|
BuzzMachine
by Jeff Jarvis
|
March 31, 2004
Friends
: Finally got to meet fellow blogger Rex Hammock last night. He's from Nashville; I'm from Jersey; we both just happened to be at Northwestern yesterday; blog kismet.
What's amazing about these first-time meetings with bloggers you know well: I felt as if we were old friends catching up... only we were catching up on each other's entire lives. Because we know each other here, there's an instant trust.
He's a damned nice guy and I'm looking forward to meeting again next time we pass by.
: Update/Reality Check: But then again... I'm sitting in the airport lounge now and the guy behind me is telling his life's story and I doubt the guy he's telling it to is a blogger.
Feet to fire
: Arianna Huffington writes a cross between a wet kiss and a rallying cry for blogs at Kos: A Kerry victory will be due not only to the blogosphere's funding efforts but to the bloggers holding Kerry's feet to the fire. It's bloggers who'll have to urge Kerry not to run away from his voting record, but to embrace his liberalism -- and define it as the foundation of the values that led to this country's great social breakthroughs. ...
The blogosphere is now the most vital news source in our country. I've toiled in the world of books and syndicated column writing, but more liberating is the blogosphere, where the random thought is honored, and where passion reigns. While paid journalists often just follow a candidate around or sit in the White House press room and rehash a schedule, blogs break through the din of our 500 channel universe and the narrow conventional wisdom. For that the blogosphere has my undying gratitude. Oh, I agree about keeping his feet to the fire.
We need to keep his feet to the fire on the war on terrorism.
Do as I do, not as I say
: This is why you should never listen to surveys.
This survey says Americans think there are way too many reality shows.
These ratings put American idol (twice), Apprentice, Survivor, Fear Factor, and Extreme Makeover atop the ratings.
Americans will, indeed, get sick of reality shows (we always OD on the trends that take over TV) but we'll still watch them longer than we'll say we watch them. [via PR Bop]
Judge them by the company they keep: Congress hates Howard Stern but loves Michael Jackson
: Wonkette has an exclusive report from Michael Jackson's inexplicable visit to Congress. The Gloved One's entourage is a chaotic storm of confusion and unease -- it lacks the dignity of other star entourages who sweep down corridors, exhibiting confidence and projecting power. Everyone in the Gloved One's group -- bodyguards, handlers, apologists -- all look haggered and confused, but the haggardness and confusion looks self imposed. The group looks like it could use an adult to whack it upside the head, to tell everyone to straighten up, settle down, and then the whole damn pack wouldn't look so silly.
: Rep. Shiela Jackson Lee on Today about her meeting with Jackson today: "We'll actually be discussing real issues." Wow, real issues.
What, no naked lesbians?
: I'm tuning into the start of Air America and all I'm hearing so far is a medly of bad rock appropriate for rallies.
: A helpful commenter informs us that programming begins at noon with Al Franken (couldn't find that on the AirAmerica site).
: Meanwhile on Howard this morning, Tim Robbins appeared, now that they're political bedfellows. No big political rants. Howard, of course, said that soon there'll "be no place for my art."
To which Robbins added: "Or your fart."
Spam's can
: AOL is giving away to one of its users a Porsche siezed from a spammer.
March 30, 2004
And good riddance
: There have been reports today that Steve Case wants to buy AOL back for $10 billion. The stories, incredibly don't report the value of AOL at the time of the world's biggest merger mistake, but from what I find about the value put on Time Warner and the value of the combined entity at its foolish height, it seems that AOL was then supposedly "worth" about 10 times what it's "worth" now. I say, sell the turkey to the turkey.
Whereabouts
: I've been at Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism all morning; here the rest of the day. Blogging light until later.
Feelings
: Scott Rosenberg objects to my response to his praise for the Clarke apology. (My original post here; his here.) He said the apology filled a void in the national psyche; I said this isn't about feelings, it's war. Rosenberg today: But surely war is one of the most emotionally intense experiences humankind has created. And how can we talk about "life and death" as if there are no "feelings" involved? What could be more emotional? Tell me about it. I know those feelings well; my life has not been and will not be the same since surviving that day. I feel those feelings. And that's why I object to Clarke exploiting them to make his rhetorical brownie points: I'll apologize on behalf of the entire frigging U.S. government to make them look bad and me look good and you feel good. Crap.
Rosenberg goes further: That doesn't mean Bush couldn't have stepped forward and admitted the obvious -- that 9/11 represented a colossal failure of the American government to protect the American people. How could it not be? And why is it so hard just to say so and move on? Why did it take 2 1/2 years for any official to be able to bring him or herself to the point of uttering this plain fact? Well, first, because it's not a plain fact: There is no clear proof that anyone in any recent administration could have stopped this. Second, again, because these attacks were in no way our fault. Don't ever forget that.
: (A different) Scott adds in the comments: Imagine if, instead of his Day of Infamy speech, FDR had gone on the radio to apologize for f'ing up and letting the Japanese bombers through to Pearl Harbor.
And and at that, these days, others would say that's not enough; we should have understood the frustrations of the Japanese and Germans over their cramped living space and their jealousy at all our space and how we brought this on ourselves.
Am I becoming clear yet, Scott R? This is war. It's not an encounter session. It's war.
Free debate
: After Lawrence Lessig put his new book up for free under the Creative Commons license, Akma came up with the great idea to have folks volunteer to read it as a permitted derivative work.
As I was reading the book via PDF on the flight yesterday, I got another idea for a derivative work:
Take a book and annotate it with contrary evidence and arguments and questions.
Call it the fisking edition.
Mind you, I'm not saying that because I'm going after Lessig or have any intention of doing that edition -- he's too damned smart and too good at arguing his ideas and, as I've said before, I'm too smart to find myself on the losing end of a debate with him even if I do disagree with him. Fisking is just an easy way to describe what I mean.
Or maybe I should call it the Talmudic editions.
I'd love to see someone who does know what he or she is talking about dive into the book and give me either more facts to help me make up my mind or more facts to help me make my arguments. I'd love to hear two sides.
I'd love to see Tim Blair create the annotated edition of any Michael Moore book. Or Matthew Yglesias create a civilized response to the rantings of Ann Coulter. Those would be pure entertainment. I wouldn't mind taking on the blatherings of Republic.com. What books would you take on?
And once we take on these books, the authors can create their next derivative works, replying. And, I know, I'm creating a ringing endorsement of Creative Commons with this. But wouldn't it be great to take a book and break it open at the spine for some back-and-forth?
Why not turn a book into a conversation?
: UPDATE: Inspired by this post and Ernie Miller's, Aaron Swartz has put the entire book into a wiki. Also way cool.
My suggestion was that people annotate the book.
A wiki also allows people to edit the book. Hmmmm. Not sure what Lessig would think of that. Not sure what I would think if I could no longer tell what came from him and what came from his debaters.
Heartfelt
: As I was driving around the Chicago 'burbs yesterday, I saw a big purple bus with gigantic letters on it happily announcing: "We're spreading the word!" I thought, man, the Jesus squad has taken over! Then I got closer. It was an ad for antacid.
Automation
: Here's the problem with automation: Topix presents this as the lead story (big headline, even) on its weblog news page: "I'm in Cambridge at the MIT/Harvard Brain Boot Camp this week, so blogging will be light for a few days." Film of Carl Zimmer's dinner at 11.
: But I joke. I'm hitting that blog roundup daily, and more.
Topix cofounder Rich Skrenta emails me this update: Just a quick note to let you know that Topix.net is now crawling over 6,000 news sources, up from 3,600. Here is an approximate breakdown of the kinds of sources we are crawling:
24% Daily newspapers
19% AM & FM news radio stations
15% Weekly newspapers
15% B2B and consumer magazines
12% TV stations
9% College newspapers
5% Government websites
1% Weblogs
Piggybacking
: The irony drips like syrup: AT&T is selling VOIP in New Jersey. So what once was the world's largest telecommunications company is now reduced piggybacking on your cable modem bandwidth.
Like a bunny
: Hugh MacLeod alerts me that Technorati just passed 2 million blogs served.
Janet Jackson, covered
: She appears on Letterman with her infamous breasts puffed with pride. Dave leers: "Now, that's almost malfunctioning, isn't it?"
