website statistics

Archive for December, 2008

For Want of a Google Search, Paul Mulshine Was Lost

Published by William Beutler on December 28, 2008 in Instapundit, Journalism, Journalism History, Journalist Bloggers, MSM vs. Blogs, Newspaper Columnists, Newspapers and William Beutler. 38 Comments

Note: Updated below.

If you haven’t read this morning’s Wall Street Journal op-ed by Paul Mulshine of the Newark Star-Ledger, “All I Wanted for Christmas Was a Newspaper”, it’s just the kind of arrogant-clueless screed by a newspaperman against the blogosphere that elicits first anger, then pity.

These opinion columns are nothing new. See David Simon’s disproportionate contempt for bloggers for an example of someone who managed to succeed after taking a buyout yet is still consumed by the subject. Such columns have long been a symptom of the industry’s steady decline, but as it slips into precipitous free fall, schadenfreude has given way to Willy Loman-esque pathos. I’ve never found Ol’ Gil from The Simpsons all that funny, in part because he was a poor replacement for Lionel Hutz, but also because it’s no fun to watch the helpless fail and flail.

Still, that does not mean the poverty of their arguments should be excused, especially because they are the squeakiest wheels in this dilapidated machine, and their erroneous conclusions may well be adopted by those watching from a short distance. So far Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit and Robert Ivan at Metaprinter have ably pointed out the many flaws in his piece, but I’d like to tackle another. Here is Mulshine making an elitist argument that is not prima facie incorrect, but is nevertheless undone by its own careless construction:

In his book, “An Army of Davids,” Mr. Reynolds heralds an era in which “[m]illions of Americans who were in awe of the punditocracy now realize that anyone can do this stuff.”

No, they can’t. Millions of American can’t even pronounce “pundit,” or spell it for that matter. On the Internet and on the other form of “alternative media,” talk radio, a disliked pundit has roughly a 50-50 chance of being derided as a “pundint,” if my eyes and ears are any indication.

The type of person who can’t even keep track of the number of times the letter “N” appears in a two-syllable word is not the type of person who is going to offer great insight into complex issues.

All right, well this question about usage of “pundit” vs. “pundint” is easily testable. Let’s go to Google BlogSearch:

Already we can see that Mulshine should have chosen a different word to illustrate the alleged ignorance of Internet political commentators. Thanks to those like Instapundit, the word has enjoyed a strong currency in recent years, perhaps more so than any word besides “meme”.

Remember, these are not necessarily the savviest bloggers (let alone, strictly, bloggers), just those which (the increasingly unreliable) BlogSearch coughed up first.

As someone who tries to anticipate likely objections while writing, I can’t imagine doing as Mulshine does and simply assuming that others would willingly accept one’s personal impressions as empirical evidence. A quick Internet search reveals his example as, charitably, an exaggeration.

Not only is he wrong, even if he was right it wouldn’t be the damning evidence he thinks it is. In fact, I read a newspaper column two weeks ago that replaced the common phrase “to the … manor born” with the malaprop “to the … manner born.” A mental slip-up of this sort is indeed careless. It may mean the columnist (it was Kathleen Parker) should be scrutinized more closely, but it does not mean that newspaper columnists should be dismissed out of hand.

Smart people make common errors all the time. And Mulshine certainly seems to be among them them.

Instapundit readers 7, Blog P.I. 3: Everyone in the comments (and now Glenn, too) is right about the Shakespeare quote. I didn’t realize the phrase I knew came from the title of a British sitcom, To The Manor Born, a pun on the Shakespeare line. Would it hurt or help my cause to mention I’m an English major?

This is pretty ironic given the subject of this post, and while it certainly means one should always read me with a critical eye, it actually underscores the point about focusing on these things too much. To wit, a Google search of to the manor born returns 500,000 results, while one for to the manner born returns 52,400 results. To make another gratuitous Simpsons reference: “Show’s over, Shakespeare.”

To the list of smart people who make mental slips, one might add yours truly.

P.S. I’ve actually seen Hamlet on screen or stage at least four times, and I’m a fan, but I’ll be sure to read up on this bit now.

