website statistics

Author Archive for William Beutler

Will the Real Speaker Pelosi Please Stand Up?

I enjoy joke Twitter accounts as much as the next person. However, if you’re going to do one, you must be extra careful in keeping the account separate from your main account, which is why I also feel compelled to share the occasional cautionary tale.

Here’s one from today, noticed first by a colleague and concerning the Twitter account @speakerpelosi. Check out these two screen shots:

Speaker Pelosi’s #dontgo tweet

David All’s #dontgo tweet

Whoops! The two posts went up within minutes of each other, which you can’t tell on account of Twitter’s imprecise time stamping (instead it just says both went up 2 hours ago). The tweet is still available on David All’s account, but is now gone from the fake Pelosi account. I suppose that’s about all the proof we need.

Is this just a cheap gotcha? If you think he’s done anything wrong, then perhaps so. I’ve been following the Twitter debate over this, and I think it’s been overdone: I don’t see how it is a TOS violation, and calling it sock puppetry is defining socks down.

I think the only thing necessarily wrong here is carelessness. Fake websites and joke accounts are fun, but they require a degree of caution that not everyone is up for.

If there is one other thing that’s wrong here, it’s the violation of Egon Spengler’s good advice: don’t cross the streams.

Update: It appears that David is now turning into the skid — probably a better way to handle it.

The Gestalt of The Politico

The Gestalt of the Politico

The Politico is produced just a couple floors below the office whence I type these words, and its staff has counted more than a few of my fellow former Hotline colleagues. Heck, I’ve got two of their promotional coffee mugs in my kitchen cupboard at home. So I take great interest in this American Journalism Review article on its first two years in existence. Here’s how it begins:

When veteran Washington Post political reporters John Harris and Jim VandeHei urged their bosses to create a Web site strictly dedicated to politics, management didn’t jump at the idea.

Less than two years later, Politico, the venture they envisioned – and left the Post to take on – is a success, and a politics-only site is “under study” at the Post, according to Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr.

“The proof is in the figures,” says Harris, Politico’s editor in chief. In May, it had 3.5 million unique visitors and 25.1 million page views, according to Nielsen/Net Ratings. Editor & Publisher ranked Politico the 10th-most-visited newspaper site that month.

Although Harris would not reveal revenue or advertising numbers, he says Politico’s operations are already self-sustaining and the Allbritton Communications-owned publication should be profitable next year. Print advertising provides about 60 percent of its revenue, VandeHei says.

Under normal circumstances, nobody expects print ventures to be profitable in a short period of time. The last few years have been anything but normal, with newspapers in particular hemorrhaging readers and surgically removing staff writers.

Yet the Politico seems more relevant than ever. Though it is not without its flaws, perhaps this is what makes it so timely. And if it really is just a year from profitability, that’s a good sign for the news industry, right?

Not so fast, says Ezra Klein, in a post at The American Prospect:

Here you have this forward-thinking, primarily virtual venture to create a political news organization that marries old-school reporting values to the speed and the immediacy of the web and it actually works. A year-and-a-half after launch, it’s getting 3.5 million unique visitors per month and 25 million page views. And yet not only is it unprofitable, but 60 percent of its revenues come from advertising in the 27,000 circulation print version. In other words: Politico got the online readership it dreamed of, but it hasn’t come even close to figuring out how to monetize it.

This makes sense. After all, massively popular websites like Facebook, Digg and MySpace can’t figure out how to make money off their audiences — why should a news site? Especially why a news site that’s entirely about politics? Everyone knows that politics isn’t where the money is. Consider, for example, how James Joyner subsidizes his high-minded Outside the Beltway blog with the lower-brow Gone Hollywood.

But not so fast again, says Kevin Drum, at The Washington Monthly:

But there’s another way of looking at it: without a website, The Politico would be dead in the water. If, instead of being almost profitable, it were still hemorrhaging a few million bucks a year with break-even years away, there’s a pretty good chance Allbritton would just shut it down. …

Bottom line: Print gets you respect and big dollar advertisers. The web gets you buzz and a nice chunk of additional revenue. The future — part of it, anyway — belongs to those who can successfully combine multiple media platforms into a single profitable whole. So far, it looks like The Politico has done that.

