BuzzMachine

Wiki spam?

: I checked in the Global Voices wiki and what do I find but what appears to be wiki spam. Bastards.

And God rolled His eyes III

: A very good discussion — which we’re all emphasizing is a discussion, not a fight — continues with Hugh Hewitt here and here and Powerline here. What this is coming down to, in part, is whether the struggle (not war, as Hugh says) over a creche in city hall is an attack on the religious soul of the people (as they say, if I’m getting it right) or a media ploy by both sides (as I say) and thus, we differ on the cultural importance of this.

You’re not alone, Craig

: Craig Newmark writes: “I (heart) wonkette.”

Santa Slate

: Howard Kurtz just reported that The Washington Post has bought Slate. Here’s Slate Editor Jacob Weisberg’s announcement.

Howard just called to get react from the two-headed hydra I am as Media Man by day and Blog Boy by night. I said it’s a good thing for both; they fit well together, not unlike Dow Jones and Marketwatch. Kurtz said the Post’s rationale is that it will bring them more traffic while they bring Slate better ad sales (and thus the first taste of profitablity, they hope).

But I also said that the Post could have met the same goals without the cost and without the risk by establishing with a network of citizens’ media, selling ads on and getting traffic from and extending their reach through the best blogs, which can then stay independent.

That requires thinking in a distributed way and that’s hard for the old centralized marketplaces to do.

The FCC dodges

: I just got a reply, of sorts, to the Freedom of Information request I filed with the FCC asking for all documents “that contend or support the contention that Viacom and any of its subsidiaries — including but not limited to CBS and MTV — or executivesa were in any way aware before the fact that Janet Jackson’s breast would be exposed on the Super Bowl telecast.” The FCC said the exposure was the only illegal act and the company was the only guilty party — Jackson and Timberlake were not fined — and so I wanted to see what evidence they had the Viacom was directly responsible for the incident. My bet is that they have none and that will come out in court.

The FCC produced nothing in its reponse. Its letter says (leaving out the typographical omelet of the legal citations):

It would be inappropriate for us to characterize any evidence before us in the manner that you suggest because the Commission has issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) concerning the halftime entertainment show of the National Football League’s Super Bowl XXXVIII and the exposure of Janet Jackson’s breast.

The FOIA requires a reasonable description of the records sought. If, upon review of the NAL, you determine there are specific records you would like to obtain, you may file a new FOIA request with a better description of the documents you seek….”

I thought I was quite clear. Perhaps an attorney out there could give me better language to file this again. I want to see any interviews with the parties or documents from the parties related to Viacom and company’s foreknowledge of this event. From this letter, I’m not sure whether they’re saying I did not describe the documents properly or they shouldn’t discuss the case while it is active or both or neither. In any case, they dodged the question. So the only thing to do in dodgeball is to pick it up and throw it again.

The other way to go is for me to call the PR department but I think I’ll stay with this one more round as I also await my other FOIAs.