The reason people in Tunisia, Egypt, and other parts of the world have been influenced to some extent by the work of Wikileaks is that they have read or heard about the material that Wikileaks has helped to make public. The CBS program "60 Minutes" has just published video of an interview with Wikileaks' Julian Assange -- with the video focused, of course, on Assange himself, with almost no substantive content related to the massive crimes and abuses that have made news around the globe.
An Adam Bink Golden Oldie
From Apr 19, 2010. Original HERETim Vollmer has a thoughtful piece out expressing concern over the decline of traditional LGBT press. A few reactions are in order. I think folks like Tim have to get past the notion that you're only an LGBT media journalist if you have credentials, an office, write entirely without opinion, and your work appears in print. To borrow the phrase of a friend, "journalactivists"- something I would call myself- are on the rise. While I engage in a lot of opinion writing and organizing, I also strive to do well-rounded, more traditional "journalistic" pieces examining a number of topics. Examples:
Articles (here and here) looking at the role of religion and the Catholic Diocese in the marriage equality fight in Maine, including an interview w/Bishop Gene Robinson
Looking at the emerging role of new infrastructure in electoral activism (here)
A wide-ranging interview with Rea Carey, the Executive Director of National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (here and here)
Discussing the necessity and timeline of the DADT review with Rep. Sestak (here)
The reason I'm mentioning these is that if you closed your eyes and took my name off it, you could see several of these pieces in traditional, respected LGBT print outlets. Of course, not all online writers do this kind of work, but many strive to- Bil Browning at The Bilerico Project does a video series every year at the Creating Change conference. I've watched them- he asks the same questions any non-opinion journalist might ask, with a very even-handed approach. Pam Spaulding recently held a series of open interviews with Democratic NC-Sen candidates, the same as any other traditional media outlet might.
I think there is a tendency to group "the bloggers" or online writers in general into all opinion media, and while there is the fair share of that in mine or Bil's or Pam's work, that's not all of it. And that's where I see the divergence- perhaps in many folks' ideal world, the journalists would do the non-biased journalism, those who do opinion writing would do opinion writing, and they wouldn't mix. But they are mixing- many of us online now do both. Even the "View From Washington" pieces by The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld- as respected a traditional journalist as any- have some notes of opinion mixed in, such as this one on DADT repeal and the Obama Administration's leadership (or lack thereof) on it.
As someone who still gets the NYTimes in print every Sunday, and reading through the Gray Lady's history of Pulitzer Prizes yesterday, including one for breaking open the Bush Administration's record on FISA, I think a traditional full-time press corps is important. But these spaces are merging, and I don't think it's necessarily for the bad. I do think if you want an LGBT press, it's going to be necessary.
Spurred a lot of discussion, so thought I'd share a piece cross-posted yesterday and today at The Bilerico Project and Pam's House Blend. Many responses after the flip apply to non-LGBT media, as well
In the last few years, there has been a lot of ink (some of it digital) spilled on the decline of print media as news and entertainment outlets, and the shifts to online. Last week's piece by Michael Lavers in the Village Voice, specifically on the topic of gay print media, was among the latest to lament this shift. It also sparked a lot of response and challenges to his assertion. Matt Comer went through many of the responses at Bilerico last week (including mine here at OL), and yesterday Kevin Naff at the Washington Blade responded with a detailed rebuttal, including an assertion that Lavers did not present a well-rounded view by eliminating quotes disagreeing with his premise.
As someone who enjoys my Sunday papers and picking up newsstand copies of other papers and newsmagazines, I'm as concerned as others. But for all the assessments of print media, and assumptions that everything is moving to online, one question has never been asked: how is online gay media faring?
So I thought it would be an interesting detour to ask a range of those who work in gay online media. Out of concerns resulting from the Lavers piece, I did not want anyone to be quoted out of context or misinterpreted, so I used the "Topic A" format from the Washington Post with a simple question "What is the state of gay online media?" Responses in about 300 words or less are printed below. While unfortunately not as in-depth as a full exploration of the topic, it does give a window into gay online media, and I hope inspires a longer piece. Some look at misconceptions of online media, while others explore the relationship between print and online. They are all interesting, and they are all on the flip.
Every time I read another piece lamenting the death of print media- the latest being Michael's piece today in the Village Voice lamenting how people like me are killing gay print media- I wonder why more traditional media outlets haven't taken on a hybrid Talking Points Memo approach. To me, the genius of TPM is having what the lamenters want- "serious/hard-nosed/chasing after a scoop" journalism- along with what increasing numbers of the public want, which is up-to-the-minute news that is accessible where people want to read it, be it on TPM's website or one of their reporters' Twitter feeds or whatnot.
