But seriously, folks

OK, I’ve had a lot of fun with the play-by-play of the trainwreck known variously as Pajamas Media, Open Source Media, OSM, and Open Sores Media. Because, hey, who can pass up such a great bucket of punch lines?

But I do like the people I know who are involved. And so now I’ll give my advice. No punch lines:

1. Fix the name thing and fast. Come up with a new name or simply go back to Pajamas, which had recognition if not gravitas. (That’s not a punch line, really.) Be quick and gracious. And while you’re at it, you might want to consider a different verb that “dig” since Digg.com has pretty much sewn that one up.

2. Make a clear and open statement of what you want to be and why. That’s the real problem I’ve had: I can’t figure out what OSM think it is or will be in editorial, business, or blog terms. So tell us. Before you do, put it up as a wiki for your editorial board and members to edit (which worked well for Global Voices). Then put it out for the world to see.

3. But better yet, be true to the spirit of openness and ask your public what they think you should be, not just your editorial board. Open up the discussion. And given the context, you can feel free to kill the suggestions that you go eat raw eggs. I’d say you’ve already swallowed a few. Keep the best suggestions. And adopt them.

I’ll start the ball rolling: I think you should be a conservative Huffington Post. Stop trying to act fair and balanced; have a worldview and be proud of it. Thank your liberal tokens who were kind enough to join in and give you beard and come out and be right and be proud.

To be Huffington, you’d need to convince some blogless conservative celebrities to contribute. That may ber tough, considering your PR now. But I’d try to call in a few debts.

Ask for suggestions not just in content but also in business: in advertising and, Lord knows, in PR.

4. Get a new design and try to show off as much of the web as you can, not just a few isolated boxes. If you’re going to try to aggregate lots of the web, your design doesn’t show that.

5. Spend as little of that $3.5 million as you can. Stop with the salaries and fancy parties. Build a product and an audience first. The money is corrupting you, just like a bubblicious startup. It’s making you think you ‘re big when you’re not even born. So step away from the checkbook.

6. Consider hiring a manager who’d distant and disaffected, who’ll look at this business coldly to try to find a business. Yeah, I know I just told you not to spend money. But sometimes, managers are worth it. Sometimes.

I don’ t know whether you’ll have a product or a business as the end of the day. But right now, you have the little engine that could crash. So I’d slam on the breaks. Just my advice.

  • I agree with your suggestions to change their name (I’d go back to Pajamas – it’s fun) and to improve their site design,maybe even invite people to tell them what they would like to see improved, but firmly disagree with your suggestion for them to abandon any attempt at fair and balanced reporting and become instead a “conservative Huffington”.

    What’s the point of aiming for a bias? That’s what we’re sick of hearing. Why can’t moderates have a voice? Does it really have to be one extreme or another? All left or all right are our only choices?

  • disagree with your suggestion for them to abandon any attempt at fair and balanced reporting and become instead a “conservative Huffington”.


    They would have to try to BE “fair & balanced” first before they can “abandon it”.

    30 hard wingers plus a couple of guys from the Nation isn’t balanced, its a joke.

    Kind of like the way LGF has its token liberal in “Gordon,” actually. Or FOX has “ALan Colmes.”

  • Palladian

    “What’s the point of aiming for a bias? That’s what we’re sick of hearing.”

    No, I think what a lot of people are sick of hearing is that there is no bias when there clearly is one. I think Jeff is right, the “fair and balanced” claptrap is silly. Why do I care what David Corn thinks? I can go to Huffpokosrios if I want that perspective.

    Besides, I think a lot of the people involved actually are moderates, and that character will show through naturally if they allow it and don’t try to pretend to be “neutral”.

  • completely agree with you Jeff. It’s been quite the fiasco in so many ways that I think most poeple are distracted from what they’re really trying to achieve (whatever that is) by the controversy of name, parties, lack of clear direction etc.

    To me it kind of reminds me of a project I was once involved with that had too many key players/decision makers. I’m not sure what their decision making and visioning processes are but it all seems rather cluttered and unclear to me – like they are trying to be too many things to too many people.

    Their central idea has a lot of potential – but something is getting lost in translation.

