Tw*tter-like services are hitting the mainstream, and there is no better example that what Rick Sanchez over at CNN has been doing for the past few weeks by bringing Tw*tter and Facebook into the political conversations he’s been having on his Saturday shows.

I was intrigued by his use of Tw*tter last week, and followed after his last show. With the Biden announcement today, it seemed like a good time to join the conversation, especially since his question intersected with the question we were discussing on NewsGang Live — whether or not the Great Obama Text Message Experiment was a failure or success.

I shot a message to Sanchez saying I believed that the text message announcement plan accomplished exactly what it was intended to accomplish: Buzz, and a large audience available at the send of a single text message. Since we were in the middle of a pretty interesting and intense NewsGang Live discussion, I left it at that, and went on with our show.

That would have been the end of it except that I received a direct message from a Twitter friend telling me that he saw my icon pop up on Rick’s twitter page on-air. That intrigued me for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that it meant that Rick was using Tw*tter in real time, unedited. (At least, in as real time as Tw*tter can be, given that they’ve disabled track and hobbled conversations. Hence, the use of the asterisk in their name.)

I was impressed. Impressed enough to return to his 10pm show.

My suggestions and criticisms for Rick follow:

Rick, props for understanding the value of real-time conversations with people on Tw*tter and other social media. Props for understanding the value of bringing the audience into your conversation in a real way, and props for understanding that by interacting with us, the conversation can evolve.

I believe you understand the value and power of these conversations. However, in your 10pm show, you made the mistake of harnessing the collective idiocy instead of the collective intelligence of those following you, and then turned that into some kind of “Tw*tter shaping the story” thing.

Now that tells me a couple of things. First, it says that you read my earlier tweet to you about Tw*tter breaking the Biden story ahead of you all. It also says that you understand the value of real-time conversations as they relate to news.

These are good things. However, the third factor in an effective use of Tw*tter and like services is the most important: Your own participation in the conversation.

Seriously, the only reason that 3AM lunatic comment got any traction is because you gave it traction. You skipped over really well-stated opinions in favor of the one that was utterly ridiculous.

If you’re going to have a conversation one to many, make it count.

Oh, and you could completely lose your pundit panel, too. Let the folks who really follow these issues be the center of the conversation. Kind of like Talkback Live was back in the days when I worked for CNN Interactive. Talkback Live was the prototype for what you’re doing now, use that audience power to propel you.

To the folks like Mark Mayhew who took me to task for criticizing Sanchez:

You make the point that Sanchez’ followers jumped from 500 to 950 in the span of an hour. How do you think that happened?

It happened because I, and a few others, sent Sanchez’ message out to those folks who follow us, who then sent the same message out to those who follow them, widening and overlapping the circles.

And Mark, the way I found your critical remark? I track my name. So when you sent me a message without following me, I was able to discover it and have a real-time conversation with you about the whole thing because track worked.

Not Summize. Track. via Twitterspy.

Tw*tter, as it is structured right now, precludes those real-time conversations. Important conversations. They control the flow of the conversation, preventing us from engaging with one another in a fashion that allows the conversation to shape the event. Steve Gillmor said it best:

Here is where the difference between search and track will prove pivotal. Search produces analysis after the fact, while track produces interactions that change the events themselves. As social hubs perform for the “cameras” over the next weeks, the efficiencies of those with real time synergies will likely outperform more historical views of the resulting data. Those micro-communities more adept at conversational politics will do better faster, and may in fact tip the election in much the same way Obama’s teams tipped the nomination process via the caucuses.

I call it this: The fierce urgency of NOW.

Since the commenters at TechcrunchIT get so aggravated anytime Steve Gillmor writes a post about Twitter’s value in the enterprise (corporate) environment, I feel compelled to provide them with two breadcrumbs on their road to clueful.

Kathy Sierra:

James Governor (monkchips)

Both of those say in 140 characters or less what I spent the better part of zillions saying in the comments here.

You can find me on Twitter here, and on Identi.ca here. I recommend Identi.ca, even though it’s in its infancy, because there is a huge community effort underway to build an infrastructure that will scale, grow, and play nice with similar services. I’m currently using identi.ca to post to twitter, so I don’t lose touch with the community and friends I have over there, but identi.ca has much stronger potential to spawn microbranded communities that can still reach out to the larger community at will. Using the identi.ca architecture permits me to place that identity at the center of a larger circle that includes Twitter and other communities.