I see this already in Kerry Eleveld's coverage in The Advocate. Kerry has a seat in the White House briefing room, asks excellent questions of Gibbs and explores a lot of critical stories. Pieces like her recent one exploring GetEqual are great. At the same time, Kerry live-tweets events like Congressional hearings and yesterday's Pride reception at the White House. I also see online gay media colleagues like John and Joe at AMERICABlog at Pam at PHB linking to her stuff constantly, driving up their pageviews and ad revenue. I don't know what The Advocate's books look like, and Kerry hasn't been there long, but if I had to wager, it would be that they're going to be around a lot longer than other print media that don't pay nearly as much attention to the "up-to-the-minute" aspect of reporting as much as they do in caring about their print editions. That, to me, is the critical balance that outlets like TPM and Kerry strike.
The other thing I would say is that sooner or later, the lamenters are going to figure out that there are online outlets like TPM and Huffington Post whose correspondents do as good, or better, "serious journalism" as I've seen in print media. And there are a number in online-only gay media, too. I've even received some compliments for some longer, in-depth pieces I've done on LGBT topics with a critical lens and all parties weighing in. Nothing is going to replace the feel of a newspaper or magazine- I still get the WaPo and NYTimes every Sunday morning just for that- but when it comes to the "oh for the lack of 'serious journalism' online!" argument the lamenters make, that is starting to run thin.
For two decades now, the US and British - and Israeli and Palestinian - leaderships have used the words "peace process" to define the hopeless, inadequate, dishonourable agreement that allowed the US and Israel to dominate whatever slivers of land would be given to an occupied people. I first queried this expression, and its provenance, at the time of Oslo - although how easily we forget that the secret surrenders at Oslo were themselves a conspiracy without any legal basis.
Poor old Oslo, I always think. What did Oslo ever do to deserve this? It was the White House agreement that sealed this preposterous and dubious treaty - in which refugees, borders, Israeli colonies, even timetables - were to be delayed until they could no longer be negotiated.
And how easily we forget the White House lawn - though, yes, we remember the images - upon which it was Clinton who quoted from the Koran, and Arafat who chose to say: "Thank you, thank you, thank you, Mr President." And what did we call this nonsense afterwards? Yes, it was "a moment of history"! Was it? Was it so?
Do you remember what Arafat called it? "The peace of the brave". But I don't remember any of us pointing out that "the peace of the brave" was used by General de Gaulle about the end of the Algerian war. The French lost the war in Algeria. We did not spot this extraordinary irony.
Same again today. We Western journalists - used yet again by our masters - have been reporting our jolly generals in Afghanistan, as saying their war can only be won with a "hearts and minds" campaign. No one asked them the obvious question: Wasn't this the very same phrase used about Vietnamese civilians in the Vietnam War? And didn't we - didn't the West - lose the war in Vietnam? Yet now we Western journalists are using - about Afghanistan - the phrase "hearts and minds" in our reports as if it is a new dictionary definition, rather than a symbol of defeat for the second time in four decades.
Good point. Rather than use the word "reinforcements," which suggests that we're losing the Oil Wars, we call them a "surge." Instead of calling Israeli apartheid and brutal occupation of Palestinian lands what it is, we call it "expanding settlements" and starving them "putting them on a diet."
Framing is crucial to winning the rhetorical war against the far right, and we on the left must stop letting the far right choose the words we use. Call torture torture. Call "indefinite detention" permanent imprisonment without charge or trial. Call warrantless surveillance illegal spying. Call assassination murder.
Until we stop letting the enemy set the terms of discussion, we will continue to be clobbered.
I recently subscribed to PBS' NOW audio podcasts and listened to this in my car. It's from January, but it hits every note of alarm I have felt about the state of actual journalism in America:
This weekend, PBS will air the last new regular episode from journalist extrordinaire, Bill Moyers, in his show Bill Moyers Journal. It's hard to think of this except in terms like "tragedy" and "unmitigated disaster." Moyers has more than earned his retirement (semi retirement one hopes) but still I lament the withdrawal of a clarion, unabashed liberal voice from the discourse. I can't help but compare him to Justice Stevens, whose retirement will likely lead to a rightward shift on the court, so too it is nearly inevitable that Moyers' replacement at PBS will be at minimum unable and probably unwilling to provide the kind of clear commentary and relentless analysis Moyers has provided. No one else has the stature to take on the sacred cows of the DC elite discourse the way Moyers does.
