Month: August 2007

Starve The Beast

Posted by on August 13, 2007 at 4:30 pm. 12 Comments :

See also
Starve The Beast
Part II and
Part III

The problem with Fox News is not that it’s a right-wing platform for war, intolerance, and greed; it isn’t that it’s spreading propaganda in support of an out-of-control White House that is hoarding unprecedented levels of power; it isn’t that they engage in relentless and unfounded attacks on Democrats, progressives, and the rest of the 72% of Americans that Fox portrays as unpatriotic because they disapprove of Mr. Bush and his war; it isn’t even that it sits at the center of a politically charged media empire run by Rupert Murdoch, a monopolistic ideologue with no allegiance to country or the common good.

Certainly any one of those things would reasonably explain a sharp increase in chronic anxiety, and the combination could set off an epidemic of cerebral aneurysms. But these are not the problems with Fox News.

The problem with Fox News is that people care about Fox News. What I hope to prove here is that it isn’t necessary or useful to do so. They are a constituency whose currency has been devalued by a deliberately constricted field of political viewpoints. In economic terms, the Fox dollar has crashed and it’s time to divest.

The partisan perspective at Fox is not so much a slant as it is a vertical incline. They themselves make little attempt to disclaim their bias. The network adopted its slogan, “Fair and Balanced,” not to signal a practice of evenly weighted reporting, but to indicate their intention to counter a news media that they believed was predominantly liberal. Fox News’ president and chief executive officer, Roger Ailes, even admitted that, “Anybody who says bias does not exist is either lying or stupid.” Not wishing to be cast as either, I’ll take Mr. Ailes at his word and concede that Fox News is biased.

Any evaluation of the social or political impact of that bias is, or course, dependent on the composition of the viewing audience. It would be safe to say that if Sean Hannity broadcast his program into a convention of the Feminist Union Members Against Global Warming, his words would have negligible influence. Obviously, that crowd would be less than receptive to Hannity’s factless fatuousnous. However, he would be equally as ineffectual before an audience of the Pro-life Caucus of the National Rifle Association. While he would be well received, it’s impossible to persuade people to adopt a point of view that they already hold. Consequently, his appearance would produce a net gain of nothing. And the same is true for any Democrat who hopes to profit from appearing on Fox News.

Let’s take a look at the make-up of Fox’s audience. One of the more foreboding characteristics of this group is that they appear to be more loyal to Fox than to Republicans or conservatism. This is a malady that I previously described in The Cult Of Foxonality. Here are three surveys that paint a consistent picture of Fox viewers as a devout congregation of true believers, incapable of critical thought.

  • The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press just completed a study that shows that Republicans are more likely to find fault with the media than non-Republicans. But Republicans for whom Fox is their primary source of news, the number is even higher.
  • World Public Opinion conducted a study in 2005 that proved that Fox viewers were significantly more likely to have misperceptions about the war in Iraq. And viewers who paid more attention were even more misinformed.
  • The Mellman Group’s research revealed that Fox viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88% to 7%. Only Republicans were more united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.

What is there in that assembly that holds value for politicians or pundits of the progressive stripe, save for disdain and abuse? The potential for comrades or converts is so small as to be virtually nonexistent. It is long past time for Democrats to recognize this simple fact and resolve to stop allowing themselves to be used for target practice by disingenuous pseudo-journalists whose purpose is to defame and defeat them in politics and public opinion.

The Democrats that recently declined to participate in a Fox-sponsored primary debate proved that there are no discernible repercussions for exhibiting such moral fortitude.
 

The sole consequence of their defiance was that the agents of Fox set about to disparage them – again. But Fox would have gone on the attack even if they had agreed to participate. Observe the sample of fairness and balance in the video here, and ask yourself whether John Edwards would be justified in shunning Fox News.

So if going on Fox News can’t help Democrats, and staying off can’t hurt them, why is there still a debate about the future course of action? Here’s why…..

Fox News touts itself as the #1 cable news network. On the surface, that’s a plausibly accurate assertion that creates the illusion that an appearance on Fox is potentially advantageous. But, as shown above, it is not.

