Social Media 203: YouTube Video Annotations

Annotations are a great new beta feature available on YouTube. They enable you to add text to your videos, and to have that text linked to a specific action on YouTube. I first saw this in some of the BarelyPolitical videos, and thought perhaps this was a premium feature.

It turns out it’s available to all of us.

For an example, I decided to use a video we did yesterday about the first large study of breast cancer detection using molecular breast imaging as an alternative — or at least as a supplement — to mammography. It turns out that molecular breast imaging found about three times as many cancers as mammography in this group of women. You can read more about the study here on the Mayo Clinic News Blog, and we also have links to some photos and resulting news coverage.

Here’s the screencast of me adding the annotations last night, which also shows how you can add annotations to your videos:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc3RY1UEaQQ]

And if you want to see the finished product (and perhaps even subscribe to the Mayo Clinic YouTube channel), here it is:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve0FT9s3fXc]

The only real drawback from the publisher’s perspective is that the annotations can’t be linked to a non-YouTube URL. It would have been nice to be able to link directly to the blog post where the video is embedded, so viewers can get more information. But I’m fine with that, since I could add the link in the video description field.

From my perspective, the major advantage of YouTube annotations is that they offer a standardized way to add descriptive text, such as Dr. Hruska’s title, without requiring either expensive studio-grade video editing software or a lot of time and effort. The annotations are plain, but they also are crisp and functional. It takes only a minute or two to add these annotations. And if this is the standard on YouTube, anyone who uses it can have confidence that it will be seen as consistent with how Web video is done.

What do you think?

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Facebook 103: Facebook Friend Etiquette

In the 1960s, when I was too young to be in on all the rebellion, the anti-war protesters had a slogan expressing wariness of all those who had begun their fourth decade: “Never trust anyone over 30.”

For those of us who are now among the thirtysomethings and above, here’s a general rule of Facebook etiquette I follow with few exceptions:

“Never friend anyone under 30.”

I still accept friend requests from youngsters, but I let them initiate the connection. Especially since I’m a grandpa I don’t want to unsettle the younger Facebook crowd. I don’t want teenagers wondering “Who’s this old guy who wants to be my friend?”

If you’re old enough to know better, I’d recommend the same rule for you.

Some other helpful hints:

  1. Do invite people in your e-mail address book to be your Facebook friends. If you use Web-based services like Gmail or Hotmail, it’s an easy process. We’ll cover how to do it in a future course. The benefit of adding people as Facebook friends is you can retain contact with them even as they change jobs (and consequently their e-mail addresses.) Their Facebook profiles will stay the same, though, and they will likely update them with their new e-mail to stay in touch.
  2. Do use Facebook Friend Lists to group your friends, as described in Facebook 210. You can assign varying levels of privacy for personal, family or professional friends. Besides the enhanced privacy settings, it also makes it easier for you to send a quick message to a group with a common interest. A person can be on more than one of your lists.
  3. Don’t just network for networking’s sake. Even worse, don’t network for marketing’s sake. If you’re just adding friends so you can later spam them with get-rich-quick schemes, you’re missing the point. Social media aren’t about aggregating eyeballs; they’re about making real connections. That’s why I have these rules for accepting Facebook friend requests.
  4. “Unfriending” is OK, but you have other options. If I accept a friend request from someone who turns out to be a spammer, I “unfriend” without a second thought. They have tons of “friends” and won’t be personally offended. In the hypothetical example of a real acquaintance or former classmate who gets uncomfortably friendly after all these years, you can start by putting him or her into a group with restricted access to your profile, including taking away the ability to see your wall or photos. Again, see Facebook 210 for instructions. If that still doesn’t create enough distance, you can unfriend and block the person. But the preliminary steps may be enough, without invoking the nuclear option.

How about you? What additional “Miss Manners” advice would you offer for people new to Facebook?

Macaca Moments

YouTube made its mark in political campaigns in 2006 with then-Sen. George Allen’s “macaca” comment, which contributed to the Virginia Republican’s eventual defeat.

The widely dispersed ability to record audio or video and post it to the web may have a powerful effect this year, too. And having cited the most famous Republican example, here for your bipartisan edification are a couple of instances from the Democratic side.

  • The Democratic nomination contest may have been extended by reaction to audio captured at a San Francisco fundraiser, in which Sen. Barack Obama explains Pennsylvanians’ affinity for guns and religion as the fruit of bitterness about job losses. (Scroll to the bottom to hear the audio on the Huffington Post.) The resulting controversy undoubtedly slowed Sen. Obama’s momentum and likely had something to do with Sen. Clinton’s winning streak in the later primaries. Who knows whether it might make a difference in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Ohio?
  • Most recently, former Democratic National Committee Chair Don Fowler was captured on tape as he was returning from his party’s convention in Denver. Fowler was seen expressing delight that Hurricane Gustav was going to hit during the Republican convention, interpreting it as a sign of Divine approval of the Democrats.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrBus8ORR78]

Here’s his “I’m sorry if I offended anyone” apology.

The lesson for politicians — and for all of us — is that a “private conversation” is an exceedingly rare event…particularly on a commercial airline.

Contrary to George Orwell’s prediction in 1984, in 2008 the threat to privacy is not a “Big Brother” government (or Bush administration wiretaps.)

Tens of millions of cell phones with video capabilities, as well as easy-to-use video cameras like the Flip, mean that almost anything you say or do could be captured and made available on the Web. But don’t blame a nefarious government plot; it will most likely be an ordinary citizen recording and uploading it.

