As an Internet marketer, watching the difference between 2004 and 2008 is like watching your kids grow up gradually, day-by-day, versus your nieces and nephews you see every four years. The advancement and difference in the latter is remarkable and stunning, even though you really have seen the progress, a bit each day, with the former.

One difference this year is the use of YouTube to immediately spread rich records of interviews, segments, opinions, rejoinders, and evidence that has become part of the new cultural fabric of politics, and the body politic is still learning how to respond. A recent clip of Katie Couric’s interview with Sarah Palin is a good example. Couric asks Palin what newspapers she reads, and Palin’s answer varies from most, to all, to any of them. This clip has spread by wildfire via YouTube, blogs, Twitter, Facebook, etc.

But in the Internet age, most, all, and any really could be legitimate answers, and in a nonpartisan spirit, I’d like to offer Governor Palin a slightly different answer, in case she’s asked again:

Couric:

What newspapers do you read?

Palin:

Oh, Katie, that’s such a quaint old-timey question – news “papers” - that’s like asking me what “records” I listen to or what “evening news show” I watch.

Well, I do still get the newspaper from my hometown of Wasilla every week – it’s good to stay connected to my roots, to see what is happening at the community level, and to support the small town business.

And I read the Anchorage Daily News – I am still the Governor of Alaska, after all. Most days I read it online, but I get the Sunday edition delivered to my house because my kids (and Todd!) like to read the Sunday funnies the old-fashioned way.

But that’s about as much “paper” as I’m willing to consume just to get the news.

Of course I have news sources beyond the Alaskan border, Katie. If you were to hack into my Google Reader account (please don’t!) you’d see I have it set up with many feeds, not just from traditional “newspaper” sites, but from a variety of sources with a variety of outlooks, including cable news sites and the best of the blogs. That way I can scan the headlines, read the articles, easily see how the same story is reported from different points of view, and form my own opinions.

And, like many Americans, I have my Google Alerts set up to bring me news on specific topics, and I’m constantly updating it with topics that deserve my attention and consideration as a candidate for Vice President. I don’t know how I managed without that one!

So, how about you, Katie. What "newspapers" do you read?

I'm starting to form some ideas about online projections of personal identity and the degree to which an employer can say "yea" or "nay". Here’s a post by a fired CNN blogger Chez Pazienza that includes CNN's new "Policy Regarding Personal Writings Online”, where CNN spells out what an employee can and can’t say on a site such as Facebook.

In my collection of Facebook profiles of friends and colleagues I see very few that are designed to represent only their corporate side; something about the medium induces them to project a more complete view of their character in full.

Yet companies such as CNN interpret this view through a very special filter: this soul is mine.

Personal blogs by people who also happen to work for someone have been around all decade (and then some), and their mass may be mined to determine what’s in the head of any individual. But the physiology of Facebook is based on a structure that reveals more about an individual in fuller context, very digestible. Yes, you’ll see someone’s work network and associates, but alongside their college buddies, neneighbors and lifelong friends. You’ll see the business books they’ve read on the same shelf as their manga or pulp novels. You’ll see their next business conference and their next kegger. You’ll see who they work for and who they’ll vote for. You’ll see who they really are.

Among other things CNN doesn’t want you to list your political affiliation on your Facebook page, because they don’t see CNN as being a part of you, but you are a part of CNN.

I don’t think the new social media is going to work that way; I see people developing a wider sense of free agency. Their character does include their employer, but is more widely defined. Of course, CNN is ultimately free to make their own rules as to who they will hire or fire, but I don’t think that’s such a good idea.

Perhaps the middle ground (at least in the case of Facebook) is that an employer can establish standards for employees who wish to identify with the employer’s network (a Facebook-specific construct requiring a company email address). Identifying with a network is voluntary, but can also be seen as a privilege based on accepting certain conditions. You don’t accept them, OK, you’re free to express yourself, but not fly the network tag.

Is this actually a new turn of the page, has the medium changed the rules, or does the old work-life balance still prevail?

With the unleashing of the Facebook open source onslaught, developers, industry pundits and economists have been quick to sing the praises of a new open range in the tech frontier. But where does that leave the user of this new and improved social construct? Certainly there are more users as Facebook leaves the restricted confines of the higher education world so anybody can join. And certainly there are no end to the gadgets we will be swimming in, although initially they seem to be of the silly variety, like choosing if you are a pirate or a ninja. But really, in the end, it is another network to join. Another username and password to keep track of. Another host of friends to find and invite to the new party. The element that seems to be missing most, at least for now, is real connectivity. I find the ability to search, find and connect with all the different people in my life (work, family, alumni, hobbies, etc)  still somewhat restricted. And the ability to connect with non-Facebook people (i.e. as an invitation to join) isn't present at all. Which brings me to the point about social networks. How many can we really support? I find that after two, a person starts to experience slight vertigo as to where they should be. Is that friend on MySpace? Facebook? Yelp? ILike? LinkedIn? What I truly wish for, and I hope Facebook is the one to do this, is social independence. Can we free our identities from the constrains of a walled garden and free float on the web? Can we create self-contained identity files that link and unlink with various groups at will, relying on large central open-source tools to search and find friends, keep track of all of our photos, show off our opinions, without having to stay constrained to a single administrative universe? Network creators can still maintain the cool communities and social apps our identities want to stay involved with, they just won't own the identities themselves.