Speaking of Social Networking

Two things I touched on in my last post were the increasing prevalence of Internet-ready phones and the power of social networking sites such as Facebook.

I'm not the only one talking about that - Apple's got a new iPhone ad that only talks about Facebook on your iPhone.

Besides being the typical brilliant, effective, stylish Apple ad (I swear they have the best ads in the world right now), it's a pitch to a younger crowd than may already be toting the thing (which I'm in love with). But it's also targeted at a certain demographic of this younger crowd - as I'd noted last year, Facebook is used largely by a younger, preppier, more affluent crowd than MySpace. Which is to say I don't expect to see an iPhone MySpace ad anytime in thenear future.

The Internet and Politics

Say what you will about Obama, he's inarguably running the most tech-savvy campaign this cycle. Both he and McCain have slick, visually appealing websites, which is the least you'd expect from a pair of presidential contenders.

But McCain is still a few years behind the cutting-edge applications of the Internet in the political realm (surprising for a guy who made the most of the Internet in his insurgent campaign back in 2000). He's got everything you would want, including omnipresent donation links, if you're older than thirty or so. But his ability to get news to you is limited, and he boasts only a video archive that is on the same menu as print-news stories. His campaign blog isn't bad, but his RSS feeds are sorely under-subscribed. The site also lacks links to his presence on Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIn, and other social networking sites, as well as widgets for blogs or websites (something I emailed the campaign about). There's a noticeable absence of action links on every page - nothing about calling other voters or volunteering; it's focused more on winning your vote than getting you to sway others. It's a website for an older generation, and cedes the e-edge and the initiative among youth voters to Obama.

Obama's website, by contrast, is absolutely masterful. His blog is more picture- and video-intensive than McCain's. Whereas Mac's is largely devoted recently to refuting the Times story, and hasn't been updated since 2/25, Obama's has been updated five times today and addresses several different topics. He's got the volunteer and phone links on every page, as well as the donate links. He has a separate tab for states, so you can find what's going on in your hometown and get involved. And the coolest? Under the media tab, he's got a whole package of mobile options. The ability to download Barack ring tones just creeps me out, but the ability to get policy updates texted to your cell phone is the new frontier of tech-savvy campaigning. It's actually fast becoming redundant as the proliferation of Internet-ready cellphones means that email is always accessible, but it's still fascinating. It's not just updates, however, which some other candidates (such as Steve Sauerberg) boast, it's the fact that you can receive updates on specific policies. It's self-selected micro-targeting via an always-connected medium. Oh and of course there are links to Facebook/MySpace/LinkedIn and every other social network you can think of (and some I've never heard of), as well as widgets.

I'd never vote for Barack, but Republicans looking to be competitive in the new realm of political competition need to look at Obama's site. It recognizes the power of the Internet and breaks further away from the traditional media to media that focus on the individual consumer and on how they want to get their information. In a word, it's effective.

"Fair and Balanced"

CNN distributed a series of talking points to its anchors in the wake of Fidel Castro's "resignation" - talking points that bring a whole new meaning to fair and balanced (a slogan liberals love to hate) and once again reveal the media's inescapable bias. They're just too good, I'll post them in their entirety.

From: Flexner, Allison
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:46 AM
To: *CNN Superdesk (TBS)
Cc: Neill, Morgan; Darlington, Shasta
Subject: Castro guidance

Some points on Castro – for adding to our anchor reads/reporting:

* Please say in our reporting that Castro stepped down in a letter he wrote to Granma (the communist party daily), as opposed to in a letter attributed to Fidel Castro. We have no reason to doubt he wrote his resignation letter, he has penned numerous articles over the past year and a half.

* Please note Fidel did bring social reforms to Cuba – namely free education and universal health care, and racial integration. in addition to being criticized for oppressing human rights and freedom of speech.

* Also the Cuban government blames a lot of Cuba’s economic problems on the US embargo, and while that has caused some difficulties, (far less so than the collapse of the Soviet Union) the bulk of Cuba’s economic problems are due to Cuba’s failed economic polices. Some analysts would say the US embargo was a benefit to Castro politically – something to blame problems on, by what the Cubans call “the imperialist,” meddling in their affairs.

* While despised by some, he is seen as a revolutionary hero, especially with leftist in Latin America, for standing up to the United States.

Any questions, please call the international desk.

Allison

I'm really kind of surprised that the US isn't denounced as being a nation of baby-killers for the embargo. Anyone else think that the sentence about "being criticized for oppressing human rights and freedom of speech" was a later addition to the whole piece? Finally, I would suggest that he's probably also seen as a revolutionary hero at CNN.

