website statistics

Archive for the 'Bloggingheads.tv' Category

Who’s Defending Ex-Facebooker Sean Parker via Facebook Ads?

Imagine my surprise, glancing at the right-hand advertising column on Facebook this morning, to find a Facebook ad encouraging the site’s users to learn more about the real person portrayed by Justin Timberlake in the hit film about the website “The Social Network” (perhaps you’ve heard of it)? Here it is:

parker-timberlake-vanityfair-facebook

The advertisement indeed leads readers to Vanity Fair, for which journalist David Kirkpatrick wrote a profile of Sean Parker timed to coincide with the film’s release. Facebook Ads are not transparent, so it’s impossible to know who bought this ad. But there are a few possibilities:

  • Vanity Fair: Under most circumstances, the website receiving the traffic is the one buying the ad. But that’s not always the case, if the goal is not page views and ad revenue but reputation management.
  • Sean Parker: This was actually my first guess. The Vanity Fair article is quite generous to him; given that Parker is portrayed quasi-adversarially in the film, both the article and this campaign seem to be in Parker’s interest.
  • Facebook: It’s no secret Facebook does not love this movie, and though Parker is no longer involved in an official capacity, it’s my understanding that he is still friends with Mark Zuckerberg and maintains some influence. It’s in their interest to defend him, too.
  • David Kirkpatrick: Probably the least likely candidate, but one can’t rule him out entirely. Kirkpatrick is the author of “The Facebook Effect” — a book competing with the one the movie was based on. For this one, Zuckerberg and Parker cooperated. He’s been a critic of the film’s accuracy, especially in this Bloggingheads appearance.
  • Justin Timberlake: Well, he’s pictured in the advertisement. But he’s received enough positive press for his role in the film already, and he’s clearly the ad’s hook — the thing being leveraged.

If I had to wager a guess, I’d say it’s either Vanity Fair or Sean Parker. Just for fun, I’m going to say it’s Sean Parker. Any other guesses?

Bloggingheads.tv: The Bills are Back in Town

Before this gets any more stale, I should get around to posting video of my most recent appearance on Bloggingheads.tv, the first in a few months now:

This was posted on Friday afternoon but recorded on Thursday at about 5:30 p.m. — just as news was breaking worldwide about the death of some guy named Michael Jackson. At some point near the middle of the recording, I will look down and to the left (my right) and tap on my iPhone, off-screen, puzzling over a text message from my brother:

Michael Jackson dead?

I had actually gone into the recording having heard that Jackson had been rushed to the hospital, but you know how it is — or was — with Jacko news. Always something. In any case, there is a moment immediately following where I contemplate mentioning this during the recording. It’s probably better that I didn’t. In any case, if you happen to pinpoint the moment where this happens, send me the dingalink — I’m curious tp see it, but I can never really watch very much of myself on these things (the Bheads commenters are too kind).

In any case, we talked about Mark Sanford’s press conference announcing his marital infidelity, the insider-outsider outrage (and inrage?) about President Obama’s semi-staged Q&A with HuffPo blogger Nico Pitney, plus upcoming bills on health care and the environment.

Dispatches from the Culture11 Wars


Some events come as a shock to the system, even as they don’t especially surprise. (Wait, that’s how I began yesterday’s post. Well, this one also mentions Josh Treviño, and here at Blog P.I. we are all about serendipity.) The shuttering of Culture11, billed as kind of a center-right Slate, is one of them.

The website debuted in late summer 2008 and mostly featured writers about my age and no more than one or two degrees of Kevin Bacon away, writing mostly about whatever they wanted. I thought the project had merit: as someone of a center-right disposition who listens to college music, watches art films and reads literary fiction, I wanted it to succeed. The best explanation for why Culture11 was important, I thought, was delivered last November by features editor Conor Friedersdorf on Bloggingheads.tv. However, just because I wanted it to succeed did not mean that I thought that it did, or even that I read it very much.