The other cable news networks, and even the broadcast and newspaper outfits, are intimidated by Fox’s perceived girth. Apparently this turns them into raging imbeciles who conclude that the way to compete with Fox is by emulating them. This behavior is emblematic of an industry that thrives on plagiarism whether it be inspired by a hit movie, a sitcom, or a pop tune. But you cannot beat Fox by copying it. Fans of Fox’s brand of sludge know good slime when they are wallowing in it and they will not settle for cheap imitations.

To make matters worse, competing networks have misunderstood the nature of Fox’s success and are, thus, copying the wrong components. It is not conservatism that draws viewers to Fox – It is conflict. Fox’s strategy was to dress up news as entertainment, employing a formula that includes drama, humor, sentimentality, suspense, sex, and visual and aural cacophony. All the elements of a good, escapist movie-of-the-week. And entertainment has always been a better ratings magnet than news. However…

The ratings story is a fraud. By accepting the premise of an all-powerful Fox Dynasty, everyone from their competitors to their critics to their guests, and even their hosts, are falling prey to a myth. While Fox is indeed the leader in average audience share, when measured by cumulative audience, CNN still beats Fox by delivering more unique viewers (see more here and here). Additionally, the relative performance of cable news is still far below that of its broadcast cousins. Even SpongeBob SquarePants has a bigger audience than Fox’s #1 show, the O’Reilly Factor.

So there goes the only remaining weapon in Fox’s arsenal. It should now be clear that Fox is neither a gateway to valuable audience exposure, nor a hospitable port for wayward Democrats. The way is now clear to steer wide of Fox News altogether. This new course can lead to a number of considerable benefits.

The O’Reilly Interview 101

Ask direct yes or no questions where one answer is clearly reprehensible and the other is totally meaningless, and bully your guest into responding.
“Do you want the U.S. to lose in Iraq? Well, do you?”
Create an association with an unpopular (preferably mischaracterized) opinion with the broadest attribution possible.
“Do you agree with Harry Belafonte, and the rest of the liberal establishment, that Venezuela should take over America?”
Never concede on substance, even if your arguments are demonstrably false.
“Saddam Hussein did too meet with Osama Bin Laden at Michael Moore’s compound in Libya – Twice.”
Employ ad hominims liberally.
“Why should anyone listen to a radical, Kool-Aid drinking, far-left loon like you?”
Shout louder than your guests and interrupt frequently, especially when they are making a good point.
[Inspired by KimChi]

Stop the Masochism
First and foremost, it would put an end to the unnecessary submission to assaults from disreputable smearcasters with demonstrably hostile intentions. Bill O’Reilly is the premium model for such encounters. It is impossible to win a debate with him because he doesn’t care about winning. He is only concerned with generating the sort of heat that fuels his ego and his ratings. He only books three types of guests: Those who agree with him; those he can dominate; and those he can exploit. Don’t be one of them.

The Sinking of Fox
The loss of Democrats as foils would transform the character of Fox’s conflict-driven programming, resulting in less controversy and, hence, lower ratings. Viewers would quickly become bored with repeated appearances by Fred Barnes, Michelle Malkin, Dick Morris, and Geraldo Rivera. Minus the shoutfests, and the potential for on-air meltdowns, there is no reason to watch Fox. Neil Cavuto is already whining about his inability book A-list Democrats, and O’Reilly has made it a staple of his program to lambaste no-shows as cowards. That’s a desperation move on his part because he knows he can’t force guests into his inquisitor’s lair. When the entertainment value of Fox disappears, so will its audience, its ratings, and its cache in the media.

Deprive Fox of Bragging Rights
One of the most galling traits of Fox personalities is the way they use their ratings to validate their disinformation agenda. But even if the ratings story weren’t a myth as described above, they still have a flawed argument. McDonald’s is the #1 restaurant in America. I don’t think that anyone interprets that to mean that they have the best food. What they have is the cheapest crap that is loaded with filler and seasoning to appeal to the largest number of consumers with the least sophisticated taste (Hey, that’s a pretty good description of Fox News). Absent their ratings victories, however, they can’t even make this flawed argument.

Affirm Fox’s Lack of Credibility
The mere act of not showing up sends a message that Fox is not deserving or reputable. By sequestering Fox they will be left to themselves and their minions to dispense their McNews. It will make it that much more obvious to observe how they are attempting to denigrate their ideological opponents and to manipulate popular opinion.