The premise is more complicated, but fair: the whole point of The Politico was to create an online-offline (and even televised) news hybrid. The Albrittons wouldn’t have bankrolled it in the first place without a website. And I do like the takeaway: the print and web editions can be mutually reinforcing.

This works in a glorified company town like Washington, where lobbying firms and trade associations are always there to buy an ad in the hope of influencing lawmakers and their staff. If this model is replicable in Chicago or Cincinnati or Corvallis, I’m not sure how.

Plus, it’s more than a little discouraging for anyone thinking about trying to create an online-only news organization. Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo do more newsgathering than any twenty of the top political blogs on the right, but they’re still a far cry from being a true professional news organization like The Politico.

All that said, we need more Politicos. I wonder what David Simon would have to say about it.

John Edwards Among the Wikipedians

John Edwards’ Wikipedia article is locked until July 30.

Considering that my last two posts were more or less about non-coverage of the John Edwards kerfuffle and highly active Wikipedia articles, I can’t believe I’ve so far missed out on the controversy over what to do with said scandal on said politician’s entry on said reference website.

More than 26,000 words (!)* have been expended on the discussion page associated with the John Edwards encyclopedia entry since the National Enquirer posted a story claiming he was seen leaving a hotel room rented for Rielle Hunter (last week), the woman with whom they have alleged he fathered a child out of wedlock (last year). So far, there is no mention of this story in the article — let alone the existence of Ms. Hunter — and because it has been temporarily locked (see above), it doesn’t appear that anyone will. Not just yet, anyway.

I’ve now read about half the debate, which is the whole extent of it before new people start showing up and re-arguing old points. Based on my own knowledge of how Wikipedia works and what I’ve seen in the press, I’ve come to the conclusion that, even though it sure looks like Edwards’ goose is cooked, Wikipedia’s editors are currently doing the responsible thing by keeping it out of the article.

This post is longer than most, so I am tucking the length of it below the fold. If this subject interests you, follow me.

*When I started writing this post yesterday, it was 15,000. Another 11,000 words (!) went up overnight.

Update: This post was featured in a story by Sarah Stirland at Wired.com today, and points out, there are now a couple sentences about the controversy in the article. I left this comment on the story:

When the page came unlocked, it seems that Wikipedia editors previously uninvolved in the debate came onto the talk page, held a formal vote, and now it’s just a few sentences in the 2008 Presidential campaign section. Or it was until I changed it to “2008 presidential campaign” — a Manual of Style thing.

Continue reading ‘John Edwards Among the Wikipedians’

All the Rage #17: Holy Wiki Edits, Batman!

This week’s edition presents something of a dilemma. As the title of this latest installment indicates, several articles related to the “The Dark Knight” and Batman universe show up in this week’s list of the most-edited articles on the English Wikipedia.

The problem is, you see, I haven’t actually seen the movie yet. (I know, I know.) I do hope to get myself to a movie theater sometime this week, but for the time being I am avoiding spoilers like Ebola. That means I won’t be able to read too closely about anything related specifically to the film’s plot or characters, but I think we’ll manage.

A note: This marks the final bi-weeekly version of All the Rage before we start going monthly in September — but the new, more frequently-recurring Wikipedia section is still in the offing, I promise. And last but not least, thanks again to Craig Wood and Wikirage for making this feature possible, and to the Wikipedia Weekly podcast for the inital inspiration.

  1. Radovan Karadžić via midgard on Flickr.Article: Radovan Karadžić
    Why: The indicited former leader of the Bosnian Serbs (at right with Photoshopped trucker hat), long sought for alleged war crimes against non-Serbs under his rule, was finally captured this past week.
    Detail: Most of the activity here over was focused on keeping the article up to date with current events and general cleanup, but it also seems that much energy was expended keeping Karadžić’s supporters from tilting the page in his favor. The talk page includes at least four debates among editors, one of them very long, about which facts to represent, how to do so, and as happens on the most controversial of pages — what precisely constitutes a fact. And the article history contains a few intriguing edit summaries, such as ths one: “No trivia sections, especially ones which have blobs of text defending war criminals.”

