Showing posts with label NY Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NY Times. Show all posts

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Who Is The Wolf At The Door?


Today The New York Times issued an admission, in the form of a column by its Public Editor Clark Hoyt, that it was wrong in its coverage of the so-called ACORN sting and had been wrong to defend its wording since the truth began to emerge.

ACORN (acronym for The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is defined by Wikipedia as "a collection of community-based organizations in the United States that advocate for low- and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing, and other social issues." Because ACORN has, since its inception in 1970, been very successful in its goals and particularly effective in registering millions of low- to -moderate income voters, it has been the target of conservative attacks because lower income citizens tend to vote progressive and because ACORN promotes racial equality. Despite the fact that attempts at illegal disenfranchisement and voter fraud overwhelmingly originate from the conservative camp, the right-wing noise machine has prevaricatingly smeared ACORN as the source of voter illegality in recent elections.

In this campaign of "stop ACORN by any means", a right-wing con artist named James O'Keefe released video where he (falsely) claimed that he and another person dressed in outrageous "pimp and ho" costumes entered an ACORN office during July 2009 and were secretly taped receiving information on how to conceal illegal activities. The New York Times backed this story without ever viewing the original videotapes. Subsequently, Republicans succeeded in stampeding Congress to cut off all federal funding for ACORN and President Obama immediately signed the bill without batting an eye.

ACORN claimed it was fraud from the outset and demanded to see the unedited original video. They also filed suit for illegal secret videotaping. O'Keefe's employer, rightwing propagandist Andrew Breitbart, appeared in print and on TV repeatedly defending O'Keefe. Breitbart's story began to unravel when O'Keefe and three others were arrested in January after illegally entering the offices of Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) in an apparent attempt to tap or damage her telephone system. The criminals were "charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony" and are awaiting further legal action.

In December 2009, former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshberger issued his results of "an independent inquiry into the organizational systems and processes surrounding the social services of the organization" pursuant to the recent allegations of corruption within that organization in the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy". His written report exonerates ACORN from any alleged illegal activity.

Likewise, media watchdog FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) issued an excellent analysis of The New York Times' coverage and concluded it was "wildly misleading" and that the paper had been "duped".

Harshberger's report was cited in the judgment issued ten days ago by U.S. District Court Judge Nina Gershon, which reversed the act of Congress by granting both declaratory relief and a permanent injunction to ACORN. In her ruling, Judge Herson stated "The government has offered no...unique reason to treat ACORN differently from other contractors accused of serious misconduct or to bar ACORN from federal funding without either a judicial trial or an administrative process applicable to all government contractors."

This means the right-wing can, and undoubtedly will, continue to target ACORN for destruction, but for the time being, actual proof will have to be produced before governmental punishment can be levied. And this assertion of the rule of law no doubt played a strong role in The New York Times' watery admission of error today.

The damage has been done, however. As Hoyt's column points out, "Now Acorn [sic] and its supporters say The Times got the story wrong and, by failing to correct it, has played into the hands of a campaign that has pushed the group near extinction."

These admissions arrive during a week when right-wing dissociation from honesty can be found all over the news. For instance, in a desperate last-ditch effort to derail even a semblance of health care reform, a fake memo was promulgated which "claims to be sent to 'Democratic health and communications staff' and which suggests the majority party leadership wants to make big changes to Medicare next year after health care passes". This memo was ballyhooed by right-wing blogs as proof of Democrat hypocrisy only briefly before it was declared a hoax -- though salivating Republican Congressman Scott Garrett (NJ) couldn't stop himself in time to avoid being revealed as a lying ass in public by Anthony Weiner (N-NY):



We have also learned that the 33 Haitian "orphans" kidnapped by U.S. christianist missionaries turned out to have parents, after all: parents who were devastated by the earthquake and accepted the missionaries story that the children would be taken to a free school where the parents could visit at any time. The children have been returned to their families, and while not enough news outlets are calling this what it was -- human trafficking -- at least the sob stories about how it was "all for the children" have died away.

I wonder if all the money raised by fundamentalist churches to "aid these orphans" will be now directed toward helping their families, or if instead it will go to Laura Silsby's defense costs. I'd love to see a breakdown of how much tax-free income generated by the Catholic Church and fundamentalist Protestant groups has been spent in decades of cover-up and protection of pedophiles. There's a reason why the best place to find a child-sex predator is in conservative Christian strongholds, but I'll save that for another post.

It is important to note here, however, that the subtext which makes sense of why this kidnapping is justified in the minds of the Christian Right is a racist conviction that children of color are always better off beign raised with at least white supervision of their parents, if not white parents. Children of color are presumed to have illegitimate births, lacking proper familial values or documentation by authority. The Right seeks control over families of color, not giving them independent assistance where it might be needed.

