Posts from July 27, 2004

What’s worse than Ann Coulter? An editor, of course

What’s worse than Ann Coulter? An editor, of course

: USA Today hired conservative scorpion Ann Coulter to write about the Democratic National Convention and — guess what? — they got Ann Coulter. And it bothered them. So they killed the column. Of course, the column is now online. But what’s even better is that the editor’s comments are there, too. Boy, editors can look like oafs:

Coulter: As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that it

A politically incorrect post

A politically incorrect post

: This is going to be a politically incorrect post about political correctness but here goes…

Am I the only one who noted how far out of their way the DNC went to find a Muslim woman to speak on behalf of the families of victims of 9/11 last night?

Of course, I don’t mean to devalue her sacrifice and suffering one bit or her right to speak on behalf of fellow victims.

But the DNC turned an important moment into a moment of politically correct tokenism.

But wouldn’t the DNC have been wise to at least find a fireman’s widow, too?

And what is journalism in the end?

And what is journalism in the end?

: Following on advice on covering the conventions, Doc Searls adds this:

Prove that bloggers are journalists who listen. Prove that we’re in conversations, and not just standing on soap-boxes, or “delivering content”. Prove that we’re about making and changing minds, and not just small-bore op-ed cannons.

Try this idea out for size: The most important principle of blogging is the #5 habit of highly successful people: Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Then help the mainstream media understand what bloggers are, and how they work.

Joi Ito adds this:

My conclusion is that much of good journalism is just common sense, and I would even assert that compared to journalists who don’t write in their name, have fact-check desks to do their fact-checking and editors to fix their grammar, bloggers are much more accountable and have to take it in the face compared to their anonymous counterparts in the mass media.

One good thing that is coming out of inviting bloggers to the convention is that while the journalists are working to define “blogger,” everyone else is working to redefine “journalist.”

: Meanwhile, Steve Gilliard [via Duncan Black … hehe] is unhappy with blogger coverage of the convention and has this to say:

Let’s establish two things, one no one gives a shit who you have lunch with, speeches you sit through, or where the media is. Two, people do care about real news….

My one bit of advice: GET OUT OF THE FUCKING HALL.

Because if you guys don’t start telling people what happened, it’s a waste of time.

: MEANWHILE… Joe Territo covers the convention: Live!

: UPDATE: David Weinberger covering the convention: Live!:

The Convention has been officially open and in full swing for the past 75 minutes, and I’ve just noticed something: It’s very, very boring. But only if you’re paying attention.

A failure of imagining… the conventions

A failure of imagining… the conventions

: What is the convention in the end?

It’s the ultimate in product placement: We put on this show and instead of inserting a can of Coke into the middle of it, we place our candidate there! Only problem is, when nobody watches the show because it bears less reality than a reality show — I know reality TV; reality TV was a friend of mine; DNC, you’re no reality TV — then the product placement is worth about as much as spam.

So what is the convention in the end?

I’m glad Jay Rosen is there, abstracting the event from within. He’s asking the bigger question, as in:

What the hell is this convention, in the end?

Jay goes to the blogger breakfast and listens to AP veteran emeritas Walter Mears, who’s supposed to be blogging (who knows where?) “even though he told us–rather absurdly–that he doesn’t know what a blog is, or what he’s doing with one.”

I asked Mears during the breakfast Q & A how much responsibility he thought the news media had for the decline of the conventions, which he had described for us in the usual terms– not news, just a big show, nothing that’s unscripted, and so on.

His answer was “none.” Zero responsibility goes to the press. It was the parties that had drained the conventions of meaning, surprise and purpose. In that case, I replied, why are 15,000 media people gathered here to report on something so transparently dumb? “It’s a class reunion,” said Mears, a big social event for the news tribe. (Chuckles from the crowd.)

This I’ve heard before, of course, but it’s absurdist’s view. It amounts to saying: we have no reason, we’re just here. Upon this event, editors and news executives spend many thousands of dollars from precious editorial budgets. Do they really sit around saying: “Who are we going to send to the big class reunion this year? Who’s ready to party in Boston?” That’s even more absurd.

