadian examples.

The famous Tweeted photo of US Air 1549, breaking the news of the "Miracle on the Hudson"

It’s allowed journalists like Kady O’Malley to provide live updates on important committee hearings by live-tweeting, and journalists like Glen McGregor to do the same at important criminal trials.

It’s allowed Best Buy Canada to help customers with service issues better.

It’s become the goto site for breaking news. I constantly hear about things, from the earthquake in China, death of Michael Jackson to Jack Layton taking leave from the leadership of the NDP on Twitter significantly in advance of the mainstream media.

It’s become a business driver — Dell Computers, for example, created a single account to publicize its clearance specials. It’s generating millions per year from that account.

So for those who choose to use Twitter, and thanks to tools such as URL shorteners and hashtags, it can be a powerful — and occasionally even eloquent — communications tool. For those who choose to deride it (of course, without actually experiencing it), you won’t be missed.

Have a nice day. And if you want to learn about it, I’m teaching an intro to social media course at Algonquin College starting on Tuesday. See you there?”

I was curious, but couldn’t find very much information at all on the CBC site. In fact, here’s everything they’ve got about it at this point:

CBC has taken a few significant steps at examining what we do. The most recent examination was a six-hour radio series called Spin Cycles.

So I contacted their media relations people, and in no time flat was offered an interview with the drama’s creator, Gregory J. Sinclair.

Here’s the interview, essentially unedited. I was pleased to hear that the program will not just be a half-hour radio play, but that elements of the fictional universe the characters inhabit will find themselves on YouTube, Twitter, and other social media tools, in an attempt to integrate the reality of the show into everyday reality. That promises to be interesting. And you’ll hear that if the show is picked up, Sinclair hopes to involve the audience (flacks like us and others alike) in shaping the content via social media. That’s cool too.

But I do wish CBC would begin to do things like social media outreach. Would it have been so hard for them to contact Inside PR, PR in Canada, or bloggers like me?

I am of the opinion that Mark Blevis is on to something when he talks about someone aggregating all the best of, top 10, etc. lists that people create, so you can save time and read the “best of the best of” and save time.  But it won’t be me.

So I guess that leaves looking forward, mostly.

What am I looking forward to in 2012?

First anniversary cake -- what will the fifth anniversary bring?

• In 2011, I found myself in the “smorgasbord” period of my life. I saw an even better description of this this morning, when Stuart Bruce in the UK describes himself as having “‘gone plural’ and decided to pursue a portfolio career.” I love the idea of a “portfolio career” as a descriptor of what he’s doing, and of what I’m doing — PR & social media consulting + podcasting (hopefully as a part-time sources of income) + part-time teaching at Algonquin College + private training + handling membership services for OCFF + doing promotion and media relations for musicians I love. Sounds more professional than smorgasbord (unless you’re Scandinavian, maybe). In 2012, I want to get a better handle on managing every part of this “portfolio career.”
• As I have for the last five years, I am looking forward to more house concerts. When I first got bladder cancer (and turned 40) five years ago, I went through a bit of a struggle to figure out ways of pursuing what made me feel fulfilled and happy. At the top of that list was music. Thus was born BobCat House Concerts, with the support and patience of my partner Cathy. We are going to celebrate five years of those concerts, which bring amazing musicians to our house to perform for us and our guests, in February. It has been wonderful to expose people to the musicians that I love, and to have become friends with so many talented people. I have to single out our friendship with David Ross MacDonald, which has become really important to us. It helps that he’s a musical treasure. But even if he never wrote another song, I’d still want him in my corner.
• And that initial splash into the “music industry” has led to a recently-ended term of service on the board of the Ottawa Folk Festival, to working with OCFF, and to the plans I currently have underway to launch a new “commercial” concert series in Ottawa.
• I’m looking forward to inaugurating the FIR Book Club this coming January. It’s been a real pleasure reviewing books for the For Immediate Release podcast (and hopefully the authors would agree), and I’m hoping this new “talk-radio” call-in with authors of interesting PR and social media books will be lively and entertaining and informative.
• I’m looking forward to finding out if a podcast about Stephen King can actually make its owner a little money. I suspect that the “nichiness” of my podcast the Kingcast may make it an attractive enough target for people seeking to find and reach Stephen King and horror fans that they’ll be willing to pay for it. Time will tell.
• I’m looking forward to continuing my conversations with friends and podcasting partners Mark Blevis on PR and other Deadly Sins and with Joe Boughner and Susan Murphy on The Contrarians. Sometimes you don’t know what you think about something until you write about it. Or talk about it.
• I want to spend a little more time on fiction writing. I’ve spasmodically worked on fiction projects. But I’ve got finishitis. So I want to FINISH some fiction and see if anyone other than me thinks it’s any good.

Andrea del Sarto (subject of Robert Browning's poem)

A man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?

Algonquin College social media class (may not be exactly as shown)

After some time working on the staff side of Algonquin, I’m returning there as a part-time prof in the Social Media Certificate program. The program offers people an elementary education in social media. And I get to do the introduction to social media course.