  • 30 hard wingers plus a couple of guys from the Nation isn’t balanced, its a joke.


    Or whatever the numbers are – just look at the advisory board.

    I saw someone try to defend the description of this obvious rightward tilt as “balanced” on another blog by claiming that Tammy Bruce (author of The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values) as representative of some mythical “middle.”

    So what “middle” is that? Its an insult to the audience’s intelligence, really.

  • Pingback: The 39 cent blog network. » A Jack of All Blogs()

  • corvan

    “I do like the people I know who are involved.” Does that include the one you told to F-himself or did you forget about him. And why did you mischaracterize what Corn and Glenn Reynold’s both wrote about OSM? Why won’t you tell us anything about your internet media start-up or who you’ll be working with? And if Roger Simon is your “friend” why have you referred to him as whiny on another site and taken personal shots at him here? Why didn’t you admit that you had been in an argument with Bill Quick before you increased the “I loathe OSM,” stuff on your site? I’m sorry Jeff, waht ever criticisms you’ve had, fiar or not have been osbcured by your own personal hostiltiy towards the project. And you’re not doing yourself any favors by proclaiming your friednship with folks in an organization you slammed after you had exchanged epithets with one of its members.

  • Corvan:
    I bought Bill coffee when he was in New York way back when. Bill and I were fine and friendly until he chose to slander me when I dared criticize OSM. So, yes, once more, one final time: I told him in comments and in email to go fuck himself and I stand by that.
    Asked and answered many times now. Move on.
    Get a chill pill.
    Get a life.
    Here I try to give constructive suggestions.
    But you still want to sing your paranoid little obsessive compulsive ditty.
    You’re boring me.
    I have no idea who you are, “corvan.” Why do you have such a hard-on for OSM? Let’s see a little transparency from you, whoever you are.
    Until then, I’ve stopped answering your paranoid little snips.

  • O’McSomething

    but, but, but golly! — they had an openning at that high-price catering hall the rainbow room and have offices at 30 rock even though none of the main movers and shakers (that’s a big heh!) lives in NYC. wazzup w/that? sounds like roger’s fedora is a little too tight for his obviously swollen head. is he just trying to impress his hometown friends and family or what? big whoop! don’t they have places you can rent out for parties out where these folks live? couldn’t they have flown judy, judy, judy out to the viper room or something?

  • corvan

    Ah, more name calling. And no answer as to why you mischaracterized what Reynolds and Corn wrote. No answer as to your Internet start up or who you’re working with. No answer as to whether you called Roger Simon whiny before you began to attack him personally, and no aknowledgement that Bill Quick “slandering you” might have played a part in your review. To be honest Jeff, you haven’t answered much of anyting from the moment I asked you a question here. Though you have at different times labeled me a member of the Bernie Goldberg hit squad, a tin foil hat wearer etc. etc. Eileen was right. You protest far too much. And in this matter your opinion isn’t exactly unbaised. You still might be right, time will tell. But I don’t think you should pretend that you arrived at your review objectively.

  • But I don’t think you should pretend that you arrived at your review objectively.


    Why isn’t anyone reporting all of the POSITIVE news about the OSM launch?

    Charles and Roger have been greeted as liberators!


    Stay the course, OSM!

    Don’t go wobbly!

    And a question for Jeff – why do you hate freedom?

  • Big A

    BOTTOM LINE: strength in numbers.don’t be jealous ,jeff

  • I think that Jeff offers some good suggestions. I especially find OSM’s attempt at “balance” puzzling. Better to let it all hang out than try to hold up a pretense of “balance.” Pretending to be “balanced” just ends up pissing everybody off.

  • DMK

    Point 5 is the most pertinent. There’s no way around content is the reason any of us boot up our computers in the morning. If that’s not out front right away, I’m moving along…

  • Jeff, I think you nail it here – be transparent – be open – be clear – be honest – stop trying to redefine words as marketing blather – and it will have a great chance at establishing itself. Especially change the damn name! It’s an insult to the open source software community – which still hasn’t woken up to this yet. I’m wondering what Tim O’Reilly will think. Or the folks at Slashdot (who shot down my story – someone else should submit it). As this stands right now – it’s embarrassing. I know these folks know better. It just doesn’t make sense.