She has her navel framed in metal (and for all I know, she has that steel pastey on still). I've heard of rubber fetishes. Even latex. But metal?
Dave keeps trying and trying to interview her. "Why are we talking about this, Dave," she exasperates.
She: "It was so embarrassing for me to have so many people see this little breast."
He: "Well...."
: UPDATE: From the comments. Janet Jackson was bleeped when she said "Jesus."
Aw, Jesus, this is getting ridiculous.
March 29, 2004
Fate
: Rex Hammock and I have been promising to grab lunch the next time he's in New York from Nashville but he's at Northwestern tomorrow and so am I so we're grabbing a blogdinner.
Anybody have any Evanston restaurant recommendations?
MiniMe
: My DNA is very heartland America: all 'burbs and 'burgers.
Today I trolled through a bunch of Chicago suburbs to get ready for the start of the Northwestern hyperlocal project tomorrow... and also to wander around my roots.
Cue Streisand's Memories.
Feel free to get off the bus now and skip the tour.
I hadn't been to my childhood home in, oh, 30 or 40 years. That's it above: a much-smaller-than-I-could-remember bungalow in Elmhurst, IL: very Wonder Years in its prime; very Jerry Springer now.
We moved there when I was 1 and moved away in 1960, but I can still remember the inside.
I wandered up and down the street taking a few pictures. As I walked back past the Jarvis joint, wondering where the plaque should go, a guy opened the front door wearing PJs that don't cover his hairy belly (it was 3 in the afternoon). I spooked him. He spooked me. I explained that we built this house in... I gulp... 1955. Damn. The house, once so new, is almost 50 years old. But then, of course, so am I.
Do I look this bad?
And there's the place where I ruined my diet and heart for life. Actually, there was a better burger place across the street but was torn down decades ago. This joint predated McDonald's but it's where I came to love burgers and fries and fizzy drinks.
As I said, I'm all-American.
We moved away to Iowa when I was in the first grade and, neurotic little bastard that I was, I got an ulcer. Kids didn't do therapy back then.
Then we moved to South Jersey, then New York, then back to Illinois (I went through four elementary schools in three states and four high schools in three states, which, together with the ulcer, explains a lot about my psychoses, eh?). We moved two towns away from Elmhurst, to Lombard, a town known for lilacs and for breeding the Unabomber.
I drove by my highschool, below, which looks like a pharmaceutical factory. Heck, it probably is.
I drove by the Pizza Hut where I took my first love, Markie Kimble, on dates. Now you know why it didn't last. (If you're expecting a where-is-she-now update, I'll fail you; she doesn't appear to be Googleable.)
Over there was the Jack in the Box where she worked (it's now a boarded-up fish franchise) and down there was where I worked as kitchen manager -- in charge of busboys and spudboys -- at the Ponderosa Steak House (now torn down).
Franchises didn't just feed us. They were the Match.com of our day.
I went to Schaumburg's Woodfield Mall, which would have made Lileks jealous in its day. For all the time I spent in it, it's strange: Not a single memory of the place.
Malls cauterize memory.
And finally, I made it to Evanston and Northwestern, having dinner in the post-modern food franchise, Wolfgang Puck's place, and -- while I'm on this theme of food, romance, and memories -- I wandered by the haunts where I hung out with my college girlfriend, who is quite Googleable, and who is now known as a leading "postmodern lesbian philosopher."
Ain't symmetry grand?
Out trolling suburbs and memories... Back soon...
Boy, I love it when I get to the airport in time to catch an earlier flight.... Later....
Lies and the lying liars who get book contracts
: Robert Rivard, editor of the San Antonio Express-News, writes that scandals in journalism -- in the age of Jayson Blair, Jack Kelly, Stephen Glass, Andrew Gilligan -- aren't getting the coverage they deserve: There is another scandal-ridden industry these days, come to think of it, but you read far less about it. High-profile cases are covered, but the larger problem is not considered particularly newsworthy.
That industry is our own, the press. I hate to think how big that "larger problem" could be. But here's an editor saying it's there.
When I was a reporter, I was obsessive about reporting facts accurately. I'd stare at my reporters' notebook trying to decipher my own bad brand of shorthand to sweat out whether the quote said "which" or "that" and if I wasn't sure, I'd throw out the quote marks. Of course, that was obsession to a fault. I want to shake up the younger me and shout, "Forest! Trees!" But getting facts and quotes right was a canon of the craft and getting something wrong was a harikari moment. The reporters I knew were all like that. So maybe I was naive then and didn't see the bigger scandal brewing. Or maybe times have changed. Or maybe it's always true that every barrel has bad apples. Rivard says: This wave of dishonesty has surfaced in newsrooms across the country, including some of the most prestigious ones. Most editors I have asked believe there are undiscovered cheaters still at work.
Every newspaper industry publication and Web site chronicles one disclosure after another: a food writer in Hartford, a community reporter in Macon — the list goes on and on.
Isn't this news of general interest?
The number of corrupt journalists is small, but in the minds of the public, one unethical reporter can undermine the integrity of the entire institution. Just like a single misspelled word in a headline distracts the reader from everything else on the page. What's really scandalous to him is that these bad apples keep getting hired. If you knew a doctor murdered patients, you wouldn't hire him. If you knew that a job candidate came from the strategic finance department of Enron, I hope you wouldn't hire him. But the publishing industry keeps hiring liars: Blair and Glass get book contracts. Mike Barnicle gets hired at the Boston Herald. Says Rivard: Last week, Samuel G. Freedman, a professor at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, wrote a piece for USA Today calling for total banishment from the trade for all exposed fabulists and plagiarists.
"Journalists who fabricate never should be hired or contracted to write again," he wrote. "Their presence in any nonfiction publication damages me, and it damages all my fellow journalists." ...
The plagiarists are putting all of us at risk. Freedman's idea deserves serious debate.
Coming to terms with our problem is the first step. Sharing the depth of the problem with our readers and showing them the prescriptive steps we are taking is the next step.
And we should include the readers if we intend to recover lost ground. [via IWantMedia]
No verbs
: No verbs. No need. Shepard Smith live. On TV. Fair and balanced. Lots of action. Fast talk. No long sentences. No paragraphs, even. Lots of exclamation marks. Exclamation marks better than verbs. Cheaper, too. No writers. No verbs.
The Daily Stern
: The NY Post said this morning that Stern is negotiating to get funding to start his own satellite radio service, buying channel space on existing networks.
Stern said this morning he isn't in such talks and knows nothing about it... but it's not a bad idea.
March 28, 2004
Jersey blogs!
: Blogger, NY Times contributor, and all around good guy Debra Galant has a nice story on Jersey blogs in the Times Jersey section, which, unfortunately, is not online (hey, says the Times, it's only Jersey). But Debra kindly put up the text on her blog. The lead is our NJ.com blogger MeetUp; the kicker is yours truly. Sadly, inbetween, some dastardly editor cut out mentions of some of her favorite blogs (repeat after me: Why do we like weblogs? No editors!), so Debra links to them on her blog. See how well blogs and print work together?
Hyperlocal day at Northwestern
: I'm going to be at Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism (my, ahem, alma mater) to begin a project with Rich Gordon's management students to investigate the potential of hyperlocal content in towns.
I'd love to have your ideas.
The hope is that the students will go into a pilot town and find that there is untold wealth of local information that can be brought together to serve a community: content of, by, and for the people.
You know I'm already working to start hyperlocal blogs. But we need much more. We need to encourage more people to blog on their own or on our sites (we just held MeetUps in two towns to start spreading seeds); we want to see more viewpoints and more information from more communities. We need to gather local government information from meetings and officials. We need to see what school information is out there. We hope to get video that's already being shot of meetings and sporting events. What information can be scraped and blogged and linked to?
Any ideas? What's happening in your town? What sources of useful local information can you name? What information do you want?
Ralph thinking of dropping out???
: I like the hint in this AP story that Ralph Nader seems to be considering his fate in the race: Ralph Nader said Sunday he will meet with John Kerry next month to discuss the effort to defeat President Bush in the November election.
While stressing that he is still a competitor in the race, the independent presidential hopeful said he views his candidacy as a "second front against Bush, however small." Well, of course, that's egotistical and stupid: Too many fronts split up an army and lose the war. But maybe there's hope that Ralph will drop out.
Reality News
: I've been thinking about how to bring reality TV to the news.
