BuzzMachine

Salam Pax’s first column
: Salam Pax’ first Guardian column is up and it’s great. Period. Great.

Like no one else has or can, he gives us a sense of what life is like on the Iraqi street.

It’s more than atmospherics. He has things to say — and they’re better thought out than they are sometimes on a rushed weblog.

He celebrates the explosion of media in Iraq:

Newspapers are coming out of our ears these days…. Most of these papers are just two or four pages of party propaganda, no license or hassle. Just go print. I am thinking of getting my own: “Pax News – all the rumours, all the time”….

I got five papers for 1,750 dinars, around $1.50, it felt like I was buying the famous bread of bab-al-agha: hot, crispy and cheap.

Take note of that media celebration in relation to the post directly below about American media sniping.

He doesn’t say a word about the success or failure of the American occupation, per se. That is, he doesn’t write it from the American perspective. He writes it from the Iraqi perspective, being more critical of (or at least questioning)of) his own countrymen than mine:

The Military presence has been increased in the streets and soldiers don’t look as calm as they did a week ago. Al-Jazeera and Arabiya show angry Iraqis who say things about the promises that America has not kept and the prosperity of which they see no sign. Iraqis are such an impatient lot. How could it be made clear to these people that if they don’t cool it and show some cooperation there is no way anyone will see this prosperity? I really don’t want to see this country getting caught in the occupier/occupied downward cycle. I know it won’t.

And that is precisely why Salam Pax is valuable — because he writes from the Iraqi perspective, because he cares about Iraq.

Media bigotry

: Much of the sniping at big media that we’ve been reading in weblogs lately comes from three roots: Media bigotry, media jealousy, and media snobbery.

For reasons I cannot fathom, Lawrence Lessig is a media bigot. He clearly hates big media as well as big companies. He itches to do battle with big-company Microsoft. He wants to reduce media copyrights and clearly resents them. He hated the FCC’s decision to reduce regulation of big media. I don’t know why he has such a problem.

As for the anti-big-media bashing we’ve seen from webloggers — inspired lately by the FCC and by the New York Times screwups — I’ll argue that they are essentially jealous. Webloggers are nanomedia moguls with big-media aspirations. Most of them are conservative or libertarian and thus should abhor regulation, even of media. But in this case and this case only, they endorse regulation. Why? Because they hate big media. And they hate big media because it has the resources and the distribution and the audience they don’t have. Hell, big media pays; blogging doesn’t.

Unfair? Simplistic? Provocative for its own sake? Sure. But the same can be said of much of the big-media bashing I’ve been reading lately: It’s knee-jerk snarking for the sake of the snark, anti- for the sake of the anti-. And I’ve finally had my fill. And no, it’s not (just) because I work in media myself. It’s because I read and watch and listen to and love our media and I’m sick of the sniping.

Let’s just look for just a moment at how lucky we are to have the media we have.

First, our media is free. Can’t say that in Iran, Iraq, China, much of the Muslim world, parts of South America, parts of Africa. Look at how many journalists died in Iraq to bring us the news, the facts, the truth. Be grateful to them and their courage and dedication; do not belittle their loss by acting as if they do not matter. The New York Times is a damned good newspaper and we’re lucky to have it and lucky that it is free to report. Ditto even the big networks.

Second, our media is full of choice. We have far more choice than we used to — 300 hundred channels now instead of the three I grew up with and instead of the one or two Britain had until very recently. There is far more diversity and competition today than there used to be. Media is bigger than ever and big is good.

Third, our media is marked by quality. There’s a reason the rest of the world buys, envies, and copies what we produce. Our movies are great. Our TV shows are great (damnit). Our New York Times is a helluva lot more balanced than the Guardian or the Independent or the Sun or the Mirror.

The truth is that the media we have is the media the market selected. We don’t have five newspapers in every city anymore because the audience would not support them; they started watching TV instead; they took advantage of new choices. We have fewer book publishers than we used to because the book business sucks and whom can you blame for that? We have many more TV channels than we used to because we like watching TV.