Jill Cozzi details recent white-supremacy-driven threats at this week's teabagger bundthall gatherings as further documentation for "GOP: The Party of Legitimized Hate" (see my earlier post on this at Kickin' Ass and Namin' Names). This week saw black members of Congress being called "n****r" by teabaggers as they tried to go about their work. Later they had a big laugh yelling "f****t at Barney Frank, and successfully refused to cease their menacing behavior when a Capitol police officer tried to eject them.

Violence and lying for the cause is not only justified and excused by the Right, it's expected. For the theocrats among them, coercion is part of their mandate from g*d tp prosyletize: Such a mandate is by definition disrespectful of others' right to self-determination. The non-theocrats on the Right have absorbed past lessons from fascism which proves Big Lies backed by localized community violence can dominate nations.

Republican control of public discourse has meant their version of reality has been imprinted on an entire generation or maybe two. One of their lies is that "the media is liberal", when in fact the reverse is true. (Where is OUR Faux News?) Another is that "Americans are mostly to the right of center", when nationwide polls and landslide elections indicate the opposite. (A denied reality which has squeezed the teabaggers out from their "independent" cover.)

A third Republican distortion is the folksy "All politicians lie" with an implicit tag of "and they all equally." I'm not about to argue for the veracity of politicians. I'm not even going to argue that so-called progressives don't engage in the Big Lie from time to time, not when our own President had the nerve to declare in his address to Congress yesterday "You have a chance to make good on the promises you made" the same week that despite running a campaign which included the promise of a public option in health care coverage, it was revealed Obama "made a backroom deal last summer with the for-profit hospital lobby that he would make sure there would be no national public option in the final health reform legislation". a deal confirmed by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina.

But with the obvious exception above, Democrat political lies usually don't deliberately reverse the truth and project their own actions into Republicans. Progressives who vote Democrats into office don't lie us into murderous, economy-breaking wars. We're educated enough to comprehend the difference between socialism, communism, and fascism, and to know who is/who ain't. We support separation of church and state as it was delierately written into this country's organizing fabric by its founders. We understand that habeas corpus either extends to everyone or we're all living one accusation away from the noose. We know goverment is a safety net for "the least among us" and that it is in everyone's best interest to have good free schools, a functioning infrastructure, public health and safety, clean water and food, oversight for business practices, and, of course, the unimpeded right to vote. We are adult enough to recognize these public goods must be paid for by our taxes, not left to corporate goodwill or other forms of magical thinking.

And being adult is a big part of what differentiates the progressive mindset from conservative thinking. We are not locked into a worldview dependent on fear of authority and hierarchies. We have matured enough to not be overwhelmed by the prospect of pluralism, respectful difference of opinion, or modernity in its unpredictable state. We are much better equipped to deal with real-world ambiguity and conflict. And, as Digby points out, "How the two sides handle defeat is a defining characteristic." Assassination and violence as an excuse for having immature mechanisms for dealing with emotion is typical of the Right, not the Left.

Standing here amid the debris left by the Bush administration, we are like the grown-ups who arrived to rescue the boys in Lord Of The Flies. Our current leaders may be distracted by the "lookit this, some of it's kinda cool" crap left behind by run-amok children, but we in the authentic progressive base know eventually Bush/Reagan fantasyland all has to go in a bonfire. Everybody gets a tetanus shot and we return to the Constitution.

Between then and now, there'll have to be an increasing awakening of a majority of those who thought Ronnie and Dubya at least "meant well". They will need to admit "Wolf!" has been repeatedly cried to keep them from their honest labor and their community values have been exploited to serve the egos of a narcissistic few. This kind of adjustment always occurs, eventually.

And maybe, just maybe, this week we're seeing the actual beginning rivulets of that turning tide.


NOTE: Definitive and often exclusive coverage of the entire ACORN story has been untiringly performed by The Brad Blog, whose dogged persistence can be credited for much of the progress toward justice and exposure found above. Our ardent thanks to them for real truth-telling and an insistence on journalistic integrity.
There's more...

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

We're NOT Rich, Beee-yotch!

I have bumped into Robert Redford. He is not necessarily a friend of mine. I, my friends even if I had “arty” glasses and a “fancy” scarf...am no Robert Redford.

I ask for your forgiveness.

It's a bit cold this norning/afternoon here in NYC—about 38ยบ degrees instead of the unseasonable fifties/near-sixties of the last few days and I've been very busy the last 48 hours—pre-occupied I guess with finding just the right accoutrements for the weather.

You see, I'm going to be outside for awhile. Been outside a bit already, in fact. I've ducked inside a green logo-ed national Coffee mega-giant to post along with a few friends who also want to warm their hands a touch.

One of the assembled just got through bitching of course about the cost of the coffee another member of the group bought.

“We shoulda brought a Thermos.”

“Thermos? Who's got a Thermos? I haven't seen anybody carry a Thermos in 20 years.”

“Funny how that kind of coincides with the spread of this place.”

“Ha. Ha. Think they'd be cool with one person gettin' a large coffee, and a small empty cup with it? Y'know. Just for a little souvenir?”