The NYT's McCain Hit Job

The story of the morning in the political world is, without a doubt, the New York Times' hit job on John McCain. It's the most absurd coalition of rumor and innuendo, shameful journalism even by the standards of the Times.

McCain's denied the allegations, with his campaign saying he's going to war with the paper over the allegations. The Times has their own version of the back-and-forth, including a statement from their editor which makes reference to "facts;" he fails to note that they are few and far between in this particular piece.

Meanwhile, John Weaver, one of the figures at the center of the Times' concocted drama, has issued a statement explaining his role - and it contradicts what NYT says. He's McCain to the end, it would appear. TNR has a must-read metacommentary on the story - the story behind the story, the debates within the Times as to whether or not to publish, etc. It's a hit piece, but apparently not everyone was comfortable with that. Others were apparently dismayed by the timing; the story had originally begun circulating (according to Drudge at least) back in December, but was pulled; some wonder if the Times was holding its fire to help its favorite Republican.

And last but not least, the law of unintended consequences kicks in: the Right is rallying behind McCain. This whole story - especially if it starts to backfire on the Times - also helps McCain in drawing attention away from Obama/Clinton, which had been largely dominating headlines and news coverage. Unifying the party, giving McCain the spotlight with its BS - I never thought I'd say it, but thank you Grey Lady!

CQ has a worthwhile post that's part summary, part analysis, but is definitely worth the time (as is everything that Ed writes).

Interesting News from New Hampshire

The old news is that last Sunday, the Manchester Union-Leader endorsed John McCain. This Sunday, the Concord Monitor anti-endorsed (aka slammed) Mitt Romney. According to NYT's Adam Nagourney, the paper probably doesn't have much sway with Republican voters - but he makes no mention of independents, who can vote in either party's primary in New Hampshire. Still, it's an interesting hit piece; the media finally shows its true colors?

Time's Person of the Year - Drum Roll, Please...

Time has gotten around to announcing their "Person of the Year," an award that has lost much of its luster since last year's "You" cop-out. That being said, the smart money before the announcement was on Al Gore, or if they were honest, David Petraeus. But Time was tricky, and instead went with, wait for it, Vlad Putin. Da. I think their primary reason for the pick was the cutesy title - A Tsar Is Born. I almost would have been happy with the Goreacle. CQ's coverage is worthwhile, especially the part about how the voting shook out - Vlad, Goreacle, JK ROWLING, Hu Jintao, and then Petraeus. Back to that bit about honesty; JK Rowling? Did Britney Spears poll sixth? Two years, two stupid awards - adieu, credibility.

DKos to be in Newsweek

Newsweek has apparently decided that its readership isn't satisfied with their in-house leftish nonsense; no they want more. Thus they've contracted with Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, Kos of DailyKos, to be among their 2008 correspondents. They've promised to find an equally obnoxious right-winger; my first thought is "what's David Duke up to?"

For his part, Ed Morrisey - far more fair-minded than I - views this as a fundamentally good thing for the blogosphere.

I also think, David Duke comments aside, that it'll be hard to find a right wing equivalent to Kos; as a whole, the left wing blogosphere is far angrier and more obscene; they lack the measured voices of a Captain Ed or a Glenn Reynolds (don't believe me? Take a look at firedoglake).

Rush a Stalking Horse?

I'm starting to wonder whether this whole Rush Limbaugh/"phony soldiers" brouhaha - which, by the way, Rush said nothing close to what the Left alleges - is merely a Democratic stalking horse for the Fairness Doctrine. After all, Rush is Talk Radio, that evil menace to democracy that needs to be policed by the FCC. Michelle Malkin and I are on the same page; The Hill also agrees.

"Ideological Agitprop"

Or so runs Brendan Nyhan's assessment of one of Kos-founder Markos Moulitsas's (many) logically fallacious arguments this morning on Meet the Press. I haven't watched his "debate" with DLC Chair/Archenemy Harold Ford just yet, but given the arrogance of his column in yesterday's WaPo, I'm not sure I can stomach it. His overall argument is that the DLC is bad, that the netroots are good, and that Americans are all a bunch of peacenik socialists in denial. [The state of journalism is reflected in the fact that pompous clowns such as him get inches on the op-ed page of a "respectable" rag like the Post]

UPDATE: I'm not going to bother embedding it, but Allahpundit has had some fun with today's debate, interspersing it with clips from an interview with Kos at last weekend's YearlyKos; watch it here. And he just sounds condescending, in the worst stereotype of a liberal.

More Fox = More Conservatives?