While Joe will be teaching online, I’ll be sweating it out in the classroom. I suppose it’s fitting that the younger of us will be teaching online, while the … not so younger… of us will be doing it old-school.

Some might think an introductory course is not the most exciting. But I disagree — I think that the introductory course is the place where people should be coming in with questions and perceptions that challenge the status quo. I’m looking forward to providing a basis for the rest of their courses and to maybe even having some of my sacred cows given a bit of a going over too!

It’s been a while since I’ve taught on a regular basis, but doing training and guest lectures has kept me fairly sharp. If you want to subject yourself to me blathering on… Do so at your own risk. Hope to see you in class.

Neville Hobson

Of course, there’s a lot more to the FIR empire than Shel and Neville. There’s Dan York, reporting from Vermont; there’s Michael Netzley giving a perspective from Asia; then there are regular contributors who have serious credibility, including Bernie Goldbach, Sallie Goetsch, Eric Schwartzman, the lovely Donna Papacosta — and who can forget Lee Hopkins?

All of these people and many more commenters and contributors make FIR an amazing — FREE and amazing — resource for those interested in communications and social media.

So why not do them a service by filling out their listener survey? They’ve done two in the past (2006 and 2009), and your feedback will help them shape the future of the FIR empire (the flagship podcast, FIR Live,

Shel Holtz

Now GO FILL OUT THE SURVEY. It closes September 20, 2011.

This is a tragic story, no doubt. But I’m a bit perplexed by the idea of a statue being erected at Rangers Ballpark to commemorate the man’s death.

Here’s what the president of the Rangers told the Dallas sports show Galloway and Company:

[audio:http://www.translucid.ca/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/nolanryan.mp3|titles=nolanryan]

I’m trying hard to find a way to put this without being disrespectful. But to me, a statue commemorates some sort of act of bravery. The man in this case — I don’t name him on purpose, because this isn’t about him — died in a tragic accident, one that you could argue was his own fault.

A young Japanese woman was swept over Niagara Falls this week. She had straddled a railing meant to prevent people from falling into the Niagara River. She then lost her footing as she tried to return to the sidewalk, and fell into the river.

Where I come from in Nova Scotia, there’s a place called Peggy’s Cove, which is known for its picturesque lighthouse and its impressive waves. Gravely-written warning signs ring the cove:

And yet, this happens all the time:

Each year, especially during or after storms, people are swept from the rocks and either are or are not rescued.

Tragedies like this occur often. They are sad. But when does a tragedy — especially one caused by the behaviour of the victim — deserve or merit commemoration?

To the credit of the Texas Rangers, they have apparently been in regular contact with the family of the man who lost his life, and this statue has their support. That’s good. But I wonder if there was a dissenting voice within the organization. I wonder how one man’s tragic attempt to retrieve a souvenir of a night at a ball game is transmuted into a tribute to the fans of baseball.

It seems to me that this is an act that devalues the idea of commemoration. Celebrate the fan? Yes. Absolutely. Without them, there is no professional sport. Commemorate tragedy? Yes. But commemorate a death that resulted from the dead person’s mistake? Something just seems wrong. Let me give you two examples from the sport of bicycle racing. On a mountain in France, a plaque commemorates the death of Fabio Casartelli, who died in a crash on a descent in 1995. On another mountain, a plaque commemorates the death of Tom Simpson, who died while climbing a fearsome mountain doped to the gills on amphetamines.

Both deaths are tragic. But are both equally deserving?

I’m still not sure I’ve articulated my thoughts well. But maybe this is a start.

Are our ideas just a house of cards? Image from Flickr user Privatenobby

There’s a technique in improvisational comedy called the “Yes And.” The “Yes And” is a principle that states that if two people are in a sketch, each line they create should build the sketch up, not block its progress. Here’s how Wikipedia defines it:

“In order for an improvised scene to be successful, the improvisers involved must work together responsively to define the parameters and action of the scene, in a process of co-creation. With each spoken word or action in the scene, an improviser makes an offer, meaning that he or she defines some element of the reality of the scene. This might include giving another character a name, identifying a relationship, location, or using mime to define the physical environment. These activities are also known as endowment. It is the responsibility of the other improvisers to accept the offers that their fellow performers make; to not do so is known as blocking, negation, or denial, which usually prevents the scene from developing. Some performers may deliberately block (or otherwise break out of character) for comedic effect—this is known as gagging – but this generally prevents the scene from advancing and is frowned upon by many improvisers. Accepting an offer is usually accompanied by adding a new offer, often building on the earlier one; this is a process improvisers refer to as ”Yes, And…” and is considered the cornerstone of improvisational technique. Every new piece of information added helps the improvisers to refine their characters and progress the action of the scene.” 

And there’s a similarly familiar concept in brainstorming that states that “There are no bad ideas.”

Social media is neither of these things, and we who work and think about it do ourselves a disservice when we pretend otherwise.