“Absurd”is a nice, academic’s way of saying “stupid.”

Jay then quotes the convention’s CEO (incredulous that such a title exists, as if this were a business with a P&L) bragging that it’s a “live television show.”

But this too is absurd [read: stupid -ed] because on television’s harsh terms the show has been a big flop– losing most of the audience to other shows, and losing the major networks for all but a few hours over four nights. The convention lacks a host–like Billy Crystal at the Oscars–who can connect with the audience, and thread the show with character. It is undistinguished as entertainment, and weak on narrative: no beginning, middle and end, no rising and falling action. It has all the plot structure of a parade: one thing after after another until the big floats–the acceptance speeches–are rolled by.

Duncan Black says [ooooh, I enjoyed making that link]:

Drudge is reporting that the ratings for the convention are low. I’m not surprised, given the way the media has packaged it (what I saw beforehand). They say it doesn’t matter. They’re only going to cover an hour here, an hour there, sandwiched between sitcoms. Then, 4 years from now they’ll use it as an excuse to say the event doesn’t really matter, while sending another 15,000 people to cover it…

Rosen goes on to quote Mears one more time, saying that “the conventions are a memory device. They convey events in the present tense backward in political time. (As Mears himself does when he talks to bloggers.)”

Aha, there’s the problem. In all our analyses of the conventions, we keep looking back, trying to recapture lost excitement and entertainment and ratings and involvement… and democracy. And like a 9/11 Commission, we keep looking for someone to blame: Is it the parties’ fault? Medias? Ours?

But we’re all looking at this the wrong way. We’re looking at it like any of the five recent CEOs of AT&T who inherit the dinosaur and don’t know what the hell to do with it and so they keep adjusting the rouge on the dinosaur’s cheeks, but it’s still a dinosaur.

The world has changed, Rex. The political process of old is dead. Media of old is dead.

Conventions were once meant to actually get the people to select candidates. But that ended about 1968, when there was too damned much drama. So then they became scripted media events. But that ended about 1992, when the citizenry started turning away as they were armed with a powerful new weapon: the remote control.

So the conventions that were will never be again and I’m not shedding one damned tear over that.

Rather than asking what the conventions are or what they were, shouldn’t we be asking what they should be? Here was my humble suggestion.

We can turn the conventions into citizens’ events. In this, the age of dawning citizens’ media, why not have citizens’ politics. Or we can turn them into sessions to get to know the candidates we’ve already selected. Or we can just cancel them and save everybody a helluva lot of money. Or we can use this wonderful new distributed architecture of communications we have and spread the conventions across the land.

But, please, let’s make this the last year when we keep on asking, what is the convention, in the end?

Techno

Techno

: Here’s Dave Sifry’s first report for CNN on what bloggers are saying.

Too bad his Technorati is pretty technoratty these days; it’s not working worth a damn. Call down to the engine room, man. Have Scotty put some more dilithium crystals in the machine! I want my damned Technorati.

The French blogging saga, chapter 2

The French blogging saga, chapter 2

: Loic LeMeur, ex of UBlog and now of SixApart, answers Stephanie’s report on irritated French customers with a lesson on lessons learned starting a business.

There’s gold in these thar hills

There’s gold in these thar hills

: Jupiter says that by 2007, online advertising spending will match magazine advertising spending.

A new report from Jupitermedia’s JupiterResearch predicts that dollars spent on online advertising… will match dollars spent on magazines by 2007, then surpass them in 2008.

In a sign of how the Internet is rebounding, Jupiter predicts that marketers will spend $8.4 billion on online advertising in 2004, while earmarking $12.2 billion for magazines. In 2007, the two platforms each will get $13.8 billion. In 2008, online ad spending surges ahead, capturing $15 billion, compared to magazines’ $14.5 billion, Jupiter predicts….

Web offerings have become “more targeted and much smarter” about how they measure their audience, says Gary Stein, a Jupiter senior analyst.

The Journal also points out that Jupiter has been, well, aggressive with Internet forecasts in the past. So give or take a year.

The man behind the curtain

The man behind the curtain

: Atrios is revealed: His name is Duncan Black and his picture is here. Anticlimax, eh?