Encourage More Responsible Journalism
By using discretion when formulating a media strategy, Democrats can strike a blow in favor of a more honest and independent press. It does not further the goals of ethical journalism to accommodate deceitful practitioners. Conversely, it does advance such goals to purposefully engage media who adhere to higher standards. What’s bad for Fox is good for journalism.

Rupert Murdoch and his rightist platform for propaganda must not be further appeased. All previous efforts to abate the influence of Fox News have failed because they generally reserved a place for Fox in the effort. This has to stop. It’s time to go cold turkey.

Starve The Beast
The solution is obvious. Democrats and progressives have got to swear off Fox News. They must decline all interviews. They must stay off of that tainted air. They must avoid the Stuttering Jesse’s (Watters, O’Reilly’s producer) that are resorting to ambush interviews. They must continue to refuse to participate in Foxic events like debates or forums. And if they find themselves trapped in an appearance from which they cannot escape, they must be certain to pepper their remarks with the truth about Fox. Let the audience know that this network is degrading public discourse and leading viewers astray. And don’t let the bullies steer the dialog.

Progressive politicians and pundits must be called upon to heed this advice. It is more than just a request. It is an obligation. Every time one of our representatives appears on Fox, they are setting back our agenda. They are not just wasting a little time trying to confront the enemy in its lair. They are literally causing harm to the efforts of the rest of us who are fervently struggling to repair and improve our country. Anyone in our political provinces who betrays our mission by succumbing to the Fox siren should be firmly scolded and educated as to the damage they are inflicting.

I propose that we have a routine response to the weak and the fraternizers. If you should spot one of them across enemy lines, send them a link to this article with this introduction:

Please stop hurting our cause by appearing on Fox News. Rupert Murdoch and his media megaphone is openly hostile to our agenda and our representatives. They will only use your appearance to distort your message and derail our mission. Studies have proven that their audience is unreceptive, and even antagonistic, to us. Your appearance will be rewarded more with ridicule than respect.

I therefore request that you refrain from such appearances in order that you not do further damage to the goals we share by helping to strengthen the foremost advocate of our defeat.

If we can build a united front against the lies and insults that are the daily repast on Fox, we can also start to reform the broader media landscape that is bewitched by Fox’s aura. And it is long past time that we break this sorcerer’s spell.

See also the update: Starve The Beast: Appetite For Distortion

C-SPAN: As Fair And Balanced As Fox News?

Posted by on August 9, 2007 at 4:40 pm. 1 Comments :

According to C-SPAN’s website, the network is…

“…a private, non-profit company, created in 1979 by the cable television industry as a public service. Our mission is to provide public access to the political process. C-SPAN receives no government funding; operations are funded by fees paid by cable and satellite affiliates who carry C-SPAN programming.”

That sounds like a pretty even-handed organization that is well suited to serve the public interest. But a little digging beneath the surface tells a different story. For instance, the cable and satellite affiliates that fund the network’s operations are predominately assets of the largest media and Telco corporations in the world. Companies like AT&T and Time Warner. It would be naive to presume that they have no agenda to promote.

In 2005, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) conducted a study that showed the network…

“…skewing rightward, favoring Republican and right-of-center interview subjects by considerable margins over Democratic and left-of-center guests. The study also found that women, people of color and public interest viewpoints were substantially underrepresented.”

For a recent example of the network’s bias, take a look a the schedule this week for coverage of two partisan political events. In Chicago, the YearlyKos conference for Democratic bloggers and activists was held August 2-5. The conservative Young America’s Foundation held their National Conservative Student Conference from July 30 – August 3, in Washington, DC. Here is a chart of C-SPAN’s coverage of these events (from their calendar):

Program Title # Airings
YearlyKos Conference Programs:
Media & 2006 Campaign 4
Political Issues & Current Events 2
Young Americas Foundation Conference Programs:
Campaign 2008 2
U.S. Healthcare System 3
Energy Independence 2
Using the New Media 2
Future of the Young Conservative Movement 2
Origins of Planned Parenthood 1

The tally so far is 2 YearlyKos programs with a combined total of 6 airings. That’s compared to 6 Young Americas programs with a combined total of 12 airings. So the conservative conference got twice as many time slots for 3 times as many panels as the progressive conference. The only way this can be described as fair and balanced is if C-SPAN uses the same twisted dictionary as Fox News.

