Both were surprise guests. Not that it lowered the expectations, but it made the panel discussion a whole lot more interesting. I have to say I won’t soon forget this CPAC moment.

Joining me on stage yesterday were Erick Erickson of RedState, Jonathan Garthwaite of Townhall, Mark Tapscott of The Washington Examiner and Tucker Carlson of The Daily Caller. Our task was to talk about how technology can save freedom and the incredible growth of the online movement. Each panelist brought a different perspective to the issue — some focusing more on activism and others on journalism — but it’s really a combination of the two that will continue to fuel growth online.

A few bloggers have good recaps of the remarks. Check out FrumForum, ProjectVirginia, BlueRidgeForum and Virginia Right.

They say timing is everything. That was certainly the case yesterday. Thanks to whoever put together the schedule!

Hats off to CPAC director Lisa DePasquale and assistant Joseph Logue for organizing another remarkable conference this year. Here’s the agenda for today and tomorrow.

As it turns out, the affidavit said nothing about wiretapping. The exact language was “willfully and maliciously interfering with a telephone system.” Yet that didn’t stop The Washington Post from splashing an article on its front page with this scintillating headline: “ACORN foe charged in alleged plot to wiretap Landrieu.” Headline writers are known for eye-catching prose, but this was amateur hour at a once-great newspaper.

Many “objective” journalists presumed O’Keefe was guilty before he even had a chance to speak. Worse, the crime he was being accused of committing wasn’t even mentioned in the affidavit from FBI Special Agent Steven Rayes and U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III.

How could journalists get something so wrong? The problem appears to stem from a lack of original reporting and an overreliance on one factually inaccurate article in the Times-Picayune. Not all news organizations were at fault, but most were. In covering its own botched reporting, TPM Muckraker admitted as much: “While initial media reports (including on TPM) described the episode at Sen. Mary Landrieu’s New Orleans office as an attempted bugging, that term does not appear in the affidavit…. [T]he accurate way to describe what allegedly happened would be attempted phone tampering.” Oops!

As the facts finally started to emerge, it was hard to tell who had committed the worse offense: O’Keefe, for pulling a stupid stunt in the name of investigative journalism, or the press that obsessively covered a story so full of errors that many had to issue wide-ranging retractions. (O’Keefe’s role in the ACORN sting also resulted in a lengthy Washington Post correction.)

I don’t condone what O’Keefe did. I’m on the record questioning the ethics of his actions. But there’s a sharp distinction between engaging in media criticism of one’s journalism tactics and outright slandering that person.

That’s exactly what the media did to O’Keefe. He calls it “journalism malpractice.” Liberal windbag David Shuster of MSNBC led the charge with this tweet: “a) you are not a journalist b) the truth is you intended to tap her phones c) it’s a felony d) you will go to prison.” Shuster went so far out of bounds that even liberal MSNBC reprimanded him. He should’ve been fired instead.

When I wrote about O’Keefe last week, I didn’t do so to disparage him. I wanted to emphasize the important role that ethics play in journalism. “Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public,” states the Society of Professional Journalists. My point, and one that O’Keefe seems to agree with in retrospect, is that he could’ve used different tactics to tell the story about Landrieu.

“I’m going to be more thoughtful how I approach these things,” a remorseful O’Keefe told Sean Hannity two nights ago on Fox News. (Watch the clip on YouTube.)

O’Keefe’s credibility took a hit last week and it’ll be a long road to recovery. He and I might not agree on this style of investigative journalism, but I credit him for recognizing its limits and vowing to adjust his tactics to expose the truth. Now, if mainstream journalists would make a similar admission about their own errors, journalism wouldn’t be in such a dire state today.

Did this self-proclaimed investigative journalist push the envelope too far?

Details are still sketchy and it’s unclear what exactly O’Keefe was doing when he and three others were busted for allegedly trying to interfere with Sen. Mary Landrieu’s telephone system at her New Orleans office. What we do know is this: O’Keefe was wielding a mobile phone when two alleged accomplices entered the building purporting to be telephone repairmen. When asked for ID, the men apparently abandoned their plan and were arrested by U.S. marshals along with a fourth individual who was waiting in a nearby car.