Likewise, the name was a definite stumbling block.* I’m not sure what Culture11 was supposed to mean, but it had the unfortunate connotation for me of 9/11, which in turn made me think the site was supposed to be or comment upon something like “a cultural 9/11″ and I just didn’t understand. At least something like “Slate” or “Salon” conjures something: a place for writing and a place for talking, respectively. And while “culture” is interesting, it always seems less so when one calls it that. I don’t know why, but let me know if you do.

While it’s hardly the only journalism concern cutting back or going under this week, it is probably attracting the most discussion of any right now. Which means it’s high time for a roundup:

First off, Culture11 founder David Kuo, in his farewell post:

We raised a certain amount of money last year predicated on the assumption we would raise more money last year. Then the Fall’s fall occurred and we stretched money as long and far as we could without incurring any debts. With no new money in the door the board decided the most prudent thing to do was suspend business operations.

From NYC-based Patrol Magazine:

There were “signs,” says one source who spoke to a Culture11 editor yesterday, but the announcement was a shock. The financial backers lost money in the downturn, and suddenly decided the expensive Culture11 needed to be profitable. (The site has, in its five months of operation, only occasionally displayed small ads.) How things proceeded to an overnight shutdown, we don’t know. If you worked at C11 or know more, feel free to share.

One-off contributor and Culture11 fan Will Collins:

Culture11 was a pretty special publication. The editors gave new writers a shot, published authors from across the ideological spectrum, and provided something of a one-stop shop for great blogging. But beyond all that, I felt close to the writers, who always did their level best to respond to interesting comments, reply to our emails, and even solicit reader submissions. So much of this new media bullshit is hype and snake oil salesmanship, but at Culture11, technology actually enhanced the relationship between publication and audience.

Another dedicated reader, blogging under the name Freddie:

If you Google “Culture11″ you’ll find a ton of entries that say “My article at Culture11″. That’s because, in addition to tons of content from established (and David Brooks approved!) writers, the editors went out of their way to find young or undiscovered talent and give them a forum to write in. It made for a much livelier and more complete discussion, and was a real credit to the imagination of the architects of the site and to the willingness of the editors to let quality rule and give whoever was honest and well-spoken a shot.

The man who defies political categorization, Andrew Sullivan:

I have a feeling that Culture 11 will one be remembered in the same way that Seven Days, the briefly brilliant New York City magazine that Adam Moss edited in the late 80s, is now remembered. One day, a conservative journal will emerge that is able to break from the stifling, clammy orthodoxy of today’s post-Buckley National Review and the often unhinged neocon catechism of the Weekly Standard. When it does, its editors will be able to look back and say that Culture 11 opened up the frontier.

And the aforementioned Josh Treviño:

Culture11’s subject matter was perfect for, say, summer 2000: heavy on pop and principles, light on policy and prescriptions. But it launched in summer 2008, when the national conversation was focused on war and economics. In that sense, it was marginalized from the start, and stayed that way: today, for example, the single largest item on its front page concerns the Culture11 “American Idol Watch Party.” This may be good fun, but it’s not particularly in touch with the national zeigeist — nor even the zeitgeist of those who read online publications like Culture11. All this said, it’s reasonable to assume that in the fullness of time, those zeigeists would come around: perhaps in spring 2010, the national mood will be ready to reflect upon the conservatism of reality television.

This probably explains a lot why I didn’t read the site much. And there are bigger problems with the project as undertaken, which Mike Riggs at the City Paper explains at some length.

It’s always seemed to me that a center-right pop culture website would have to be incidentally so, just as Slate doesn’t usually make a point of being center-left. Which brings me back to my old lament about the state of conservative journalism.

A change of culture, ironically, will have to take place for that to happen, and I don’t see that just yet.

P.S. In a post at the still slightly active Culture11 blog, Joe Carter graciously notes my comment on the name of the site and explains to my satisfaction just what the name was all about.


___
*Prior to launch, I had suggested an alternate name to an editor I didn’t know too well. The original name was originally titled “Liberty Wire”, which sounds like an Associated Press for Ron Paul voters; my idea was “Redhead”, a nod to its espoused conservative, intellectual and cultural inclinations. Someone later pointed out the dot com for that name went to a porn site (a claim I cannot verify this morning, although I promise I have tried).