Another recent example of bias is the interview with Kevin Leffler, director of the two year old crockumentary “‘Shooting Michael Moore.” For some reason C-SPAN felt compelled to give a platform to this undistinguished and outdated film but has not bothered to host the filmmakers responsible for the just-released “No End in Sight.”

Feel free to let C-SPAN’s Viewer Services know that you would like for them to schedule progressive events and guest bookings with at least the same frequency as they do for conservative programs. Or is that too much to ask the stepchild of Time Warner and AT&T?

Pearl Jam Censored At Lollapalooza By AT&T

Posted by on August 9, 2007 at 11:25 am. NO Comments :

If we really needed proof that the Big Telcos are lying through their teeth when they celebrate themselves as defenders of free speech and open access, we couldn’t do better than this. AT&T, the sole provider for the webcast of Pearl Jam’s performance at Lollapalooza, and noted opponent of Network Neutrality, cut out politically charged portions of the band’s performance. I’ll let them tell it via their website:

After concluding our Sunday night show at Lollapalooza, fans informed us that portions of that performance were missing and may have been censored by AT&T during the “Blue Room” Live Lollapalooza Webcast.

When asked about the missing performance, AT&T informed Lollapalooza that portions of the show were in fact missing from the webcast, and that their content monitor had made a mistake in cutting them.

During the performance of “Daughter” the following lyrics were sung to the tune of Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall” but were cut from the webcast:

  • “George Bush, leave this world alone.” (the second time it was sung); and
  • “George Bush find yourself another home.”

This, of course, troubles us as artists but also as citizens concerned with the issue of censorship and the increasingly consolidated control of the media.

AT&T’s actions strike at the heart of the public’s concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears through communications media.

Aspects of censorship, consolidation, and preferential treatment of the internet are now being debated under the umbrella of “NetNeutrality.” Check out The Future of Music or Save the Internet for more information on this issue. [Ed: Save the Internet has clips of both versions of the song here]

Most telecommunications companies oppose “net neutrality” and argue that the public can trust them not to censor.

And if you can’t trust a giant, multinational, consolidated, communications conglomerate like Ma Bell, who can you trust? AT&T has shown that they cannot be relied upon to manage vital national resources like the Internet. They want to own it and constrain its use to the sole purpose of enriching themselves and shaping public opinion to their liking.


 
 
Don’t let them do it because, as Pearl Jam says…

This Is Not For You!
“And you dare say it belongs to you…to you…
This is not for you
This is not for you
This is not for you
Oh, never was for you…fuck you…”

L A Times Downplays FCC Hurdles For Dow Jones Deal

Posted by on August 9, 2007 at 2:22 am. NO Comments :

The Los Angeles Times published an article yesterday titled, “Dow Jones deal prompts call to broaden cross-ownership ban,” that included this passage:

“Federal rules try to limit media power by prohibiting a company from owning a newspaper and a TV station in the same city.

Billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. faces no such hurdle in its pending deal to acquire Dow Jones & Co. and with it the country’s second-largest paper, the Wall Street Journal…”

I think it may be something of an overstatement to say that there are no regulatory hurdles. I wonder if the authors were aware of the following:

  • Mr. Murdoch recently told Time Magazine that he would “love to challenge” the New York Times with the Wall Street Journal.
  • Ken Chandler, a former Murdoch protege who once ran the New York Post, told the Boston Herald that Murdoch is, “looking at taking on The New York Times. I think (Murdoch) is going to try to do to The New York Times what his Fox News did to CNN.”
  • The Guardian reported that, “Mr Murdoch is planning to beef up the Wall Street Journal’s political and news reporting so it can compete with the New York Times…”
  • FCC Commissioner Michael Copps recently said, “It’s interesting to hear the ‘experts’ claim the transaction faces no regulatory hurdles. Not so fast! This deal means more media consolidation and fewer independent voices, and it specifically impacts the local market in New York City.”