  • Don’t worry Jeff I got your back. Coryan can go F himself somewhere else. You offered good, and yes biased opinion. But who’s opinion isn’t biased. OSM is crappy. The individuals are fine. The business model is a piece of crap and is going to fail. Period. If they don’t do something to fix it. Which I doubt they will. No start up wants to apologize for messing up at the beginning. Lest ol Mr. Moneybags takes the money away.

  • Listen Im sorry. Got a little wound up. But it did sound like Coryan was talking out of the inside of a bucket. Blogs are not a place for unbiased opinion if you want that go talk to a four year old. Everyone has biases. It’s life.

  • Corvan is spamming your threads with the same tired chorus. I don’t believe in comment deletion except as an extreme mesure. When it comes to trolls and spammers, I’m all for it. Jeff, would you please consider it?

    These are reasonable suggestions, Jeff, but to see them implemented Roger and Charles would have to eat a generous slice of humble pie. That’s out of character for them, but hopefully they’ll be prescient enough to realize it’s time for a dramatic change in direction.

  • Eileen

    A “train wreck”? “The little engine that could crash”? C’monn, Jeff.

    All your suggestions are designed to point out supposed shortcomings and purported failings. Reasonable minds differ as to whether any of your suggestions are warranted or necessary in the first place. I don’t have any problem with the site design, efforts at achieving balance, or any of the other items you list. But I do expect to see continuous improvements at the site, as clearly Glenn and David are intent on making that happen, among many others there.

    Quite frankly, I don’t expect to hear any kudos or support from left wing bloggers or commenters or MSM outlets regarding OSM, PERIOD. Actually, I’d probably be more surprised if I encountered anything but vitriol for a group of powerful and mostly conservative bloggers. If your posts are your way of expressing support for your friends at OSM, then might one question your level of friendship?

    If I were part of OSM, I doubt I’d welcome your efforts to now ‘help’, even down to telling me how much to spend on my launch party, inasmuch as you opted out of the project to begin with. This is particularly true as you continue to lace your comments with ‘digs’ and dismissals every step of the way.

    By the by, if I had to select between OSM’s comprehensive overview of what has been reported internationally and nationally by media, and also by bloggers related to the Zarqawi death question so far – all in one nice location – versus the two sentences I heard reported on NBC nightly news, which would I choose? It’s that type of ‘gap filling’ which is desperately needed. And if OSM performs that function well and consistently, they have nothing to fear from their detractors, present or future. There are plenty of us who will visit them regularly.

  • APF

    Both the OSM name and perhaps more importantly site are broken in a way that makes me (a starving web dev/producer) tear out my hair in frustration. In IE, the page itself takes seconds to render, not factoring in d/l time. That’s a near-incomprehenisble lack of craftsmanship nowadays, let alone for such a high-profile project. Plus links seem to switch between osm.org and pajamasmedia.com –sloppy.

    Content-wise it has three singular blocks of content (the Blogjam thing is more an annoncement from what I can tell):
    A syndicated headline feed no one really is going to care about (in this day and age don’t we all use our own, better ways of getting that sort of stuff? let alone all the Xinhua news links)

    A single featured post (at least give us headlines of previous “Best of the Blogs”) that doesn’t have a user-friendly permalink, and (at least for the current post) I have to click through THREE TIMES in order to read in its entirety (let alone post a comment on, and do I see any trackbacks or other info about OSM bloggers commenting on the article? not at the OSM site I don’t. And did I mention the rendering time for each click-through and back-arrow?)

    And the poorly-implemented (“index_html?start:int=1”) OSM featured story roundup thingie up top, which sites like Memeorandum do better for what seems to be the entire blogosphere (here’s the Memeorandum link for the unconfirmed Zarkawi death, and now the OSM link for the same story). Why doesn’t the OSM page have its own blogger, someone who is hired to do the job, someone with a name or at least a personality and can write, posting these roundups? That way they wouldn’t have to compete technologically with other automated services that have been doing it better longer.