Bloggingheads.tv: Apres Moi, Left Deluge

On Thursday afternoon, I recorded my latest guest spot on Bloggingheads with Bill Scher. I pretty strenuously object to the argument he puts forth — that America necessarily voted for a progressive approach to government last Tuesday — I certainly didn’t persuade him, but will I persuade you? I guess you’ll just have to watch and see:

Bloggingheads.tv: The Modern AIG

Well, I didn’t plan to disappear from blogging for a week, but sometimes that happens. Not that I was entirely absent from the blogosphere last week: among other activities related to blogging, I recorded my latest segment for Bloggingheads, this time not with Bill Scher but with Sara Robinson of Orcinus. Watch the whole thing here:

I’ll admit, I think this was my weakest appearance. Our discussion leaned heavily toward economic systems and policy, which admittedly has not been a focus of my reading ever since, well, about the time I moved to the District. Funny, that. However, the Bheads forum regulars yet again seem not to hate me and even sort of have my back, for which I am grateful.

Bloggingheads.tv: The Week in Twitter

Late last week I made my third appearance on Bloggingheads.tv with Bill Scher of Liberal Oasis; we talked about the politics of Twitter, whether #dontgo is a genuine movement or not, whether Obama is underperforming or overperforming, how to understand the different types of voters, why McCain’s “Celeb” ad was a success, veepstakes and the pointlessness thereof, including my favorite theory on why McCain will choose Romney. Check it out:

I might as well get this out of the way: I am not actually about to eat the viewer. It just looks that way.

No Blogging, Just Heads

This weekend I made my second appearance on Bloggingheads.tv’s “The Week in Blog” series opposite Bill Scher. I got the call sort of last-minute, so I wasn’t nearly as prepared this time as my first appearance last month. Yet I think I came across as better prepared. Maybe that has something to do with having already done it once; maybe it has something to do with not over-thinking it for a week beforehand.

We talked about liberal and conservative reaction to District v. Heller, the relative recent success of Newt Gingrich’s “Drill Here” petition, Barack Obama’s stance on nuclear energy and John McCain’s awareness of the Internet.

P.S. Coincidentally, my colleague Jon Henke filled in on Bloggingheads just last week. And yes, this does probably does mean that New Media Strategies is taking over the world, one diavlog at a time.

Krauthammer’s Forgotten Column

Charles Krauthammer is one of the country’s most influential conservative thinkers, indeed one of the country’s most influential newspaper columnists. Right?

When I was on Bloggingheads a few weeks ago, I briefly mentioned a then-recent Krauthammer column that caught my attention and made me think hard about current U.S. (and European) policy toward Iran vis-à-vis its nuclear (weapons) program. I thiink it’s important enough to quote at length. Here’s how it began:

The era of nonproliferation is over. During the first half-century of the nuclear age, safety lay in restricting the weaponry to major powers and keeping it out of the hands of rogue states. This strategy was inevitably going to break down. The inevitable has arrived. …

The EU-3 negotiations (Britain, France and Germany) [with Iran] went nowhere. Each U.N. Security Council resolution enacting what passed for sanctions was more useless than the last. Uranium enrichment continues.

When Iran’s latest announcement that it was tripling its number of centrifuges to 9,000 elicited no discernible response from the Bush administration, the game was over. Everyone says Iran must be prevented from going nuclear. No one will bell the cat.

Krauthammer acknowledges, remarkably but rationally, that Iran will get its nuclear weapons whether we try to bribe them to do otherwise or not. And thanks in part to the pyrrhic invasion of Iraq and as well to North Korea’s development of WMD, preemption “is spent.” This is a huge concession from one of the standard-bearers of the political philosophy popularly, if somewhat erroneously, termed neoconservatism. So what to do?

