BuzzMachine
by Jeff Jarvis

December 16, 2004

Photo gossip

: Gawker is adding party pix (the latest from crashing Jann Wenner's Christmas party, complete with a party-happy GOP pin-up girl, Ann Coulter, chatting with Tim Robbins -- political matter, meet political antimatter).

Stern, the person

: USA Today does a People story on Howard Stern today. They should have done a Money story, for that's where the action is.

Spreading the RSS gospel

: Just got around to reading Heather Green's very good explanation of RSS in Business Week.

Moneychanger in the temple

: Just saw a frightening commercial, a mininfomercial, on FoxNews with Pat Boone "interviewing" Brent Bozell about his book to sell it. Go to one of Bozell's sites and you'll find him hawking now only his books -- in $50 gift bundles -- but also "Don't Believe the Liberal Media" bumperstickers and Christmas-tree ornaments. Go to his other site, and he's begging for donations.

I'm all for the guy having opinions (so long as he doesn't try to force them down my throat). And I'm all for him making money (hey, it's America).

But every time a news organization invites this guy on TV, they should realize that they're not only feeding his apparent agenda -- censoring our popular culture according to his right-wing religious priggish views -- but also stuffing his pockets.

And that's why I'm a bit surprised to see some of the names on this list people helping Bozell "judge" a list of quotes of the year. There are a fair number of journalists listed -- some you know. Aren't they just furthering Bozell's own agenda (and business)?

Winning one

: Even the FCC sees that it can't regulate speech on satellite. A dork broadcaster filed a letter with the FCC asking to extend its censorship to satellite, just to be fair to broadcast (rather than the proper request, which is to end censorship). W. Kenneth Ferree, chief of the Media Bureau, just replied.

The Commission has previously ruled that “subscription-based services do not call into play the issue of indecency” ... and that “[c]onsistent with existing case law, the Commission does not impose regulations regarding indecency on services lacking the indiscriminate access to children that characterizes broadcasting.” ...
Even the FCC isn't that dumb. That's not to say that there aren't lawmakers dumb enough to try this but courts would have to shoot them down and protect the First Amendment.

As we expose the Parents Television Council and its henchmen at the FCC as censors trying to foist their unconstitutional religious agenda on the rest of America, I hope we can stem the post-titgate tide of censorship and once again stand behind our First Amendment. I emphasize "hope." [via Carl Frank]

Freedom blog

: Steve Safran suggests that someone should blog free speech. I try but we need more.

The price of fame

: Howard Stern said this morning that with all his year-end Christmas bonuses and gifts -- he gives something even to the guy who makes his egg-white omelets in the deli downstairs, whom he never sees, mainly out of fear that the guy could accuse him of being a cheap bastard -- the total cost is well into the six figures. He held up fingers in the studio to say how many hundred K he spends but we couldn't see that.

Dear Santa....

: Adam Penenberg has a good media wishlist for 2005.
1. Google News should become a for-profit enterprise.
2. Bloggers should break news. (He's nice enough to cite my FCC FOIA scoop; as I've told anyone who'll listen, what really excites me about this -- besides defending the First Amendment -- is proving that anybody can break news; the tools are in citizens' hands.)
3. Dismantle the FCC. (Amen! Bravo! Yeah!)
4. The end of Nielsen and comScore
5. Media should reassert its role as government watchdog
Read it all.

: Glenn Reynolds says wish No. 2 is already granted.

The Adventures of Prof. Pondscum: The sequel

: Juan Cole, hate blogger, continues to dig himself deeper after attacking Omar and Mohammed of Iraq the Model. He says:

My allegation that the IraqTheModel website is far outside the norm of Iraqi public opinion as measured by polling has caused a stir in the weblogging world among, apparently, dittoheads who can't read polls.
Well, no, you elipseshead, Cole, that's not what caused the decent and civilized bloggers to call you indecent and uncivilized. It was that you implicated with absolutely no evidence or knowledge whatsoever that these good and honorable men might be propped up by nefarious forces. And since you, Cole, know just how dangerous a place Iraq is -- since that's all you write about, day in and day out -- then you should know that such an implication could be deadly. That, Professor, is what caused a shitstir hereabouts. You have the bad sense to continue:
I drew attention to Martini Republic's questions about the independence of IraqTheModel without actually expressing any opinion myself one way or another, except to say that they are out of the Iraqi mainstream. The dittoheads who read them and can look at the above polling figures and come to a different conclusion are just innumerate (if only they were also so illiterate as to be unable to figure out my email address).
What a crock of Cole crap that is: If I point to a report that Jews were responsible for 9/11 and say nothing to correct or disagree with it, then I'd say I'd be guilty of anti-Semitism and blood libel. That is the ethic of the link.

You can't back away that easily, Cole. You made an unsubstantiated and libelous accusation against these good men and until you apologize, you're not off the hook -- in terms of your responsibility, your credibility, and your morality.

As for the point on polls: I never assumed to speak for all of the people of Iraq (as you apparently do, Cole). First, no one knows enough about what the people say (you think exit polls here are unreliable!). Second, what difference does it make? I want to hear many voices from Iraq. When I wished for blogs to start in Iraq -- and Zeyad answered my wish by blogging and getting these men and many others to blog -- I said that what we needed is "a thousand Salam Paxes," many voices and viewpoints. And that is what we have. I am delighted -- as the Iraqi bloggers have been -- that we have Riverbend next to Iraq the Model next to Healing Iraq and that is growing ... and will grow more now that we have an Arabic-language blogging too.

But, "Professor," look at yourself: You are supported by institutions of the nefarious United States government, aren't you? And you certainly do not represent the American mainstream -- witness the results of the election, just past. So by your own standards, I guess you should be shutting down the blog and refusing all those invitations to be on TV as if you are a spokesman for anything other than your own bile and blather.

I'm not alone dismissing Prof. Pondscum. Judith Weiss does a great job of compiling the return fire. Here's Cathy Siepp. Here's James Taranto pointing out the same tasty irony. The Acerbic Alchemist argues that such a personal attack on another blogger is over the edge. Here's Michael J. Totten. Scroll down for Kaus' comments. Just go read all of Judith's links.

My favorite irony of all this is that no matter how stupid you think the CIA is, even the dumbest spook alive would not take agents to meet the friggin' President of the United States! But such is Cole's conspiracy theorizing.

I repeat: These are good and honorable men who believe in freedom and have the courage to say it. That deserves our support and admiration. Cole deserves every blogbat he can get.

Archives:
06/05 ... 05/05 ... 04/05 ... 03/05 ... 02/05 ... 01/05 ... 12/04 ... 11/04 ... 10/04 ... 09/04 ... 08/04 ... 07/04 ... 06/04 ... 05/04 ... 04/04 ... 03/04 ... 02/04 ... 01/04 ... 12/03 ... 11/03 ... 10/03 ... 09/03 ... 08/03 ... 07/03 ... 06/03 ... 05/03 ... 04/03 ... 03/03 ... 02/03 ... 01/03 ... 12/02 ... 11/02 ... 10/02 ... 09/02 ... 08/02 ... 07/02 ... 06/02 ... 05/02 ... 04/02 ... 03/02/a ... 03/02/b ... 02/02 ... 01/02 ... 12/01 ... 11/01 ... 10/01 ... 09/01 ... Current Home



. . .