Before I go further, please go set your PVR to record or jot a note somewhere to watch the program whenever it airs on your PBS affiliate. It would be a nice send off for the retiring warrior to get a decent spike in the ratings and kick start one last round of discussion as he has done so often with his many excellent programs.
I cannot hope to do Moyers' career justice (though Eric Alterman comes close in a well worth reading piece comparing Moyers favourably to Murrow, and this 3-part series on his role in founding the Peace Corps is amazing) so I would like to use the occasion to highlight the ongoing importance of public media in the modern era, and mourn the lack of support given it in America.
Tim Vollmer has a thoughtful piece out expressing concern over the decline of traditional LGBT press. A few reactions are in order. I think folks like Tim have to get past the notion that you're only an LGBT media journalist if you have credentials, an office, write entirely without opinion, and your work appears in print. To borrow the phrase of a friend, "journalactivists"- something I would call myself- are on the rise. While I engage in a lot of opinion writing and organizing, I also strive to do well-rounded, more traditional "journalistic" pieces examining a number of topics. Examples:
Articles (here and here) looking at the role of religion and the Catholic Diocese in the marriage equality fight in Maine, including an interview w/Bishop Gene Robinson
Looking at the emerging role of new infrastructure in electoral activism (here)
A wide-ranging interview with Rea Carey, the Executive Director of National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (here and here)
Discussing the necessity and timeline of the DADT review with Rep. Sestak (here)
The reason I'm mentioning these is that if you closed your eyes and took my name off it, you could see several of these pieces in traditional, respected LGBT print outlets. Of course, not all online writers do this kind of work, but many strive to- Bil Browning at The Bilerico Project does a video series every year at the Creating Change conference. I've watched them- he asks the same questions any non-opinion journalist might ask, with a very even-handed approach. Pam Spaulding recently held a series of open interviews with Democratic NC-Sen candidates, the same as any other traditional media outlet might.
I think there is a tendency to group "the bloggers" or online writers in general into all opinion media, and while there is the fair share of that in mine or Bil's or Pam's work, that's not all of it. And that's where I see the divergence- perhaps in many folks' ideal world, the journalists would do the non-biased journalism, those who do opinion writing would do opinion writing, and they wouldn't mix. But they are mixing- many of us online now do both. Even the "View From Washington" pieces by The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld- as respected a traditional journalist as any- have some notes of opinion mixed in, such as this one on DADT repeal and the Obama Administration's leadership (or lack thereof) on it.
As someone who still gets the NYTimes in print every Sunday, and reading through the Gray Lady's history of Pulitzer Prizes yesterday, including one for breaking open the Bush Administration's record on FISA, I think a traditional full-time press corps is important. But these spaces are merging, and I don't think it's necessarily for the bad. I do think if you want an LGBT press, it's going to be necessary.
As a journalist, isn't one supposed to report the facts, not what they think the facts mean?
The other day in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Salena Zito penned a piece headlined "Young Voters Increasingly Identify with Conservative Politics." Not surprisingly (especially considering the paper's conservative editorial page), that conclusion is flawed.
One of Howard Dean's claims in arguing against the Senate bill on Morning Joe yesterday was that the bill enables insurance companies to operate across states lines -- is this true?
and responds:
Sort of. The legislation allows states to form voluntary compacts with one another. California and Oregon, for instance, could decide that they want to allow insurers to offer products across both states, as that means a larger market for insurers to chase and thus more leverage for the California/Oregon exchange.
What it doesn't allow is for insurers to simply sell their wares in any state. Aetna could not, for instance, decide that Indiana's lax insurance regulation made it an appealing state to headquarter in, and then sell insurance that conformed to Indiana's standards in New York. Thus, there's no race to the bottom unless states want to have a race to the bottom. But it's not clear why they'd want that.
And that's the whole of his piece.
Now, I've not read Harry's substitute or (pretty much) any of the rest of the blizzard of legislative text produced in the HC bill process.
So - trusting no one as all sane humans should - I checked whether the FDL guy's outrage was justified.
He quotes from §1333(b) of the substitute to show that, indeed, the legislation does include provision for plans - nationwide plans - benefiting from preemption.
This sort of preemption is more limited than that which Dean was apparently talking about - but is preemption nevertheless.
Klein's voluntary compacts are also in the bill - in §1333(a), to be precise.
But, from my brief reading, the compacts provision clearly has nothing to do with preemption.