“Ohhhhhhh...like those old, Grecian urn “We Are Happy To Serve You” cups?

“Yeah. They'd just eat that up. One coffee...two cups, please. What? Uh...it's for an uh...ironic souvenir. Heh-heh-heh—Whaddyamean Get thefuckouttahere?

I tell my fellow warmth seekers that this place was an old Greek coffee shop fifteen years ago. I remembered it well, because the place we're about to go back to after this fuel-up used to be the old Columbus Circle convention center. It was 10 Columbus Circle to be precise. TV shows and films used the building as a production facility. I worked on a show out of there for 2 1/2 seasons and abused that little 24-hour coffee/gyro spot like crazy. Robert Redford was shooting “Quiz Show” two floors down from us. I remember seeing him leaving late one night when I was heading out for a late-night coffee run. We all had to wait on a long line to sign out in the security guard's guest book.

“Man...I'm just goin' across the street for coffees. I'll be right back. I have to sign in and out every time?” I said to the guard. “I'm comin' right back.”

“Every time.” came the robotic reply.

I went back to the end of the queue, nearing Redford about three people in front of my “spot”. I was sighing as I trudged back and saw him looking at me with a “Sorry” look.

I was a little stunned, but I looked back, and for some reason gave him the “high sign” from “The Sting”—the fingertip brush against the nose. He returned it with a little smile. Brush with fame.

Ten minutes later, I'm back in the building with four coffees. A few cents shy of $3.60 total. 80¢ each with tax. Imagine that? Four coffees—medium—for less than four bucks.

That was a long time ago.

The Greek coffee shop is long gone. The “green giant” has its space now.

So is 10 Columbus Circle.

What has replaced it is the new-fangled glass giant that is the Time Warner Center.

And that's where the Writers Guild picket line is today...which is why I'm here.

I's a little cold out here, so I'm wearing a leather jacket today. Picked it up about nine years ago. Nice one, too. Listed for about $250 I recall. I got it for $69 at a place called Daffy's here in NYC. It's decently warming.

But I could use a scarf. A nice, fancy scarf. And maybe, as the late fall sun's angle is blinding at this hour...maybe some arty glasses, too, 'cause you know that's how we do...

About 75 members of Writers Guild East set up a picket line at Rockefeller Center, just above the fabled ice rink. Picketers chanted: “No money? No downloads. No downloads? No peace.”

Many of the writers said that they expected to be out of work for a while. The tourists and office workers who walked by rarely stopped at the curious sight of writers holding signs that read, “On Strike.” For a time, the pickets chants were drowned out by the roar of the crowd that was assembled for the “Today” show across 49th Street.

All of the trappings of a union protest were there — signs, chanting workers, an inflatable rat, and a discarded bag of wrappers and cups from Dunkin Donuts. The rat was borrowed from Local 79, an AFL-CIO laborers’ union, and commuted in from Queens.

But instead of hard hats and work boots, the people on the pickets had arty glasses and fancy scarves.


I couldn't find my “fancy” scarf. But I know where I can get one. You get 'em at the same place most people do in town.

From a street vendor. For about five dollars. The same amount it costs for a pair of “arty” glasses. Fake Ray-Bans, fake Pradas, and Armanis—all five dollars. Leather gloves? Seven dollars. Right next to the coarse leather cell -phone holders and fall-apart, candy-colored iPod headphones. But first...I'm chipping in for coffee. The scam's goin' like this—we're gonna ask for the extra cup instead of the corrugated sleeve.

“It always slips...I'll pay extra for the empty cup.”

And you know what? Fuck the scarf. No, really—fuck the scarf, and the asshole Times writer who brought it up.

Better yet? Let Joss Whedon (Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Serenity) have at 'em:

Reporters are funny people. At least, some of the New York Times reporters are. Their story on the strike was the most dispiriting and inaccurate that I read. But it also contained one of my favorite phrases of the month.

“All the trappings of a union protest were there… …But instead of hard hats and work boots, those at the barricades wore arty glasses and fancy scarves.”

Oh my God. Arty glasses and fancy scarves. That is so cute! My head is aflame with images of writers in ruffled collars, silk pantaloons and ribbons upon their buckled shoes. A towering powdered wig upon David Fury’s head, and Drew Goddard in his yellow stockings (cross-gartered, needless to say). Such popinjays, we! The entire writers’ guild as Leslie Howard in The Scarlet Pimpernel. Delicious.

Except this is exactly the problem. The easiest tactic is for people to paint writers as namby pamby arty scarfy posers, because it’s what most people think even when we’re not striking. Writing is largely not considered work. Art in general is not considered work. Work is a thing you physically labor at, or at the very least, hate. Art is fun. (And Hollywood writers are overpaid, scarf-wearing dainties.) It’s an easy argument to make. And a hard one to dispute.