Of course, you could try to argue that news already is reality TV. But, of course, we know better. TV news and everything that feeds it is spun-dried, homogonized, pasteurized, purified, prepackaged, precooked, prechewed, commoditized, co-conspired, and repeated a hundred times a day. It's as real as Disneyworld.
So here's my concept for Reality News:
Take a bunch of citizen reporters -- moms, grandpas, students, poor people, immigrants, ugly people, webloggers... people who would never otherwise get on TV except on American Idol or Survivor -- and send them out on the stories they want to cover to get the answers to the questions they want to ask with camera crews and trucks with big network letters on the side -- and dare the powerful to turn them away.
This does Michael Moore one better, for this isn't an obnoxious publicity vat just trying to get more fame and more fortune. These are real people, consumers, voters, citizens.
So send them to the headquarters of the latest company ripping off customers or stockholders and dare the PR people to turn them away. Or send them to any government agency (I nominate the FCC these days) or any politician's office to demand answers to their questions about what they're really doing for us.
Even if they are turned away, that would make great TV -- we'd have a great time sneering at some slimy PR guy sent down to stonewall the citizens -- and soon enough, the powerful would have to realize that they're smarter to let the citizens in and information out. Pretty soon, you'd see the citizens sitting down to real conversations with company presidents and senators and newsmakers. Why, I bet you'd even see our citizen reporters interviewing the President, before long.
The beauty of this is that the citizen reporters won't be trying to build a relationship with news sources; there won't be any conflict of interest here.
And by all means, let's make it interactive: Let us propose our own questions from the Web. Let us nominate citizen reporters and pick the best and fire the rest.
I guarantee you that you'd see compelling news you won't see elsewhere. And you'll see other news shows respond to this competitive threat by trying to get more, well, real.
: Dave Winer has another take on reality news.
: UPDATE: Jeff Sharlet has a great story about being a reporter who didn't know better, from the comments: ...And I wouldn't worry about amateurs getting rebuffed by PR people. One of my first jobs in journalism (a point at which I was, essentially, an amateur with a paycheck) was covering naval courts martial in San Diego. I didn't know my editor had sicced me on the local Naval press office just to bug them, with no more hope for my success in gaining access than he'd had for the last several rebuffed reporters.
So the PR guy blew me off, and I thought I was going to lose my first job. I called again. And again. Not knowing any better, I kept calling up the chain of command, yabbering about freedom of the press, etc. Til finally I got someone in the Pentagon who called someone who called someone -- etc. -- until the local PR guy called me, with apologies, and anytime access to the low level courts martial not normally deemed newsworthy. Which ended up becoming the subject of stories about race wars on aircraft carriers, sex and the chain of command, and truly draconian military drug laws. Newsworthy, indeed.
I wonder if now, as a more experienced journalist, I'd be so persistent -- I might dismiss that PR guy as a dead end. But amateurs don't know when to quit. The 9/11 widows are a perfect example of the power of amateur news gatherers...
Consolidation phobia
: Sam Whitemore at Forbes.com pooh-poohs fear of media consolidation. He sees new voices in blogs, low-power FM (which I wish were allowed to be commercial so local entrepreneurs could make a go of it instead of just goody-goody organizations with money to burn); he sees healthy skepticism about big media; and he sees nothing sinister in a public media company trying to make money. Politically awakened and technologically equipped, we have nothing to fear except our own intellectual laziness. The viewpoints are out there. Even if you're utterly convinced that powerful ideological forces are out to control what you see, hear and read, don't just whine about it. You want the freedom to know the truth? Put down your remote, use the tools and methods at your disposal and go fight for it.
March 27, 2004
Horses mouths
: Audible offers the 9/11 hearings for free. [via OnlineBlog]
Correcting the corrections policy
: Robert Cox at The National Debate has been waging a singlehanded campaign to get The Times to publish corrections of its op-ed columnists' errors, which up until now has been up to the individual columnists.
He has the first glimmers of victory at hand.
Dan Okrent writes in Sunday's Times: [Editor Page Editor Gail] Collins explains why columnists must be allowed the freedom of their opinions, but insists that they "are obviously required to be factually accurate. If one of them makes an error, he or she is expected to promptly correct it in the column." Corrections, under this new rule, are to be placed at the end of a subsequent column, "to maximize the chance that they will be seen by all their readers, everywhere," a reference to the wide syndication many of the columnists enjoy....
In the coming months I expect columnist corrections to become a little more frequent and a lot more forthright than they've been in the past. Yet the final measure of Collins's success, and of the individual columnists, will be not in the corrections but in the absence of the need for them. At last. It's the right move.
: Okrent also acknowledges that NY Times lawyers went after Cox' parody op-ed correction site with a stupid "sledgehammer."
I stayed out of that battle as it occurred, since I'm related to both big and small media and thought that in this case, it put me in a conflict. I'll say now that it turned out the way it should have turned out in the first instance, which I said privately to people who asked. Cox' page needed to be clear that it was a parody not only because that's the way to play it safe legally -- parody is protected -- but also because you never want to confuse your readers. The Times should have asked for just that from the first and I'll bet Cox would have seen the point and agreed; instead, they pulled out the sledgehammer and gave the paper a bad name in this world even as Okrent has been working hard to rebuild its good name. Happy ending in any case.
: And Okrent says this about columnists in today's column: I sometimes think opinion columns ought to carry a warning: "The following is solely the opinion of the author, supported by data I alone have chosen to include. Live with it." Opinion is inherently unfair. The same could be put over the door of many if not most weblogs. But the real question is how often it should be used over news reporting. Yup, that's the real question.
The Daily Stern...
: ... takes a day off. Things will heat up again shortly...
Playing by the "rules"
: Cleveland Plain Dealer editor-in-chief and blogger Doug Clifton looks at at Richard Clarke and sees an issue with background briefings and unnamed sources and spin and the rules of the game called government and the press. Clarke said one thing in his book and another in a background briefing. He tried to explain away the contradiction saying that he was spinning the company spin at the briefing. Says Clifton: On one level, that's understandable. Haven't we all defended the institutions we work for out of loyalty, obligation, self-preservation?
On the other hand, when does principle trump loyalty, obligation, self-preservation? Should Clarke have told his bosses, "I can't, in conscience, spin for you"? Should he have threatened to quit in protest? Should he have availed himself of the other time-honored Washington tradition, leaked his real feelings -on background - to a well-placed reporter?
At this point that's all academic and a cloud remains over the credibility of Clarke's testimony because he played by the rules of Washington. He spun on background in support of the administration he worked for and expected the conventions to be honored.
In so doing he forgot the more basic rule of Washington, first described by Harry Truman: "If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog."
Let's assume Clarke's version of things is true. He thought the Bush administration was being less than attentive to the terrorist threat but when called upon to do the administration's bidding in a background briefing, he played the good soldier.
With the help of a cooperative and, I would add, co-opted, press the American public was mislead on this vital question.
And because briefing on background is so pervasive in Washington, misleading the public is the norm, not the exception.
If the rules of journalism were changed and the use of the unnamed source were banned, would the public have a truer sense of reality?
That's a discussion for another day. Strong words, blunt questions.
[Full disclosure: Cleveland.com is one of my day-job sites.]
Contrarian to contrarian
: Microsoft says it will create a search of blogs and all the Microsnots come out of the woodwork. I don't get it. Blogs cry for attention and then when they get it, some bloggers cry at the attention.
(Full disclosure: Moreover, on whose board I serve, powers Microsoft's news search; I don't know whether it is powering the blog search.)
Liz Lawley at Corante kvetches: Somehow, the idea of Microsoft—or any other corporate entity—deciding for everyone what blogs are “relevant to people” is not reassuring to me. The potential for marginalization of interesting, provocative, or unique voices is enormous. Every blogger does that and it's not marginalization; it's service.
Dan Gillmor gives a backhanded compliment: "Another Microsoft "innovation" that's already been invented -- see, for example Technorati and Feedster -- but overall it's good to see the big guys getting behind blogging as a form of its own."
Just because it's Microsoft, that doesn't mean it's evil.
Instead of throwing brickbats at Microsoft, why don't we tell Google to get its act together and include blogs -- selected blogs, I might add -- in GoogleNews (over some of the crackpot sites included now)? And wouldn't it be nice if the New York Times put up a list -- a selected list, I might add -- of notable blogs?
