« March 09, 2004 | Main
| March 11, 2004 »

March 10, 2004

We edit
: Dan Gillmor just put up the first chapter of his book, inviting edits.

LINK | Comments (6)

Teens online
: Jupiter's David Card studies teens online and finds:

Fewer than 20 percent of online teens say they visit the sites of their favorite TV networks, radio stations, or magazines on a monthly basis, but the same is true for adults. Compared to adults, more online teens are regular users of instant messaging (71 percent) and personal Web pages (30 percent), including Weblogs, or blogs....Online programmers and marketers should develop tie-ins with music programming and focus on activities that involve highly interactive engagement, including instant messaging, blogs, message boards, polls, personal pages, and gaming.

LINK | Comments (3)

Just turn the dial to the left
: The liberal radio network, Air America, is going on the air on March 31. Here's the program lineup.

“I’m so happy that Air America Radio will be on in three battleground states, New York, Illinois and California….no wait…those aren’t the battleground states. What the hell are we doing?” said Franken.
Air America Radio has signed actress and comedienne Janeane Garofalo, hip hop icon Chuck D, radio personality Randi Rhodes, and political humorist Sam Seder to join Franken at the network. Environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., “The Daily Show” co-creator Lizz Winstead, and business-of-the-media analyst on the public radio program “Marketplace” Martin Kaplan will also join the network....
Air America Radio will debut its programming on radio stations WLIB (AM 1190am) in New York, WNTD (AM 950) in Chicago and KBLA (AM 1580) in Los Angeles and a station in San Francisco to be named before launch....
Live streaming of Air America Radio shows, along with show archives, will be available on www.airamericaradio.com.

Now if they really wanted to do something new and fresh, they'd create weblogs and forums and chats and wikis and places for the audience to contribute material, even audio; they do more than just start another radio network, this one leaning left; they'd create a two-way network. But that's just me talking.
I see no evidence of such thinking. The site (which could change before launch) defines "interacting" as sending them email. Lost opportunity, liberals.

LINK | Comments (18)

The White House B&B back in business
: Kathy Kinsley reports that Bush is having big contributors over to the Lincoln bedroom. She doesn't have any problem with that, nor do I, nor did we when Clinton did it. Except, says Kathy, "that I do think it's somewhat hypocritical for him to be doing something he criticized." Yup.

LINK | Comments (13)

No comment
: Prof. Bainbridge has the right perspective on comments.

LINK | Comments (5)

Democracy, flowering
: Zeyad reports reaction to the new Iraqi constitution:

At the same day, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani shortly issued a fatwa in which he stated his disapproval of the new law, describing it as 'an obstacle in the path of a permanent constitution'. No, mate, it's not. It's an obstacle in your way to put it right. Go back to your istihaza books and thick fiqh volumes, and quit meddling in our affairs until you at least apply for an Iraqi citizenship. And to tell the truth, this is a good thing because I would be actually worried if Sistani approved the new constitution.

RTWT (read the whole thing).

LINK | Comments (1)

The bloody bits
: Capitalizing on the runaway success of Mel Gibson's Passion, CBS is bringing back its Jesus miniseries -- but it cutting to the chase by airing only part II: the crucifixion.

LINK | Comments (3)

Wolcott annoints blogs

: The April Vanity Fair has a great column from the great columnist James Wolcott coming to praise blogs.

Says the head: "Don't dismiss blogs as the online rantings of B-list writers. Interlinked and meritocratic, seething with fierce debate and rivalries, they're the best thing to hit journalism since the rise of the political pamphlet." All kinds of people at the keyboards are blushing now.

The column isn't online and because I will accept some second-hand blame for that, I'll do penance by typing in just a few highlights and links to give Wolcott a little link love. As he moves along, Wolcott uses all this as a means of arguing that the left is hot and the right is not; that's the raison de column.

He begins by talking about the state of the online art only a few years ago...

...bloggers tended to be lumped in the amateur division and relegated to the draft basement. Most were considered harmless hobbyists, like ham-radio operators and model-train enthusiasts, or personal diarists doodling on the laptop, hoping someday to get laid...

Far from being a refuge for nose-picking narcissists, blogs have speedily matured into the most vivifying, talent-swapping, socializing breakthrough in popular journalism since the burst of coffeehouse periodicals and political pamphleteering in the 18th century, when The Spectator, The Tatler, and sundry other sheets liberated writing from literary patronage. If Adison and Steele, the editors of The Spectator and The Tatler, were alive and holding court at Starbucks, they'd be WiFi-ing into a joint blog....

