To say that many people do not like TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington is some understatement. Anyone who can get the normally laid-back Leo Laporte to start cursing and shut down a broadcast has some kind of unique skills of irritation. (See also: DouchebagName.com) And it’s clear he relishes this distinction, having willingly posed for the photo at right for the late Business 2.0 magazine.No matter what one thinks of him, it’s becoming ever more clear that Arrington is driving a significant part of what journalism is becoming. And while I’ll decline for the moment to unpack what all of that means (I will happily do so for a modest book advance) let me point to two announcements from TechCrunch in recent months.
Over the weekend, I followed a Google text ad in my Gmail inbox (the modern equivalent of “surfing the ‘net”) to a website calling itself Not Robin Hood, attacking the integrity of campaign software vendor NGP. At contention is NGP’s claim that it provides its services exclusively to Democrats, reflected by the donkey in its logo. Here is what Not Robin Hood looks like:
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.
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.
It’s an article of faith among among Democrats that John Kerry, a war hero, was unduly smeared by a group of fellow veterans who did not know him or his accomplishments. I took more a mixed view of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, finding some of their claims worthy of discussion (Kerry’s involvement with the Winter Soldier Investigation) and others unworthy (Kerry’s supposed “war crimes”). So I hesitate to use the phrase in the title, but I think it’s warranted.
At last weeks Personal Democracy Forum, one of the events that I missed was the launch of a coalition called InternetforEveryone.org. Im skeptical of the organization, and while I admit Im not really sure what its all about, therein lies part of my skepticism. Its very easy to agree that Internet access should be as widely available as possible. However, the policy details are not so easily agreed upon. But as a market-oriented thinker, Im inclined to agree with Erick Erickson that this is in fact a bad idea.
If its true that the District v. Heller ruling is the first time in U.S. history that the Supreme Court has has directly ruled on the meaning of the Second Amendment, it also seems likely to be the last. The battle has carried on for decades in lower courts, but those cases too are likely to be cut short, if not cut off altogether.
Yesterday at the Gawker-owned Valleywag blog, contributor Paul Boutin reported on, then expanded upon, a phrase he says is going around the Silicon Valley: the 250. According to Boutin, the term is
Despite much chatterin thetech blogosphere over the past year about whether business-oriented social network LinkedIn would fade in the face of competition with an increasingly professionalized Facebook, the site appears to be holding on, if not exactly thriving. Anecdotally, I get a new request on the order of once per week, a little less often than Facebook (and way less often than attractive young women with cams on MySpace) but more often than I gain followers on Twitter.Far from throwing in the towel, the site continues to improve. However, there are some annoying tics. For example, a colleague of mine joined recently, and has been having a small problem. Like many social websites, including Amazon, LinkedIn makes recommendations. For Amazon, items you might want to buy. LinkedIn, people you may want to add as contacts:
If youre interested in popular culture or copyright law, or especially if youre one of those few who happens to be into both, then you surely cant have missed the recent controversy surrounding efforts by one Prince Rogers Nelson to remove images and video from online media sharing platforms, and now even from fansites. In September, when the artist formerly known as The Artist Formerly Known as Prince was just targeting YouTube (somewhat successfully) and the Pirate Bay, one could at least acknowledge he was focusing on genuine copyright infringement, even if one thought he was making a mistake. But now,
Its too soon to tell whether Twitter will break on through to the mainstream side; it has long since reached critical mass in the tech community, but the politico adoption rate remains low, and the entertainment sphere barely knows it exists. Blogging took this path to becoming a household word, so it seems reasonable to assume it might happen that way again with microblogging.
On Saturday I sat on a panel at the Phillips Foundations fall retreat for recipients of its journalism fellowships (about which more below). My co-panelists were Jose Vargas from the Washington Post, Amy Schatz from the Wall Street Journal, and Abbi Tatton from CNN. I was a replacement fill-in, which is why I was the lone non-journalist but hey, I was a licensed journalist not too long ago, so, close enough for (the discussion of) government work.The subject was how technology is changing politics a mandate broad enough to take it in almost any direction. And if anything, I was the wet blanket of the panel. My opening comments focused on how the Internet is changing politics in ways not unique compared to previous technologies, techniques and politics. I didnt get all the details out on Saturday, but the argument went something like:
When Gabe Rivera unveiled his Techmeme Leaderboard a few weeks back, we politically-minded Internet junkies experienced something akin to spending Christmas morning watching another kid open presents. Okay, thats pushing it. Maybe its like comparing your Easter morning haul with a friend who received a Nintendo game, when all you got was chocolate (Ive forgiven, but never forgotten).
Heres a thought thats been kicking around the back of my head for awhile: the assignment of red and blue to describe right-leaning and left-leaning political factions in the United States has stuck in part because it contradicts these two colors previous connotations, and to the benefit of the left and right alike.
Inspired by the recent CNN/YouTube debate, the New York Times asked several media observers to imagine other ways in which the Web 2.0 world might influence presidential politics. I found Matt Bais suggestion particularly interesting:
The surprise of the Ames straw poll was Mike Huckabees strong second place finish, and if theres anyone out there celebrating as much as his campaign staff, its the anonymous individual(s) behind the long-running, unambiguously titled campaign blog, Mike Huckabee President 2008:
You know that HBO special where actor Robert Wuhl knocks down popular misconceptions about American history in a classroom setting? Well, thats what were doing here, because of an assertion contained in this mornings techPresdent Daily Digest. All right, hit the lights:
The Washingon Post profiles Virginia blogger Gret Letiecq, and even as an A1 below-the-fold feature of the sort they often runs on weekeends, its an odd read. Its not that writer Nick Miroff cant disguise his loathing of Letiecqs website, Black Velvet Bruce Li its that he seems to go out of his way to make it blindingly obvious to even the least perceptive reader that he really, really doesnt like what Letiecq stands for, and it ultimately hurts the piece.Here are a few of the unnecessary sneering asides that mar Miroffs article:
As you read this, the following item from the Taipei Times is being forwarded from Washington outbox to Beltway inbox, setting hearts aflutter and livers atwitter (emphasis added):
Over the past couple weeks, Ive noticed fewer and fewer Ron Paul-related stories on the front page of Digg. Maybe Kevin Rose had the monkeys tweak the algorithm a little more? Nah, more likely they were out drinking beers.
Disclosure: I figure any time I write about the presidential campaign, especially on the GOP side, I should note that my employer is on the web team for Fred Thompsons testing the waters committee and that all observations here are my own.
Man, is this ever an interesting month for campaign memos. First Mike Henrys missive about Hillary skipping Iowa and now this little bombshell from McCain adviser Mark McKinnon (hat tip: Political Wire).
Having recently praised the GOP Bloggers/Matt Margolis online poll and more recently criticized the intense-if-undersized group of Ron Paul supporters proving well enough that activists can imitate astroturfers, even if theyre more legitimate manipulators an update is warranted.
The headline is meant to catch your attention but seriously, 42 and his conduct in the White House explains more about how 43 runs the White House than any other force in all of modern history and politics. Rove admires Clintons skill and has studied the mistakes Clinton made.Obviously, one thing that consumed Clinton at all times was investigations. Just like this administration, they fought them off, stalled and blamed them on partisan witch hunts. The one that got them was the independent prosecutor, Ken Starr.