  2. Article: Two-Face
    Why: Née Harvey Dent, from the Batman universe. Not Billy Dee Williams, Tommy Lee Jones or Aaron Eckhart, but the comic book character himself.
    Detail: According to the talk page, it does look like the updates owe something to The Dark Knight. In fact, even before the movie came out, one editor suggested, “Two Face is likely to be receiving lots of attention when The Dark Knight (film) is released. Is anyone interested in working this up to GA [Good Article] level before may?” It doesn’t look like they made it; it’s only rated B-class, which is still better than average.

  3. Article: List of characters from Total Drama Island
    Why: It’s a list of characters from an animated parody of a reality game show.
    Detail: This one came up two weeks ago, and here it is again. The show has 34 characters at present, which I am sure makes for plenty of updates. It still seems an odd entry to keep showing up this high in the list repeatedly; despite being an Adult Swim show I still have not heard of it offline, and even at Television Without Pity the associated forum is all but dead. I’ve often considered the pop culture entries on this list as a barometer of what’s bubbling up below the radar, and I still think that is generally the case — but with this one I’m not so sure.

  4. Article: Joker (comics)
    Why: Where does he get those wonderful Wikipedians?
    The Joker by Sick Sad M!kE via Flickr. Detail: As with the Two-Face article, fans of the Batman comics and films have made an effort to bring this article up to Good Article status, and on more than one occasion. I’m still seeing what I presume to be minor spoilers on the talk page, such as “Following the release of The Dark Knight, does anyone else think ‘ballistics’ or ‘bomb expert’ should be added to Joker’s repertoire of abilities?” But then I did see this in the six-minute preview released to theaters last year, so I’ll survive.

  5. Article: Deaths in 2008
    Why: People died, Wikipedia testified! (Sorry.)
    Detail: Randy Pausch, the Carnegie Mellon professor who became well-known for his inspirational “Last Lecture”; “Golden Girls” actress Estelle Getty; America’s “Spam King” in a murder-suicide; and the drug trafficker who once hired Woody Harrelson’s father to (successfully) murder the presiding judge of his first trial.

  6. Article: Joe Jonas
    Why: An American pop-rock singer who is in a band with his two teenage brothers. Whether this makes them a Hanson for the 21st century I know not.
    Detail: But I do recognize the Jonas name from various online pop culture periodicals (I mean, gossip blogs) so I guess I’m not totally clueless. They’re contemporaries of Miley Cyrus and the Nickelodeon crowd, which indicates to me that this article is here instead of other articles from the genre which occasionally appear, such as iCarly. The article is currently locked due to vandalism, which may have something to do with the Jonas brothers being on the cover of this month’s Rolling Stone.

  7. Article: Christian Bale
    Why: Although he’s currently starring in the number one movie in America, Bale made headlines for a different reason this past week, being briefly jailed over a family dispute in which his mother and sister made claims of assault.
    Detail: You can pretty much chalk this one up to “wrong” headlines, and how exactly to represent the incident has been a matter of considerable talk page debate. At one point the incident had its own section in the article, but now it has been folded into the Personal life section. I find it interesting that, after 1900+ words of discussion about the incident on the talk page, the currently approved verision of this is just 49 words. And it’s probably the right one.

  8. Article: Joker’s appearances in other media
    Why: Hey, wait a minute — this just redirects back to “Joker (comics)”.
    Detail: Not being an admin, it is impossible for me to determine when the page was first created, but I can say that it was merged sometime this past week, and most of that content can now be found in this section.

  9. Article: Breakout (album)
    Why: Did I really think I would get out of this edition without mentioning Miley Cyrus again? I shouldn’t have, because apparently her new album came out just over a week ago.
    Detail: As someone whose favorite albums sometimes have very, very little written about them, perhaps this should annoy me. It might, if I didn’t understand how Wikipedia’s biases work — and when it comes to music, Wikipedia is heavily biased toward recordings by famous people garnering lots of coverage, not to mention albums released in the Wikipedia era (if you will). If I want The Decemberists’ debut album Castaways and Cutouts to be anything more than a stub, it’s up to me. Or anyone else who gets there first.