My son is almost five. He is just beginning to understand what I do as a concept. If I drove a construction crane he’d have understood it at birth. And he’d probably think I was King of all the Lands in my fine yellow crane. But writing – especially writing a movie or show, where people other than the writer are all saying things that they’re clearly (to an unschooled mind) making up right then – is something to get your head around.

--------------------------

“The trappings of a union protest…” You see how that works? Since we aren’t real workers, this isn’t a real union issue. (We’re just a guild!) And that’s where all my ‘what is a writer’ rambling becomes important. Because this IS a union issue, one that will affect not just artists but every member of a community that could find itself at the mercy of a machine that absolutely and unhesitatingly would dismantle every union, remove every benefit, turn every worker into a cowed wage-slave in the singular pursuit of profit. (There is a machine. Its program is ‘profit’. This is not a myth.) This is about a fair wage for our work. No different than any other union. The teamsters have recognized the importance of this strike, for which I’m deeply grateful. Hopefully the Times will too.


Thank you, Joss Whedon.

I won't front. Whedon notes that the “poncey” writer's manque is a tough one to defend. We write. We don't tar streets, or heft swollen trash bags into ooze-dripping trucks. We write. We wrack our brains looking for the right sequence of words and situations so that a show, or a movie, or whatever we're writing kind of works. We don't always succeed. The same way a tarred street will sometimes go soft and gooey a month after being laid, or how you'll come outside to see a trail of embarrassing trash from your curb to the street. We do fuck up. But for the most part, we sweat the details, and pour our hearts and souls into this stuff because in the end, if we're lucky—our names go on it—for ever and ever. When you think of a particularly bad episode of a show you've seen—especially a famously bad episode, it takes all of twenty seconds to Google the culprit's name. The pitiful beast's author.

That's forever, baby. And that author knows it. Imagine your worst work fuck-up being findable and attributable to you by anyone with a 2600 baud modem.

So you work hard to not have that happen to you. There are hacks among us, but the vast majority bust our asses...big time.

And believe it or not, not just as writers. A large majority of the writers I know can't make ends meet on what they make just as a writer. They have a nine-to-five doing something else. Some work as copywriters in publishing. Some work in retail. Others bartend, Two others I know work as a cable TV repair technician and IT troubleshooter respectively.

Another one works for the Parks Department, pruning and mulching trees damaged by storms.

Only one of 'em swings all the bills alone. The rest are either married or significantly-othered up, so expenses are shared. Nobody I know is rich.

So we split coffee. The arty glasses are counterfeits. The fancy scarves, a little pilled, like the ones I bought at the corner of 32nd and Broadway two years ago. A gray one and a camel one. They're somewhere in the house...I'm sorry—the apartment. I'll make sure to dig 'em out so as to not disappoint our little proletariat scribe friend from The New York Times. Once I do, shall I sport the Snoopy/Baron Von Richtofen Look?



Or maybe...I dunno, kick that ironic filmmaker dude from “Rent” style?



I'll figure somethng out, I guess. Till then, I'l just have to be myself.



(“Arty” glasses bought on the street near Broadway and Canal three years ago. Five dollars, of course.)
There's more...

Saturday, November 24, 2007

A Carcass Picked Clean, Then Boiled For Broth

No Leftovers...thanks to Bob Herbert, Driftglass and Paul (Soup Man) Krugman

The most vicious ring beating I ever saw was in the Spring of 1977. Ken Norton vs. Duane Bobick. One of the last nationally televised, free TV fights ever shown—with good reason. The bell sounded for the first round and the two fighters felt each other out—oh, for about seven seconds or so when Norton flung a clubbing right from somewhere near his hip and over his shoulder, that blasted Bobick like a wrecking ball hitting a bag of stale fortune cookies. Bobick's back hit the corner and for the next thirty-six seconds Norton's right hand hit Bobick's jaw, ears, temples, nose and forehead. Midway through the fusillade of about twenty-three unanswered punches, (Duane never got a punch off) something flew from the area where Bobick was pinned and wincing in the corner.

It was his mouthpiece flying several rows into the arena darkness. Norton wasn't so much punching as he was using his right hand as a medieval mace—loop, swing, BAM! Loop, swing, BAM! Ref stopped it at 43 seconds in. NBC had built a two-hour package around the fight, and the sudden end ruined it. So they showed the damn thing about 10 times in a row to fill time. And that fight was one of the key reasons why free TV stopped showing fights. When a massacre like that goes down, it wrecks everything. Again, It was the most singularly brutal “fight” I've ever seen.

But the intellectual dismantling of the New York Times' David Brooks over the last ten days gets right up there near it.

Brooks, in a fit of neo-con desperation in the wake of nothing but bad news since the '04 elections, found it necessary to play Dr. Frankenstein with the corpse of Ronald Reagan via dumb-fuck revisionist lightning. He tried to spin Ol' Ronnie Raygun's 1980 election kickoff in Philadelphia, Mississippi—a reknowned dog-whistle call to a new wave of fresh, white-sheeted bigots as something other than what the world knew it to be.