Who has another example? Where have you seen embarrassing audio and video captured and posted to the Web?

Share your examples in the comments, and I’ll update this post with other “Macaca Moments.”

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

New Media Change How Political Conventions are Covered

Yesterday’s New York Times, in an article by David Carr entitled “In Denver, A Thousand Little Pieces,” examined how the “new media” changed the coverage of the event:

The numbers are changing the game. Old media have often (not always) regarded bloggers and their ilk as fleas on the dog. If newspapers and networks didn’t break the story, the gatecrashers wouldn’t have anything to write about. But the new media players who came to Denver were not there just to annotate mainstream coverage: they’re in the hunt themselves.

The cable television blabbers still put a frame around the event, and the morning analysis pieces in The Washington Post and The New York Times continue to generate pickup and chatter, but the picture that emerged from this convention was also rendered in a thousand other pixels of coverage.

But bloggers didn’t just bring their own new perspectives to the coverage; they also spurred the mainstream media to more activity:

Mainstream media outlets are meeting the insurgency with guerrilla tactics of their own, with major newspapers using huge reporting assets to infuse the 24-hour news cycle with deep reporting and videos.

“You had mainstream reporters wandering around with video cameras, and bloggers doing a lot of original reporting and everything in between,” said Arianna Huffington. “At a convention, it is the little pieces that complete the puzzle, and you had all of these sources of input here.”

And just as CNN created the 24-hour news cycle a generation ago, bloggers have put pressure on the traditional media to ramp up the intensity of their activity. No more sleepy convention mornings:

Just four years ago, the big white tents at the conventions that housed the media hordes would come to life slowly, with stories from the night before being passed around along with articles from the daily press. Now reporters and editors jack in when they wake up and stay there.

“It used to be you could sort of take it easy in the morning and chat over lunch and then maybe start to fire up some stories by midafternoon,” said John F. Harris, editor in chief of Politico and a veteran of The Washington Post. “At this convention, our reporters work from 8 in the morning until midnight.”

On paragraph of the article highlighted a different ethic of bloggers as compared to mainstream media, and one in which the latter are found wanting:

Politico had a particularly nice run this week, setting up the convention with the McCain housing crisis, detailing some of the sniping between the Clinton and Obama camps and suggesting that Karl Rove made every effort to kill the possibility that Joe Lieberman, the Democrat turned independent, would be nominated for vice president.

Whereas any blogger in this case would link directly to the referenced stories on Politico, such as its Rove-Lieberman piece, the Times‘ links to Rove and Lieberman were to their bio pages on the nytimes.com site. I believe there are two major reasons for this linking policy:

  • The “Just Trust Me” Factor – For more than a century, newspapers and other mainstream media had a monopoly on reporting, and had no need or ability to facilitate people checking their work. Journalists were the “synthesizers,” and it never even entered their minds that to show the original source material so their readers could see for themselves.
  • The “Hold onto the Eyeballs” Factor – Given their economic difficulties, it seems many media outlets have a policy that they don’t link to external sites, to avoid losing page views. The Times isn’t alone in this; The Washington Post, for instance, does the same thing.

Whatever the reason, one thing that’s clear is that the journalists and their editors aren’t giving primary consideration to the interests of their readers.

Carr closes with examination of a for-profit reprise of the PBS slogan — “If We Don’t Do It, Who Will?”

As reporting staffs at newspapers are cut, journalists have spoken of the threat that important civic issues — say, for instance, the first major party nomination of a black candidate — would go undercovered. But almost anyone who wanted to know anything about what was going in Denver could find it somewhere.

“I’m certainly preparing Daily Kos for the day when Internet and television are one and the same,” said Markos Moulitsas, the founder of Daily Kos, which estimated its traffic at 37 million page views for the busy month of August. “One of our jobs is to wrestle as much of that away from them as possible. A few gatekeeping elites shouldn’t be allowed that much influence.”

Traditionally trained journalists have contributed powerfully to this country’s common good, and can continue playing a huge role in the future, particularly as they take advantage of the potential of “crowdsourcing.” But as the national political conventions show, they no longer have the field completely to themselves.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Obama, McCain Both Have “Girls”

In his analysis of Barack Obama’s use of social media in Social Media 302, Associate Professor Scott Meis called attention to a key difference between this campaign cycle and those of the past:

In the past, a campaign team may have overreacted to a video such as Obama Girl or been concerned about not having a say in the messaging behind a video such as Yes We Can. Instead, the Obama team has embraced these videos and recognized the value and power of user-generated content in moving others to action.

That’s a really crucial change in the media landscape, and it’s here to stay. Candidates formerly would try to control the campaign’s message, but that has become extremely difficult if not impossible. As Scott mentioned, Obama Girl had a brief period last summer in which she essentially dominated the campaign news.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU]

But now BarelyPolitical has also added “McCain Girl” to its YouTube lineup:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iyDWvvkG64]

And just as we will expect to see Obama-McCain and Biden-Palin debates in the next 60 days, there is also a “Candidate Girls Olympics” competition.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1msrwpsSd8]

Social media are more than just “new media.” I define new media as a way for organizations to bypass the mainstream media and deliver content directly to audiences. Social media means they aren’t “audiences” anymore. They can and will talk back, whether on social networks or through their own blogs.

As Scott said, it’s encouraging that both of the major campaigns have significant involvement in social media. (You can read about the McCain effort in Social Media 301.) But whether the campaigns are participating or not, the reality is that with the widespread availability of these cheap and easy tools, rank-and-file people across the political spectrum will be engaged on-line in this momentous election.