Internet space may appear to be an expanding universe of uncharted dimensions with no fixed center or hitching post, but a brain scan of the blogosphere would reveal the same hemispheric divide between left and right that prevails in the flesh realm. Not that there isn't some friendly fraternization... But mostly liberals and conservatives congregate at their own tables in the cafeteria and shoot straw wrappers at each other, dirty looks....

After doing a very good job explaining blogs -- I'll spare you since I assume you attended that class -- Wolcott tells the story of the Blogging of the Presidency site ("featuring one of the most cerebral, provocative, history-enriched ongoing symposia to be found on the Web. Its mainstays include Jay Rosen, Stirling Newberry, and Christopher Lydon, who are to political blogdom what Samuel Johnson and his fellow members of the Club were to London, only without the port and cold mutton) and its radio show (aw, shucks, I get mentioned), on which Andrew Sullivan and Atrios bitchslapped each other of anonymity.

It wasn't exactly a rematch of the Norman Mailer-versus-Gore Vidal clash of titans on The Dick Cavett Show, but the issue percolated, coming to a boil with an article on Salon a week later. The author, Christopher Farah, lit into the whole pirate crew of "anonybloggers"...

Wolcott does an on-the-one-hand-on-the-other about anonymous and pseudonymous blogging and the cloak for attack it can provide and then says:

And I would add, based on my own subjective impressions, the reason Andrew Sullivan attracts so many personal attacks isn't that he's recognizable and his attackers aren't, but that he makes it so easy and fun. He's like a bad tenor begging to be pelted with fresh product.

On the surface, the battle between Andy and Atrios is a minor spat between a drama queen and a shrinking violet, but it has deeper rippes. That Sullivan, a well-known byliner, television pundit, and former Gap model, felt impelled to pick a fight with a lesser-known blogger was a sign of insecurity -- shaky status. It signifies the shift of influence and punch-power in the blogosphere from the right to the left. It is Atrios, not Andrew Sullivan, who is in ascendance in the blogosphere. Only a few years ago, the energy and passion were largely the property of the right hemisphere, where Sullivan, Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds, and N.R.O.'s Victor Davis Hanson fired up the neurons against defeatism, anti-Americanism, and death's-head specter of Islamic terrorism billowing from the ruins of Ground Zero....

When I stray into these sites now, it's like entering the visitor's center of a historical landmark. The rhododentrons need dusting, and the tour guide isn't listening to himself, having done his spiel endless times before.

Liberal blogs are now where the bonfires blaze.

OK, my fingers are tired and you'll need to go buy the magazine -- on newsstands now! -- to read the rest, as you should. Wolcott, having set himself in the anti-Iraq-war side of the aisle, goes on to give huge praise to Kos and Josh Marshall. He takes his readers through the discussion of the Adopt A Journalist meme. And he ends:

Patti Smith's war cry about rock 'n' roll was "We created it -- let's take it over." Journalism can't and shouldn't be taken over by bloggers, but they can take away some of the toys, and pull down the thrones.

Among the many, many bloggers plugged by Wolcott, in addition to those already mentioned: Mickey Kaus, Virginia Postrel, Matthew Yglesias, SullyWatch, Greg Easterbrook, Lew Rockwell, Media Whores Online, MFML, Jonah Goldberg, TBogg, Calpundit's Kevin Drum, Juan Cole, Brad DeLong, Daily Howler, Al Giordano, Steve Gilliard (and I'm sure I missed a few).

LINK | Comments (22)

Hi, is Chris Rock there?
: Laura has an absolutely wonderful story of happening to get Chris Rock's old cell-phone number:

CALLER: It's Adam.
LAURA: Adam?
CALLER: [In a jovial manner] It's Adam Sandler!
LAURA: [Realizes instantly it was indeed Adam Sandler -- there's no mistaking that distinctive voice of his] Oh, hi!
ADAM: Hi!
LAURA: Hi!
ADAM: Hi!
LAURA: [Overcome with sudden punchiness, from the craziness of one minute quietly winding down for bedtime, and then talking to Adam Sandler the next] So, are you calling Chris for business or pleasure?
ADAM: [Laughs, slightly taken off guard by this question, but still retaining his happy-go-lucky attitude] I'm calling Chris to say hello and chat. So... is he there?
LAURA: [Knows it's confession time, but tries her best to retain formerly buoyant personality] No, well... he's not. You see, I'm actually just this random New York City girl who happened to get Chris' old cell phone number....
ADAM: [Lets out a big laugh] Wow, that's really funny! That's great! You must be having a fun time with this!

Read it all; you will enjoy. [via Adam Curry]
: In the comments, folks are speculating about what Laura SHOULD have said...