Putting a CAP on Yglesias

Published by William Beutler on December 22, 2008 in Beltway media, Comment Sections, Daily Kos, Memeorandum, Netroots, Public policy, Think tanks, Tough Crowd and William Beutler. 10 Comments

It’s been awhile since there’s been a good, old fashioned “you can’t do that in the blogosphere” controversy, but this morning Memeorandum brings us one in the form of a public rebuke to nomadic Center for American Progress (CAP) blogger Matthew Yglesias by CAP interim chief executive Jennifer Palmieri. Not just that, but Palmieri commandeered Yglesias’ blog to do so. Here’s the full text:

A Special Note Re: Third Way

This is Jennifer Palmieri, acting CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Most readers know that the views expressed on Matt’s blog are his own and don’t always reflect the views of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Such is the case with regard to Matt’s comments about Third Way. Our institution has partnered with Third Way on a number of important projects - including a homeland security transition project - and have a great deal of respect for their critical thinking and excellent work product. They are key leaders in the progressive movement and we look forward to working with them in the future.

What had Yglesias written to deserve this treatment? Two days prior, this:

Third Way is a neat organization — I used to work across the hall from them. And they do a lot of clever messaging stuff that a lot of candidates find very useful. But their domestic policy agenda is hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit.

It shouldn’t take long to figure out what the reaction would be. And it took only three minutes for the first comment, by “The CAP Cleaning Staff”, to appear:

Maybe it’s just me, but this post is kind of creepy.

Around the blogosphere, reactions have been much the same. Lefty bloggers from the netroots and academia, such as Matt Stoller and Brad DeLong, rallied to his side. Markos Moulitsas, who has a few more institutional relationships than most, was somewhat muted in his response, the first line simply being:

The Center for American Progress should not make a habit of doing this.

And I concur. The post was, as Yglesias friend Julian Sanchez put it, profoundly tone deaf. It makes CAP look less like a think tank and more like a message machine (something that is true of most DC research institutions, but few let their guard slip so badly) and it will bring yet more scrutiny to Third Way [Update: About which, great comparison here].

Yet this is also exactly the way of things, as James Joyner matter-of-factly explans:

CAP employs Matt to write a blog for them and, contrary to the views of some commenters, it’s absurd to expect that they should simply let him post whatever he feels like posting. Institutions start blogs with the purpose of advancing their institutional agenda. Writing for CAP is different from writing for a general interest magazine or on one’s own space, both of which Matt did previously.

What’s more, left-leaning but independent-minded Brendan Nyhan had already imagined just this scenario, and does not believe this will be an isolated incident:

There’s no way that this sort of reaction won’t create a chilling effect on Yglesias. How could he not think twice about criticizing Third Way or other CAP partners in the future? It’s the reason we need smart bloggers like him at independent outlets like The Atlantic that won’t enforce a party line.

It’s already having an effect on his comment section. To be sure, Yglesias’ commenters have been irritatingly wry and weirdly intelligent for years, but in response to this throwaway joke post this morning…

Deep Thought

The fact that the weather has swung rapidly from unseasonably warm to incredibly cold conclusively debunks concerns about man-made climate change.

…this was the first comment:

Now we know Jennifer Palmieri’s views on the weather. Also Third Way’s official opinions.

Just remember, Matt Yglesias is no longer writing on this blog. It’s been hijacked by Palmieri, CEO of Center for American Progress. Sad, that.

This is really sad.

I don’t think I’d go that far. But it is a reminder that the blogosphere is still subject to constraints from the outside world.

Huffington Post Appropriating Others’ Content is Nothing New

Published by William Beutler on December 20, 2008 in Asymmetrical Media, Attribution, Hotline, Huffington Post, Journalism, SEO, Site Traffic and William Beutler. 0 Comments

There’s been plenty of discussion over the past couple days about Huffington Post’s habit of posting articles that consist of the first few paragraphs of someone else’s story sans commentary and then linking to the full piece. This was first raised by Whet Moser at the Chicago Reader, who noticed that HuffPost Chicago (a first attempt at thinking locally, hence its “beta” designation) was doing this to previews of local concerts. In some cases, by copying just the first few paragraphs, HuffPo had reposted the entire article. This is because, as Moser put it, “that is the whole article, dumbass” [italics in original]. For example, click through the thumbnails below to screen shots as provided by Moser:

   

This has resulted in some serious discussion at Techmeme, as it should be, but my question is: What took so long? I covered the launch of Huffington Post when I was writing the Blogometer at National Journal’s Hotline two and a half years ago, and kept a close eye on the development of the site. If you recall, the site was the subject of some some scrutiny and fun-making ahead of its launch. Huffington’s venture survived the early gibes, long enough at least to attract new ones.