At this point, you’re likely asking “What in God’s name are you talking about, LeDrew?” Fair enough. There have been enough incidents in within earshot of me recently where criticism is construed as insult very quickly. There was the Gini Dietrich-G+ contretemps. Then there was the Neicole Crepeau-Copyblogger kerfuffle. Now there’s the Olivier Blanchard-Social Media Club shitstorm, er, foofaraw.  I could go on a lot longer, but you get the idea. I’ve heard it said that some of my book reviews here and on For Immediate Release have raised hackles (although I’ve never been contacted by anyone about them to complain.)

I am partial to the idea of debate. In fact, I love it. My partner and I met at a debating society meeting in university. She claims that the relationship won’t end until one of us acknowledges defeat. She could be right.

But I am getting the feeling that debate, criticism, and argument are becoming the “fights that dare not speak their name” in the world of social media. And that feeling was strong enough that I horned in on a BlogTalkRadio show hosted by Joe Hackman and featuring the aforementioned Gini and all-round pot-stirrer Danny Brown last week called “If you’re not making enemies, are you really doing it wrong?” to blather about debate for a while, until everyone got bored of me.

What does all this come down to? What am I saying? Here’s my manifesto:

1. You are not your ideas. If people criticize your blog post, program, sales offering, etc. — they aren’t by definition criticizing you.
2. If your ideas are challenged, don’t shut down the challenger, and if you are the lucky person who has fans and supporters, police them.
3. If your ideas are so delicate and filigreed that the merest critique will cause them to crumple into a 52 pickup… maybe you need to have some better ideas.

If we’re going to tell ourselves — let alone our employers or our clients — that social media is robust, that it makes sense, that it’s worth going into, we bloody well better be able to defend our ideas amongst ourselves. Because if we can’t convince our comrades in arms, how are we going to convince the CAs, the lawyers, and the CEOs?

There might not be any bad ideas in a brainstorm. But there are in real life. And we need to do to put those bad ideas out of our misery. We need strong ideas. Weak ones won’t even support… a house of cards.

On July 18, in Gatineau, the city across the river from my city of Ottawa, someone recorded this:

So not surprisingly, this bus driver was quickly up for discipline.

It’s the job of the driver’s union to represent him. So, Local 591 of the Amalgamated Transit Union (French site) did so, with both his employer, and with the media.

The CBC story about the ATU response says:

“Felix Gendron, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union in Gatineau, said the driver’s privacy rights were violated after a passenger shot video of him and posted it on YouTube…’I think that the person who makes the video, if they don’t like the way the driver’s doing that they should go tell the driver. Not go put that on TV,’ said Gendron…Gendron said the union asked STO to ban passengers from being able to record drivers.” 

Here’s the part that I can’t believe I’m writing:

1. If you’re a bus driver responsible for the lives of dozens of riders and other motorists around you, don’t fill out paperwork while driving or steer the bus with your knees. 
2. If you get caught doing something that stupid, accept the fact that you were caught doing something that stupid. Focus on serving your customers (by not endangering their lives) rather than shoot the messenger. The person with the camera wasn’t the one in the wrong. 

Don't fight, Chris and Gini. Think of the children.

I’ve been watching a little tussle going on between two people I know. The tussle started when social media guy Chris Brogan announced he was doing a webinar about the latest bright shiny object, Google+.

Then, blogger and Inside PR co-host Gini Dietrich wrote a post titled “Beware the Google + Experts.”

As I write this, Gini’s post has more than 400 comments and 200 retweets. Chris’s post about his webinar has 15 comments. And there’s been a real (to use the Shel and Neville term) kerfuffle over this.

I’ve been watching with bemusement more than anything else. But I was moved to write this when the BlogWorld Expo blog covered the story, engendering comments on their site. The comment that tipped me over was one from Rick Calvert, the CEO of that organization, who wrote in the comments:

“There is nothing wrong with having an opinion. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with each other. What I and many other people have an issue with is slandering someones good name. That is what [Gini] did. That’s my opinion. I don’t see anyone who agrees with [Gini's] opinion saying [she] did otherwise. [She] should apologize publicly. That’s my opinion.”

I didn’t attend the webinar. I have no idea what value it provided attendees, and whether it was worth the $47 paid for it. And for my purposes, I frankly don’t care.

What concerns me is that there seems to be a feeling that there are people whose actions are beyond criticism in the social media sphere. Criticism not as in someone is gauche, has bad breath, or is stupid. Criticism as in “this is an inappropriate venture”; “you’re wrong”; “The facts don’t bear out your argument”; or “you’re contradicting what you said last week. Which is it?”

This incident has shown me a population of people who seem hypersensitive to criticism, who feel that to question an action is to question the person. There have been a number of comments that essentially say “if you can’t say anything good, don’t say anything at all.” I think that’s crap. I think people need their ideas tested and tempered, like the steel for a sword. If your ideas can’t withstand the first criticism, how strong are they? How good are they?  Where does agreement end and blind faith begin? Another common comment has been “If people pay for it, it’s good.” Have you READ the Twilight books? People pay for them and they’re CRAP! I know, because I read them. (Don’t ask why.)

I like people based on their humanity. I respect people based on their accomplishments. And I esteem their arguments and words based on their logic and thoughtfulness. I seem to be able to separate those things fairly well and maintain varying levels of like, respect, and esteem. Am I that weird? God, I hope not.