Now, we all make mistakes - and possibly this was a slip.
On the other hand, Klein has been turning the odd penny or two from assuming the role of expert on the HC legislation; he's clearly been inviting the inference that he has read the bills and understood them (calling on the immense wealth of expertise from Post colleagues to cover lacunas in his own knowedge - presuming there to be any).
And unlike some of the text, §1333 is relatively short and free-standing (no need to hunt through the US Code for sections being amended to find out what it's about).
It deals with two things, clearly demarcated in nature one from the other - the idea that he confused them just because they were in the same section is, shall we say, improbable.
Plus - even though it's just a blog, it's got the Post imprimatur; so wouldn't you have thought he'd have, y'know, checked the text before going live?
My thought: I doubt whether Klein did check §1333. realize that that damned bombthrower Dean was right and decided to lie to avoid making that hideous admission.
Probably, his head's swimming with HC stuff, the compacts provision popped into his head and the keyboard just clicked away. Plus an element of too good to check - hitting Dean's credibility does him no harm with the WH.
Broader points:
First, as I've suggested before, the lefty sphere is hopelessly underresourced when it comes to legislative process: a good deal of the frustration felt with the HC process comes, I think, from the fact that there is no mechanism pooling legislative, industry and other relevant expertise to deal with points like that raised with Klein.
Second, without such a mechanism, there is a tendency for discussions in the lefty sphere (on points where I can verify) to be driven by emotion, in some cases verging on the credo quia impossibile.
Third, there is a corresponding endemic lack of skepticism about utterances from the likes of Klein (pols, journos, bloggers, etc), either alleging facts or offering supposedly expert opinion.
Fourth, even where stuff is currently available to be checked (as is §1333 of Harry's substitute), it's rarely an easy matter.
Early last month, I wrote about David Sirota being up for a permanent editorial spot at the Rochester (NY) Democrat & Chronicle, the staid center-right paper where I went to school and often fought with. Many of you e-mailed to say you left a comment on the ed page and e-mailed the editor asking for him to get the position.
Via The Albany Project, it turns out David got the spot! Here's ed page editor James Lawrence:
For the past couple of months, we've been occasionally running David Sirota's syndicated columns on the Editorial Page. Readers have responded favorably with letters, phone calls and emails. They like what he has to say and the way he says it.
As a result, we're adding Sirota to our stable of regular columnists. Sirota, as anyone knows who reads him, is a progressive who isn't shy about telling readers exactly what he thinks. He currently appears in newspapers such as the San Francisco Chronicle, The Seattle Times, The Idaho Statesman and the Denver Post, with a combined circulation of more than 1.3 million.
We believe Sirota will be a strong addition to our diverse selection of columnists who appear daily on the Editorial Page.
Let me know what you think: Jlawrenc@democratandchronicle.com
I just dropped James a line saying thanks and happy holidays. And congrats to our own David. This is how we'll grow progressive media.
Stewart nails it such that I'll even transcribe it for you.
Interviewer: Do you think FOX News is biased?
Valerie Jarrett: Well of course they're biased, of course they are...
Excellent job. Right on message. But watch her retreat into her shell when asked...
Interviewer: Do you also think MSNBC is biased?
Jarrett: Well, you know what, this is, this is the thing, I don't want, actually, I don't want to just generalize all FOX is biased, or another station is biased...
Wow, that was a train wreck. Jon Stewart dissects:
Stewart: Just say of course MSNBC is biased, but they agree with us! So we're not fighting with them! And by the way, MSNBC wishes they were as good as FOX. They're the Toledo Mud Hens to the FOX's Yankees. MSNBC doesn't even realize their morning show is hosted by a conservative. Obama administration, do you even know your role in all of this?
Jarrett: What the administration has said very clearly is, we're going to speak truth to power...
Stewart: What the %!$@?! Truth to power! You're the White House! You're the power! Here's how it goes in the truth to power statement: it's your job to %!$@ up power, it's FOX's job to %!$@up truth!
One of the interesting elements of the battle with FOX- which I think the Administration is running half-assed, so far- is how people immediately get tripped up when asked about MSNBC. Some say yes, some say no, some say yes but not the same way FOX is. I've never seen anyone be able to answer that dreaded MSNBC follow-up. But this isn't rocket science.
Here's my advice to the Administration. First, sit down together and get yourselves a single set of talking points on this issue. Second, they should say the following: "Every cable news show invites on people with opinion. What makes FOX different is that every element of their show is biased opinion, from their anchors to their commentators to the stories they choose to cover. That's why they're not a news channel, they're an opinion channel that operates as an arm of the Republican Party, and that's why the White House is treating them we do any other biased opinion channel."