The Old Republic
: The New Republic's cover story -- Dictatorship.com, Why the Internet Won't Topple Tyranny -- is a load of naysaying, stick-in-the-sludge, cynical, behind-the-times, underreported, snotty crap.
TNR foreign editor Joshua Kurlantzick argues that because the Internet has not yet toppled a dictatorship and because some dictatorships have lately become more dictatorial, the Internet has failed and it cannot change the world. For years, a significant subset of the democratization industry--that network of political scientists, think tanks, and policymakers--has placed its bets (and, in many cases, its money) on the Web's potential to spread liberal ideas in illiberal parts of the world. Whereas once American politicians and democratization groups focused on older technologies, such as radio, today their plans to spread democracy rest in considerable part on programs for boosting Internet access....
But world leaders, journalists, and political scientists who tout the Internet as a powerful force for political change are just as wrong as the dot-com enthusiasts who not so long ago believed the Web would completely transform business. While it's true that the Internet has proved itself able to disseminate pop culture in authoritarian nations--not only Laos, but China, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere--to date, its political impact has been decidedly limited. It has yet to topple--or even seriously undermine--its first tyrannical regime. Well, how long did it take radio to topple a regime? Did radio ever topple a regime? Did TV? It didn't tear down the Wall (see below); as communism teetered, isolated Moscow was more progressive than media-bombarded Berlin. Though, let's also add that the spread of culture instead of just politics did have an impact on the pent-up demand for freedom in Berlin (the lusted-after commodity of the West wasn't political debate; it was bananas... and rock 'n' roll). And besides, who set that as the pass-or-fail test of a medium as a catalyst of change: start a revolution or give up? Let's also remember that the Internet is new and is not widely available in such places as Cuba and North Korea.
The story is shamefully ignorant of the medium and the inroads it has made. There isn't a mention of Iran, the situation I know best, where 100,000 weblogs are reporting news that can't be reported and scaring the mullahs and even making them join in.
There isn't a sense that what makes it possible for the Internet to make inroads is its distributed structure: Yes, China can cut off a site here and a site there. But a thousand, then a million webloggers and expats and citizens can repeat information and news and opinions that have been forbidden. It takes time -- damnit -- but these seeds will grow. Yes, China has jailed some Internet writers but, as I heard from a sociologist from China a few weeks ago, Internet access is handled by pay-as-you-go cards and most users are, in the end, anonymous and can't be hunted down. He also said that China has failed at blocking Google and its caches of pages. (Ditto Iran.) Seeds will grow.
There isn't even a sense of what the Internet can do in the United States and Europe. Another shortcoming of the Internet is that it lends itself to individual rather than communal activities. It "is about people sitting in front of a terminal, barely interacting," says one Laotian researcher. The Web is less well-suited to fostering political discussion and debate because, unlike radio or even television, it does not generally bring people together in one house or one room. Well, tell that to Howard Dean or MoveOn.org. OK, so that's in a free nation where we do have a right to gather. But we've seen the Internet bring people and opinions together in Iran (and, again, I'll apologize that I'm not more up to date on other nations but Iran is, at least, a proof of concept). The writer is woefully ignorant about the basic and proven capabilities of the medium.
The TNR story further ignores the power of the connected expat community. I just got a contact from someone who is trying to bring Turkmenistan expats into weblogs for human rights organizing and activism.
There's some strange, jealous agenda coming out of TNR: an old, fuddy-duddy activist viewpoint that says this new-fangled Internet thang can't be as good as old-fashioned pamphleterring and armed insurrection.
Would Che blog?
No one says the Internet is going to rebuild the world overnight -- especially in countries where technology and connectivity and openness exist in inverse proportion to oppression. Repressive regimes will try to block the Internet just as they try to block news from getting in or out and just as they try to block all other media and communication. But the Internet can spread news and connect people and let the world watch tyranny and organize protest and resist repression like no other medium before.
The Internet is subversive.
In the last century, Coke meant freedom. In this century, the Internet means freedom.
[Thanks, Oliver, for sending the story.]
Good bye, Lenin
: Last night, I went to a late show of Good Bye, Lenin because no one else in the family but me would want to drive forty minutes to see a two-hour movie in German about East Berlin and the fall of the Wall.
It was worth the drive. Lenin is a comedy about communism: A devoted mother -- who had to raise her children alone when her husband went to the West -- sees her son arrested in a democracy demonstration, falls to a heart attack, and spends eight months in a coma. In the meantime, the Wall came down and her son protects her from further shock by making believe that the old DDR still reigns: finding her familiar commie brands for her and even making East German TV news to explain the Coke billboard that suddenly appears outside her window. In the process, he reinvents his nation and its socialism into what it should have been but never was.
I was lucky enough to spend time behind the Wall in the '80s. It's experiences like that that do remind you how lucky you are. Every time I'd come back across Checkpoint Charlie, I was grateful for the colors and tastes and life and choice of the West. That's such a trivial measure of freedom, but it's the scale of reference we, the free, have. These days, the news is concentrating on so many more drastic contrasts between freedom and tyranny: in Iraq before the war, in Iran, in North Korea... But sometimes, it's not so obvious.
What's so wonderful about Good Bye, Lenin is that it finds the subtle, humorous, even sympathetic way to illustrate that contrast: how a dictatorship can tear apart a marriage and a family and how its victims still live through it, how they cope and love and even laugh. It shows how the damage of a dictatorship can be masked by the courage of its victims. There are no raised fists here, no jackboots, no shots; there's not even any pain apparent on the surface. But it's there, underneath, and it becomes apparent only when freedom draws the contrast.
Testing
... That beautiful word means that Vagablog is working again. Thank you, Mike Rowehl.
Scooby-dooby-doo
: Took the kids to the new Scooby this afternoon. Anything to get a barrel of popcorn.
I am always happy when kiddie-movie-makers throw in babes for the Dads. Some might go for Sarah Michelle Gellar or Alicia Silverstone. But Velma's more my type.
: Somebody in the comments asked about the preview of the next Harry Potter. I'm not a big Harry fan, so I'm not the best correspondent. But the FX looked impressive, a notch above the last movies. What's most notable is that the kids have grown up. This Harry will have some added adolescent sexual tension.
Glub
: Glenn Reynolds blogs with the fishes. In video.
#)&*%#)*$* Real
: Damned Real. Got home late last night and my Treo wouldn't play music via Real; it told me to sync again. This blew up the poor phone. I'm on support with Sprint until 2:15a; things melt-down. It's finally fixed. But the hell of it is that I can't get my precious Vagablog to work; that's how I blog from the road (yes, that's how I blog about Howard Stern from the choir loft at church, heathen that I am). Maybe it's God trying to give me a message but I don't care; I'll make a deal with the devil to get Vagablog working again.
That's it for Real. Their players are just evil.
And that's it for trying to use my phone as an MP3 player. Heck, it already does my phone-email-web-blogging-Palm-camera.
(If there's a Palm/MT/Vagablog geek out there able to help, the error message I get is "Unable to find XML declaration".)
March 26, 2004
Can you be as boring as Kottke?
: There's a new contest memeing its away around blogs: Can you put up a post as boring as Kottke's latest?
The opening bid from Jason: A post about his building's doormat.
To which Rob replies: "All blog entries have now apparently been used up." And he sees that bid and raises it with a post about his new colander.
Never one to be outdone, Michele ups the betting with a post about garbage bags.
Well, I hate to be left out of this game, so lemme tell you about my office:
I hadn't cleaned my office in at least five years. So I had a guy from the building bring up a dumpster and I filled it with with whiteboards that won't erase anymore because the old ideas on them are encrusted with age; expensive brochures passed out by promising-but-now-dead companies at Internet Worlds as far away as Berlin; lawyer letters and contracts for many promising-but-now-dead companies; many promising-but-now-dead Internet magazines; and business cards for many promising-but-now-unemployed Internet executives. My office is now so empty and dusty that it looks as if I, too, am a promising-but-unemployed Internet executive. But I will bring some Pledge from home (unscented only, please) and then I will look employed and efficient again.
Your bid.