  • Eileen

    Actually, APF, I much prefer the OSM roundup re Zarqawi. It’s more comprehensive. It sources the original story from The Jerusalem Post based on the Elaph Arab media website, and also includes the AP article as well as more blogs than were listed at Memorandum. If I’m only provided with an AP report, I am certain I am only getting a fraction of the story, typically along with a heavy dose of spin. No thanks.

  • Niko

    Jeff – a couple of objections to your suggestions:

    1. The name thing – they can’t fix the name that easily because they’re living on investors’ money right now. Finding another name, i.e. creating a new brand, would mean putting the beast to rest for some 6+ months. Just consider how long it took them to find a new name, create a “business plan” (yes, in scare quotes), and install a ready-made open-source portal software (more on that below).

    If they could, they’d have postponed the launch because, really, the project isn’t ready yet. There’s no shame in that, most software-related projects are late. But it does make you think that so far there is no word from the founders that the project is in-production still.

    2. I don’t think they even know what a wiki is (yet more on that below). Aside from that, I do have the strong impression that Roger and Charles thought they’d just provide a sort of catalyst with that portal launch and from then on things would just happen the “natural” way. Yes, it does. It’s called market. And the market doesn’t like the product. Question answered.

    3. The public wants (a) free and (b) quality content. (a) is an impediment to the very business model of OSM.org, and (b) is, surprisingly, too.

    Let me explain.

    OSM.org got it halfway right with connecting to the real open-source community. Open-source is about transparency, but it’s also about distributing efforts, intelligence, and – most importantly – know-how. Let me put in another way: The strength of open-source is that there is no single point of failure. The built-in redundancy of open-source is not a bug but a feature.

    OSM.org eliminates all of that. In order to be a viable business they have to (a) introduce mental transaction costs at least, and monetary ones at worst, and (b) create an exclusiveness of their product either by putting constraints on their affiliated bloggers’ sites, or by keeping their “success” a secret.

    All of the above choices will lead to a death spiral of OSM.org. Blogging is not a product in a sense that you can’t take the blueprint of it and turning it into a brand plus portal plus clients, and subsequently securing all rights on that in order to prevent others from benefitting from it. See the Terms of Use Agreement at osm.org.

    Blogging is an idea, and it’s already out there. Most importantly, it doesn’t belong to anyone. Thus, not a single business can’t own blogging. Blogs are us.

    It’s not about the blog. It’s about the bloggers in a sense that you can’t buy a blog’s content, but you have to rent the blogger’s mind, her creativity, you have to nurture the blogger so that he keeps on writing good stuff.

    If Roger and Charles really understood what they wrote in their botched mission statement they’d have realized that very few open-source ventures make money by selling “the product”. They make money by providing a service for the product, by continuing to be one of the companies that can supply fresh ideas around the product.

    So far, I haven’t seen any fresh idea emanating from OSM.org.

    4. Follow me through something I discovered on launch day.

    Go to osm.org with any browser that supports favorite icons. (Those are the icons that are typically displayed as the left-hand title icon in Internet Explorer or Firefox on most operating systems, or when you drag the bookmark to the desktop or a file folder.)

    See the icon? It’s a blueish circle with some sort of arrow.

    Go to plone.org. Plone is the open-source software that OSM.org uses for their portal system.

    See the icon? It’s the same.

    In other words, a small business with 3.5M in the coffers could not even get an icon designed but instead opted to use the default favicon supplied by the default theme of a free (!) open-source software.

    (Perhaps the reason is simpler. They didn’t realize or even notice it. Which casts just about the same bad light on the venture.)

    5. This is really just speculation:

    The staff lists 9 people at the moment. I sincerely doubt that all of them work “pro bono”. And I do believe that Magnus Kempe, Tom Troja, Vik Rubenfeld, and Diane Wadum get monthly salaries.

    Not to speak of the investors who don’t seem to be affiliated with the Salvation Army.

    Also, it’s about making money, right? If they could make money w/o spending any I really wonder why no one did it before. Typically, there are two answers to that questions. Either the business idea is brillant, or it’s dumb.