“The truth shall set me free,” O’Keefe said as he left jail. His father told The New York Times: “He is an outstanding young man doing investigative journalism. … He studies a different form of journalism, and he pushes the limits a bit. What they were up to, I have no idea.”

“A different form a journalism?”

As a student of journalism and someone who cares passionately about reporting, I was left wondering if this could really qualify as “a different form of journalism.” Is there a limit to gotcha journalism? And if so, where do you draw the line?

O’Keefe’s pursuit of ACORN was largely successful because of the shocking results Hannah Giles and he reported. Their videotaped exposé cast a shadow on the liberal community organization and prompted Congress to cut off its funding. They were seen as clever characters for dressing as a pimp and prostitute seeking financial support for opening a brothel.

Ken Silverstein, Washington editor for Harper’s Magazine, wrote in September: “Liberals have been attacking the videos by saying that the two videomakers, James O’Keefe III and Hannah Giles, are right-wing advocates. Who cares? … Elsewhere you hear that this is only the kind of work trained professionals in the mainstream media should do. Except of course no one in the mainstream media would have done the story.”

That’s right. No mainstream journalist, not even the boldest undercover TV reporter, would be as daring as O’Keefe and Giles. This, of course, is the value of alternative media. As a conservative journalist who worked for both Cybercast News Service and Human Events, you don’t have to convince me.

At the same time, however, there’s a certain responsibility that comes with being a journalist, regardless of whether you work for a mainstream outlet or one with an ideological bent. I’ve been a member of the Society for Professional Journalists since 1997 and regularly refer to its Code of Ethics to help me make challenging decisions. “Professional integrity,” it reads, “is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.” How will O’Keefe explain his latest sting operation? And more importantly, can he really still call himself a journalist given his compromised credibility?

Michelle Malkin offers this sound advice for conservatives who want to do investigative reporting: “Know your limits. Know the law. Don’t get carried away. And don’t become what you are targeting.” Words of wisdom for anyone who viewed O’Keefe as a role model.

UPDATE: I’m quoted by David Weigel in The Washington Independent about O’Keefe and journalism ethics.

When it comes to Facebook, what’s more important: Having a large network of “friends” whom you don’t know? Or a smaller well-connected group of individuals with whom you have real relationships?

I consider myself a friendly person, but that’s no longer the case when it comes to Facebook. After careful thought and deliberation, I’ve decided to stop accepting friend requests from people I don’t know.

With more than 350 million users, Facebook is home to an incredible network of people. Complete strangers ask to be my friend every day. Some are so self-absorbed they’ve even prodded me to become “fans” of their pages. Others bombard me with event invites I have no interest or possible way of attending. Don’t get me started on annoying applications like Pillow Fight and Blingee Book. Enough is enough.

Personal vs. Professional

When I first began using Facebook in 2005 (thanks to the prodding of Human Events interns Katie Farber and Mary Ellen Burke), there was good reason to become friends with many people given the limited number using the social network. But now, with Facebook open to everyone, I get about three new friend requests every day. I almost always accepted every one of them, which is the reason I have more than 3,000 friends and nearly 100 requests waiting for me to approve or ignore.

What’s the value of having a large number of friends? There’s the coolness factor, of course, which might actually mean something if I was celebrity or politician. But for me, there’s simply no meaningful interaction with these individuals. They don’t comment on my status updates, and I certainly don’t comment on theirs. On the few occasions that someone does say something — usually about the latest photo of my son — my wife asks why a total stranger is remarking about a personal item.

My logic for accepting so many friends, most of whom are conservatives, was to entice them to support my work-related initiatives. But that hasn’t panned out as planned. Very rarely have I asked them do anything. And when I did invite my friends to join The Heritage Foundation’s No Energy Tax application — spamming them in the same manner they do me — hardly any joined.

At the end of the day, I learned that personal always trumps professional. And with more than 100,000 fans, Heritage’s Facebook page doesn’t need my help anyway.