Clay Shirky just published a fascinating essay on the FCC, weblogs, and inequality in which he argues that the FCC did not just deregulate media; it only shifted its regulation (“it adjusts percentages within a system of scarcity, rather than undoing the scarcity itself”). He tries to dissect the anti-media mood and what the anti-media crowd wants: Is it diversity? Is it equality? Is it choice?

Shirky says that weblogs are our first and only experiment in media deregulation. And he says that this may have led to diversity but has not led to equality. Here, Clay reprises his argument about the power law of weblogs: Glenn Reynolds is many times more popular and powerful than the next X webloggers in line:

As weblogs grow in importance, we can expect at least some members of the “diverse and equal” camp to advocate regulation of weblogs, on the grounds that the imbalance between Glenn Reynolds of InstaPundit.com and J. Random Blogger is no different than the imbalance between Clear Channel and WFMU.

I agree with Clay’s analysis but still differ with him on the measurement of power. I argue that Glenn is the king of only one kind of weblogger, the newsblogger. The truth is that on the whole, LiveJournal bloggers, to name just one group, are bigger and more powerful than Reynolds. But that’s a different argument over a different lunch.

Clay is very right in his observation that deregulated weblogs on their own do not lead to equality. And I celebrate that. I love the meritocracy of it. The audience gets to chose what they want to read and not read and link to and not link to with no meddling from government.

I love the choice and freedom and power the audience gains in the unregulated world of weblogs. And that is because I am such a damned rabid populist. I trust the audience. Big-media haters do not. They want to protect the audience from its own taste and judgment. That is media snobbery.

Mind you, I’m a liberal, not a conservative or a libertarian; I welcome government regulation in many arenas (such as, say, accounting). But I do not welcome regulation in speech; I do not welcome interference in our right to a free press, free speech, free expression, free media. There, I am utterly opposed to government regulation. There, I trust the power of the market, the intelligence of the audience.

So, yes, I would deregulate media even more. I would allow media companies to merge to deal with the realities of a business that is getting more competitive thanks to the Internet and cable and instant, worldwide digital delivery of content. I would not get all hot and bothered about consolidation in local TV news (what the hell is really local about a guy standing on a street corner at 6 am where a murder occurred 12 hours before so he can read copy that was probably written by the AP; he’s standing there just so he can look “local”; it’s an illusion, folks). I would not get all huffy about consolidation in radio (hell, what’s local about playing Jewel’s CD?). I would allow Howard Stern to say whatever the hell he pleased on the air (for if he goes too far, his audience and advertisers will reject him and he will fail).

I would do all that because I trust the audience. Media bigots and snobs do not.

: Update: When I post a long screed such as this, I read it on the blog and edit it. Before I even finished read it over — pop — there’s a Glenn Reynolds post in the comments saying more than most people can say in their whole blog all day. So go read it…

: Update: I’m glad this is leading to discussion in comments and on blogs.

Virginia Postrel busted me: I used “media” in the singular because it’s just easier. More important, she says wise things about media bashing. Go read.

Which reminds me of one thing I forgot to say: Of course, there is plenty to criticize media about (yes, including the New York Times). Hell, I’ve made a career of it. What I object to is all-inclusive media-bashing. It’s just dumb. People who say all government is bad end up squirrelling away cans of beans in a mountain cabin. People who say all science is bad end up mailing bombs to scientists. People who say all media are big and bad just aren’t being thoughtful or honest.

Will & Grace meets Shock & Awe
: Nick Denton (on IM) is amazed at the appeal of the Salam Pax encounter with journalist Peter Maass (the Maass story and the Denton post about it are both high on Blogdex at this hour). Nick later points to a post by Eric Deamer saying that part of Salam’s appeal to American liberals is that they’d want to have dinner with him. True.

But I think everyone is tiptoeing — as American liberals will do — around another important factor in Salam’s appeal: namely, his gayness. (OK, “gayness” is not a real word, but in this cultural context, “homosexuality” sounds so damned Master & Johnson. And the truth is that “having dinner with” is probably code for “gay.”)