LINK | Comments (8)

Smart
: Washington Monthly hires Calpundit to blog.

LINK | Comments (4)

The relationship medium
: Ton got a job. He didn't get the job through his blog, but he got a killer reference from Martin because they built a relationship on their blogs. This medium creates deep and trusting personal relationships. Name a medium before that could do that.
: Fun comments ensue.
: UPDATE: Hugh MacLeod creates an ad to get adman Steve Hall a job. Most cool.

LINK | Comments (5)

Terrorism is...
: Die Zeit's blog asks (auf Deutsch) what is the definition of terrorism? The leader so far, translated by Heiko:

Terrorism is if something blows up and it wasn't set off by the good guys.
PS We are the good guys

LINK | Comments (6)

Das Blog
: Loic met Heiko and more German bloggers in Hamburg.

We had great discussions about old europe and how we believe the european blogger generation can become influential in the near future and hopefully do something so that Europe does not get even older. Let's bridge together the european blogosphere and change Europe so that India and China do not eat us very fast in the global agenda.

LINK | Comments (1)

It's about people

: Steve Hall reports today that some of the biggest advertisers are getting together today to discuss new methods of TV measurement -- measuring the audience for ads instead of programs.

This is actually a big deal and it's the way the advertising industry is going.

I spent many tortured months on the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC) committee that was setting standards for online measurement. At first, they tried to mimic the way measurement has always been done in big media: How big is a web site? How many page views does it get? How big is its audience?

But it turned out that hardly any advertiers wanted those "site audits" (and thus hardly any site owners wanted to pay for them). Instead, advertisers wanted "flight audits," they wanted to verify that they got what they paid for in terms of audience to their ads. This makes sense.

Now TV is doing the same thing. But it's about more than just auditing numbers. It's about how advertising will be bought and sold -- how they will market to us -- in the future. And that, I believe, will be all about ad hoc networks of people rather than content.

It's what I've been saying will make advertising work in this blog world: You can buy a network of people who care about food because they read (or write) food blogs or posts. Or you can buy a network of friends, the people who link to each other. And so on....

The same is true of online in general: Rather than buying advertising by content adjacency (e.g., tire ads in sports sections), it's much better to buy advertising by consumer attention. If you are in the market for tires, then you want advertising giving you the best price. Yesterday's study of Internet soccer moms said they welcome and seek out advertising when it is relevant to them personally.

I was talking to a cable network exec yesterday and said the same thing will be happening in TV in a digital age: They'll sell a travel advertiser, for example, just east coast audience across multiple networks -- news, sports, entertainment -- rather than necessarily having to start a travel channel to get travel advertising.

That was the misplaced assumption of a world with more channels: Media would have to create new targeted content to get targeted advertising and then would have to advertise that target to get anyone to see it. That's how the Internet started off. But when you turn your attention from buying content to marketing to consumers, all that changes.

So the network is redefined. It's not a network of content. It's a network of people. And really hasn't that always been the holy grail of advertising: It's about us, the consumers, the people.

: UPDATES: The VCs chime in. See Ed Sim here. And Fred Wilson here.

LINK | Comments (5)

The daily Stern

: Howard Stern's source in the FCC tells him today that there have been meetings at a high-level in the agency strategizing when to fine Stern based on the impact it would have on the election of George Bush. Some argue that fining him now will make him a martyr and help him rally voters against Bush; others say not fining him will make him look like a boy who cried wolf; others say they should get rid of Stern now because, to their surprise, much of his audience does vote. and he can have an impact on the election.

If that is true, that could not be a clearer violation of the First Amendment: an agency of government using fines for political ends to affect political speech.

If that is true, if any such discussion occurred in the agency, then they should be hauled before Congress or courts right now.

If that is true, what's the difference between this and Nixon's enemies list or J. Edgar Hoover's harassment of civil rights and antiwar leaders?

So let's find out whether it is true: Stern should sue and subpoena their asses. Or a legislator with balls should call for a hearing.

: I wasn't going to have a daily Stern today. But damn the luck, there's news to report. And that's bad news.

: Stern got on the air today and said he is tired of the fight and never wanted to be the target of such attacks -- "I just wanted to make people laugh in the car on the way to work."

He said the religious right is winning. And they are.

And so he has pretty much decided to pull himself off the air. Now Stern often said such things and changes his mind. He says he is "80 percent there." But he is not only tired of the attacks but also sees what is happening in Congress, where fines are being multiplied and will go after not only radio stations but also performers. They're gunning not just for the media companies but also for Howard Stern and Janet Jackson.

Stern will go to satellite, that much is now clear. I have my Sirius stock.

