November 17, 2005
11/17: The Sourcerers
The Wednesday a.m. swarm around Washington Post's Bob Woodward was just the beginning. Today, his revelations -- and speculation about their possible ramifications -- are all over the political blogs. On the left, the Judy Miller analogy is all but conventional wisdom. There are multiple guesses about who the source might be, but both sides are looking at VP Cheney most closely. It also raises frustration about the MSM's clubbiness and perceived lack of commitment to the profession. In the past few years, the Post has been arguably the least-criticized among its competitors, especially compared with the New York Times. Although some have recently argued that the Post is the new "paper of record," it isn't immune from criticism, either. On the other hand, the Times' problems have been widely perceived as going all the way to the top for some time; at least for now, the Post's editors and reporters have the sympathy of Woodward's critics.
Although details are slight, what we've got already is enough to keep the blogosphere's Plamegate kremlinologists occupied for awhile. Earlier reports that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had secured more office space turned out to be erroneous, but now it seems possible that the investigation will have to ramp up, or in any case will not be a simple clean-up operation. Given another development or two, the Plamegate frenzy could be back in full effect.
But if there are 2 stories out there today, the other is most certainly the launch of Open Source Media (nee Pajamas Media); the fledgling company founded by Roger L. Simon and Charles Johnson. It launched at a gala event in NYC last a.m., and the buzz is loud. Unfortunately for OSM, the buzz is not so good. To begin with, longstanding questions about what exactly the company would do have not been satisfactorily answered by its portal site, which some find lacking. (For example, why are the "Top Stories" listed below the "Archives"? Beats us. And might we suggest a blog format for the site's front page?) The company has said it intends to sell advertising on member blogs, but nothing has been said about this recently. Moreover, many are questioning the trademark availability of the name.
The situation reminds the Blogometer a bit of the launch of Huffington Post back in May. That project drew plenty of pre-launch skepticism, but the site survived and by all appearances has flourished. Of course, it also did so by tweaking its format -- if Gwyneth Paltrow has made an appearance, we've missed it. Open Source Media is off to a rocky start, but can still succeed as well -- but it will have to change and adapt before it does.
Of course, plenty more happened in the past 24 hours, such as Cheney's pushback against war critics. But for now, we've just included a few odds and ends from other stories -- and our latest Blogger Spotlight.
LEAK INVESTIGATION: Second Place?
Liberal Needlenose quotes a "beautifully suggestive passage" from the New York Times' Purdum story wherein spokespersons for Pres. Bush, WH CoS Andy Card, counselor Dan Bartlett, ex-Sec/State Colin Powell, ex-DCI George Tenet, ex-interim DCI John McLaughlin and Karl Rove are said to have denied any of the above were Woodward's source, before adding: "Vice President Cheney did not join the parade of denials. A spokeswoman said he would have no comment on an ongoing investigation." 
Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum counts the denials by officials in the story. A few were not reached, a few (such as Tenet) denied it, but as yet on Cheney has "declined to comment." He concludes: "So: either Dick Cheney or else someone in the State Department. And no one in the State Department really seems to be a likely candidate to stick his neck out on Libby's behalf at this late date. In other words, they think it's Cheney, but they can't just say so."
Conservative Tom Maguire argues that if Cheney was the source, "he ought to be impeached. Not for any national security issues, or legal reasons -- he ought to be impeached for utter gutlessness." Stressing the "if" and adding that he doesn't think Cheney's actions would have been illegal, he writes, Cheney "should have stood up in October of 2003, following the criminal referral, and said so. Let the chips fall where they may." Earlier on, Maguire theorized, "in the court of public opinion, a Bush pardon [of Libby] in Jan 2009 becomes a lot less politically charged if earnest [GOPers] are convinced that the prosecution was deeply flawed."
AJ Strata: "I am convinced Novak talked to someone at the CIA. The Knight Ridder story which is very accurate for the time and refers to a CIA source. Now Woodward refers to a CIA source. A source who sounds spooked or concerned Woodward is about to drop a bombshell." TalkLeft: "Woodward's source is the State Department or CIA official mentioned in Paragraph 6 or 7 (and 33)of the Indictment against Libby. If it's the State Department official, it could be David Wurmser, John Hannah or Fred Fleitz. David Wurmser seems to me to be the most likely."