The Daily Stern afternoon edition: Creeping FCCism
: The FCC decides to regulate the content of satellite programming. By what frigging authority? Satellite television providers such as DirecTV and the Dish Network will have to follow the same rules for political and children's advertising as over-the-air broadcasters and cable TV operators under regulations announced yesterday.
The rules issued by the Federal Communications Commission require satellite operators to allow political candidates to buy advertising time on their systems and to sell it to them at the lowest rates they offer to commercial customers. Like cable systems, satellite operators have commercial time on the networks they carry that they can sell.
Michael Perko, an official with the FCC's media bureau, said the commission acted now because of the increase in satellite service. The FCC reported in January that 23.7 million Americans received television via satellite, 22% of all households that pay for television. Cable, with 70.5 million households, has 75% of the market. By that rationale, then the FCC should start regulating newspapers and magazines because they're in a lot of homes, too.
Damnit, let's get this straight: The FCC is a two-bit licensing agency and it is not charged with (a) protecting our morals or (b) selecting our content. They try to get away with that on broadcast because of the allegedly limited bandwidth on public airwaves (which is bull these days since there are so many ways to broadcast content). Satellite is not broadcast. But that doesn't stop the creeping FCC. Mark my words: They'll try to find something involving content to regulat on the Internet next.
Small world gets smaller
: Amy Langfield has a great small-blogosphere post here.
The Center for Citizens' Media and journalism
: Harry raises important issues regarding my post yesterday proposing the Center for Citizens' Media.
There is so much to say about the relationship of "journalism" and "citizens' media" that I chose not to get into it in my post yesterday (it was late and what I really wanted to do was jump off of Howard Rheingold's quote -- but that's just an excuse). So let me make a few things clear:
First, citizens' media is journalism. Not an issue, not an argument. It's a new kind of journalism but that's hard to define, for the Jell-O is still warm.
Second, I don't mean to say that citizen journalists need to learn things from big-media journalists or that they should become just like big-media journalists; I hope not, for it is the diversity of viewpoint and voice in citizens' media that I treasure.
But I do believe there are tricks of the trade -- and yes, Fleet Street Blogger, it's a trade or a craft, not a profession and certainly not an art or a science -- that could be useful to those citizen journalists who would want to learn them and so I see value in having the means to teach them.
I start with practical means of protection, such as libel law, but this extends also to things that empower citizen journalists, like teaching them how to take advantage of the Freedom of Information Act. I see value in the creation of an open, online curriculum sharing useful tricks of the trade.
The fringe benefit: It demystifies the priesthood of the journalist.
Third, I do believe that there will be benefit in bringing together big- and little-media: They need to understand the value each brings to society. They should create links that can lead to better information (that is, it leads to big media reading and quoting the citizens now that we, too, have a press). And, I hope, this will show that most practioners of big- and little-media work hard to do the right thing (the cynical assumption that the big "they" are all biased jerks is just as wrong as the snotty assumption that the "they" of weblogs are just blathering loners). I'm not headed for any Hallmark moment; I hope that big- and little-media still argue and check each other, for there is value in that. But I'd rather see them arguing about substance than snot.
In the end, it can be argued easily that big media would benefit more from all this than citizens' media, for it would see that this provides a new source of information and diverse viewpoint and it builds a new relationship to the people formerly known as their audience. But I believe everybody can benefit.
I was going to quote Harry's post on this but it's too seamless so just go read it. This discussion is just what I was hoping for.
: The other thing I meant to mention: What's needed to start such a center? Why, of course, funding. If you know anybody...
: UPDATE: Thinking about this, I may have gone overboard separating citizens' media and journalism because I was agreeing with much of what Harry said.
I disagree with him in part: Citizens' media is journalism. It need not be like the journalism we have known. But it can and should strive to improve its quality and education and discussion can help that.
Oprah, pontificating panderer
: Back when I was the TV critic at TV Guide, I shocked our flack when I refused to appear on Oprah.
I had appeared on Oprah once before, to talk about the fall season, and it was an unpleasant experience. But that wasn't why I refused this time. Instead, this episode of Oprah was supposed to be all about Oprah's own rebirth and reformation as a responsible broadcaster. And I was supposed to be there as a TV critic to bow down before her. I refused.
Remember that Phil Donahue started this form of talk TV. But it was Oprah who trashed it, bringing on people to confess their sins and fight just so they could be on TV (such is the draw of fame that people will fight to be famous even if that only makes them famous for fighting). Then, many went lower than Oprah and when it got out of hand, Oprah suddenly decided that she would stand above it. Nevermind that she started it.
The truth is that ever since then, Oprah still tittilates and sensationalizes but she has to cloak it in a veil of pompous pontification.
The very day that Howard Stern was fined, Oprah broadcast sexual and excretory material that was even more explicit (I've complained and so have many others). But you can bet she won't be fined.
But she's still at it. Yesterday, she had another show about teen sex just so she could get sex on the air. From the transcript: WINFREY: It's casual.
Ms. WEINER: It's really casual. Sex in general is casual.
WINFREY: Like--so you can do it--on the back of the school bus and everybody
knows that you're doing that and that is not a big deal?
Ms. WEINER: Well, you want to know what? Wat--look at what they're watching.
WINFREY: Yeah.
Ms. WEINER: We are watching people having sex on TV every single day.
WINFREY: Yeah, I say that. I say that. Hello.
Ms. WEINER: I mean, like, that's it.
WINFREY: Hello.
Ms. WEINER: That's it.
WINFREY: Yeah.
Ms. WEINER: If that--if that's what they're looking at, that's what they're
doing.
WINFREY: You know what? I said this--I said to--this to some friends of mine
s--who have teen-agers who were so appalled at what was going on with their
teen-agers' life. And I go, `We grew up with "Andy Griffith." We grew up
with "Andy Griffith" and "Mary Tyler Moore."' Just imagine you're 13, 14
years old; from the time that you have been born, look at how sexually
provocative television and the media has been in the past 15 years, and that's
all you've ever known or seen. Hypocrite. Oprah: You can't act as if you don't bear considerable responsibility for this. You brought sex to afternoon TV. Now I don't think you should be fined for that and I don't think you should be taken off the air for that; I just don't watch you. But you're doing nothing different from Howard Stern -- except getting away with it. So cut your holier-than-thou disapproval of sex on the rest of TV. You are the Queen of Trash.
: By the way, I haven't yet received so much as the courtesy of an automated reply to my Oprah complaint.
What is it with Islam?
: The former archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, asks some touch questions about Islam, giving a lecture in Rome and calling it, the Telegraph says, "authoritarian, inflexible and under-achieving." In a speech that will upset sensitive relations between the faiths, he denounced moderate Muslims for failing unequivocally to condemn the "evil" of suicide bombers.
He attacked the "glaring absence" of democracy in Muslim countries, suggested that they had contributed little of major significance to world culture for centuries and criticised the Islamic faith....
He acknowledged that most Muslims were peaceful people who should not be demonised. But he said that terrorist acts such as the September 11 attacks on America and the Madrid bombings raised difficult questions....
Dr Carey said that moderate Muslims must "resist strongly" the taking over of Islam by radical activists "and to express strongly, on behalf of the many millions of their co-religionists, their abhorrence of violence done in the name of Allah".
He said: "We look to them to condemn suicide bombers and terrorists who use Islam as a weapon to destabilise and destroy innocent lives. Sadly, apart from a few courageous examples, very few Muslim leaders condemn clearly and unconditionally the evil of suicide bombers who kill innocent people.
"We need to hear outright condemnation of theologies that state that suicide bombers are martyrs and enter a martyr's reward." ... : See good comments.
: Also, I've just started reading Irshad Manji's The Trouble With Islam. Haven't gotten far enough in to review yet but I like this perspective very much: a call for an Islamic Reformation.
The Daily Stern
: AGAIN: The NY Post reports that another FCC fine against Stern is coming.
: KORN: Stern is in a remix of Korn's anti-Clear-Channel Y'All Want a Single.
: F-WORD EN ESPANOL: A letter to the editor in today NY Daily News: Can anyone explain how the Federal Communications Commission is after Howard Stern instead of Luis Jimenez and Moonshadow Broussard, the hosts of "El Vacilón de la Mañana," the morning show on La Mega 97.9 FM? That's a really trashy and obscene show. Stern is nothing compared to them.