That's the suggestion of some new research cited by Brendan Nyhan. It's not exactly a seismic shift, but it's no doubt enough to rile the Left. What amuses me is that the researchers have also authored a chapter in a forthcoming volume entitled "The Political Impact of Media Bias." Thus perpetrating the myth that only Fox is biased, and that the rest of the media is so well balanced.

Too bad we can't do some people the benefit of taking away NBC/CBS/ABC/MSNBC/CNN and studying what that does to their voting patterns (and their brain waves).

NYT: Court-Packing is Cool!

Brendan Nyhan rightfully slaps around NYT op-ed contributor Jean Edward Smith for suggesting that a Democratic president would need only a simple majority to increase the number of Supreme Court justices ("court-packing"), but he gives her a pass on the absurdity underlying her argument.

Now to begin with, prior to reading Smith's op-ed, I was unaware that the practice of court-packing has a long history (though I suppose I shouldn't be shocked). But let's just look at the opening and closing paragraphs:

WHEN a majority of Supreme Court justices adopt a manifestly ideological agenda, it plunges the court into the vortex of American politics. If the Roberts court has entered voluntarily what Justice Felix Frankfurter once called the “political thicket,” it may require a political solution to set it straight.
[snip]
If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two. Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative colleagues might do well to bear in mind that the roll call of presidents who have used this option includes not just Roosevelt but also Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant.

I don't know whether to vomit or to laugh, though I suspect the two together would be highly unpleasant. Put more bluntly, Smith says "We the coastal liberals don't agree with the Supreme Court. We used to, but now that we don't, we should find ways around them." It also pays no attention to the fact that this court doesn't have a "manifestly ideological agenda" any more than any previous court did (and significantly less so than the Warren Court). Her claim that the "five-man majority" is "thumbing its nose at popular values" is also absurd. Let's consider one decision that has produced much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the Left, Gonzales v. Carhart, the decision that outlawed partial birth abortion. In doing so, was the Roberts Court "thumbing its nose at popular values?" Well if polls are to be believed, not exactly: a May Gallup poll found that 72% of respondents believed the partial-birth abortion procedure should be illegal. Popular values, perhaps, if you poll only Greenwich Village, Beacon Hill, Chapel Hill, and San Francisco.
It reminds me of Pauline Kael's infamous distress in 1976 - "No one I know voted for Nixon!" Times change, liberals don't.

But let's also look at this hare-brained scheme in the bigger picture. What other recent Democratic caper does this remind you of? If you guessed the "fairness" doctrine, you're right! In both cases, Democrats are throwing temper tantrums that they aren't getting their way - whether it's being blasted on talk radio or having their glorious social engineering projects judicially neutered - and they're determined to change the rules. And why does this happen? It may be tritely stated, but it's because liberal ideals aren't popular values, but rather the values of an insular elite - the academe, the media, etc. - which cannot be enacted through the usual channels. Thus they have to use other means, such as the courts. And when people call them on their BS, they'd rather muzzle the opposition rather than try and win an honest debate.

This thing ain't going anywhere, much to the dismay of the Upper East Side, but in his critique, Nyhan really missed the boat.

Keith Ellison: 9/11 = Reichstag Fire?

And thus Bush = Hitler? Or so says former (?) Nation of Islam member-turned-Congressman Keith Ellison. I've been sort of ignoring this story, mostly because the rest of the blogosphere has been doing a great job covering it. But now I thought I'd provide some roundup. First of all, check out the video (it's long and painful, I'm sorry)

This is, mind you, an elected member of the United States Congress (and one whose own party apparently views him as something of a loose cannon). When Ellison first uttered this garbage, the media continued to blather away about their usual nonsense. The first time I saw the story picked up was a column in the Minnesota Star-Tribune. Unsurprisingly, the STrib edit board later ran a piece saying "okay, he was hyperbolic - but he had a point." The MSM as a whole, however, ignored the story - perhaps their silence was tacit agreement with his outrageous comments? But when Ellison starts feeling the heat and issues the de rigeur kinda/sorta/wishy-washy apology, the media notices.

This whole incident is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, there's no chance that Ellison's constituents will return his sorry ass to the Land of a Thousand Lakes in 2008. They're just that crazy (Cindy Sheehan might do well there). On the other hand, this whole brouhaha again underlines the power of the blogosphere: without the internet and the new media, this would have been a non-story and Ellison would have gotten away with peddling this drivel. Instead, he sort of apologizes. If only we could get a real apology out of him.