Maybe six months in, I noticed that headlines on the front page linked to just the kind of pages now being critcized. I never wrote about it, but I did bring it up to my boss, who also thought it strange. While Moser has stumbled across a particularly egregulous example of the practice — and in fairness, HuffPo’s Jonah Peretti claims it was an editing mistake — they’re already pushing the envelope of what’s acceptable. And in this case, I think even Sam Zell would have a point.

Bloggers are frequently given to quoting long stretches of others’ writing, but as fair use guidelines usually require, they do so for purposes of adding commentary. HuffPo does not, which raises the question of how much Huffington Post is an authentic blog and how much it is a media company appropriating others’ credibility.

Also raising this question is the new book, The Huffington Post Complete Guide to Blogging. Here’s the cover, available from Simon & Schuster:

Notice anything? Like, say, a complete lack of original blogging voices? Craig Newmark is the lone individual whose reputation was first made online, and even then his rep is not as a blogger but as the founder of Craigslist. Huffington Post built some credibility over the past few years, with myself and other informed consumers of news, by giving a bigger soapbox to lesser known talents such as Jason Linkins and Lee Stranahan. I’d say HuffPo has done them a lot of good, and they would say the same.

But then there are those like Walt Moser and Monica Kendrick, the author of the review noted above. In both circumstances, HuffPo falls short of being a democratizing force in the media. In the dichotomy between its famous and non-famous contributors, HuffPo is trying to have it both ways: they will elevate new writers, but only so far. And the same is true of its bid to provide a new way of experiencing the news: sometimes, all that means is appropriating yours.

A Glimpse at the Future of Twitter Fundraising

Published by William Beutler on December 17, 2008 in Midterms '10, Online Campaigns, Online Fundraising, Republicans, Social Networking, Twitter, Web 2.0 and William Beutler. 2 Comments

Twitter experienced another milestone last week, although you may not have noticed: Tweet for Chuck, a fundraising drive organized by the nascent campaign of Chuck DeVore, a California state assemblyman who is gearing up to take on Barbara Boxer in 2010. As far as I can discern, this is the first time Twitter has been put to this use.

Although it’s very early yet in the cycle, the last few weeks have seen a big jump in use of Twitter by conservatives, if the just-launched TCOT website (aggregating and ranking conservative tweeters) is any measure. The move should give DeVore some degree of online cred and visibility that few candidates yet have — at least among conservatives, and at this stage they matter most.

The image below, from the front page of the website, explains how it works better than any summary I could offer:

Further down the page, donors are listed along with their Twitter profile picture, the amount they donated or pledged, and whether other donors had listed them as a referrer:

By tweeting the donation to one’s Twitter followers, the campaign gets a free one-time use of that donor’s account and the chance to solicit additional donors. The same network effects that made Twitter even more conducive to passing along news about the Mumbai terror attacks than perhaps even the blogosphere could end up producing a tool more effective for fundraising than blogging as well.

Twitter is a more intimate experience than blogging, so a candidate on Twitter (as DeVore is) can to some extent simulate the access donors frequently get at traditional fundraising dinners. A candidate couldn’t really be expected to write a whole blog post thanking specific donors, but a tweet is just the right vehicle for such acknowledgment, and DeVore’s campaign has been doing just that.

Moreover, DeVore is on the right track so far, working with blogosphere and political veterans Josh Trevino and then Justin Hart and even contributing blog posts at the recently-launched GOP state blog network Red County.

It’s been said before that political movements tend to innovate in fundraising and message delivery when they’re out of power. With Barack Obama’s Twitter account recently falling silent while DeVore is taking it in a new direction, we might just be seeing that happen already.

Update: Don’t miss DeVore’s comment on this post.

The Earliest Known Fisking?