-Alberto Quiñones Well, then, shouldn't Congress and the FCC be translating the seven dirty words into Spanish... and Chinese... and Greek.... and Polish... and...
March 25, 2004
The Center for Citizens' Media
: It's time for me to talk about an initiative I'm trying to start (with NYU, if I'm lucky) to create a Center for Citizens' Media to enable the growth -- and quality -- of this new medium. I'm inspired to tell you about it now because of the Howard Rheingold quotes below.
I have a much longer spiel -- ready to send to any foundation! -- on the mission of the center but in a nutshell, I believe that we can serve four constituencies:
> Citizen journalists can benefit from education in some of the tricks of the trade (e.g., how to avoid libel, how to file freedom of information requests, how to write a killer lede). I'm not saying that bloggers need to be like big-media journalists but I am saying that media must to embrace this new wave of journalists.
> Journalism students can, for the first time in history, think and act like entrepreneurs (see Gawker, Gizmodo, Engadget). They can use weblogs to create a body of work that will get them hired. They must learn how to interact with their publics in new ways.
> Big media needs to learn how to interact with and serve and, most importantly, listen to the citizens formerly known as their audience.
> News sources -- in politics, government, business -- need to learn how to relate to citizens who can now, finally, speak to them.
I have much more to say on the topic but I'm motivated to give you a preview because I just read quotes from Howard (Smart Mobs) Rheingold, who gave a wonderful interview to Business Week on the Internet and politics... and journalism: Rheinhold: I think there's a Darwinian process when you have a large number of people doing it. If 10 million people are publishing their own opinions instead of sitting slack-jawed in front of the tube, that's got to be healthier for the public sphere. The mass media have disempowered people from the process and made them feel disempowered.
Business Week: What could make blogging more useful to the masses?
Rheingold: What's lacking is grounding in good journalism. It's a learned skill that requires some tutelage by people who understand it. I wish that the people in the news business, instead of fearing the bloggers, would help educate them. I'll be teaching a course at NYU -- the first to bridge the department of journalism and ITP, with Jay Rosen and Clay Shirky -- this summer and fall as a first step toward creating this center and serving the needs Howard identifies.
Best day ever
: VH1's Best Week Ever blog has lots of good, newsy, fun posts today.
Oh, Noam
: Chomsky has a blog.
What's amazing is not its cant -- nothing amazing there -- but how badly it is written. I spoke at a demo of about 20,000 people in Vancouver, very enthusiastic and engaged, and as far as I could tell, inspired to go on. Also to audiences of several thousands, which seemed the same. The pre-war demonstrations were without historical precedent, and surely important. The anniversary demos were also without precedent, and again surely will have an impact. Without precedent? Did you put yourself to sleep through the '60s? Or getaloada this doozie: There are also tactical questions. Those who prefer to ignore the real world are also undermining any hope of reaching any popular constituency. Few are likely to pay attention to someone who approaches them by saying, loud and clear: "I don't care whether you have a slightly better chance to receive health care or to support your elderly mother; or whether there will be a physical environment in which your children might have a decent life; or a world in which children may escape destruction as a result of the violence that is inspired by the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Cheney-etc. crowd, which could become extreme; and on, and on. Repeat: "slightly better." That matters to sensible people, surely the great mass of people who are the potential victims. So those who prefer to ignore the real world are also saying: "please ignore me." And they will achieve that result. This blog should come with aspirin. [via Anil, who calls it "red meat for warbloggers"... if only there were meat there]
Copy cop
: Reuters is going to use FAST search to find unauthorized uses of its content and violation of its copyright on the Internet and in print. That's a clever use of the technology. But the first time Reuters goes after a blogger for snipping too long a quote -- how long is too long? -- there'll be a storm. The FAST press release here.
Dirty old man
: Just like the good old Clinton days: In the rally at which Dean endorsed Kerry, there were lots of pretty intern-aged enthusiasts behind the podium.
Bloggercon: The business of blogs
: I'm delighted that Dave Winer has asked me to handle a session at Bloggercon (I had a ball playing Oprah -- complete with bad words -- at the last BCon).
The topic: Making blogs a business.
Please start the discussion here and now. In Dave's wise view of these sessions, there are no panels -- hell, in this area, there are no experts (yet) -- and so everybody is on the panel, everybody is an expert, it's all your show. Shape it now. Ask questions. Push the discussion. Let's get to Cambridge ready to rock 'n' roll.
Let's make clear from the very start: Many people don't want their blogs to be a business. Dandy.
But for those who do, I want to see everyone in the room answer two questions (or you tell me what the questions are) in a giant white-board business brainstorming session. My starting list:
1. What is the business potential of blogs? What is their value? Can they sell products? Can they sell subscriptions (to themselves or to other media)? Can they provide consumer opinion and buzz? What about sponsorship and underwriting? How many tip jars can the world support? What about blogging for The Man? Is Google enough to support this medium? Let's sell blogs to ourselves and find all the ways they can be supported financially.
2. What's required to make that happen -- from a business and a technical perspective? Do we need reliable ways to count traffic, demographics, behavior, authority, and so on? Do we need technology for standard ad calls and reporting? Do we need our own PR to sell the value of blogs to marketers?
And we should also ask: What are the booby traps? How should bloggers handle conflict of interest? Do we need to guard against our readers being ripped off by bad advertisers? Do bloggers need to worry about being ripped off? Does it ruin this personal medium to become a business medium?
That's just a start. So keep the discussion going now -- here and on the Bloggercon site.
Hope to see you and hear you in Cambridge!
: Here's the run-up to Jay Rosen's session on journalism at Bloggercon (I'll be there).
: And here's the start of the power law discussion (based on Clay Shirky's writing), to be led by Nick Denton.
: Henry Copeland of Blogads is properly reminding us all that weblogs already make money -- thanks to Blogads (plus Google AdSense). Sorry. I assumed that. No need to sell the sold. Blogads is growing like mad. But I'm also talking about how to get the most out of that -- for example, how do we get more blogs involved and convince more advertisers to use them -- and how to imagine new value and new revenue; let's dream!
WTF
: Damn. I have tried to move every mountain to go to David Isenberg's WTF but those damned mountains won't budge. The agenda looks great. If you're around NY, go! And blog!
Koranized for your protection
: Fleet Street Blogger sends us to an absurd story in the Guardian about the Guardian:
A newsagent cut pictures out of the Guardians he sold this week because it offended him. The picture was of a sword over the Koran.
As FleetStreet points out, what's even more disturbing is that the customers who bought that paper and the paper itself didn't complain but instead tripped over themselves to be PC about it: In a letter published in the paper yesterday, a human rights lawyer, John Rowe QC, described buying his Guardian "in this most tolerant of cities" and finding that it had a front page hole.
He said yesterday: "I bought my Guardian, went to Starbuck's, got my tall latte, settled down, opened the paper - and found I could see Deansgate through it.
"I raced back to the shop and asked 'What have you done here?' and was told 'I have done it to all of them'."
In his letter, Mr Rowe said: "We parted amicably and I quite enjoyed being tolerant." Well, yes, that's where the media world is going: Why not go to a newsstand that matches your sensibilities: We take out all stories Republican [or Democrats] wouldn't like as an addes service for our customers.
Arrrrgh. [Thanks, Nick]
Jeesh
: I happen to have today's Rumsfeld briefing on and the questions are particularly dumb today.
One guy asks how many terrorists are there who want to attack the U.S. Well, how the hell could he know? Hold still, Osama, it's time for the annual American-hating terrorist census.
And then another reporter gets all PC asking whether it was in poor taste for the President to joke about trying to find WMDs at last night's radio and TV correspondents' dinner -- and Rumsfeld wasn't even at the dinner and didn't tell the joke or laugh at it. Oy. Spare me a world in which the secretary of defense has to pass a daily PC cuddly test.
The apology
: Something's not resting well with Richard Clarke's apology for September 11. He said before the commission and families of victims yesterday: i also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11, to them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television.
Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter, because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness. This assumes that government absolutely could have stopped the attack -- and failed. Oh, I wish we could be guaranteed that government absolutely could stop these things but I've seen no proof or assurance of that.
He's practically treating government the way a fundamentalist treats God: an omnipotent being who could and would intervene and fix this if he wanted to. So he's turning government into a bad god -- is that thus a devil? -- who could have stopped these attacks but didn't; it failed.