Steve Soto speculates that Woodward's source might have been NSA Stephen Hadley: "If Hadley was in fact the first administration official to talk to a member of the media about Plame's identity, and knowingly revealing that she was a possible covert operative due to her assignment in the Directorate of Operations, how plausible is it that his boss at the time didn't know about this either. You know, his boss, the current Secretary of State?"
Power Line: "The article makes it clear that the White House official was not Libby, and it doesn't appear to be Karl Rove either." Viking Pundit: "The only thing that's going to bring down Karl Rove now is kryptonite." American Prospect's Laura Rozen, at her personal blog: "There's a kind of agony play at hand now, and I think it demonstrates among other things how very much this administration was willing to manipulate the truth, the press, and ultimately the American public in some sort of never ending campaign that flickered at its most extreme and excessive into the orbit of something I can only describe somewhat ridiculously as fascism."
David Corn: "Just when it seemed the leak story was fading, here's another odd bounce. Does this indicate [special prosecutor Patrick] Fitzgerald is still hard at work, or is this a mopping-up task for him? Like so much of this sage, this episode yields more questions than answers." Josh Marshall thinks it's "silly for people to be claiming that the Woodward revelation demonstrates that Fitzgerald's investigation was somehow incomplete or flawed because he didn't find out about Woodward's role. My recollection is that Fitzgerald said quite clearly in his press conference that he'd been prevented from getting the whole story and that a key reason for this was Libby's perjury and obstruction."
WOODWARD: A Cancer On The Washington Post?
Informed Comment: "For Woodward to cover this leak up is no different from a reporter witnessing a burglary and covering that up. Arianna Huffington: "Hear that hissing noise? That's the sound of the air being let out of Woodward's reputation. Especially now that he's decided to challenge Pincus to a round of credibility one-on-one. My money's on Pincus, who was appropriately skeptical about the administration's WMD claims while Woodward was writing hagiography about the brave president and his fearless aides."
Steve Clemons: "In part, Woodward's story must be, at least in part, true because a source reporting to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald brought it to the investigator's attention. This new theatre in the Plame case was seemingly not promulgated by Woodward."
Betsy Newmark asks, "if Woodward and Pincus both testify to different memories of their conversations, how is that different from Libby and Russert both testifying to different memories of their conversations? If we can believe that the great Bob Woodward is misremembering when he told someone something, isn't it possible that Tim Russert could misremember something, too? Or that Scooter Libby could?" Duncan "Atrios" Black: "Why would you grant confidentiality to something which is "almost gossip" and told to you in an 'offhand manner.' What ethical issue prevented you from telling the world that an administration source had given you that information as you could do so without revealing the identity of the source?"
Vaughn Ververs, at CBS News' Public Eye: "Whatever differences Woodward's testimony may make in the Plame investigation, it is further evidence of something gone terribly wrong with how reporters treat their sources. ... Don't think the discussion over sourcing will end anytime soon. Indications in the New York Times this morning are that Libby's defense team will seek testimony from journalists, including some not named in the indictment, and may want information that goes beyond agreements made between reporters and prosecutors. That could mean more battles ahead for reporters.
Captain's Quarters: "It doesn't exactly excuplate either, especially Libby of perjury and obstruction, but it does make the indictment look even more foolish if the CIA itself outed Plame to Woodward ... Woodward's story shows that the leak did not come from some back-door effort to punish Wilson or his wife for their efforts to discredit Bush and the war effort."
A commenter at The Carpetbagger Report sums up the frustration of some on the left: "IOKIYAR" -- that stands for "It's okay if you're a Republican."
If Memeorandum is to be believed, the most-linked story last p.m. was the report of Woodward's apology to the Post by the Post's Kurtz.
BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Woodward Coulda, And Shoulda
At Attytood, Philly Daily News' Will Bunch admits that he got into journalism largely because of Woodstein: "I lost interest in Woodward a long time ago. As someone who grew up and later worked in New York for much of my life, he's always reminded me a lot of Mets' phenom pitcher Doc Gooden. Just like Woodward, Gooden burst on the scene with two Hall of Fame seasons. And then, April after April, I kept waiting for the Gooden of 1984 and 1985 to come back, until the grudging acknowledgement he never would." Digby: "After finding out that top reporters from The NY Times, The Washington Post and NBC all withheld information from the public about their leaders, I can only wonder what else they may be keeping back because of their cozy relationships, book deals, or political sympathies. This is a crisis in journalism." The Cunning Realist asks: "We seem to be in a 'tweener' period for the news media; the old guard has gone insider and abdicated for the veneer of personal and professional stability provided by corporate ownership, but nothing has quite stepped up to fill the role that is absolutely crucial to any democracy. Are blogs part of the answer?"