Krugman killed that turkey right there in the middle of the newsroom in a follow-up piece. Bob Herbert then built a fire in the same spot, plucked the dumb flightless pundit boid clean and roasted it alive. After a few squawks and “gobble-gobbles” it quieted down...until Driftglass happened by.

He stuffed it. Basted it. Flash-finished it, and then carved the meat into lots of thick, well-done slices. Damn, it was delicious!

But then...Krugman, ever the economist, decided to get the maximum use out of the well-picked carcass, coming back earlier this week to boil what was left of poor Brooksie down to a savory broth:

There are many other examples of Reagan’s tacit race-baiting in the historical record. My colleague Bob Herbert described some of these examples in a recent column. Here’s one he didn’t mention: During the 1976 campaign Reagan often talked about how upset workers must be to see an able-bodied man using food stamps at the grocery store. In the South — but not in the North — the food-stamp user became a “strapping young buck” buying T-bone steaks.

Now, about the Philadelphia story: in December 1979 the Republican national committeeman from Mississippi wrote a letter urging that the party’s nominee speak at the Neshoba Country Fair, just outside the town where three civil rights workers had been murdered in 1964. It would, he wrote, help win over “George Wallace inclined voters.”

Sure enough, Reagan appeared, and declared his support for states’ rights — which everyone took to be a coded declaration of support for segregationist sentiments.


I can only imagine what fun talk there must be in the stairwells and behind stacks of copy paper at Times HQ over this intramural stomp-out. Shit, I wonder if Brooks is pulling the old “get here before everybody—leave here long after they've left” routine so he doesn't have to show his sugar glider-ish face.

But for those who have any doubt after Krugman's boil-down as to what Reagan was about with that visit...let's go back to a section of what he unearthed:

in December 1979 the Republican national committeeman from Mississippi wrote a letter urging that the party’s nominee speak at the Neshoba Country Fair, just outside the town where three civil rights workers had been murdered in 1964. It would, he wrote, help win over “George Wallace inclined voters.”


What was a “George Wallace” voter, and why would he be desirable?

In 1958, he was defeated by John Patterson in Alabama's Democratic gubernatorial primary election, which at the time was the decisive election, the general election still almost always being a mere formality in Alabama. This was a political crossroads for Wallace. Patterson had run with the support of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization Wallace had spoken against, while Wallace had been endorsed by the NAACP. After the election, aide Seymore Trammell recalled Wallace saying, "Seymore, you know why I lost that governor's race?... I was outniggered by John Patterson. And I'll tell you here and now, I will never be outniggered again."

In the wake of his defeat, Wallace adopted a hard-line segregationist style, and used this stand to court the white vote in the next gubernatorial election. In 1962 he was elected governor on a pro-segregation, pro-states' rights platform in a landslide victory. He took the oath of office standing on the gold star where, 102 years prior, Jefferson Davis was sworn in as President of the Confederate States of America. In his inaugural speech, he used the line for which he is best known:

“In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”


The lines were written by Wallace's new speechwriter, Asa Carter, a Klansman and longtime anti-semite. Wallace later stated that he had not read this part of the speech prior to delivering it, and that he had regretted it almost immediately. However, he did not hesitate to repeat it.


And Ronnie ran down there like it was the Warners' backlot in 1949, with the studio dick on vacation, and the bungalows full of boy-starved starlets. He answered the call for someone to appeal to “George Wallace” voters, and the grinning, Bryllcreemed jerk went down there and played the hell out of the role offered to him.

Unfortunately for Reagan's legacy, and Brooks' abused psyche. Krugman got his hands on the old “Playbill” for it.

And wrapped that boiled-clean carcass up in it, and tossed it out in the trash...albeit a few days before Thanksgiving.

“Sigh!” The holidays seem to start earlier every damn year. :)
There's more...

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Internet 2.0 - NY Times 0



NY Times Paywall Comes Down

The New York Times paywall will come down for almost all of its website effective midnight Tuesday night.

In a triumph of the open nature of the internet -- that anyone with half a brain could see coming two years ago to the day -- the NY Times Company announced Tuesday that the it was canceling its two-year old Times Select program (refunding customers on a pro-rata basis) and making its site available to the public. Furthermore, The Times is making its archives available as follows: from 1987 to the present without charge, as well as those from 1851 to 1922, which are in the public domain. There will be charges for some material from the period 1923 to 1986, and some will be free.

The Times Select program ran for two years to the day amid wide-spread complaints that it cut The Times' best columnists off from the rest of their readers. Among those complaining were many of the The Times' columnists. The columns ended up being widely circulated and reprinted anyway, through blogs, emails, and newsletters.

NY Times

The Times said the project had met expectations, drawing 227,000 paying subscribers — out of 787,000 over all — and generating about $10 million a year in revenue.

“But our projections for growth on that paid subscriber base were low, compared to the growth of online advertising,” said Vivian L. Schiller, senior vice president and general manager of the site, NYTimes.com.