  10. Hurricane Dolly from Coast Guard News via Flickr.Article: Hurricane Dolly (2008)
    Why: There it was. It rocked you like a hurricane.
    Detail: Or didn’t. Dolly is just the second hurricane (and fourth cyclone, hence the D-name) of the (young) 2008 season, and caused modest devastation and relatively few casualties. Nonetheless, hurricanes draw Wikipedia’s serious-minded breaking news contingent, producing a well-written, highly-sourced article (74 citations at latest count) with a talk page more civil than most you will find. Good show.

  11. Holdovers this week: Deaths in 2008

    Falling off the list: All else, including WALL-E

    Recurring themes: Miley Cyrus, popular American movies

    Honorable mention: Had there been an installment of this feature last week, I have little doubt that The Dark Knight (film) would have topped the list. After all, the film appears to be breaking all box office records — so why shouldn’t it be breaking at least a few Wikipedia records? Well, I don’t think anyone is keeping track of these things (at least not yet) so until I can get someone to program that particular tool, research of that sort remains prohibitively time-consuming. But then it may have not been quite that big — after all, WALL-E made topped Wikirage two weekends in a row whereas this film did not.

Images courtesy midgard, Sick Sad M!kE and Coast Guard News on Flickr.

Blogger Rises to Top Job at Los Angeles Times!

Today, the Times of London reports on the John Edwards sex scandal and the awkward non-coverage here in the states, and it includes at least one sentence that will be very amusing to the L.A. blogosphere:

Tony Pierce, editor of the Los Angeles Times, issued an edict to the paper’s own bloggers to stay off the subject. “Because the only source has been the National Enquirer, we have decided not to cover the rumours or salacious speculations,” he wrote.

Wow! Tony Pierce, longtime writer of Tony Pierce dot com + busblog and former editor of LAist, has risen all the way to become chief editor of the fourth-largest newspaper in the United States by reported circulation? That’s incredible!

It may sound credible, but it certainly is not creditable. Pierce is a web editor at the L.A. Times, overseeing about two dozen blogs on the latimes.com website. And except for the part about working for the Times, that sounds like a pretty good job by itself.

The Times of London simply omitted the conditional “an” before “editor,” giving an inflated impression of Pierce’s role. I thought maybe there was a difference between U.S. and U.K. English usage, but after clicking around google.co.uk, I’m pretty sure it’s just a mistake.

So who is editor of the Los Angeles Times? After all the turmoil at the newspaper these past few years, I had to look it up: Russ Stanton, a 10-year veteran of the paper, who was in fact a web editor himself.

So don’t count Pierce out yet. In the meantime, at least there are now thousands of people around the world who think that he is, in fact, editor-in-chief of the Los Angeles Times.

P.S. Another reason why Pierce has a shot? He may have been punk at one time, but from what I’ve heard of the fallout, he’s been fairly humorless about it. I suggest Tony “Keep Rockin’” Pierce as an appropriate nickname.

P.P.S. This leaked follow-up memo from L.A. Times executive editor Meredith Artley gets it right the second time. That’s one memo too late, but it still should have been leaked more widely.

Bush and Batman vs. Bush and Batman

Batman on the phone with… George W. Bush?Three is a trend in journalism, but two is all Blog P.I. needs, as completely separate but nevertheless intriguing comparisons of George W. Bush with Bruce Wayne (and vice versa) have been flying all across the Internets the last few days.

Making the rounds of the political blogosphere is an op-ed by novelist Andrew Klavan from today’s Wall Street Journal titled “What Bush and Batman Have in Common”:

There seems to me no question that the Batman film “The Dark Knight,” currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society — in which people sometimes make the wrong choices — and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.

“The Dark Knight,” then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year’s “300,” “The Dark Knight” is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.

It may also be worth noting that comic book writer and artist Frank Miller, author of the graphic novels “300″ and 1986’s “The Dark Knight Returns,” upon which all non-Schumacher Batmans since have been modeled, is working on a new Batman graphic novel: “Holy Terror, Batman!” Yes, it’s Batman vs. al-Qaeda.