Bush critic/minor Memogate figure Paul Lukasiak points out in a letter to Romenesko: "Despite all the attention being paid to ethics questions regarding Bob Woodward's involvement in the Plame matter, his statement disclosing his testimony raises other significant journalistic ethics issues. Apparently, Woodward is in the habit of 'pre-clearing' his questions for upper-level government officials with subordinates."
Firedoglake is one of many who comes back to the Miller comparison: "Ah, Judy. You sure set a good standard, didn't you? Poor [Post editor Leonard] Downie and company were left to try and pick up the journalistic pieces, and salvage something of face at the back end -- with a colleague who has been sitting on a big scoop since June of 2003 because... well, why exactly?" Shakespeare's Sister recalls: "He went on Larry King arguing principle on behalf of Judith Miller, and saying he'd serve some of her jail time if the judge would allow it. (Maybe he just should have been serving some jail time of his own.)"
John Rosenberg at Discriminations thinks the Post's own VandeHei/Leonnig miss the point about Plame's status. They report both that she is an "analyst" and an "operative," whereas Woodward's statement makes clear: "I testified that according to my understanding an analyst in the CIA is not normally an undercover position."
OPEN SOURCE MEDIA: Open Fire
In the 11/16 edition we covered Open Source Media's morning events. It's also worth noting that Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) appeared via satellite. The text of Judy Miller's speech was supposed to be online by last p.m., but as of deadline we can't find it. (And the search function doesn't work, either.)
Yesterday's launch of Open Source Media was well-covered by bloggers in attendance -- La Shawn Barber live-blogged part of it and posted a few photos. She described the Miller speech: "Miller talked about the importance of journalists protecting their source. She briefly discussed being in jail in Alexandria, Virginia, and reading inaccurate articles and blog posts about herself with no ability to defend herself or set the record straight. Miller can't say much today, either, because she might be called as a witness in the Scooter Libby case." Pamela from Atlas Shrugs has several pictures, including her with Johnson, Simon and Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds. Ed Driscoll live-blogged consistently up until about noon. He quoted panelist/NYT writer Elizabeth Hayt, who said: "I hate blogs, I don't read them. I think they're for rich people with too much time on their hands to vent. And they said, "That's why we want you here. ... I politically very liberal, but right now, I feel like Ann Coulter in a room of lefties!" Dave Johnston live-blogged as well. Co-founder Roger L. Simon, at his eponymous personal blog: "I also thought Sen. Cornyn, who joined our lunch via satellite from Washington, was surprisingly blog-friendly in his remarks."
Because the majority of participating bloggers lean right, OSM bloggers from the left are having a tougher go of it -- Max Sawicky, one of the liberal bloggers signed up, explains/defended his participation, and noted his participation in a "BlogJam" -- a Crossfire-style debate panel -- posted to the site last a.m.: "I was told this was a test run, not for publication, but I stand by everything in it." Fellow participating lefty Marc Cooper: "The initiative for the blogomerate and advertising network definitely comes from the right-of-center but with a vow to be inclusive and pluralistic. So far there are a handful of us from the liberal/left side who are trying to make that a reality." His commenters immediately jump on him for being party to OSM, to which he replies: "I think what Ive said up till now is all that I will say for the time being about OSM as you critics are beating a dead horse. You havent said a single thing that I didnt know long before going into the project."
Among even a few non-participating attendees, there was a bit of skepticism -- RedState's Mike Krempasky, at his personal site: "It's a pretty flashy event -- but I don't think they've done much to explain their business to the attendees. ... But in the end -- even though many bloggers signed up for this new enterprise early on -- I think the bulk of those were motivated by trust in the influential priciples and a healthy competitive streak." Wizbang's Kevin Aylward: "The proceedings got off to an inauspicious debut when author/journalist Elizabeth Hayt slammed blogs as narcissistic meanderings of bored rich people, boring, and useless. ... I'm here and I still don't completely get it, but keep listening..." He updated later: "Charles and Roger are friends for whom I wish nothing but the best of luck in their new venture. As with any new project their are questions to be answered along the way, but based on what I saw today they appear to have a superior group of talented people working to build their (new) Open Source Media empire."
