« May 05, 2004 | Main
| May 07, 2004 »

May 06, 2004

It's not a generation, it's an era

: An NY Times headline writer tries to be hip and with-it today but gets it wrong:

The Blog Generation Takes Up Its Trowels

This tops a story about young people and wacky city gardens and it happens that one of them blogs, too. But the story is hardly if at all about blogging or a blogging generation.

And here's the problem: There isn't a "blogging generation." That belittles this movement, reducing it to a fad with the youngsters.

Well, look at that picture to the right with the gray beard (which, I'll confess, is even grayer now; so's the hair). Check out pix of (no offense, friends) Roger Simon or the ailing (well, maybe it should be a young person's game) Glenn Reynolds or Rex Hammock (who's just as old as I'm about to be but doesn't look it). People of all ages are blogging. It's not a generational moment. It's a movement. It's an era. Damnit.

: Rex wishes I'd pointed to Doc instead. I'll bet Doc will nominate someone else: Pass the old potato.

LINK | Comments (17)

A bad Friedman day

: I call myself a "Tom Friedman Democrat." But today I call Tom Friedman way wrong.

He starts today's column endorsing the dangerous deadend doctrine of diplomacy by popularity.

We are in danger of losing something much more important than just the war in Iraq. We are in danger of losing America as an instrument of moral authority and inspiration in the world. I have never known a time in my life when America and its president were more hated around the world than today. I was just in Japan, and even young Japanese dislike us. It's no wonder that so many Americans are obsessed with the finale of the sitcom "Friends" right now. They're the only friends we have, and even they're leaving.

It's bad enough that he also tried way too hard to make a pop-culture reference and conveniently join the Friends hooha -- looking rather like a doughy middle-aged guy trying to wear clothes out of H&M while rapping. But that's a literary criticism.

The real problem is that this is the same argument opponents made to the war in Iraq -- the same war that Friedman supported: It wouldn't make us any friends. Well, first off, experience shows that having friends doesn't do us much good in time of need. France, Germany, and Russia have proven to be fairweather friends at best. With friends like those, who needs friends? Second, if making friends were our goal, we'd take on all kinds of horrid positions: We'd drop Israel like a hot knish; we'd go the FCC one better and endorse censorship of all our amoral media; we'd play trade policy like an episode of Queen for a Day; we'd ignore human rights violations of China and North Korea and too many Arab nations. Third, if we did as Friedman suggests and bowed before the altar of the U.N. as if it were an authority on what's right we'd truly give up any pretense of world leadership and we'd give it up to an organization that has proven itself to be morally unreliable. It's not about making friends.

Friedman then joins the lynch mob forming on the left against Donald Rumsfeld:

This administration needs to undertake a total overhaul of its Iraq policy; otherwise, it is courting a total disaster for us all.
That overhaul needs to begin with President Bush firing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld — today, not tomorrow or next month, today.

Sorry, friend, but I disagree with that, too. Rumseld is, like it or not, one of the most competent members of the Bush administration. He executed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq brilliantly and, God help us, we don't know whether we will have to go to war again. The utterly bungled aftermath is somewhat but not fully his fault; let's remember that authority in Iraq was taken away from his man and given to Powell's man. The utterly abhorrent and just stupid abuses in Iraqi prisons also may not prove to be fully the fault of Rumseld's command; I'm waiting to hear how much the CIA is responsible.

And let me say something quite unpopular and throw just a little perspective into the Iraqi prison scandal. I'll repeat: What happened there was wrong and strategically idiotic and does not reflect either American ideals or American aims for the region. However, let's remember that this is a war; the people being interrogated were likely suspected in movements to bring more violence upon not only American soldiers but also the Iraqi people. The means were wrong but the end was right: Bringing peace to Iraq and protecting its people. And was the "torture" all that shocking? Hell, watch an episode of Oz and compare.

We have entered an era of apology. Democrats wanted Bush to apologize as Dick Clarke did. Reporters at the last press conference wanted Bush to confess to mistakes and apologize for them. Friedman wants Bush to apologize for what happened in that prison. Fine. But it's just a rhetorical charm bracelet. Forced apologies get you just as far as forced friendships.

No, it's time instead for everyone -- Bush, Kerry, Iraqi leaders, European leaders, the U.N., Arab leaders -- to get priorities straight and remember that our priorities are alligned. If we let the stupidity of some guys in an Iraqi prison derail the cause of democracy and stability in Iraq over the niceties of friendship and apologies, then we're all a bunch of hopeless fools.

LINK | Comments (67)

Toward a free press in Iraq

: It's going to be expensive and hard to develop a free and thriving press in Iraq.

Online and citizens' media could help.

Larry Kilman of the World Association of Newspapers writes a fine piece outlining what needs to be done in ink and paper:

Democracy cannot take root without a viable independent press. But Iraq can’t go it alone. Western media professionals are needed to make assessments, provide advice and direction, train journalists and managers, and help build the presses, distribution networks and other infrastructure....

So, if you’re offered an opportunity to help the Iraqi press, and you decide to risk the bombs and bullets to lend a hand - what would you find there?

For a start, economic and material conditions that would drive editors and managers to despair in the industrialized world. Imagine getting up before dawn and conducting an “auction” among people with cars, who bid for the opportunity to distribute that day’s paper in Baghdad. Every day, the same auction. And different cars and drivers....