Connections Count

There’s another downside to having friends you don’t know. We live in a world where people think you are who you’re connected with. I found out the hard way last week when a Heritage colleague asked about my connection to a former Department of Defense employee who was the subject of a hard-hitting piece from Streetsblog. We were connected on LinkedIn. Even though I didn’t know him, the author of the piece wrote a whole paragraph about our “connection” and made incorrect assumptions. Suddenly, Heritage was implicated in the story and I was embarrassed. Fortunately, the author of the blog post removed the reference to me when I complained.

The same scenario could play out on Facebook in the same way. In fact, earlier this year when Ithaca College alumnae Brooke Hundley made headlines for her affair with ESPN analyst Steve Phillips, the first thing I did was check our mutual friends on Facebook. The former dean of the Roy H. Park School of Communications was listed as a friend. So, too, was a student I mentored last year. People are curious about these things — and that curiosity could create headaches like the Truxes incident did for me.

Facebook Diet

Facebook is still evolving and I’m still figuring it out. It was only a few months ago that I separated my Twitter updates from Facebook. They’re not one in the same and shouldn’t be treated that way. Now when I see friends automatically post their Twitter updates to Facebook, I hide their status updates from my news feed. Sorry, not interested. I’m probably already seeing the same thing on TweetDeck.

David All, a modern grassroots communications consultant, wrote yesterday he was “going on a Facebook Friend diet for 2010. My goal is to be under 1,500 by July 4th.” I don’t have any such goal and I’m not sure I’ll make a mass purge (except for those who post flair on my wall). David has a good point, though, and I’m glad I’m not alone in my quest to reclaim my Facebook page for a more meaningful use with real friends, colleagues and associates.

The way I see it, Facebook isn’t going away, so I might as well figure out how to make it more valuable. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but I’m looking forward to a more well-connected group of people whose relationships I value more than the number of mutual friends we have.

UPDATE — Feb. 23, 10 a.m.: The former Department of Defense employee who was the subject of the Streetsblog piece notified me that the blog post has been removed due to inaccuracies. As a result, I’ve removed his name from this blog post as well.

Last week, for instance, I took a day-long seminar on persuasion taught by Wharton Business School’s Mario Moussa. It was incredibly helpful for situations at work. Because I’m often lobbying for a new project or a more effective way for Heritage to do its work, the “art of woo” is particularly important for me to succeed professionally.

More on that later. It was the class I took three weeks ago on negotiation that prompted me to write this post. That seminar explored better ways to negotiate for the results you want. It covered scenarios that ranged from negotiating with colleagues at work to your family at home.

As the class was getting started, one particular negotiation stood out in my mind. It had nothing to do with my job, but rather a typical situation for anyone who has bought or leased a car. It gave me a moment to reflect on my actions.

It was last spring when I visited Landmark Honda upon receiving a call from a salesman asking if I’d like to get a new vehicle before the end of my lease in September. I thought it was a generous offer — and certainly appealing with a baby on the way at the time. But the experience left a bad taste in my mouth. Unsatisfied with the negotiation, I walked out of the dealership without a new car and unsure if I would return.

Readers of my blog will recall what happened next. The aggressive tactics of the salesman really soured the relationship. Even though I previously leased two cars at Landmark Honda after so-so experiences, I vowed never to go back this time. I wrote about the experience on my blog, prompting several sympathetic comments and even a friendly note from a rival dealership.

I didn’t realize it at the time, but my negotiating tactics were partly to blame. Both the dealer and I were engaged in positional negotiations. He named a price and I countered it. We haggled back and forth until both the salesman and I were frustrated. Finally, fed up that I wasn’t getting anywhere, I left and blogged about it.

Having taken the class, which was modeled on the work of Roger Fisher and William L. Ury of the Harvard Negotiation Project, I know realize the things I could’ve done better. I would highly recommend Fisher and Ury’s book, “Getting to Yes,” which explains why positional negotiations don’t work as well as principled negotiations. Their method is summarized by these four simple rules.

1. Separate the people from the problem.
2. Focus on interests, not positions.
3. Invent options for mutual gain.
4. Insist on using objective criteria.