It’s all interesting, all still in its infancy, and yet, as Kathy says, there remains a low barrier to entry.

I can’t even believe I wrote that title. Honest to God, I can’t. Never in a hundred million years could I have imagined that I would be writing a blog post protesting (vehemently) the characterization of Thomas as some kind of upskirting downshirting whacko photographer type.

But I am. Last Friday, for some unintelligbly inexplicable reason, Thomas was tossed from the San Francisco MOMA by Simon Blint, director of Visitor Relations, after taking photographs in an area where non-flash photography was expressly allowed.

There wasn’t much conversation. There was certainly no reasonable discussion. According to this so-called “director”, Hawk’s 14mm ultra wide-angle lens was a “telephoto” lens that Thomas was using to shoot photos from the 2nd floor looking down; specifically, down the blouse of a female employee wearing a low-cut blouse.

Thomas writes in a follow-up post:

One allegation that has been raised is that Blint threw me out because he felt that I was shooting down a low cut blouse of one of his employees sitting in the atrium below where I was shooting. The photo above is a photo that I snapped of Blint as he was publicly admonishing me from the floor, that’s him with his arms crossed there — he’s about the size of an ant in the photo. As you will see, the female employee in question also appears in the photograph (the ticket taker next to Blint). She is not wearing a low cut blouse. In fact she’s wearing some sort of a yellowish/orangish sweater or jacket sort of thing — she’s sort of hard to see as a 14mm lens makes people look super far away. Her arms, shoulders, in fact every visible area of her except her hands are completely covered in clothing.

I have never heard anything more absurd in my life. As one who has had the fun of doing a photowalk with the guy in Santa Monica along with many others, I can attest only to this: Thomas Hawk is one of the finest photographers and artists that I’ve ever had the privilege of meeting, and he would be free and welcome to take my photo from two inches away or two stories up. I absolutely trust his artistic sense and sensitivity with his camera. In fact, I’d be honored if he did it. I’d even let him keep his $2.

Because seriously, the man has an eye like no one I’ve ever seen. One hour watching him is worth 10 figuring it out on my own. Not only should he have not been ejected, his work should be hanging in the SF MOMA.

Oh, by the way, here’s an example of the type of photo he was taking:

And here’s Simon Blint, in high dudgeon upon being informed that the entire incident would be blogged:

For the life of me, I cannot understand why a man with such a lack of gift for managing visitors and visitor issues has been placed in a position of authority over visitors. It boggles the mind. The guy has no clue when it comes to photography for sure, because anyone who would mistake an ultra-high wide angle lens for a telephoto probably relies on his cell phone for any pictures he takes. I could even forgive that, but to simply refuse to hear the other side and forcibly eject Thomas for an utterly bogus, trumped-up charge uttered in the heat of a hissy fit? Unbelieveable.

I count myself lucky to be the beneficiary of his lens, even in shadow. (Did I mention that this shot is in his fav10 set?)

Simon maybe doesn’t feel the same way. That’s his problem. If the SF MOMA has any sense at all, they will require Blint to make a formal, written apology to Thomas, retracting all suggestion of impropriety or misbehavior, and then should immediately reassign Simon away from the public to garbage management.

What a frickin’ putz.

(Photo Credit: Thomas Hawk)

The difference between this:

and this?

Attention. Specifically, listening. Had I not been lost in the challenge of getting picture number one, I would have known that picture number two posed a serious danger to me, the camera, and my current state of dry.

But I wasn’t. So at the point where I should have been stepping back out of the way, I was walking forward, working to frame photo number one.

This has been my theme for the week. How to listen to the conversation, to the flow, to intuit a direction without mapping it myself, how to prevent being soaked and wrecked while hunting for the wide-angle shot, how to balance focus on my agenda with attention to what (or who) is around me.

I’ve had magic moments this week mixed in with utter disasters. In each case, the failure was to listen — really listen — to what the other person was saying. The successes involved setting aside my own tune to listen to others for a minute.

I am not known for my wisdom when it comes to where I place myself to get the perfect photo. I tend to jump out of comfort zones, wander metropolitan cities at midnight from time to time, and lose myself in the imagining of what an image might look like in its final form, often to the exclusion of that great big whatever lurking in front or behind me making noises that beg for me to get out of myself and into reality.