The second Bush-Batman juxtaposition, which I first saw on Digg yesterday, is a series of Leno-esque person-on-the-street interviews by Philadelphia sketch comedy troupe Secret Pants. The interviewer has a set of quotes that were spoken either by President Bush from 1600 Pennsylvania or Adam West from the 1960s TV show. Passersby are asked to guess which. It’s definitely worth your 3:35:

Twitter Rapprochement: Personal Democracy Forum vs. Netroots Nation

While we’re running Twitter mentions of political blog conferences through Flaptor’s Twist, here’s Netroots Nation (#nn08) this weekend with Personal Democracy Forum (#pdf2008) two fortnights ago:

Twitter hashtags #pdf2008 and #nn08 via Twist by Flaptor.

Even at one day fewer (two if you don’t count #nn08’s low-key Sunday) the bipartisan-ish Personal Democracy Forum generated remarkably more Twitter noise than Netroots Nation, and apparently not much less in the rest of Internet news.

Netroots Nation had House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivering a speech on the main stage, certain to be covered by political reporters on the beat, but PdF had Arianna Huffington, arguably more Internet-famous than anyone in congressional leadership. The partisan nature of Netroots Nation probably attracted many from the substantial New-Old-New Left netroots movement, more than Personal Democracy Forum’s awkward mix of Obama-emboldened NYC progressives and McCain-indifferent DC conservatives. This despite the minor Twitter scuffle over Huffington’s imperious remarks.

It’s worth noting that NN’s location — Austin, Texas — is the same as SXSW (#sxsw) and its Interactive Festival, the locus of Twitter’s first widespread adoption in March 2007. On the other hand, PdF took place in midtown Manhattan, which by virtue of population and proximity surely has more Twitterinos (also, Tweeps) close by enough to at least tweet about not making it up/down.

But I think the best explanation for PdF’s modest Twitter supremacy is that, like SXSW and unlike NN, the audience it attracts is younger and more reliably tech-oriented. After all, the surveys show that liberal blog readers are older and primarily motivated by politics than the average Valley startup founder. One was first about tech, the other politics.

Meanwhile, the ever more ubiquitous micro-blogging service’s strong showing at the political conference probably bodes well for its long-term mass acceptance.

Assuming Twitter isn’t down, of course.

Twitter Fight: Netroots Nation vs. Right Online

This past weekend, Austin hosted two conferences devoted to political blogging: the widely covered and heavily-attended liberal Netroots Nation (née Yearly Kos) and the brand new and under-the-radar conservative Right Online (at which I spoke on Friday).

Both conferences designated hashtags for attendees to use when tweeting their experiences and expoundances. For the Twitter illiterate, a hashtag is a short code word following a pound sign — #hashtag, for example — included in the 140-character message for the purposes of associating that particular tweet with a subject others are using the same hashtag to write about. For the conferences just concluded, the hashtags were #nn08 and #rton08.

Like we always do about this time, here’s a chart comparing their use over the past weekend. This time, we’re using Twist by Flaptor:

Twitter hashtags #nn08 and #rton08 via Twist by Flaptor.

According to the historically-fortunate assigned colors, of course. Also, it’s worth knowing that Netroots Nation ran July 17 to 20, while Right Online was only July 18 to 19. Taking that into consideration, the difference in activity is not especially surprising, considering this was Netroots Nation’s fourth year while being the first Right Online to date.