But further outside the circle, criticism became much more pronounced -- James Rummel at Chicago Boyz: "Like I said before, I hope that the whole thing is a big success. Nothing would please me more than to see OSM get to be so big that there's a repeat of the payola radio scandal, but with blogs this time around. I would certainly cry myself to sleep every night if Madison Ave. firms started dispatching vans full of high-class hookers and envelopes of cash all over the portion of the Blogosphere that OSM controls and we didn't sign up in time. Something tells me that it isn't about to happen, though." Right Wing News' John Hawkins asks "is OSM trying to be the Huffington Post, Blogads, the Associated Press, or something inbetween? The homepage for the site is -- in my opinion -- more than a little clunky compared to the The Huffington Post. So, if they're looking to turn OSM into a major portal, the page still needs work." Hawkins, who has an advisory position with BlogAds, continues: "On other hand, if they're looking to be the next Blogads, then again, their approach is a little puzzling. They did manage to capture about -- oh -- I'm going to say half, maybe a little more, maybe a little less than that -- of the conservative blog traffic out there. But, there are very few liberal and "other" types of blogs involved." Center-right law prof Ann Althouse arguably drew the most notice -- both positive and negative. In a post she updated throughout the day, she asked if the site's 1st lead story: "Is it fun to use and workable? I notice a lot of flabbiness in the writing. ... 'Has been received by the blogosphere with a far greater amount of skepticism than it has where the mainstream media are concerned'? You'd think they'd write their very first sentence crisply!" She updated later: "I'm told [Protein Wisdom] Jeff Goldstein wasn't even at the OSM launch, which surprises me, because I began reading it on the OSM home page under their heading 'live-blogging.' That's an awfully strange way to introduce people to their service. Aren't ordinary people being asked to trust the OSM portal?" In the post, Althouse had also made a pun on "Open Source Media" as "Open Sores Media," and made a bad joke about bodily fluids that some of her commenters called the "grossest thing Ann has written on this blog." Over at Little Green Footballs, Johnson reprinted the gross aside, and sarcastically concludes: "Classy." Libertarian Matt Welch picks up on the Althouse/Johnson kerfuffle, notes that Johnson's post was titled "The Epitome of Taste," adding: "Cue Johnson's famous commenters, who epitomize taste" with slurs such as "Ann Outhouse is a bile stool of the left." He concludes: "My favorite comment, though was this: 'When they have to stoop to insults, it's probably all they have left for their attacks.' Probably!" Liberal Scott Lemieux of Lawyers, Guns and Money, agreed with Althouse: "I really want to be able to write about what strikes me (if not any discernible audience) as being worth writing about, to not worry about what my be frontpaged or sold as other media, not to have to deal with centralized content restrictions. I don't want to have my ability to engage in snark to be defanged. It wouldn't work for me, and frankly I don't think it's a very good model for blog content."
And the OSM name and acronym itself quickly became an issue. Upon learning the name, Atrios wrote: "Don't anyone tell Chris Lydon. Something tells me his Open Source Media, Inc. isn't the same one..." Before long, Open Source -- a public radio show and blog, hosted by ex-NPR host Lydon -- weighed in: "Don't get us wrong; we didn't invent the idea of working with bloggers to make media, we certainly didn't invent the concept 'open source,' and there's plenty of room for everyone to do what we've been doing. But they chose the same name that we established in May and, seeing as how we work in the same industry, people might find that a little confusing. And that has us puzzled." In the comments, semi-retired blogger Steven den Beste counseled: "You guys would be well advised to consult an intellectual property lawyer. If you don't defend your trademark, you'll lose it." At his own site, which was down when we last checked, he argued forcefully that Simon and Johnson would lose to Lydon if challenged in court, and questioned the strategy of putting a number of blogs on one platform when the Internet itself was intended to have widely diffused points of entry; his point being, OSM is more vulnerable in various ways than all of the participants' sites put together. Conservative Pundit Guy: "Isn't it ironic? Bloggers, established bloggers, who have like, you know, used the Internet for a long time, who (in many cases) own their own domain names, seemingly forgot to simply 'Google' the name 'Open Source Media' before they registered osm.org and decided to brand themselves with a previously claimed identifier." While the commenters at their respective sites were largely laudatory, one asked at Simon's whether the OSM logo bears too much similarity to the Lucent logo, and another brought up the trademark issue. It also bounced around one of Johnson's threads as well. One commenter said: "If they actually [expletive deleted] this up and missed it, its a MAJOR legal faux pas and one or more lawyers are guilty of malpractice." The USPTO page for OSM's trademark application currently lists it as being under TBA.