With Murdoch already owning major newspapers and broadcasters in New York, and the evidence of his own statements and other reporting confirming his intention to compete locally in the city, it seems to me that there is good cause for the FCC to investigate the acquisition. In any case, there appears to be no cause to flatly declare that the deal faces “no such hurdles,” as reported in the L.A. Times (which itself faces regulatory hurdles with its parent, the Tribune Company, owning both the paper and KTLA TV).

DeadLines

Posted by on August 9, 2007 at 12:41 am. NO Comments :

Pro Bloggers to get Journalist Shield.
Last week, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would shield journalists (including bloggers) from revealing their sources . However, the bill includes several exceptions regarding terrorism, national security, imminent death, and trade secret leaks. More ominously, it was amended to define “journalist” as someone who receives “financial gain or livelihood” from their work. That would exclude an awful lot of citizen journalists.

News Nets To Allow Use of Presidential Debate Footage
ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN and NPR have all agreed to make their presidential debate footage available for relatively unrestricted use on the Web and elsewhere. Only Fox News still declines to do so. CBS has not yet carried a debate.

News Corp. Plans to Sell Ottaway Newspapers
Rupert Murdoch said today that he plans to sell the Ottaway newspaper group he’ll acquire with the purchase of Dow Jones. That’s probably good news for James Ottaway, who was amongst the most vocal critics of the DJ sale.

Freakonomics To Appear Under the Banner of the New York Times.
The New York Times has announced that they will be hosting the Freakonomics blog. Recall that the authors of Freakonomics had postulated in their book of the same title, that the drop in crime in the 1990’s was due to the availability of abortions post Roe v Wade. In other words, had the women who had those abortions not done so, their children would have grown up to be criminals.

McDonalds Brainwashed Your Children

Posted by on August 7, 2007 at 4:11 pm. NO Comments :

If you think the influence of national media on adults is dangerously biased and that dominant players in the press can manipulate public opinion by managing news content, just think how vulnerable our children are. In addition to having less developed skills in critical analysis, they are bombarded with carefully crafted messages that stream from every form of media. These are messages that are designed for the juvenile psyche and they are plastered across the landscape most traveled by unsupervised kids.

A new study now shows the extent to which consumer marketing has succeeded in shaping the young minds of America. In the study, 63 3-5-year olds where asked to taste a variety of foods and indicate which they preferred. The food samples were divided into two groups: those wrapped in plain paper and those wrapped in McDonald’s branded packaging. The samples were exactly the same in every other respect. In most cases, the kids indicated a preference for the McDonald-wrapped samples.

Commenting on the study he led, Dr. Thomas Robinson of Stanford University School of Medicine said…

“Kids don’t just ask for food from McDonald’s, they actually believe that the chicken nugget they think is from McDonald’s tastes better than an identical, unbranded nugget.” And furthermore… “We found that kids with more TVs in their homes and those who eat at McDonald’s more frequently were even more likely to prefer the food in the McDonald’s wrapper. This is a company that knows what they’re doing. Nobody else spends as much to advertise their fast-food products to children.”

Dr. David Katz, the director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University School of Medicine, adds that…

“This study demonstrates simply and elegantly that advertising literally brainwashes young children into a baseless preference for certain food products.” And concluding that… “The branding of fast foods and junk foods into the minds of young children is one of those influences. When product familiarity is breeding ill health, it is time to put a stop to it.”

McDonalds is convinced that there is no problem and argue that…

“…parents make the decisions for their children, and our research confirms that we’ve earned their trust as a responsible marketer based on decades of delivering the safest food, the highest quality toys and the kind of choice and variety today’s families are looking for.”

That’s right. McDonalds delivers the sort of safe, high quality food that has sparked an epidemic in childhood obesity and diabetes. And now we learn that the victims of their marketing tactics are suffering from diminished reasoning skills. Certainly blame can be spread around to parents, politicians, and the medical community, but it is the media that is profiting from the mind controlling campaigns of advertisers like McDonalds, and if they had an interest in serving the public, they would employ a greater measure of responsibility with regard to their advertising standards and practices.

Will Bill O’Reilly Demand An Apology From Glenn Beck?

