If the Washington Post didn't hear or see the tree fall, it still may have happened.

Remember the riddle: If a tree falls in the woods and no one was there to see or hear it, how do we know it really fell? The new answer is because of cell phone camera and Facebook and Twitter. Take the recent snow storm in Washington, DC was not only big news in the U.S., it made headlines in Europe. So did the Tweet-up Snow Ball fight with the gun toting off-duty officer. http://bit.ly/7Xz6kW

I saw it as a story and photo in a London newspaper. I was first struck by the fact that the Washington snowball fight was a web and Tweet-up public event. And I thought that 20 somethings didn't use Twitter. Not sure how many text messages played a part, but probably not very traditional land line calls were involved.

Fast forward to the snow ball fight and the off-duty officer didn’t like his Hummer being hit by snowballs. It wasn't a reporter from the Washington Post that saw him draw a weapon, it was a snowball revelers with cell phone cameras. http://bit.ly/7yiCSR

The cops issue the usual denials that he drew a gun. Not so, because photos and videos are on YouTube, blogs and pasted on a Facebook page and pretty soon the "traditional media" is picking it up. http://bit.ly/8ccFSh So, a London newspaper writes a story about a tweet-up and Facebook postings and calls it reporting.

Remember the more serious Virginia Tech shootings and the first videos on CNN were from a shakey cell phone. The early videos from demonstrations in Iran were from cell phones. The first information on the point is that in today's world every cell phone is a camera and every tweet could be global news.

Crisis communicators can't relax if an incident doesn't make it to traditional local news. Don't be paranoid, but monitor the news, Facebook, twitter and blogs.

Will they be flexible?

This week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will hold a public hearing on Social Media. The formal name of the hearing is Promotion of Food and Drug Administration-Regulated Medical Products Using the Internet and Social Media Tools (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-22618.htm).

Catchy name huh? But there's hope in the government speak. We all know how the internet and social media have dramatically changed our lives. They have provided access to information, research and data for patients and caregivers. We can be much better informed on almost all aspects of health and wellness.

Yet this explosion scares regulatory agencies such as the FDA. The Agency has enough on its plate with drug approvals, monitoring what's being used, tainted products like peanuts and spinach, dealing with approved marketing and promotion of products within label.

The hearing is the hottest ticket in DC this week. Only 60 speakers allowed, and 800 people asking for seats in an auditorium that only seats 300. From what we've heard, the FDA first wants to listen to different views - ranging from large pharmaceutical and medical device companies and their associations, to Google and Yahoo, to web site and content developers. The first day is more general, the second day is more focused on Adverse Events. After the hearings, the speakers will also add comments for the record. If you can't get there go to http://www.fdalive.com/webcast.cfm for the streaming video.

We believe that if the FDA decides it needs to create rules for social media, they should be as flexible as possible to accommodate technological changes and new applications. For example, if FDA had created rules last year, the Agency would already need to adjust due to the explosive growth of Twitter.

Here are some of the questions that FDA must grapple with:

If the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) can use Twitter, Facebook and other social media to communicate info on public health issues such as H1N1, why can't regulated drug and device companies use the same technology to communicate (perhaps with links to ensure fair balance)?

To what extent are companies responsible for technologies such as Sidewiki which make it look like information next to the company or product site might be viewed as company sponsored information? We doubt the FDA would risk a fight with Google and try to ban such web innovations?

How can Social Media help companies do a better monitoring AE's (adverse events) for their products?

Should companies be required to monitor the entire web for any mentions of their product?

We hope it's an informed and open discussion that helps FDA provide proper control and guidance for regulated products in a Wild West world.

Visit http://bit.ly/MWy5w for our Video blog on this subject.

Social Media Immediacy

As bloggers, we know that social media is a fluid environment. When attacked, companies and organizations must decide whether to respond quickly to negative sentiment, or wait to assess their response.

Some argue that the percentage of the overall population actively engaging in social media tools like Twitter, Facebook and Digg - though growing - has not yet reached critical mass. But here's the question: is it already a significant enough number, or a critically important enough audience, to warrant constant serious attention by professional communicators?

Was it worth it for Johnson & Johnson's Motrin to pull its controversial ad because of the uproar it caused on Twitter and blogs? According to Ad Age, citing Lightspeed Research, almost 90% of women never saw the ad. Surveys show that more attention was paid to the surrounding crisis and swift corporate reaction versus the ads themselves.

"Too often, communicators act too soon without listening to who are doing the chatting and what it really means to their brand. Sometimes communicators are completely absent from the conversation," remarks social media expert Howard Greenstein.

In contrast, Amazon is currently in the middle of how to continue to react. They had to act quickly last weekend when angry authors (and supporters) of gay and lesbian books whose works were de-listed from the sales charts launched a Twitter-offensive over the Easter holiday weekend. Tagged #amazonfail, thousands posted angry online sentiments about Amazon. Even people who aren't necessarily fans of the de-listed books or authors joined the fray. So far, Amazon is claiming no policy change and that the de-listing was likely due to an algorithm glitch. Amazon called it "an embarrassing and ham-fisted cataloguing error." (sic) Question: are they communicating enough? How much would be too much? And are they listening enough first?

In crisis communications, we often talk about the "Golden Hour" a period of time in which you can gather information and respond. It is a phrase from emergency medicine which says that you don't have tons of time, but a little more time than you think. The first five minutes of gut instinct panic responses could lead to the wrong actions in medicine. Taking a little bit more time - but not too much - allows for finding out more data and information, and a more informed response. In social media, we're watching to see if the "golden hour" principle is the rule or the exception.

What has your experience been with social media and situations involving businesses and their services or products that may, or may not, be crises? Do you believe that a quick corporate response is essential even if the scope and scale of the social media conversation remains unclear? Is it enough to respond quickly online, or is immediate corporate action essential as well?