You think being doused with salt water might be a call to consider a bit more attention to present reality? Well, the camera survived without a drop, because I jumped back and hit the shutter button simultaneously, so as long as I can dodge I expect I will continue to wrestle with the attention question, particularly in an artistic context.

Yesterday’s thought-provoking Twitter question of the day was this: Why, Karoli, are you moaning about being placed in the Style section of the NY Times when the ad running on the side of your blog is for JC Penney’s home store?

My response: No matter what subject I blog about, furniture is relevant. It’s pretty universal, that idea of having things to sit on or at, sleep on, work on, or put your stuff on.

His response: But if your ad was an Intel ad, you’d be featured in the tech section.

Mine: Which begs the question: Why aren’t tech companies rushing to do ad buys on women’s blogs?

It’s really a chicken/egg question, isn’t it? Do we blog to the ads or do the ads stem from the blog? Or do they have to be linked up at all? If you start from a premise that ads and bloggers are somehow inextricably entwined, the answer seems obvious, which is what rocks Google’s world. Context-sensitive advertising is what it’s all about. Blog about Intel; Intel advertises. Blog about politics; campaigns buy ads, because of course, the readers of those blogs would be most likely to click through those ads to discover the product, candidate or service.

I disagree. This is partly because I live in a world of intersecting circles, diverse interests and passions, as do most of you reading this blog. You may be a photography nut but that doesn’t mean you don’t buy shoes. You may write about health or ADHD or parenting or your kids, but that doesn’t mean you don’t give a damn about politics (especially this year!).

If I followed the model of context-sensitive advertising on this blog, Entertainment Tonight and alarm companies would be rushing to buy ads here, because the top searches for content on this blog relate to the posts I did on Britney Spears and Firstline Security. Those posts are less than 1% of what I care about. I’d guess that’s true for just about every one of you folks who visit this blog or spend any time there.

Another word for this idea of context-sensitive advertising might be this: stereotyping. Perhaps Intel isn’t doing ad buys on BlogHer blogs because they assume that readers of blogs written by women would not be interested in their latest enterprise technology, or fastest chip, or graphics accelerator, etc.

They’re dead wrong. I love new hardware like I love fast cars and great pens. It’s one of the joys of being a geek. But I don’t always blog about it; I just use it. And if I like it, yes, I write about it, just like I wrote about the Prius, the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid and the BlackBerry (which is truly God’s gift to mobile technology…hear me, RIM?). I love my Nikon cameras and blog with and about them often, but Nikon doesn’t advertise here either. If they did, would that mean the New York Times would place an article about women bloggers in the Travel Section?

The fallacy in the argument that ads define the blogger is this: Most women don’t write to the ad revenue. (That’s also true of many men who blog, though blogs with a ‘business model’ seem to be built for that context-sensitivity thing) It’s nice, but it’s not why we write. I run BlogHer ads on this blog because BlogHer is responsible about who they accept ads from, and they’re fair about sharing the revenue. But the day I start deciding what to write or how to write it based upon what ads might pop up on this site will be the day I tell you all good bye. I don’t make enough money from the ads on this site — my site, under my control — to let anyone define what I will and won’t write about and where my focus will or will not be.

The editorial decision to run an article about the BlogHer Conference in the Style section because the ads on our blogs are for furniture companies is a sign of dangerous and stereotypical thinking. While I appreciate the NY Times reporting on BlogHerCon at all, I also think they would have done well to focus less on the obvious — marketing opportunities to women — and more on the important — women empowered to raise their collective voices in support of issues, people, children, fathers, mothers, and society as a whole.

The point here is to be heard, not sold. The takeaway from BlogHer for me had very little to do with making money and everything to do with making noise and making connections. Isn’t there something newsworthy about over 1,000 women plus many more in virtual attendance via Second Life leveraging technology to make a difference?

I think there is. Do you?

When you publish an article about women bloggers, including women political bloggers, and seem to be making the point that women are a force of nature in the blogosphere, as well as being responsible for spending 83 cents of every dollar spent, don’t you think it’s just a bit of an insult…

…to publish said article in the Life and Style section?