Posted by on August 6, 2007 at 7:03 pm. 24 Comments :

Last week, Bill O’Reilly, Fox’s Father Coughlin, ranted riotously about the “vile hate site”, DailyKos, because of what he deemed an offensive picture that he found there.

I wonder if he’s going to spend this week lambasting Glenn Beck for this obscene swipe at Helen Thomas.




Keep in mind that no one affiliated with DailyKos posted the image that angered O’Reilly so much. It was posted by one user in a comment thread that never appeared on the site’s front page. The image here was featured as the “Picture of the Day“ on Beck’s home page.

O’Reilly wouldn’t turn out to be a hypocrite, would he?

Email Glenn Beck at his web site.
Email Glenn Beck at CNN.

Bill Clinton’s Take On Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal

Posted by on August 6, 2007 at 4:02 pm. 1 Comments :

Blake Fleetwood has a curious article at the Huffington Post that quotes Bill Clinton saying that…

“…the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal is even more right wing and irrational than most of the commentators on Fox News.”

That’s the not the curious part. The article continues with Clinton relating an incident wherein the business of a supporter of his was being dogged by the Journal’s editorial board. The supporter arranged a meeting with the board to present his case, but the board told him that they didn’t care to hear it. They told him that they were only going after him because he was a supporter of Clinton. Clinton told him to send a check to Bob Dole, which the supporter did, and the attacks from the Journal stopped.

That’s a story that is both shocking and predictable at the same time. Anybody who’s familiar with the Journal’s editorial bias wouldn’t be surprised by that sordid tale. But anybody who cares about journalistic ethics would still be appalled. The power that is wielded by influential media organs like the Journal is substantial, and that power is magnified in the broadcast media world. Clinton has something to say about that too…

“With regard to media consolidation, the rules were relaxed too much.”

That’s undeniably true. Unfortunately, Clinton doesn’t acknowledge that it was the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which he signed into law, that produced the relaxation of which he now complains. Common Cause documented the legislation, and its impact, in a 2005 study:

The Fallout From the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (pdf)

  • Lifted the limit on how many radio stations one company could own. The cap had been set at 40 stations. It made possible the creation of radio giants like Clear Channel, with more than 1,200 stations, and led to a substantial drop in the number of minority station owners, homogenization of play lists, and less local news.
  • Lifted from 12 the number of local TV stations any one corporation could own, and expanded the limit on audience reach. One company had been allowed to own stations that reached up to a quarter of U.S. TV households. The Act raised that national cap to 35 percent. These changes spurred huge media mergers and greatly increased media concentration. Together, just five companies – Viacom, the parent of CBS, Disney, owner of ABC, News Corp, NBC and AOL, owner of Time Warner, now control 75 percent of all prime-time viewing.
  • The Act deregulated cable rates. Between 1996 and 2003, those rates have skyrocketed, increasing by nearly 50 percent.
  • The Act permitted the FCC to ease cable-broadcast cross-ownership rules. As cable systems increased the number of channels, the broadcast networks aggressively expanded their ownership of cable networks with the largest audiences. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable stations are owned by the same parent companies that own the broadcast networks, challenging the notion that cable is any real source of competition.
  • The Act gave broadcasters, for free, valuable digital TV licenses that could have brought in up to $70 billion to the federal treasury if they had been auctioned off. Broadcasters, who claimed they deserved these free licenses because they serve the public, have largely ignored their public interest obligations, failing to provide substantive local news and public affairs reporting and coverage of congressional, local and state elections.
  • The Act reduced broadcasters’ accountability to the public by extending the term of a broadcast license from five to eight years, and made it more difficult for citizens to challenge those license renewals.

I’m glad to see that the former president finally recognizes the harm he’s done by caving in to Republicans in Congress and putting his signature on that bill, although he didn’t actually take any responsibility for it. By way of restitution, he may want to advise his wife come out strongly in favor of rolling back the media consolidation that he unleashed. A brief statement to that effect would help to repair the damage and advance the issue. She might might want to use this statement by John Edwards as a model for her own:

“It’s time for all Democrats, including those running for president, to stand up and speak out against this [News Corp./Dow Jones] merger and other forms of media consolidation.”