: The big news is that the Senate Commerce Committee passed legislation to impose huge fines on indecency -- whatever the hell that is -- and more:

Following the lead of the House Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this month, the Senate panel approved increasing potential fines for indecency ten-fold, from the current $27,500 to a maximum of $275,000 for a first-time offense by a broadcaster. The fines can escalate to $375,00 for a second violation and $500,000 for further incidents....
Under provisions passed by the panel, the FCC can double fines for indecent, obscene or profane language or images when the offending programming was scripted or planned in advance, or if the audience was unusually large, such as for a national or international sporting or awards event.
That would encompass entertainment award shows, during which artists have uttered expletives. The bill approved by the panel also would give the FCC the ability to impose the same fines on artists as it can impose on broadcasters, if the on-air talent willfully used indecent or profane language or images when they knew it would be broadcast.

They want to put media companies out of business. They want to put entertainers -- and comedians and commentators -- they don't like into bankruptcy and shut them up. They want to censor via fines. Charlie sent me a great link to Classless Warfare, which tallies the damage:

As for the radio fines, this puts Clearchannel and Infinity Broadcasting in a tough spot, especially when it comes to their more popular radio hosts. 'Bubba The Love Sponge' was fired by Clearchannel after they were hit with a $750,000 fine by the FCC for 27 incidents of 'indecency.' From what I understand, the incidents are counted by radio station. 'Bubba' was broadcast on something like 4-5 stations.
Howard Stern on the other hand, is on something like 60 stations. Under the current proposed House bill, if he were fined for 8 incidents, that would be 480 total because it would be 8 for each station. At $500K a clip, Infinity would rack up fines of $240 million! If you were an executive at Viacom (which owns Infinity), would you rather can Stern or face hundreds of millions of dollars in fines every year?
What's worse is the House bill allows the $500K fine to be applied to individuals, not just the corporations who hold the licenses. Think Sterm wants to get a bill for $240 from the FCC? Hell no. He'd quit first and who could blame him?
The real problem is that many people won't care. "Why should I give a s*** if Howrd Stern quits or gets fired?" How long before Congress decides the Internet should fall under the same jurisdiction? Think Oliver would keep posting pictures of babes knowing that some dolt at the FCC might determine it's 'indecent' and subject him personally to fines?

: The Senate legislation gets even stupider and more frightening. Getaloada this:

Perhaps most controversial will be an amendment by Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) that would impose a moratorium on rules passed by Congress late last year that allow for some media organizations to get larger. The amendment, which passed on a 13-10 vote, directs the General Accounting Office to study the relationship between indecent programming and media consolidation before the new ownership rules can take effect.

Yes, Janet Jackson's boob was a conspiracy of the evil media-industrial complex! Numbnuts, they're all numbnuts!

Fritz Hollings amendment is also now part of the bill: It would "direct the FCC to develop rules for controlling violent programming during hours when children are likely to be tuned in."

But here's the doozie, folks: By a one-vote margin, the committee defeated an attempt to extend FCC censorship to cable and satellite.

Listen: The First Amendment should prohibit what the FCC already does to TV and radio but, of course, its regulation and censorship is kept in place by the flimsy tissue of the idea that these are the scarce "public airwaves." Well, cable and satellite are not public property; they are private property. If the government goes in to regulate and censor what happens there, then there is nothing stopping them from regulating and censoring books, music, concerts, comedy clubs... and the Internet.

This isn't about Howard Stern. This is about you.

: The only good news out of this is that Stern is also thinking about bringing his show to the Internet. He was thinking about what he could do on the Internet -- and what he can't do on radio -- and that seals the deal.

So take everything I said yesterday about SternSpace -- as an organizing tool -- and add so much more that Howard can bring to the medium. He will make audio and video content work and he'll be the one who proves you can make money with it. This will be great for the Internet.

: Stern's quote of the day: "They see the public airwaves and say let's censor them. I see the public airwaves and say let's liberate them."

: UPDATES...

: Stern said that Merrill Lynch has issued a report on what will happen to satellite and broadcast radio when and if Stern switches. He also said that he's talking to both XM and Sirius.

: I'm no fan of Margaret Cho. She's no fan of Howard Stern. Stern is no fan of her's. But Cho just called into Stern to support him and she has blogged her support as well:

am going to be on Howard Stern's show on Wednesday.
Even though he has trashed me in the past, I have said nasty things about nearly everyone who is living or dead - so f*** it, I am not gonna cast the first stone. I am horrified that our First Amendment Rights are being eroded and that we have less and less of a voice in the media. Dissidents are being charged with breaking the rules. Even the most minor infractions are punishable by monstrous fines and people cannot risk speaking up for themselves because they could lose their jobs...
I don't listen to any radio. I don't have one. I listen to hip- hop downloaded from iTunes. Don't you just love the iPod revolution? But I stick with music and read the news online. I believe that if the content of anyone's art is offensive to you, don't listen....