Published by William Beutler on December 8, 2008 in 9/11 Attacks, Language, Rhetoric, Warblogging and William Beutler. 1 Comment

The word “fisking” — originating in the blogosphere ca. 2001 — has fallen somewhat into disuse in recent years, especially as the ’sphere has expanded to include many who weren’t around back in its earliest days.

For the uninitiated, it refers to a point-by-point refutation of an odious written work, often with an acidic or sardonic tone. The referent is one Robert Fisk, a British columnist whose absurdly self-abegnating columns from Afghanistan made him a pariah, at least until he was forgotten. Forceful responses from bloggers such as Andrew Sullivan gave rise to the term itself.

But this eponym is worth keeping around, and it’s up to armchair cultural anthropologists like yours truly to point out earlier examples of the form where they find them.

Which brings us to the once-popular and still-familiar 1936 book “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie. I picked up a copy from Amazon recently, and have been reading it on the Metro to work. In one early chapter, Carnegie explains how persuasion is best accomplished by appealing to your persuadee’s self-interest, and as a counter-example reprints a letter from an officious adman and intersperses it with his own commentary. Carnegie introduces the section thus:

This letter was sent to the managers of local radio stations throughout the country. (I have set down, in brackets, my reactions to each paragraph.)

And here, for your reading interest, is a partial reproduction:

Mr. John Blank,
Blankville,
Indiana
Dear Mr. Blank:

   The —— company desires to retain its position in advertising agency leadership in the radio field.

[Who cares what your company desires? I am worried about my own problems. The bank is foreclosing on my house, the bugs are destroying the hollyhocks, the stuck market tumbled yesterday. I missed the eight-fifteen this morning, I wasn't invited to the Jones's dance last night, the doctor tells me I have high blood pressure and neuritis and dandruff. And then what happens? I come down to the office this morning worried, open my mail and here is some little whippersnapper off in New York yapping about what his company wants. Bah! If he only realized what sort of impression his letter makes, he would get out of the advertising business and start manufacturing sheep dip.]

   This agency’s national advertising accounts were the bulwark of the network. Our subsequent clearances of station time have kept us at the top of agencies year after year.

[You are big and rich and right at the top, are you? So what? I don't give two whoops in Hades if you are as big as General Motors and General Electric and the General Staff of the U.S. Army all combined. If you had as much sense as a half-witted hummingbird, you would realize that I am interested in how big I am--not how big you are. All this talk about your enormous success makes me feel small and unimportant.]

   We desire to service our accounts with the last word on radio station information.

[You desire! You desire. You unmitigated ass. I'm not interested in what you desire or what the President of the United States desires. Let me tell you once and for all that I am interested in what I desire--and you haven't said a word about that yet in this absurd letter of yours.]

Zing! Dale Carnegie wasn’t warblogger, but he certainly could have fit in with those whippersnappers.

Twitter’s Top User Account Abandoned?

Published by William Beutler on December 2, 2008 in Barack Obama, Social Networking, Technology, Twitter, William Beutler and YouTube. 15 Comments

You may not have noticed this, but the most-followed user account on Twitter has not been updated in nearly a month:

It wouldn’t have occurred to me to check, except that it was mentioned on the latest episode of This Week in Tech (where they are under the naive impression that Obama himself actually posts to the account). Apparently the inactivity has resulted in the account’s removal from Twitterholic, which keeps track of the most-followed accounts. And yet Obama still has nearly twice as many followers as the next, Kevin Rose.

So what’s the deal here? Is everybody just too busy with Change.gov? Will YouTube be Obama’s sole method of communicating with Internet users? That certainly looks to be the case. Once elected, it was inevitable that Obama’s communications strategy would become more conventional, but abandoning this direct line to supporters is somewhat perplexing. Why leave 140,000 followers on the table, especially now that Twitter is finally going mainstream? My guess is that they will use it again, after Obama assumes the presidency and wants to mobilize his supporters toward a particular goal, say, health care reform.

That said, it would behoove someone in Obama’s Internet shop to keep the account current, even by recording announcements of cabinet appointments. Events of the past week have underscored Twitter’s usefulness as a news source. Obama’s team would be wise to recognize this.