This a.m., OSM posted an official statement to the front page of the site: "His URL is RADIOopensource, and he's given up opensourcemedia.net – which we and our lawyers confirmed before we chose our name. His trade name is Open Source -- and Open Source alone. He's filed a trademark application under Open Source alone, not Open Source Media. Our trade name is OSM, and please note that we have a TM after OSM, not after Open Source Media. We consider Open Source Media to be a description of what we are and do, not a trade name. ... We own opensourcemedia.com but we are not using that as our primary URL because we do not consider Open Source Media to be protectable name by anyone... which is why it's not our name."
Truth Laid Bear has a page devoted to blogs discussing OSM; currently the critics are currently listed at the top.
THE ALITO NOMINATION: Now, If Bush Had Named Guinier First, Maybe Harriet Miers As A Replacement Would Have Seemed Like The Second Coming Of Robert Bork!
On 11/16, Confirm Them's Carol Liebau argued that Senate GOPers disliked Ginsburg, but deferred to Clinton, and so should Dems defer to Bush on Alito now. Amygdala's Gary Farber thinks the comparison is inapt: "I suggest that a better analogy would be to substitute 'Lani Guinier' for 'Ruth Bader Ginsburg.' ... If President Clinton had submitted Guinier's name as SCOTUS nominee, rather than Ginsburg's, would the same Republican Senators who unhappily voted 'aye' for Ginsburg have equally cast their unhappy -- but submitting to the will of the President! -- votes for Justice Guinier?"
Circulated this a.m. among pro-Alito blogs is a weekend Omaha World-Herald op-ed by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), urging an up-or-down vote. Marshall at Confirm Them: "Sen. Nelson's commitment to a fair up-or-down vote is all the more important now that some Democrats wants to raise the specter of a filibuster."
WHITE HOUSE '08: The Clinton Paradox
Mickey Kaus notices how ex-Pres. Clinton is criticizing the Iraq war while Sen. Hillary Clinton is standing by her vote. He observes: "The old Clintonism: One Clinton succeeds in making both sides think he agrees with them. The new Clintonism: One Clinton pitches to one side while the other assuages the other side." He predicts: "The new trick won't work. Hillary will come under added pressure because of her husband's remarks. ... The question is not just "Who has Hillary's ear." It's whether Hillary's ear or Bill's ear is the ear to have."
PENTAGON: Blame Whitey
Re: the controversy over whether and how the U.S. used the white phosphorous chemical against insurgents during a battle in Fallujah (see 11/10 Blogometer), centrist Random Fate notes that the Pentagon has confirmed the U.S. did use white phosphorous during a battle in Fallujah last year. While he notes the use was not illegal, he adds, "the use of this weapon in areas where there may be non-comabatants is not a way to make friends and influence people, and incorrectly claiming that we did not use weapons of this nature and then later saying we did does not enhance our already shaky credibility."
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Healy The World, Make It A Better Place, For You And For Me And For The Entire Crooked Timber Of Humanity ...
Today the Blogometer talks to lefty Univ. of AZ prof Kieran Healy, who contributes to the academic group blog Crooked Timber.
What is your full name?
Kieran Healy.
What is your age?
I'm 32.
Where did you grow up?
Born and raised in Cork city, in Ireland. I went to college there and later (in 1995) came to the U.S. for graduate school.
Where do you live now?
Tucson, Arizona.
What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
I'm Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Arizona, and a Research Fellow at the Australian National University's Research School of Social Sciences. I've never worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media. I remain available for lucrative media deals.
When did you start blogging and why?
In May of 2002, partly out of an interest in the technology (I wanted to try it out) and partly in my capacity as a member of the chattering classes. In July of 2003 I co-founded Crooked Timber, a group blog, together with a bunch of other people.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
I am very bad at picking favorites in this way. I honestly couldn't tell you what my favorite color is. I usually find it easy to write about issues of the moment and I try to connect them to what I know about, but no specific story stands out. From a purely subjective point of view I find that funnier things (like "Books I Did Not Read This Year") or commentary on research (like this one) are often more enjoyable to sit and write than the political stuff, because I don't get all riled up about them.