But the trend lines are still interesting, and I think we can tease out a few observations:

  • Friday late night through Saturday morning was the second-highest period of activity for #nn08 and the lowest for #rton08, at a total number of zero. Perchance the left went out partying while the right went to bed? This can’t be right. In fact, I know it’s not — for example, here’s E.M. Zanotti directing Friday night’s right-of-center bar traffic.
  • A similar thing happens 24 hours later, on Sunday morning, giving the impression that the entire Twittering contingent of each conference slept in with a hangover. While I am sure this was true for many, it’s flatly impossible that nobody tweeted during the late evening and early morning hours. So, I’ve sent an e-mail to the folks at Flaptor, and if I hear anything back, I’ll let you know.
  • Right Online activity is also likely underreported due to some confusion over which hashtag to use, although this probably doesn’t affect the overall trends greatly. Also worth mentioning, Twist doesn’t allow searching for symbols, so my real search terms were “nn08″ and “rton08″ — meaning even if some forgot the hash mark, as most assuredly happened, they’re included here.
  • It’s also possibly notable that #nn08 activity fell off severely on the last day. Is this evidence that four days is just too long for any convention? Or is it lower because people were busy leaving? I’m guessing it’s some of both. [Update: From the comments, it turns out the fourth day agenda included few events, compared to dozens on other days.]
  • Considering the reported attendance of each, the numbers don’t look so bad for #rton08. Local media reports put Netroots Nation at approximately 2,000, which apparently does not include reporters. Meanwhile, I’ve heard 500 showed up for Right Online, and based on the crowds I saw on Friday afternoon, this is plausible. However, with the exception of that curious Fri.-Sat. reporting period, #nn08 at most only quadrupled #rton08. At other times, it only doubled. Not quite a rallying cheer for Right Online, but that may be one to grow on.

See anything else worth mentioning? Feel free to add them in the comments.

P.S. FWIW, I believe I’m the first, as far as Google is aware, to use the word “expoundances.” Or should it be -ences? Again, your commentary is welcome.

Beware the “Net-roots”

Two previous topics at Blog P.I. have been newspaper journalists’ tendency to hold the word “netroots” at arms length, and the extent to which Robert Novak, so old he built the school, “gets” the Internet.

Novak’s column in this morning’s Post, about Barack Obama’s current overseas travel, affords us the chance to put them together. Here he is on Obama’s recent shift centerward:

Since clinching the nomination, Obama has been cautiously executing a Nixonian post-primary pivot toward the center. He weathered the outrage of his “net-roots” bloggers over his vote for the national security wiretapping bill.

Really, “net-roots”? This is even worse than the Washington Post’s habit of hyphenating the term; when I last mentioned this in March 2007, the term didn’t warrant scare quotes. And I’m pretty sure the punctuation is Novak’s, as I think I’ve been told the Post doesn’t hold opinion writers to the stylebook it applies to the news pages.

On the other hand, if you’re part of the netroots, you have to be at least somewhat pleased that Robert Novak recognizes your political clout — to say nothing of your existence.

N.B. Elsewhere in today’s paper, Jose Antonio Vargas’ report from Netroots Nation refers to them simply as “Netroots,” and that of course is sans quotation marks. As long as “Internet” continues to require capitalization, I’m fine with this formulation.

Googling the Conventions

The Google Adwords “buy your rivals” strategy can be a very effective way of putting your message in front of Internet users who wouldn’t necessarily think about your brand, product, service, candidate, issue, argument, party, or even your party’s nominating convention.

So let’s try Googling the major party political conventions. First up, the least interesting result, searching republican convention:

Google results for Republican Convention

As we can see, the RNC already has the top organic search result, the one that says Republican National Convention 2008 - September 1-4, 2008.” And yet they have also bought the top paid search result, the one against the light yellow background, which might seem like a poor investment. But maybe not, as we’ll see when we Google democratic convention:

Google results for Democratic Convention

It may have pained some in the GOP to put money down for the “ic” version of this word, but at least they have the satisfaction of having the absolute top search result on this page. While Republicans are generally considered to trail Democrats online in organization, infrastructure and overall support, here we can see that someone at the RNC (presumably under the direction of Cyrus Krohn) is thinking about how to overcome this disadvantage. And speaking of disadvantages, let’s see what happens when we drop the “ic” and search for democrat convention:

Google results for Democrat Convention

Now that is most certainly a good investment. It may pain the Democrats to compete, let alone pay money, for the (often) grammatically incorrect non-”ic” variation on their party’s name, but then Google searches don’t necessarily have to be grammatical to be useful. If the DNC or the convention committee have money in the budget — and this may be part of the problem — they’d be smart to get on that ASAP.