It may seem like he's quite the mensch by including himself in this apology: "I failed." But he's throwing himself on his rhetorical sword so he can accuse the government -- the administration -- of failing and thus, by its sins of omission and negligence, of practically being complicit in the deaths. I find that offensive; As I said yesterday, it plays into the politicization of 9/11; it makes this about us vs. us instead of us vs. them.
When I first heard Clarke's apology and the start of his testimony, I thought there might be something to listen to here. I haven't said much about Clarke because I haven't yet decided what I think of what he's saying. But I have to say that as his apology sat on the stomach like a bad burrito and came up this morning like a burp, I came to think that his apology was disingenous, melodramatic, and ultimately divisive.
:UPDATES
: David Schuler has more to say on the apology, including this: "There is so much room for the assignment of blame that the very act of attempting to assign blame is frivolous."
: Rex Hammock is mad: Okay, Mr. Clarke. The government that failed those families has now dedicated billions of dollars and hundreds of lives of its courageous military to stamp out those who threaten our shores. In all theaters of battle, young American soldiers and sailors have printed the the words, "We shall never forget" on weapons, vehicles and military aircraft in honor of those who died on 9/11.
Mr. Clarke, what similar level of resitution have you displayed for your failure other than an attempt to cash in on that tragedy with your book promotion? And now, on the graves of those victims, you grandstand an apology to promote its marketing efforts.
So therefore, Mr. Clarke, I suggest you do this: Announce today that ALL PROCEEDS of the book (not just a portion of the profits, but ALL PROCEEDS) will go to one of the funds that have been set up for the families of the victims...or another specific charity that will help give meaning to your disingenous apology. : EVENING UPDATE: Scott Rosenberg responds to the apology: But just reading those words in newspaper reports made me think that the words of the former head of counterterrorism will go down as one of those defining moments in American public life, like the Army-McCarthy hearings' "Have you no decency, sir, at long last" or the Watergate hearings' "What did the president know and when did he know it?"
Because Clarke's words exposed a deep emotional vacuum in the Bush administration's handling of 9/11. Bush and his team won widespread acclaim for their bullhorn-toting, Bible-waving, smart-bomb-dropping reaction to the terror attacks. And each of those responses had its place, accomplished something in the long process of coming to terms with the death and destruction of that day. But the Bush approach, with its macho swagger punctuated by interludes of lower-lip-biting moments of silence for our collective loss, has never fully satisfied the national psyche. Oh, fercrhissake, this is not about feelings! This is about life and death! This is about finding bad guys and killing them before they kill us. Enough with apologies and emotions and psyches. This is war. Let's go win it.
Condemn what?
: Will the U.N. also condemn the Palestinians sending a 14-year-old boy to Israel as a suicide bomber?
The Daily Bob
: Heh.
There's now a Save Bob Edwards site. [via Wonkette]
The Daily Stern
: THE BOSS: Viacom chief and long-time Howard booster Mel Karmazin defends Stern to the Wall Street Journal: "You know, I think he has been a target," Karmazin continued. "If you think about what happened, it was that Janet Jackson happened. I get subpoenaed. They now talk about radio as well as that. Another company canceled Howard's show for no reason other than that they were going to Washington to testify and just didn't seem to have the courage to stand up for programming that they aired. And we absolutely stand up for what Howard is doing."
: SATELLITE ECONOMICS: The LA Times comes a bit late to the Stern-impact-on-satellite story and finds an XM exec negotiating in public, poormouthing about how they can't afford Stern: Hugh Panero, XM Satellite's chief executive, pooh-poohed the possibility, saying he doubted whether XM or Sirius could afford the reported $20 million Stern pulls down a year through his contract with Viacom Inc.'s Infinity Broadcasting.
They might be able to come up with that kind of dough soon, though: XM's and Sirius' stocks are trading near 52-week highs as the number of subscribers and satellite-capable radios keeps increasing. Don't believe the XM guy; he has an audience of one -- Stern's agent -- in mind.
Let's look at the numbers:
I saw a number recently that said that Stern brings in $100 million in radio.
If he went to satellite, let's say he took a quarter of his 8-million-plus listeners with him.
So let's say that 2 million new subscribers come in -- doubling the current total satellite radio customer base -- and that they each pay $10 per month (more for Sirius). That would be $240 million per year. And they would have produced that growth without marketing and subscriber-acquisition costs; Stern will have done that for them.
So even if you cut that in half and it's still more than Stern reportedly produces now.
And it builds the industry. The impact on the stock would be monumental.
And that means that the satellite company could pay Stern in great measure in stock and options.
Oh, they can afford him... if they can build radios fast enough (which, Stern says, is an issue).
The numbers surprised me. His impact could be huge.
Meanwhile, see the AdAge story I quoted yesterday: Broadcast radio will get safer and older and smaller. Satellite will then grow even bigger. And the stock will rise more.
I'm not selling my Sirius stock yet.
MediaDrop's Tom (and my colleague Peter Hauck) wonder about whether Stern could also offer his show to both satellite companies. That could work, though then neither would have an exclusive edge and neither would give him equity.
: MORE ON THE BANDWAGON: Sun-Times columnist and movie critic Richard Roeper comes out for Stern and against the FCC.
: FAME: Choire Sicha is doing radio interview on Stern. OK, I'm jealous.
[Confidential to producers: I'm available for opinions and sound bites.]
: ATTORNEY TO THE STARS: HowardStern.com is linking to Ernie Miller's great pieces on the FCC's insane decisions.
: THE RIGHT TO READ: I had an email conversation with Ernie asking about the rights of the audience in all this and what standing we have in the cases that are sure to follow:
> Do we have a right to listen (which Ernie said is called the "right to read" in legal discussion): That is, can we argue that our First Amendment rights have been violated if the FCC successfully stifles political speech (no matter how it gets there)?
> Do we have a right to a spokesman? If a person speaks for us and he is silenced, does that violate our rights and give us standing?
> Do we have a right to be free of the fear that the government will fine us if we say something that, under its vague regulation, is deemed indecent or profane while we are, say, being interviewed by a radio reporter or yelling something at a broadcast concert or sporting event or calling into a talk-radio show?
It's doubtful that we could file suit against the FCC but we can file friend-of-the-court briefs once suits are filed. And as Ernie said, free speech is a matter of distribution: There's a sender and a receiver and when the rights of one are affected, so are the rights of the other.
: PREVIOUS DAILY STERN POSTS: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.
March 24, 2004
War
: Britt Blaser and I talked about war under the sun in San Diego and he reprises our conversation today after seeing my post, below, on the unseemly side of the 9/11 hearings. Britt writes: I lobbied for this notion that we somehow need to separate one's personal fate from one's actions, that the battle plan must be consistent and smart, not hostage to a few casualties. I believe our nation's battle plan is to live according to the Bill of Rights, even if it costs some of us our lives once in a while....
[He quotes my post below.]
This is where Jeff and I diverge in how to wage war well. Rage hampers your ability to function in combat, and we are in combat. One prevails by respecting the enemy, not in seeing him as inhuman. Further, I'm convinced that no one is soulless, though many on both sides are deluded by fundamentalist leaders and happy to kill in their personal quest for meaning. Just as our vets have been to Viet Nam and met and hugged and wept with their former enemy, someday Iraqis and Yanks will sit down in Baghdad over sweet tea and grieve for the lost days of their youth, seeking to maim each other. In his comments, I replied: We don't disagree and we do disagree.
I certainly believe that the terrorists are soulless -- just as I firmly believe that Hitler and his henchmen were soulless. Not recognizing that -- not recognizing that they can stoop to depths we cannot imagine -- only weakens our defense.
We do agree that we can sit down in Iraq over tea as friends. We can do that today. We liberated the Iraqis from a dictator; we are making friends on the street and online; we have every reason to be friends, especially if we get our act together and help build their democracy and economy.
And I certainly agree, as I said in my post, that there is value in reviewing mistakes so we do not make them again -- but there is no value in fingerpointing at either the Bush or the Clinton administrations for perceived political benefit.
The truth is, as a colleague of mine said today, there is no political benefit in this. If you say that Bush dropped the ball then you have to say that more drastic action was necessary from both Bush and Clinton: We should have invaded Afghanistan long ago on our own, damn the political and international consequences; we should follow the Blair doctrine to preempt terrorism and tyranny before it can attack us and others and thus if we believed that there was the capability of weapons development, we should have invaded Iraq; we should invade North Korea... all that comes out of sniping at Bush for dropping balls.