: Ed Cone digs up this frightening quote from an FCC commissioner:

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps (a Democrat appointed by Bush) on radio content, in a 2002 interview with Morality in Media: "I'll bet if we had a particularly flagrant example, and actually revoked a license or two along the way, that would send a message such as has never been heard to the broadcasting community, that the FCC was serious and that maybe this was going to involve something more than the usual cost of doing business, and perhaps it would even be sufficient to militate in favor of a little different kind of programming."

See, he does want to program your TV. I say, get your hands off my remote, Copps! [thanks, Charles]

: AFTERNOON UPDATES:

: FCC czar Michael Powell is fretting that the bills being pushed through Congress are going too far and could be, oh, well, unconstitutional.

There are a number of things that give me pause because I don't want to see enforcement remedies being captured by constitutional litigation," Powell told reporters after speaking to a group of state regulators.
"Things like three strikes and you're out, I think is an understandable idea but when you think it through, I can imagine scenarios where it can be more problematic than not," he said.
Powell also expressed concerns that additional provisions, like one in the Senate bill that would put new media ownership rules on hold pending a review of links between indecency and consolidation, could end up scuttling the bill.
"It just seems to me we've probably got a lengthier process and we may or may not get a bill at the end of the day," he said.

HEH!

: Jonathan Peterson at Corante's Amateur Hour says this "seems to be turning into a perfect storm of right-wing reactionaries, monopoly media, and an ill-informed population."

: I've been waiting to see a little libertarian angst and anger over this government regulation of what we can say and hear and finally Reason Editor-in-Chief Nick Gillespie strolls up to the line (starting with one great line!):

For the want of a bra, free speech was lost.
Well, not exactly, but if the recent actions by the U.S. Senate's powerful Commerce Committee are any indication, the future of free speech may be hanging by threads as sheer as the ones in a Victoria's Secret mesh babydoll....
So it turns out that the outraged pols and social critics were absolutely right when they fumed that Janet Jackson's notorious Super Bowl half-time show nipple-baring really did drive some Americans stark raving nuts. It's just that they were talking about themselves more than the population at large, which seems mostly willing to move on (after all, there's a new season of the violence-and-sex-drenched The Sopranos to catch). But for all too many members of America's political and chattering classes, beholding the slutty songstress's galvanized aureole was the psychic equivalent of staring directly into a total eclipse of the sun, blinding them with indignation, outrage, and national shame....
How seriously should we take any of this new congressional and regulatory activity? Given the unprecedented level of free expression we have and the ineffectiveness of past regulatory schemes such as the V-chip and past threats of content crackdowns from elected officials, it's easy to laugh off these latest legislative efforts. At best, they represent election-year pandering and, at worst, they will act as a minor drag on an unstoppable culture boom that gives all of us greater and greater opportunities to produce and consume more and more media.

Yet as Buzzmachine's Jeff Jarvis reminds us, "Once the government gets in the business of content [regulation]...then there is no stopping them. Slide down that slippery slope. Today, Howard Stern is offensive. Tomorrow, Sandra Tsing Loh on knitting is. Tomorrow, they try to regulate cable and not just broadcast. The next day, they go over the Internet (where, after all, there's lots of dirty, nasty, offensive stuff). This isn't about Howard. It's about you." If Jarvis seems a bit overanxious, it's worth remembering that it's only been a few years since the federal government almost succeeded in applying stultifying content regulation to the Internet. And it's only been a few decades since such obscene garbage as Lady Chatterley's Lover, Tropic of Cancer, and Fanny Hill (among others) were fully cleared for publication in these United States.
I'm far more confident than Jarvis that audiences and producers will always be able to route around censorship and regulations, especially the relatively mild sort of restrictions that would eventually pass constitutional and popular muster. This is especially true because technology continues to make it harder for all sorts of suppression. But he's right to emphasize the underlying logic behind the sorts of legislation and policy that are making the rounds in Washington, D.C. Just because censorship is unlikely to work is no reason not to stand against it in the first place. And in the second and third place, too.

Welcome to the good fight, Nick!

: This has nothing to do with government regulation but.... Michael J. Totten reports that anti-smoking forces want to force NC-17 ratings on movies that show smoking because some find smoking offensive.
See? Being "offensive" is the crime of the century.

: Previous Stern posts here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.

LINK | Comments (70)