The majority of media professionals have politicized backgrounds; either for the government-controlled press, or for the opposition press in exile. There are few experienced journalists, editors and managers to operate independent media....

Despite enormous obstacles, many new newspapers have been created since the fall of Saddam, though most could not be called independent - they are aligned with political parties, religious groups and other interest groups. According to the latest count by BBC Monitoring and Arab Press Freedom Watch, 163 newspapers operate in Iraq - testimony to the need and desire for news and information....

The most pressing needs, according to many of the assessment missions, are to establish a media policy that complies with international standards of freedom of expression and to train journalists and managers through a “twinning” arrangement with well-established institutions.

The UN and World Bank estimate that it will cost $240 million to rebuild the Iraqi media between now and 2007, with $220 million of that earmarked to a national broadcast network. The groups estimate that $4.5 million will be needed to build the print media’s infrastructure....

“The problem is to find the right people to link up and train,” said Siayamend Othman, an Iraqi Kurd, former researcher at Amnesty International and former senior vice president at United Press International. “There are many good writers in Iraq but few good journalists, so there is a need for training. Moreover there is a huge need for training in media management.” ...

Wan is an organization built after World War II to help rebuild news media in countries such as Iraq.

But much has changed since WWII. The internet and citizens' media can contribute much to this process: It can be a source for more information and viewpoints; it can be a training ground for writers; it can communicate with the rest of the world with no effort or expense.

So at the same time, as you've heard me say often, we need to help encourage the growth of citizens' media in Iraq (and other developing and nascent democracies). I once said we needed a thousand Salam Paxes in Iraq. And that starts with one Zeyad.

More on this topic soon....

LINK | Comments (14)

I'd like to thank... no one
: Rafat Ali goes off on a fine rant vs. the National Magazine Awards, which suddenly include the possibility for giving kudos to blogs but never told bloggers to enter. Pariah Burke also lets off a little steam about the lack of nominations and awards.
I say: Ignore it. First, you shouldn't expect one industry to award another. Second, you shouldn't care about awards. Your award is your audience's traffic every day. If you start writing for awards instead of for readers, you get into trouble and you can point to many an old media industry to prove it.

LINK | Comments (0)

The Daily Stern

: EVEN FROM THE RIGHT: A conservative religious broadcaster comes out on the side of free speech, the First Amendment and Howard Stern. Stuart Epperson, heade of Salem Communications, writes a long and impassioned warning to fellow conservatives that if Stern is taken off the air by government, they could be next.

Now conservative Christians and other conservatives too are being sucked into applauding measures that would have government again controlling content and shutting down stations that violate standards, just as many well-meaning conservatives supported the Fairness Doctrine....
Don't get me wrong. I deplore the current state of this immoral and debased culture....
We may all cheer the demise of Howard Stern, who has lost many of his major markets because of impending government action....
Mark my words however, if impending government action can cause Howard Stern to be taken off the air, imagine a bill that would give the FCC power to so regulate content that after three fines for violating standards set by fiat, a station could lose its license. Let us suppose that Congress, reacting to the justified outrage over the Super Bowl halftime charade, passes such a bill. And let us suppose President Bush, in a tight re-election campaign and watching the polls that say the public wants action against the filth masquerading as entertainment, signs the bill. (After all, President Bush signed the McCain-Feingold campaign law even though he thought it was unconstitutional.)
Sure right now an FCC dominated by reasonable people wouldn't do anything drastic. But let us suppose that with this bill on the books the nation has elected Hillary Rodham Clinton as President. And let us suppose - and it is no stretch of the imagination to believe this - that President Hillary appoints radical liberals to the FCC. With the precedent established that the FCC can revoke licenses over obscene content, these Commissioners determine that conservative views constitute hate speech - and hate speech is obscene. For example, we are strongly supporting a Constitutional amendment and would declare that marriage is between one man and one woman. Let us suppose that these Commissioners declare that such a position is against national policy and constitutes discriminatory hate speech.
Of course the homosexual lobby would organize itself to insure that there were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of complaints against the stations that took this point of view. Armed with that sort of ammunition, the FCC would have no problem finding the excuse for shutting down those voices that broadcast what they would call homophobic views....
We are conservative but we’re not stupid. We can clearly see the possibilities here....
It is my fervent hope that Conservatives, especially Religious Conservatives won't get driven into believing that more government is the answer to this cultural problem. It will only lead to disasters such as I describe and no bill, once passed by Congress and signed into law, is ever repealed.
Today it is Stern, Bubba (the Love Sponge) and Janet Jackson in the spotlight. Tomorrow it could be Limbaugh, Dobson and Janet Parshall.

Censorship makes strange bedfellows.

: LATER... Ernie Miller contemplates the doctrine of the "heckler's veto." He'll explain it better than I can. But if you want to keep annoying reporters away from you, just wear a big hat with the F word on it; tattoo the F word on your forehead; paint the F word on the roof of your house or your car....

LINK | Comments (18)

Farewell, Friends
: When Friends premiered, I gave it a bad review in TV Guide. I said it was a rip-off of Cheers and an exercise in demographic pandering. But it grew on me and I wrote another column about a year later reconsidering teh show and saying that I was wrong and Friends was pretty damned good. One of the producers sent me a letter thanking me for admitting my mistake. So, you see, if it had been up to me, I would have abandoned Friends and we wouldn't have all this hoopla tonight.

LINK | Comments (15)