Begin by making the retaliatory threat in response to Iranian nuclear aggression so unmistakable and so overwhelming that the non-millenarians in leadership would stay the hand or even remove those taking their country to the point of extinction. …

For the sake of argument, imagine a two-layered anti-missile system in which each layer is imperfect, with, say, a 90 percent shoot-down accuracy. That means one in 100 missiles gets through both layers. That infinitely strengthens deterrence by radically degrading the possibility of a successful first strike. Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might refrain from launching an arsenal of, say, 20 nukes if his scientific advisers showed him that there was only an 18.2 percent chance of any getting through — and a 100 percent chance that a retaliatory counterattack of hundreds of Israeli (and/or American) nukes would reduce the world’s first Islamic republic to a cinder.

Of course, one can get around missile defense by using terrorists. But anything short of a hermetically secret, perfectly executed, multiple-site attack would cause terrible, but not existential, destruction. The retaliatory destruction, on the other hand, would be existential.

This is hardly dovish, promising Iran that nuclear devastation of Israel (or any other ally) would mean the destruction of Iran — in effect, we would tell Iran that Israel’s safety is now very much in its interest.

But it’s also not quite what you’d expect from one of the strongest supporters of the Iraq war. My left-leaning roommate called it “uncharacteristically sharp and honest for him.” Maybe, just maybe, that’s part of the problem.

Because the column sank like a stone.

Krauthammer’s column regularly appears on more than one website, and when I searched then and again tonight, I found very little pickup. At WashingtonPost.com, the highest-profile of all, it received just 21 linkbacks from the blogosphere. At the high-traffic NRO.com, there were only 4 linkbacks. And at the lesser-read Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (at least some subset of Blog P.I. readers will probably find this association ironic) it was a whopping zero. (Of course, this post will bump each up by one.) Compare to his most recent column, taking a familiar position against cap-and-trade, which picked up 59 linkbacks just from its appearance on WashingtonPost.com.

No major blog, liberal or conservative, gave his Iran column any serious thought. The only sustained discussion of the column was at the mid-level left-leaning blog Foreign Policy Watch, which simply disagreed with his premise:

Of course, one of the larger concerns surrounding the prospect of North Korea’s failure to disarm and the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran is that they could inspire balancing, follow-on nuclear programs elsewhere in their immediate regions. But it’s not inevitable that this will happen. Nor is it inevitable, for that matter, that North Korea won’t see its disarmament obligations through to the very end, or that Iran is racing toward nuclear weapons acquisition and there is nothing capable of preventing this outcome. Such fatalism is misguided, to say the least, and would lead to very poor policy if taken seriously. …

That is not to say there aren’t potent concerns for the future of antiproliferation efforts; there are. But to translate this into such sweeping pessimism, going so far as to say “the era of nonproliferation is over,” is intellectually lazy and politically dangerous, particularly if it means adopting purely defensive responses as opposed to vigorous preventive diplomacy designed to blunt such outcomes in the first place.

Maybe they’re right and Krauthammer is wrong. But considering the perceived admission against interest, one would think this column would spark more debate.

Conceding that Iran will succeed in developing nuclear weapons is clearly an unpopular position to take, no matter which political party you belong to. The national consensus, international consensus even, is that Iran must be dissuaded from developing a nuclear arsenal. There are disagreements about how to do it, but the argument that “the era of nonproliferation is over” is clearly something that no one wants to hear.

The Battle of the Bills: Blog P.I. Does Bloggingheads.tv

This past week I spent about an hour talking through a tiny iPhone bluetooth headset on Skype and staring at the built-in iSight of a MacBook Pro while talking to Bill Scher of Liberal Oasis. I did so at the invitation of Conn Carroll, who usually holds down the righthand slot on Bloggingheads.tv, while he was celebrating his fifth wedding anniversary (congrats, by the way). Bill was an upbeat, friendly debate partner, and so far it looks like the loyal Bloggingheads commentariat doesn’t want to kill me.

The show plays like a funky, freewheeling, not-ready-for-cable TV “Crossfire” with less point-scoring, featuring a recurring cast of quirky political bloggers and policy wonks. I’ve been a constant viewer/listener back to when it was just Bob and Mickey figuring it out as they went along.

I should warn, around the middle there are audio-video sync problems, so this might be a good time to subscribe to the audio-only Bloggingheads podcast in iTunes.