As I shared my Landmark Honda story during the Heritage seminar, our instructor complimented me on the move to force the dealer’s hand by writing about my experience on my blog. My tactics worked well in this case because I wasn’t worried about my future relationship with the dealer. (I’d argue they felt the same way.) This, as you can imagine, is the exact opposite way you’d want to handle a negotiation at work where relationships are essential.

An interesting thing happened a few months after I wrote my blog posts and spoke by phone with Joe Waldman, general manager at Landmark Honda. My wife and I went back to the dealer in June and met directly with Waldman. He offered me the deal I wanted. We walked away with a new Honda CR-V.

Now if I could just have the same success at home with my wife and child, I’ll really be a top-notch negotiator.

J8HDVUSHTP4A

What does the future hold for journalism? The question has been on my mind a lot recently as I’ve spoken on the subject at both Accuracy in Media’s 40th anniversary conference last month and the Institute on Political Journalism’s conference over the weekend.

In both cases, I tailored my remarks to aspiring journalists, particularly young people and college students who are trying to navigate a newspaper industry ravaged by layoffs and a media market that is increasingly demanding today’s journalists to do more — from photography and videos to blogging and tweeting.

Last weekend’s IPJ conference put me in a room with 100 college students, many of whom seemed to recognize the challenges of securing employment at a mainstream media company. The panel was titled, “Convergence frenzy: Succeeding in the new media market,” and it was great to hear how some students are already employing new tactics to get a leg up on the competition.

My fellow panelists — Aaron Davis of The Washington Post, professor Mark Grabowski of Adelphi University and David Mastio of The Washington Times – and I spent most of our time offering advice based on a landscape that’s likely to change before many of them even graduate. Still, some of it was very sound, and I’ve pulled together a few of the highlights:

• Build your own personal brand by starting a blog and reporting on niche issues that aren’t getting adequate coverage in your community or on your campus. Davis recounted how key politicos in Annapolis regularly looked to blogs for news — and how the Post’s Maryland Politics blog has become a staple of his job. If done well, you might be able to corner the market, potentially leading to a job.

• Use social media to make connections and build a strong network. As Mastio told the group, someone with 2,000 followers on Twitter is going to be more impressive to a potential employer than other attributes, including your GPA. That’s because your personal network of followers can be one of the most effective ways to share news, drive traffic and have an impact.

• Make connections through good, old-fashioned, face-to-face networking. As easy as it is with the Internet to search for jobs, there’s something to be said for personal contacts. One great way to do that is through the excellent journalism programs offered by IPJ or the National Journalism Center, just to name a couple. Having been a mentor to IPJ interns and supervisor for others, I’ve seen the value students gain from not only their work experience but also from the programs’ educational curriculum.

• Look beyond traditional places of employment. Grabowski runs a great website called CubReporters.org, which offers tips for breaking into journalism and job listings. But don’t stop looking if you can’t find your dream job. Non-profit outfits like the Franklin Center, which trains investigative reports and supports watchdog journalism, are adding staff while mainstream outfits are cutting back. Your first job might not be your dream job, but that doesn’t mean good opportunities aren’t available.

Most of this advice, as you can probably tell, is geared toward college students. But there are plenty of good journalism opportunities for others as well. One of the best is the Robert Novak Journalism Fellowship Program, administered by the Phillips Foundation. Print and online journalists with less than 10 years of professional experience are eligible for awards of $75,000 and $50,000 (for full-time fellowships) and $25,000 (for part-time fellowships). The year-long project can focus on any issues supportive of American culture and a free society. Applications for the 2010 fellowships are due in February.

The opportunities to succeed in journalism today are greater than ever, but that doesn’t mean you should deviate from journalism’s core principles. As stated by the Society of Professional Journalists, “Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.” I can’t think of a better advice to aspiring reporters.

Photo by Andrew Phelps. http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewphelps/ / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

I’ve had the pleasure of moderating these sessions before a couple hundred guests at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C. The Weekly Standard’s Mary Katharine Ham joined us last November and National Review Online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez was our guest this spring. We decided to shift gears this time around and invite a member of Congress. One congressman, in particular, stood out: Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), a freshman who toppled a 12-year Republican incumbent in 2008.