What changed, The Times said, was that many more readers started coming to the site from search engines and links on other sites instead of coming directly to NYTimes.com. These indirect readers, unable to get access to articles behind the pay wall and less likely to pay subscription fees than the more loyal direct users, were seen as opportunities for more page views and increased advertising revenue.

“What wasn’t anticipated was the explosion in how much of our traffic would be generated by Google, by Yahoo and some others,” Ms. Schiller said.

The Times’s site has about 13 million unique visitors each month, according to Nielsen/NetRatings, far more than any other newspaper site. Ms. Schiller would not say how much increased Web traffic the paper expects by eliminating the charges, or how much additional ad revenue the move was expected to generate.

Experts say that opinion columns are unlikely to generate much ad revenue, but that they can drive a lot of reader traffic to other, more lucrative parts of The Times site, like topic pages devoted to health and technology.

The Wall Street Journal, published by Dow Jones & Company, is the only major newspaper in the country to charge for access to most of its Web site, which it began doing in 1996. The Journal has nearly one million paying online readers, generating about $65 million in revenue.

Dow Jones and the company that is about to take it over, the News Corporation, are discussing whether to continue that practice, according to people briefed on those talks. Rupert Murdoch, the News Corporation chairman, has talked of the possibility of making access to The Journal free online.

The Los Angeles Times tried that model in 2005, charging for access to its arts section, but quickly dropped it after experiencing a sharp decline in Web traffic.
Charging for online news is stupid. News is a commodity. From Google News to Huffington Post, from thousands to tens of thousands of local newspapers around the globe to literally almost five million blogs and growing, the world is abuzz with what's going on. The problem isn't getting the news -- it's filtering it.

What people need are great editors, people they trust to reach into the data-flow and pull out that which matters. No one can listen to everything, and no one person's taste matches up with everyone elses.

The New York Times simply failed to understand that no one pays to get more crap in their inbox -- even really good crap by terrific writers. It's a crap mountain out there and I ain't paying to add more shit to the pile I already don't have time to read. If some article is so goddamn good (that my Mom convinces me) I just have to dig down through the dung to read, well, she can either cut and paste me the whole thing herself, or point me to a site carrying the article regardless of The Times' stupid policies.

In other words, all Times Select did was piss people off, drive potential customers away, and lose them advertising dollars. Smooth moves ex lax.

Gilly nailed your ass there Pinch a year ago.
Steve Gilliard

It's not just us bloggers, most Americans don't trust the media, left or right, especially the Washington media, who is more concerned with Beltway antics than the news. If Judy Miller was covering Baltimore City Hall, she would have been fired years ago. But people kept defending her when she was compromised

I wouldn't worry about Atrios breaking stories, he's an economist, not a journalist. What I would worry about is the fact that demographics are moving the most desireable readers to the Internet and their opinions are more important than yours.
Want to build a business on the internet?

Give away your best stuff.

You heard me. Take your best stuff. Now give it away.

Know what will happen? The same shit's been happening since the dawn of the net.
TERENCE MANN
Ray, people will come Ray. They'll come to Iowa for reasons they can't even fathom. They'll turn up your driveway not knowing for sure why they're doing it. They'll arrive at your door as innocent as children, longing for the past. Of course, we won't mind if you look around, you'll say. It's only $20 per person. They'll pass over the money without even thinking about it: for it is money they have and peace they lack. And they'll walk out to the bleachers; sit in shirtsleeves on a perfect afternoon. They'll find they have reserved seats somewhere along one of the baselines, where they sat when they were children and cheered their heroes. And they'll watch the game and it'll be as if they dipped themselves in magic waters. The memories will be so thick they'll have to brush them away from their faces. People will come Ray. The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again.

Oh... people will come Ray. People will most definitely come.
Giving your best stuff away, your real problem will be something you've never dreamed of -- which is why real hackers today get great jobs at Google, not at Microsoft -- you poor deluded war-pushing hack.

Your sin isn't even sitting in a grand office envying your father, sucking up to the Bush administration and aiding and abetting the world into one, two, ah-ah, can you count, maybe three wars. Your sin is letting the world pass the Gray Lady by on your watch while allowing print Journalism to take a fucking dive... What? Did you think you had a freaking monopoly on news?

Journalism ethics 101 we won't cover today. If you haven't learned them yet (you haven't), well, tough. Asshole.

But anyone running business on what is now called the internet since the mid 80s (*raises both hands and feet -- promptly falls over*) knows how you build a business here on the Al Gore's internets is you take your best stuff and you give it away.

If your best stuff is any good, people will come. Leading to why Google rules and Microsoft is trying to come up with a world-changing hit before its Office & Desktop monopolies vanish into Web 2.0 & the rapidly coming yeah its actually already here Web 3.0, where who the hell needs a freaking operating system anyway? Or Microsoft Office? Or a desktop/laptop computer?

What Google knows is, if you've got people coming to get your free stuff, you can monetize the traffic.