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
I don't have a schedule, but typically I'll post maybe once every other day on average, with occasional bursts and lulls. A perk of writing for a group blog is that it removes the oppressive feeling that you must post every day (or every hour) just to keep your readership.
Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?
Another "favorite" question. I like Mark Schmitt because I share his general orientation to politics, but he knows so much more about the U.S. system than me that I always learn a lot from reading him. In a complementary way, I like to read Jim Henley because his (libertarian) intuitions are different from mine and I find it productive to think through -- and sometimes against -- his political analysis. There are so many other really good people out there, though. I find that the sheer number of smart and well-informed people who offer up regular commentary (whether about politics or some area of research) is quite astonishing. Being able to engage with those people is easily the best thing about blogging. (The fact that you don't have to engage with the blowhards and nutters is the second best thing.) As for strictly personal blogs, I don't read those. But I find that some of the feminist bloggers --- like Bitch, PhD for instance --- are able to connect their personal life to broader features of society and politics in a very compelling way. In many ways that branch of the blogging world best exemplifies C. Wright Mills' "sociological imagination" -- the effort to "grasp history and biography, and the relations between the two within society."
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
I don't have a favorite. There are a few columnists I like, but I don't go out of my way to read them from week to week.
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
I don't have a television. The one I used to own didn't survive the move to Arizona a few years ago, and I never got around to buying a new one. I can watch movies on my laptop and keep up with the news in print and online, so I mainly suffer by being unable to bluff my way in conversations about TV shows.
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
BBC News and the New York Times.
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
Brad DeLong, Kevin Drum , The Volokh Conspiracy, MaxSpeak. But like many people I also keep an eye on a lot of other blogs via the NetNewsWire RSS reader. An increasing number of academic journals publish their tables of contents via RSS feeds, too, so you can scan a very wide of stuff in a very convenient way.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
Beyond glancing a the front pages in the coffee shop, maybe once or twice a week. Computers are mostly dead trees too, by the way -- just much, much older trees.
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
I don't have a clear view of it. I would like to see more print and broadcast news drawing on blogs for comment and analysis. Optimistically, I think academic blogs have a lot to contribute here, because there really is a lot of depth of expertise and range of views, pithily expressed. This would balance the stereotypical images of blogging as a purely reactive, solipsistic or parasitic enterprise. I'd also like to think that blogging shortens the distance between the ordinary punter and the big outlets --- that is, the number of hops needed for someone from the latter to learn about something relevant from the former. On the pessimistic side, though, I fear that the twin forces of homophily in networks (birds of a feather to flock together) and the fixed size of our attention space (the volume of content is exploding, but *you* can only pay attention to the same amount of it as before) are so strong that these opportunities won't be realized. Think of the way that many media stories about blogging end up profiling people who are already full-time or part-time journalists, for instance. The technology provides a lot of opportunity, but it doesn't guarantee its own success: to see that, you only have to go back and look at how people thought VCRs, cassettes, hand-held movie cameras, and indeed television itself were going to revolutionize civic participation and democracy for the better.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Freedom's Just Another Word For Nothing You Can't Use
In a diary for MyDD, Matt Stoller criticizes his own Dem party and some liberal interests for challenging fair use doctrine and seeking to restrict information: "You might have heard of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organization that has worked on defending the internet's open model of information flow since 1990. They are fighting this fight, along with the Free Culture movement, and a great group called Public Knowledge. Boing Boing, the extraordinarily popular and awesome blog which many of you may read, is a leading proponent of progressive reform of copyright. The Democrats in Congress and good government groups like Common Cause are not. It's a common thread -- reformers in the campaign finance world are working to restrict freedom on the internet, because they don't really act as if individual freedom is a positive good, only that corporate corruption is a clear wrong. ... Democratics in Congress, with the exception of some fine leaders like Rick Boucher and Zoey Lofgren, are largely clueless or actively malicious in this battle. Until our elected leaders begin to understand that there is value in freedom, that the digital world is not some weird place where freedom of speech is entirely subservient to commercial interests, we will not be a progressive party."
LEST WE FORGET: Circular Logic
Sociology prof Jeremy Freese reappropriates an infamous PSA from the 1980s to create one that's a little more up-to-date with our postmodern, depressogenic society.
Posted by at November 17, 2005 12:47 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