I am no fan of Bush but I am no fan of turning 9/11 into political taffy.
We disagree about one more thing: I defend the Bill of Rights as strongly as the next patriot and I believe that we do not need to harm the Bill of Rights to defend our nation against terrorism, but we also do not need to be stupid.
I have no objection whatsoever to airlines handing over every bit of personal information they happen to gather about me, for example, if they do so for everyone flying and if we manage to catch the next terrorist. My rights will not have been violated but if I am killed the next time they strike, my rights and those of my children will most certainly have been violated.
We must know our enemy. We must fight our enemy. We must not fight each other as we fight our enemy, united.
Plaxo paranoia
: I'm not a paranoid guy but I never respond to a Plaxo contact-updating request because I just don't know enough about the company. Jason Calacanis reports that this came up at PCForum; Plaxo responded to his questions on their business model in his comments. I still don't trust it.
Terror foiled
: Bomb found and disarmed under French railroad.
Reputation manipulation
: Smart Mobs sends us to RepCheck, a new venture to manage reputations; it "allows users to review, rate and search our database of people's reputations for both business and social purposes."
Now this is frightening.
Sounds like it has the potential to become systematized libel.
Imagine if all the Howard Stern haters trolling in the comments went in there and rated me (don't get any ideas, guys!). Imagine what right-wingers could to do lefties and vice versa. Imagine what competitors could do. Imagine what former lovers could do.
Oh, it sounds cool. But this is another artificial -- and scary -- social network, one that can be used against people. What a sucky idea.
I was going to delve in and see what was there, but I'll be damned if I'll give them my personally identifiable information.
The truth is that the Internet is already a reputation management system for those who know how to use it.
And I find it amazing that the people behind this don't put up their names and don't put up their own "repscores."
As NASA begat Tang, Dean begets social software
: Zack Rosen, who helped create Deanspace, has just set up a new venture to bring the power of groupware to nonprofits and such with software and help. Dan Gillmor reports, quoting Zack (the nephew of proud uncle Jay, by the way): We want to create a much cheaper, open, and powerful option for these kinds of services. The goal is to have a full-time development shop that spearheads projects inside open-source communities working on the applications these organizations need, and a consulting firm that can support the toolsets. This is a much more efficient and productive way to do this kind of development. This is great. The possibilities for this are endless -- and international.
From free to cheap... to free?
: Music can't catch a break. So music was expensive. Then it was free on Napster. Then Napster was killed and it was cheap on Apple. And now it's cheaper at Walmart, which just undercut Apple et al with 88-cent songs. Walmart insists that it's not a loss-leader at that price and that it will make a profit on music (and thus that it's not dumping music on the market, in essence) -- but even if that's true, it's probably true only for Walmart. So, once again, the profitability of music is sliced and the price of music slides back toward zero.
: Of course, good often comes out of disruption and the CBC speculates about the kind of music we'll be listening to in five years, thanks to the age of the download. MIT Technology Review summarizes the questions: Will lowering the barriers of entry to the music market encourage more grassroots participation? Will the ability to issue one song at a time enable musicians to become even more topical, serving, as Chuck D described it, as the black man’s CNN and responding to news events as they happen? Will it increase the global flow of music so that we have access to songs from around the world which might otherwise not make it into the American market? Will the focus on singles, each of which have to stand on their own, decrease the diversity of musical offerings, since there will no longer be the kinds of novelty or experimental songs that used to be called B sides? Will music consumers become better informed and thus more discriminating? Will downloading produces songs that all sound alike or will it produce more mutations, niche markets, and subgenres? What role will blogging play in shaping the flow of popular music in our culture? These are some of the possibilities considered here, along with some tea leaves that we are all trying to read to determine what the future holds for popular music. These are, of course, not the doom and gloom scenarios that are most often being pushed by the record industry itself—and that’s part of the fun!
NPR: Age discrimination?
: NPR is ousting Bob Edwards as the host of its morning show. Time for a change and all that. New role. He's 56 and has been there from the start and has done a good job from the start (no matter what you think of NPR's politics, he's a pro). In the Times story, he's as politic as he can be and his colleagues don't dar call this what it is: Killing the graybeard. I'd expect that from commercial networks (except, in fact, they do leave Andy Rooney Dan Rather in the job long past the time they became bores). But NPR? Tsk-tsk.
9/11 commissions and books and politicking
: I haven't said much about the current blame game going on over September 11th in books, hearings, and political speeches.
The terrorists came within a matter of yards of killing me.
But I don't blame the Bush or Clinton administrations for that. I blame the terrorists.
Could we have stopped them? Only with some damned lucky breaks. We can't make believe that any system would have guaranteed catching them before the act.
For we have to remember that these are pathologically insane and evil beasts and it's impossible to guess how low they will stoop.
If we were lucky enough to have intelligence inside their devil's cult, then, yes, we might have foiled their plot. But that's obviously hard to do.
If we were lucky enough to have stopped one of them for speeding and locked them up, then we might have foiled their plot. But that's like counting on a lottery ticket.
What matters now is learning the lessons we can learn -- and to that extent, the hearings are valuable -- to protect us as best we can.
But I find the blame game going on now unseemly and divisive and unproductive and distracting and just a little bit tasteless.
I saw people die that day not because of anything we didn't do but because of what a bunch of soulless murderers did do. Let's never forget that.
It's us against them, not us against us.
The Daily Stern
: PROFANE: Ernie Miller digs into the FCC's f-word decision again and, dig as he might, he still can't find good law, good definitions, good guidance, or good sense: The FCC's new "profane" language doctrine is a mess just waiting to be challenged. The opportunity to embarrass the FCC is there. Which broadcast personality will accept the challenge? : OFF WITH HIS FINGER: Drudge makes a big deal of American Idol judge Simon Cowell scratching his face with his no-no finger and Fox producers going through talmudic torture over whether this was a gesture or a scratch and whether this should have aired or not in this, the day of boobaphobia.
Is the F-finger the same as the F-word to the FCC?
How much more ludicrious can this get?
March 23, 2004
Visa help...
: Hossein Derakhshan, the pioneering Iranian blogger, needs some help or advice so he can get a visa to come from Toronto to Cambridge on April 17 for Bloggercon.
The problem is scheduling: The consulate in Toronto first schedule him for a meeting on April 21 (four days after B'con) and then for April 1 (when Hoder is in Switzerland visiting the family he can't visit in Iran).
So I am going to write letters to the cosulate and probably to a senator's office trying to get help.
Suggestions anyone?
Connections, anyone?
RSS, the history
: Jason Calacanis found a decent summary of the history of RSS from Microsoft. I have no idea whether it's politically correct in the RSS/Atom world (and don't much care); I found it useful (but only since I'm working on implementing more RSS).
The new guy in town
: It's not as if the media business hasn't been waking up to this, but it's significant to note that Google now admits it's a media company.
Google is the ultimate repackager of content in the medium that is all about repackaging.
And, like all media, it's making its money by using that content to attract audience, whom it then delivers to advertisers.
This doesn't cut out the original content creators, of course; Google still links to them. But it changes the way that content creators should be creating that content: They need to get links and Googlejuice to rise in the ranks; they need to write compelling headlines and leads so they are spotted in searches and GoogleNews.
The Daily Stern:
: PURITANISM HURTS PROFITS: Ad Age reports (it's not online yet) that advertisers say the indecent indecency legislation and the FCC's increased puritanism will hurt the entire broadcast industry: ...media buyers are concerned it could hurt broadcasters' ability to compete with cable and satellite media and make it more difficult to reach a mass audience.
"It has the potential of raising the average age of the network TV audience," said Allen Banks, exec VP-North American media director for Publicis Groupe's Saatchi & Saatchi. That is death to the broadcast business. You want to talk about how you want more voices in media? Well, this will only lead to deeper business problems and thus more consolidation. "If there is a big crackdown, it could affect advertising," said Rich Hamilton, CEO of ZenithOptimedia Group. "A certain amount of provocative material is material viewers are interested in watching." : FIGHTING BACK: Mancow Muller, the frighteningly intense | |