More Michael Yon

Michael Yon has written again, a wide-ranging report that must be widely read and disseminated.
Among other things, he paints a picture of General Petraeus - competent, considerate to his troops, and popular with them - that stands in stark contrast to the media and the Democrats' mud-slinging. Along with that, he notes how incredibly effective our veteran troops are; this in a city which threatened to be more lethal than Fallujah or Ramadi.

He also reports that the AQ-perpetrated massacre that he previously reported is actually worse than expected, that some local Iraqi officials believe there may be hundreds of bodies buried in the area. He also reports that al Qaeda seems to have plumbed a new depth of inhumanity in their behavior.


Finally he notes media issues - and how some things are unverified but assumed true while others are unverified and assumed to be false and while many journalists have other agendas or misuse their inherent credibility, many do good work and are in an extraordinarily dangerous line of work. As always, read and send. Yon's doing incredible work, I only wish that the media as a whole would follow his lead.

Another Anti-Fred Offensive

We're six months out from Iowa, sixteen from the general. Yet that hasn't stopped the New York Times from already going after families and spouses - this time Fred Thompson's second wife Jeri, whom they have the "class" to call a trophy wife. They go on:

The question may seem sexist, even crass, but serious people — as well as Mr. Thompson’s supporters — have been wrestling with the public reaction to Jeri Kehn Thompson, whose youthfulness, permanent tan and bleached blond hair present a contrast to the 64-year-old man who hopes to win the hearts of the conservative core of the Republican party. Will the so-called values voters accept this union?

Thanks to CQ for picking up this story, and Captain Ed is right to note "the concern that Susan Saulny and the Paper of Record show for "values voters", a group that normally received little but scorn and ridicule from Pinch's crew." Yup. Of course to many in America, an attack from the Times is akin to an endorsement. And if you're going to attack one candidate's spouse, wouldn't you pick the one who isn't a high-powered media consultant?

Iran in Iraq pt. 2

Just for amusement (and to stick another thumb in Greenwald's blindered eyes): the BBC, imperialist, reactionary war-mongering news outlet that it is, also presents the story of Iranian involvement in Iraq as pretty plausible.

Michael Yon Update

I noted Michael Yon's latest (and perhaps most disturbing) dispatch the other day; now he's updated, with an open offer for the media to publish it and get the news of this atrocity into the public eye.

Muslim Prayer in Schools

In San Diego. Although they can't determine whether or not the students were led in prayer by school officials, what's not disputed is that there is a fifteen-minute afternoon break for student prayer.

To me this pushes the envelope - and if these were Christians, there's no doubt that the ACLU and media would be all over it.

Though for what it's worth, the San Diego Union-Tribune did cover this - but not much elsewhere.

WaPo, NYT Legally Complicit in Terrorism?

I've thought so for a long time; now a lawyer is saying the same thing: "The NY Times and Washington Post are every bit the supporters of the terrorist organizations that Tehran and Damascus are when they facilitate the publication of Hamas' messages."

Democrats and the Media

Some Democrats have gotten it into their head that the media is biased. Against them. Yes to the first, an emphatic no to the second. Certainly conservative voices are the majority on talk radio, and yes Fox is a pretty successful cable news channel, but liberals still maintain their stranglehold on ABC/NBC/CBS, NPR (with our tax dollars, mind you), as well as the major print organs (mind you, the influence of all of these is waning, as Brian Anderson points out in South Park Conservatives, reviewed here).

But even these, some on the left (especially the far left) feel are anti-Democrat, Bush-hugging mouthpieces for those crazy Republicans to spread their gospel. Beyond reminding them to take their pills, here are some fun facts.

According to MSNBC, media figures favor Democrats with their political donations something like 9-1. If that's not a blatant sign of favoritism, I don't know what is. And the money is merely the most visible evidence. While not all reporters are as biased as say, Dan Rather, we're all human and thus largely unable to keep our prejudices from affecting the way we do our jobs (There's some discussion of this, especially how unconscious discrimination can be) in Freakonomics).

Returning to talk radio, Think Progress (a.k.a American Socialists) have released a report on the reasons for conservative bias on that medium and how to counter it. Their recommendations are almost laughable: increase diversity of ownership. Of course this will be the government's job in their eyes...But what I'm curious about is how they define "progressive" radio? Should we simply pipe in the news from Venezuela and Cuba? Or do we need to dig up Stalin's speeches and rebroadcast them? But what we have to remember in the first place is the reason that conservatives dominate talk radio is because the AM airwaves were empty and because conservatives couldn't get a say in the Old Media outlets. In essence, they circumvented the MSM and thus gained the wrath of the Left by not only spreading their message but doing so effectively.

Oh and MSNBC also released a list of all donating journalists (I don't know if they covered everyone): check to see if your favorite is on here.