So far, Edwards is the only candidate to address this issue, and he deserves enormous credit for exhibiting such courage. The media is a potentially devastating enemy – just ask Howard Dean. However, Hillary Clinton has the greatest moral obligation to take a stand given what her husband saddled us with. The question is, can we expect her to do so after having accepted $20,000, so far, from Murdoch and his associates, who are still promising to raise more money for her campaign?

Update: Paul Hogarth at Beyond Chron attended a session with Hillary Clinton at the YearlyKos conference and asked her what her position is now on the Telcom bill. “I don’t know,” she said, “ask Al Gore.” That’s a fairly pathetic attempt at displaced blame. Gore does bear some responsibility for the legislative development of the bill, but it was Clinton who signed it. And Gore has redeemed himself by becoming a vocal opponent of consolidation and an advocate of media reform.

The Blogging Of The President

Posted by on August 5, 2007 at 3:49 pm. NO Comments :

In a Democratic candidate’s forum at the YearlyKos conference, the participants were asked if they would appoint a White House blogger if elected. All of them said yes.

Imagine for a moment that you are running for the Democratic nomination to run for President of the United States. You are appearing on a panel at a conference of progressive bloggers before an audience of 1,500 of some of the most motivated online activists in your party and you are asked if you would appoint a White House blogger if elected. How many answers are there?

To the field of candidates appearing at this conference, there is only one answer, and that is to pander in the most shallow and uncritical manner possible. I can appreciate the pressure that they may have felt in this venue. They may have justifiably feared a hostile charge at the stage had any of them been adventurous enough to actually give the question some thoughtful consideration. But thoughtful consideration is not a trait most politicians spend much time cultivating.

Blogging has certainly made great strides in the realm of new media. It is regarded with a measure of seriousness that was unthinkable a few short years ago. Presidential candidates are now grateful for an audience of bloggers, and TV pundits are shaking in their expensive and anachronistic studios. But I, for one, am not so sure the notion of a White House blogger is particularly desirable. That may appear to be sacrilege coming from a blogger, but if you break down the meaning and purpose of a blog, this position may make more sense.

Merriam-Webster defines a blog as a…

Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer.

Hiding in that rather dry definition is the framework for all of the vitality that radiates from the best of blogs.

Key amongst the components of good blogging is personality. The authors who attract crowds and inspire readers are those who give something more of themselves than the typical columnist. They dig deeply and feel fiercely, and aren’t afraid to express themselves with the raw honesty of a confessional.

The commentary featured on blogs is enhanced by the comments of readers that are compelled to praise, argue, and otherwise expand upon the blogger’s original thoughts. It is the presence of a community that ties together the disparate souls that linger in the Intersphere, and transforms a private diary into a social gathering.

The problem with a White House blog is that it would be none of these things I just described. It would not offer the personal reflections of a nation’s leader, or even those of a staffer appointed to feel things for the president. The honesty and spontaneity that infuses superior blogs with essence would be diluted beyond recognition by the expediency and message control of the modern presidential PR machine. And the chance that unrestricted free speech would flourish in freewheeling comments (if comments are even allowed) is roughly zero to none.

More likely, the White House Blog would just be another province of the propaganda branch of administration bureaucracy. It would be employed to further the political agenda of partisans, rather to than to inform and/or inspire citizens. Just imagine the sort of blogging that would emanate from the current White House. Would you rush each morning to your computer to devour the details of the latest musings of Hugh Hewitt or Michelle Malkin? Or perhaps they would find an obscure marcom specialist with YAF credentials who would happily report to Tony Snow.

For these reasons, I don’t think it would be contributory to democracy to establish yet another platform for the disbursement of misinformation. Leave the lying and scheming and obfuscation to the president’s press secretary and his/her designees, where it currently resides.

Leave blogging to bloggers.

Stalking Points Memo: Kos & Effect

Posted by on August 3, 2007 at 12:16 pm. 7 Comments :


 
Bill O’Reilly: “Many of the Democrats running for president will speak at the DailyKos convention next week. That is a major mistake.”

So says O’Reilly, the renowned Democratic analyst. Listen as he generously contributes his learned advice to the party he dismisses as radical loons.

Visit the growing library of Stalking Points Memos.