Wha. Huh. Wazyu?

The more people, the more ways to slice and dice them into traffic streams, each stream worth something. This stream gets sold books on military history, this one rice cookers, this one pay-to-click ads for Battlestar Galactica, that one political advertising for John Edwards, and over there AT&T long distance service along with direct mail for Porsche automobiles. While those folks get phone calls asking about their portfolios. And everyone has the choice of making donations, participating in subscription drives, buying ad-free versions of the product, and so on.

The more people that come, the more ways to sell and there's literally no limit. It all starts with giving away your best stuff for free and building a demand for your stuff. Stuff (your brand identity) = demand. Demand = people. People = opportunity to monetize. And monetizing is the golden goose, making offers very directed to unique people and groups of people.

Pinch, being of my Dad's era, just doesn't get the internet. He utterly missed how this is done. The people he put in charge of bringing The Times online? Either they didn't get it or Pinch simply wasn't willing to listen when they told him he should just give his shit away without any return, yo. "That simply isn't how we do things here. It isn't how we play ball. It's not how we play cricket." He insisted they find a profit center which he, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., could freaking understand, God Dammit. Or go to work with those ruffians from The Post.

So they gave him a profit center. Heh.

Yo slick. You fucked up. But if you pull your head out of your ass, you might still pull this off. This horseshit about keeping some of your archives from 1923-1986 still on a pay-as-you-go basis ain't gonna fly though. What part of GIVE YOUR STUFF AWAY do you not understand?

Or do we just have to wait for Prince to take over when you die?

I mean, come on Pinch, why the hell would you invite us in and then try and hold back, you prick-teaser you. Trying to be a good boy for mommy and daddy and the Church, not giving it up too soon? Listen Pinch, you invited us in. But now here we are, all hot and bothered and ready for action. We've got our hand down your pants and oooooh, you've got such a big one baby! Stop wiggling around and let us take you all the way. Open your archives to us sugar -- no one likes a prick tease.

Know what happens when you monetize all those beautiful people coming in because you just TRUST the goddamn system like everyone else does, and give away ALL your best stuff?
JOHN KINSELLA
Is this heaven?

RAY KINSELLA
It's Iowa.

JOHN KINSELLA
Iowa? I could have sworn this was heaven.

John starts to walk away.

RAY KINSELLA
Is there a heaven?

JOHN KINSELLA
Oh yeah. It's the place where dreams come true.

Ray looks around, seeing his wife playing with their daughter on the porch.

RAY KINSELLA
Maybe this is heaven.
There's more...

Saturday, August 18, 2007

One Nation Under God


Milan Cathedral, Milan, 1998: Thomas Struth

Messianic theology breeds messianic politics

Mark Lilla is professor of the humanities at Columbia University.

The below essay, published today in the NY Times, is adapted from his book “The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics and the Modern West.” The book is to be published next month.

This is a long essay. My mom sent me a copy with seven words, "This is worth reading all the way." I did, and she was right.

Here's how we'll do this. Below is pasted up just a taste of Professor Lilla's essay. Read it please, then kick to the NY Times for the rest. The link is at the top of the essay. Read the whole essay -- yes, it's long; yes, as my mom says, "this is worth reading all the way" -- then come back here and we'll talk it over.

Enjoy.

The Politics of God

I. “The Will of God Will Prevail”

The twilight of the idols has been postponed. For more than two centuries, from the American and French Revolutions to the collapse of Soviet Communism, world politics revolved around eminently political problems. War and revolution, class and social justice, race and national identity — these were the questions that divided us. Today, we have progressed to the point where our problems again resemble those of the 16th century, as we find ourselves entangled in conflicts over competing revelations, dogmatic purity and divine duty. We in the West are disturbed and confused. Though we have our own fundamentalists, we find it incomprehensible that theological ideas still stir up messianic passions, leaving societies in ruin. We had assumed this was no longer possible, that human beings had learned to separate religious questions from political ones, that fanaticism was dead. We were wrong.

An example: In May of last year, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sent an open letter to President George W. Bush that was translated and published in newspapers around the world. Its theme was contemporary politics and its language that of divine revelation. After rehearsing a litany of grievances against American foreign policies, real and imagined, Ahmadinejad wrote, “If Prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior?” This was not a rhetorical question. “I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth,” Ahmadinejad continued, reminding his fellow believer that “according to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine Prophets.” There follows a kind of altar call, in which the American president is invited to bring his actions into line with these verses. And then comes a threatening prophecy: “Liberalism and Western-style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today, these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems. . . . Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.”

This is the language of political theology, and for millennia it was the only tongue human beings had for expressing their thoughts about political life. It is primordial, but also contemporary: countless millions still pursue the age-old quest to bring the whole of human life under God’s authority, and they have their reasons. To understand them we need only interpret the language of political theology — yet that is what we find hardest to do. Reading a letter like Ahmadinejad’s, we fall mute, like explorers coming upon an ancient inscription written in hieroglyphics.