This is more of a sports metaphor, but h/t to Jerry Sullivan, one of my favorite Buffalo News writers, for the title
Some items of note around the country today:
I just got an e-mail from Rep. Eric Massa with the ominous title "An Important Announcement About The 2010 Election", with the text:
The Founding Fathers designed the House of Representative as the People's House, and as such the citizens of this great Nation have the duty to elect their member of Congress every two years. While people sometimes get sick of campaigns, this cycle of frequent elections gives the people the best and most immediate tool possible to hold their member of Congress accountable and make their voices heard.
Accountability is a value that I hold near and dear, and it is with this spirit of service that I write you today.
On Saturday, 10/10 at 10:00 am, I will be making a formal announcement about the 2010 election. I would like to invite all of you, friends of old and new, to join me at Centerway Square in Corning NY on this morning.
It has been my honor and privilege to serve the families of this region and I hope to see you on Saturday in my hometown of Corning.
I called Massa's comm people for comment, and they declined to do so initially. Will update if warranted.
I don't like the sound of it, though. Massa knows it's a tough district (he lost his first race in 2006, which I worked on for a bit, and it's my grandpa's district), so perhaps it's just to prime the pump for a big crowd for his re-election announcement. I can't imagine he's running for higher office- certainly not Gov or Senator, and I don't really see him in something like a primary for comptroller or AG (or even qualified). The worst possibility is that he's not running again, something that would really disappoint me. I've been a huge fan of Massa's, particularly on his pushing for the House health care bill to be more progressive, and on his very strategic ways of talking about health care to constituents. He spent 45 minutes with a group of us NYers at Netroots Nation talking about that, and also hit some nails on the head when speaking at panels, too.
But one term and done would really piss me off, considering how hard the district is and how hard many of us worked for him, and that many of you contributed close to $1 million overall on ActBlue- including several thousand for standing firm on a public option. I hope he stays.
At the polar opposite of one term and done, former four-term Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad is running again. I asked former Iowa political operative Mike Lux for comment, to which he replied "I thought we got rid of that m*****f*****."
Last night, the defense authorization bill with the LGBT hate crimes amendment beat a motion to recommit (an effort by the Republicans to strip out the amendment), 178-234. Those are solid numbers, in addition to the fact that the Senate version already has it in by amendment. So we should be all set. HRC reports the conference report should be voted on in both houses by the end of next week before going to Obama's desk. We're close to the first major legislative achievement for LGBT rights in this term.
Glenn Greenwald has a fantastic piece documenting how Anne Kornblut violates the WaPo's own rules by using anonymous sourcing sixteen different times in one piece on the Obama Admin's national security policies, and journalistic ethics in general, as well as some on national security issues.
Yesterday, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, which would legalize marriage equality in the District, was introduced with much fanfare and 10/13 councilmembers co-introducing it. If you're looking for legislative and process details going forward, I wrote a piece last week on it here, and my friend Michael Crawford of DC for Marriage also has a piece today.
If you live in California, there are two LGBT bills before the Governor- one that would recognize Harvey Milk Day (which he's vetoed before, prior to the movie I believe) and one that would clarify that same-sex couples married out-of-state before Prop. 8 are recognized in CA, and that couples married after Prop 8 are entitled to the same rights. I know a lot of LGBT couples who marry in other states and have talked about moving to California one day- this would ensure they are entitled to marriage recognition. Equality California has phone numbers here of your local office- call Arnold and tell him to sign the bills.
Robert Harding at TAP reports the Rochester D&C is running another column by David Sirota, his latest on Afghanistan, which is a great sign. I wrote a bit last week on the D&C, a staid, center-right newspaper with far too many right-wingers on the ed page and a center-right ed board in a solidly Dem city with some hubs of progressivism. They're considering adding David permanently to the ed page. Take a second and drop an e-mail to Editorial Page Editor James Lawrence at jlawrenc@democratandchronicle.com and tell him that you want to see David Sirota's column made permanent.
The refrain from Washington has been that we need to look forward and not investigate credible allegations of wrongdoing. Such an approach has become something of a Beltway tradition, but this time it looks especially perverse.
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
One of Time magazine's star columnists blew up over a seemingly minor incident several weeks ago. Personal animus can't explain the outburst, but internal turmoil certainly could.
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
STATE BLOGS