There is a certain bitter irony about seeing a New York Times report about the BlogHer conference entitled “Blogging’s Glass Ceiling” published in Life and Style.

Because, um, we’re not all about shoes and hairstyle, though there’s something a little scary about a political blogger with a pair of kickass shoes, for sure.

But as long as we’re on the subject of women and political blogging, let’s take a look at what the NYT had to say about the most excellent session at BlogherCon on women and political commentary (or as I like to call it, “Finding my Inner Pundit”). Or not. Because it wasn’t much, beyond acknowledging that such a session took place.

Instead, this was the punch line:

This year, women seemed to have moved on to other issues, such as gaining influence and making money. There were practical workshops on issues like building Web traffic and using open source software, sessions that dealt with emotional issues related to blogging, and specialized meet-ups (like one for baby boomer bloggers).

Now, this much is true. We were certainly courted by companies looking for a receptive audience. Not that there’s anything wrong with that — there isn’t. I would do the GM Tahoe carpool thing again in a heartbeat. But…

That wasn’t the heart of what BlogHer was about. Not at all. At its heart, it was about connections, community, building friendships and renewing old ones. It was about stretching our voices, coming out of our exiles as second-class bloggers in all areas of the blogosphere , from tech to politics, to speaking out directly as consumers about what we like and what we don’t like, and learning to be strong, credible, confident.

It was about being what has come much more easily to men in this space. About some equality. Not pushing men away, just stepping up to their level, joining our voices with theirs.

Perhaps a conference like BlogHer for men wouldn’t even be news, so they wouldn’t have to be exercised about being stuck in the Style section, but do you think that if it were, the Times would have put it in the Style section?

Women are much more than a pair of shoes and a credit card. Yes, we spend and should have a voice with those who want to sell their products. But we also think, we parent, we build and are community, we volunteer, we are professionals, we are laborers, we are voters….

We are entitled to be considered as a multi-faceted part of the larger whole that is the world we live in. Don’t boil BlogHer down to baby boomers and mommybloggers. There’s just much more than that.

And if they don’t believe ME, they should listen to Erin, who has assigned them her official #SUCKIT tag.

Warning: It does have language that’s NSFW at the end. Still, it’s 2 minutes well-spent on how to have a productive online discussion:

For a Monday, it wasn’t so bad. One of my coworkers is on vacation so I was in full-tilt boogie covering for her, had twitter open and had loaded up Leo LaPorte’s live stream of Steve Jobs’ keynote about the new iPhone.

I posted a post on the political blog and went back to work, listening to the iPhone presentation in the background, when all of a sudden some Twitter friends sent me a note at the same time telling me they were getting an error message saying that the site they were accessing was on a server that was to be deleted.

WTF? And sure enough, there it was.

I have several sites on Startlogic and all but this one have been migrated to their new server and admin platform. This is the oldest of them all, so I figured it would be one of the last.

Evidently not. It seems that something didn’t port well, and despite the rather snotty insistences that they had been sending me emails for months letting me know this was going to happen (they didn’t, but more in a minute on that), it was still sitting in limbo and due to be deleted forever on June 30th.

So instead of telling me they were going to redirect to a splash page, they said nothing. I went through all of my email and found the note saying it was scheduled for migration but no notice that there had been a problem. No notice saying “drop dead or fix it by June 10th or ELSE.”

Just a forced redirect to a splash page telling every visitor and everyone who linked to me here and on the political blog that…nothing was here.

After spending an hour holding for their tech support, I decided it just wasn’t worth the aggravation. I backed up the blogs, the databases, and all the multimedia and moved everything over to Bluehost before Steve Jobs could say “Congratulations, it’s iPhone 2.0!”

Now it’s nearly 11:00. It took over 12 hours for the DNS to update to the new server. I still can’t see the blog from my own computer here, but twitter friends assure me it’s really, really there. Of course, the database broke during the import and I ended up being locked out of my own blog, but that was a small thing, easily fixed. More or less, anyway.

Just a little notice, Startlogic. That’s all it would have taken. You could have sent me a “FIX THIS OR ELSE” letter. You could have called. Even robocalled and left a message. You could have twittered me, even.

But when you suck up someone’s entire site into a black hole and leave a splash page behind, we’re done. After three years, that’s exactly what we are. Buh-bye. You too, can suckit.