Being gay makes Salam appealing to American liberals on so many levels: Here, being gay makes you culturally cool. Andrew Sullivan aside, it probably makes you liberal. It makes you an underdog (boy, is that an understatement in a repressive Muslim nation) and we Americans love underdogs. On top of that, Salam’s constant undercurrent of skepticism toward America (if not anti-Americanism) also makes him appealing to the left.

In sum, what makes Salam so appealing is that he is so Westernized. In his context, being gay and being Westernized aren’t that far apart, for either could get you killed. For me, that means that his gayness is far more than a mark of cultural charm; it is a mark of bravery. And that is worthy of respect.

Now that we find ourselves in Iraq, Salam is more familiar, less alien, and less threatening than so many other Iraqis we see on TV. He’s not going to go around slapping his back with razors and chains; he says “thingie” a lot.

Mind you, I don’t separate myself from those opinions, not by an inch. I would quite like to have dinner with Salam; he’s a charming, fascinating, smart, articulate guy with an amazing story. And he’s Westernized. That is precisely what makes him a bridge between us and them. He’s both.

But all of that is what makes him so atypical. And that is why it’s silly for people to try to read too much into what he says. He doesn’t speak for all Iraq; he doesn’t try to. He’s a unique man in unique circumstances with a unique viewpoint that’s compelling to read. As I’ve said before, I enjoy and value reading his blog; I’ll read his book and watch his movie; I’d be honored to have dinner with him. And I also want to hear more Iraqi voices.

The Baghdad blog plan
: Glenn Reynolds writes about the Baghdad blog plan in his MSNBC column, hinting to the folks right there at Microsoft that they should sign up.

I outlined what’s needed here.

What I don’t know is where to go among people in power to get a blessing and make it happen. We need someone in government or the military to be an angel. And we need a company or foundation to take the lead (and pay for some shipping and plane tickets and also to give the effort credibility with other companies donating bandwidth and computers).

Who knows whom? Bloggers: Just how well-connected are you?

And they make fun of America and religion
: The Vatican complains that the proposed EU constitution isn’t Christian enough.

But the Vatican spokesman said he wanted the next version to include a specific mention of Christianity.

“Members of this Convention have already suggested the inclusion of this element, this explicit mention of Christianity in future versions of the draft,” Joaquin Navarro-Valls told Vatican Radio.

Whew. That’s scary.

When the proposed constitution was released, I harped on it for, among other things, mentioning the word “church” and not “synagogue” or “mosque” — a problem on a continent that created the Holocaust and today fosters anti-Muslim violency aplenty.

Now the Vatican would make Christianity the official religion of an entire continent. Well, good fathers, there are still Jews in Europe, despite the best efforts of the Nazis. And there are Muslims moving in, despite the best efforts of neoNazis. And huge numbers of the citizenry of the new EU are, as we say, “unchurched.”

I’d say you’re about 10 centuries late. [via Ibidem]

Imposter
: I kept getting posts in my comments directing me to a new site for Hoder, the Toronto blogfather of Iranian weblogging, and asking me to post the address. I smelled something fishy: The site was on Blogspot (who goes from Movable Type to Blogspot?); it was unfinished; and there were no references to a new site on any of Hoder’s real blogs. I smelled a hoax. But I couldn’t verify it because the whole thing is written in a language — hell, an alphabet — I don’t understand. I feared the Persian Puce. So I just hung in there, figuring I’d see something on Hoder’s real weblog and, sure enough, I did: He is complaining about identity theft via blog. So pass the word: Any blog on Blogspot purporting to be Hoder’s is not.

Mile markers on the map
: At Bitter Lemons, a site that brings together Israelis and Palestinians to write about issues, Palestinian Authority Minister of Labor Ghassan Khatib sees progress and hope in the road map:

The Israeli government

Nevermind
: Meckler cancels his Comdex killer and takes down his weblog.