The problem is ours, not his. A little more than two centuries ago we began to believe that the West was on a one-way track toward modern secular democracy and that other societies, once placed on that track, would inevitably follow. Though this has not happened, we still maintain our implicit faith in a modernizing process and blame delays on extenuating circumstances like poverty or colonialism. This assumption shapes the way we see political theology, especially in its Islamic form — as an atavism requiring psychological or sociological analysis but not serious intellectual engagement. Islamists, even if they are learned professionals, appear to us primarily as frustrated, irrational representatives of frustrated, irrational societies, nothing more. We live, so to speak, on the other shore. When we observe those on the opposite bank, we are puzzled, since we have only a distant memory of what it was like to think as they do. We all face the same questions of political existence, yet their way of answering them has become alien to us. On one shore, political institutions are conceived in terms of divine authority and spiritual redemption; on the other they are not. And that, as Robert Frost might have put it, makes all the difference.

Go. Read the whole essay. Come back and we'll talk. *smiles*
There's more...

Competing Factions in Country

Readers will recall that this blog pointed out the reduction of violence in Al-Anbar as a indicator that U.S. withdrawal would not cause chaos and civil war, but actually shows that reducing troops levels is helping.

Since the U.S. moved a significant portion of troops from Al Anbar to Baghdad to kick off the surge in March/April. Anbar has seen a significant drop in violence and in fact we have seen Iraq police fill the gap.

And so, I was very confused when I saw this piece in the NYTimes today.

Falluja’s Calm Is Seen as Fragile if U.S. Leaves


With this scary picture:

...in recent months violence has fallen sharply, a byproduct of the vehicle ban, the wider revolt by Sunni Arab tribes against militants and a new strategy by the Marines to divide Falluja into 10 tightly controlled precincts, each walled off by concrete barriers and guarded by a new armed Sunni force.

Security has improved enough that they are planning to largely withdraw from the city by next spring. But their plan hinges on the performance of the Iraqi government, which has failed to provide the Falluja police with even the most routine supplies, Marine officers say.

Thats funny, they dont mention the troop reduction, must be an oversight. Then they quote some Sgt.:
there is a good chance we would lose everything we have gained, said Sgt. Chris Turpin, an intelligence analyst with a military training team here.

But then they quote the Marine Regimental Commander:
Marine commanders emphasize there is no hard-and-fast date for leaving the city. A lot of people say that without the Americans it’s all going to collapse, said Col. Richard Simcock, the commander of Marine Regimental Combat Team Six in eastern Anbar. I’m not that negative. I’ve seen too much success here to believe that.

Some buck Sgt. versus the local Marine commander, a full bird Col. Yes, that seems equivalent. (not). Look I am usually one to value a line troops assessment over some officer, but an intelligence analyst?

Then we get this weird bit of statistics...
Violence has dropped sharply in the city, where no marines have been killed or wounded since mid-May. But deadly skirmishes have been common around the nearby village of Karma and in remote areas north of Falluja.

Twenty-five service members have been killed in Anbar Province since the beginning of July, according to Icasualties.org, making it by far the deadliest province after Baghdad.


Actually it was 17 in July not 25. Which actually was pretty good. Average KIA per month in Anbar was about 25 from 2005. There were only 4 in June and only 8 so far for August.

And then saying Anbar is 'by far the deadliest province' is really misleading. They only 2 areas that there is any real fighting going on is Anbar and Baghdad.

There are other quotes, including one from a US contractor who complains about the culture of greed(!) and also another officer who says they intend to remove more troops in the spring of next year.

This piece is pretty poorly written. The reason that violence is down (besides the vehicle ban) is the troop relocation to Baghdad. The reporters leave that out of the story. They then try to construct the premise that if more troops leave there will be more violence. But the only support for this claim is a lone sergeant. Crappy, administration supporting reporting at its best.
There's more...

Monday, July 2, 2007

NY Times Link Generator


Prevent NY Times Links from vanishing behind the Paywall: A guide for Bloggers

Dear Blogger,

Please take the time to convert all NYT links you make from now on, using the very easy to use Link Generator. That way when someone hits one of your NY Times links months later, your customers can still read the article.

Here's how:

http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink

Put in the URL, say:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/technology/22lens.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin

Convert it. What will come back is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/technology/22lens.html?ex=1332216000&en=91c7e3bb6e19b50a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Modify the part which says partner=rssuserland to read partner=groupnewsblog
(This lets the NYT know whom is using their service. Use the name of your blog.)

Now your URL reads:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/technology/22lens.html?ex=1332216000&en=91c7e3bb6e19b50a&ei=5090&partner=groupnewsblog&emc=rss

Test it in an actual browser. Wow! See, you have the article up and running.

Now, paste this in behind the Words of the Link as the Link URL:
"As it says in the NY Times article, Tweaking the Zoom, ..."

Done. This link will NOT vanish behind the Paywall. Your readers will appreciate you.

There's more...