Chaffetz puts extra emphasis on communicating, which is why you’ll find him an active user of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. (How many members would use the Twitter name @JasonInTheHouse?) His cot-side chats from his congressional office are among the most clever videos I’ve seen from anyone in Congress. But even more impressive is his commitment to conservative principles. That’s what motivated him to run for Congress and why he was elected by his constituents to represent Utah’s 3rd District today.

Our conversation touched on everything from his low-budget campaign tactics to the scene on the House floor Saturday night during the health care debate. The full video (about 45 minutes) is below.

I was motivated in part by recent Republican losses in Virginia, dating back eight years to when I first moved here. But an even bigger motivation was the socialist direction President Barack Obama and liberals in Congress have moved the country. From the massive stimulus and bailouts to energy taxes and government-run health care, there was no way more obvious to stop this leftward shift than by electing conservatives. And no better place to do it than in my own backyard.

Along the way, I’ve done a little bit of everything and met some wonderful people — especially House of Delegates candidate Tim Nank, campaign manager Blair Palmer and super-volunteer Susan Valentine. Even though Nank (pictured with my son) fell short in his campaign against Delegate Mark Sickles, his grassroots operation vastly outperformed the incumbent in terms of fundraising, yard signs and literature. Unfortunately, in a Democrat-leaning district, it takes a lot more to win. I hope Tim considers a rematch in 2011.

Knocking on doors in the 43rd District was a lot of fun, but nothing tops today’s experience as a poll watcher in my precinct. I started the day at 6 a.m., and after a break during the middle of the day, wrapped it up at 7 p.m. We had 1,129 voters cast a ballots. The Democrat candidates won the precinct by a 60% to 40% margin, but that didn’t dampen my enthusiasm.

Democrats didn’t bother sending any poll watchers today; Republicans, on the other hand, introduced a new technology that helped streamline last-minute get-out-the-vote efforts. GOP poll watchers all over the commonwealth were equipped with BlackBerrys loaded with voter information. As voters checked in, I checked them off. The system wasn’t perfect — the devices themselves were a little slow to load the data — but I was glad to see Republicans make the move in this direction.

I plan to remain involved and hope others who haven’t become active in local politics will do the same. It’s incredibly rewarding, and although my role was small, I’m proud to say I was part of McDonnell’s victory, along with the wins today by Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling and Ken Cuccinelli for attorney general.

These days, now that I’m living in Washington and they’re in Upstate New York, we see each other only on holidays and special occasions. Yesterday was one of those special events.

My cousin Lara and husband Fernando celebrated their first anniversary yesterday at Club Monarch in Yorkville, N.Y. A year ago they were married in the Dominican Republic, where Lara was completing her stint in the Peace Corps. None of our family made it to the wedding, so last night was our chance to toast the happy couple.

The occasion was extra special because it was the first time several people met Fernando. A native of the Dominican Republic, he came to the United States in July. We met him for the first time in September and he immediately bonded with baby Ben.

Enjoy the photos of the party.

Many of the townhouses in his Woodbridge neighborhood feature decks. But almost all of them were built by contractors and day-workers rather than homeowners. Not this one.

My brother-in-law had been organizing this project for months with my father-in-law, who drew the plans and oversaw the project. My other brother-in-law joined us from Philadelphia and a couple of friends lent a hand Sunday to position some of the large beams and columns. Even my wife and baby were on hand to supervise.

This was probably my biggest building project since tech class in high school. And although y role was small compared to my brother-in-law and father-in-law, who worked all week on it, I was happy to pitch in and help.

In our face-paced world where family is too often relegated to a secondary role, it was nice to know that mine is the type willing to sacrifice a weekend by rolling up some sleeves and getting a little dirty. Even more important than building the deck was the opportunity to bond with family. It reminded me of the day in August I spent with my Dad sprucing up our deck with two new ceiling fans. It was hardly glamorous, but highly rewarding.

Not everyone needs to embark on such a large project to have the same kind of fulfilling experience, but I’d highly recommend spending quality time with family and friends on something meaningful like it.