    6. Well, normally it’s what you’d do first. Most business don’t hire a professional manager in the beginning because they can’t afford to. OSM.org could with 3.5M. Instead they consciously chose not to, i.e. Roger and Charles made themselves CEO and CTO, although none of them had prior experience in the field. (And, no, driving a huge weblog does not qualify for a CTO in a 3.5M business.)

    Judging from the background of Magnus Kempe, Director of Technology, and Charles’ background, I’m tempted to believe that Dennis may be right in his assessment that maybe, just maybe this is about egos, too.

  • Eileen

    P.S. to APF

    According to Charles Johnson, trackbacks will be included shortly.

  • I still think I could take 39 cents a put together a better model. For instance look at 9Rules (http://9rules.com) a blog network put together wisely with good content, a strong model of success as far as quality content put together with a small amount of investment. The site is 400x better and yes it attracts readers.

    Now I have to say they don’t discuss political topics like the ones I enjoy ranting and raving about. But its a good model for what OSM could have done. In fact they still could.

    Either way for transparency sake. I blog for Fine Fools (http://finefools.com) who shares owners, Paul Scrivens. So that could cloud my judgement. But I don’t think so.

    Their links really annoy me. Their content is cluttered, disorganized, and well plain cheap. A lot of it is straight from wire feeds. I don’t want wire feeds. I want real human voices. But I won ‘t get that will I? Not from OSM.

  • Mork

    Eileen, your surname isn’t “Rosh”, by any chance?

  • APF

    Eileen: you can expand the discussion part of Memeorandum articles for a lot more than OSM gives you; I have it set-up to do it automatically so I forgot to mention that.

  • Eileen

    Mork (surnames…hmmm), where have you been *sweet one*, ‘ole buddy, ‘ole pal?

  • Eileen

    Thanks, APF. I’ll check it out.

  • ZF

    Sure Jeff’s clearly gotten annoyed here, but I have to sympathize. When you’ve run a business successfully it’s frustrating to see people, especially people you like, making a series of simple but quite likely catastrophic errors. All the more so when they still have all the resources they need to be successful.

    Jeff is pointing the way back from the precipice, knowing full well that his advice is both unwelcome and difficult to follow, and that he will most likely be listened to only after it’s too late. C’est (in my experience, all too often) la vie.

  • Eileen

    Oh, and Mork?

    /cue CentCom

  • Eileen,

    Slowing the burn rate is standard business advice. Good for any start-up with no income. Or outgos exceeding income.

    BTW I am in touch with one of the board members and the advice I have given is similar to Jeff’s.

    Getting a real CEO is the #1 first step. Getting a business model is #1a. Without a business model and concise mission statement it is imppossible to get those working on the business to pull together. Other wise it is damn hard.

    When quite a number of folks who were at the opening couldn’t explain the business model, I’d say there were serious management defects.

    What I have seen so far has dot com debacle written all over it.

  • Eileen

    Hello M. Simon,

    I don’t quite know why you’re addressing that one to me. I am not privy to the financial arrangements related to, or possible income streams available to OSM participants. I was only able to listen to a bit of the opening so, again, I’m not here commenting on the business aspects of OSM, or any deficiencies in their business model…except to say:

    I’m not prepared to acknowledge a train wreck in week one or support those who do. As I said earlier, I am observing and hoping for the best; i.e., a collected source for non-reported or otherwise mangled/biased news reporting. I can also imagine the difficulties in managing a group of independent bloggers and arriving at a concensus at any given point along the spectrum.

    There are very few moderate or conservative commenters around here at this point. It feels quite the echo chamber.. But I like your blogroll. You seem to be balanced. That is what I’m rooting for, here: balanced reporting. In my view, we need an OSM in whatever configuration that works.

  • Eileen

    Correction: please make that consensus. Wouldn’t it be great if we could find one.

    G’night, All.

  • Many people here think most of the OSM contributors are moderate. If that’s true, then we have a much greater chance of getting a more balanced view of the news than we would if they were far to the left or far to the right.

    I don’t think we can write them off just because they’re lucky enough to be well funded to spend money on a launch party, or because we don’t like their name, or because we think their site could be improved, or because we’re assuming before we’ve read what they’re going to say that they have nothing to offer. Let’s take a look at the quality before we slam it.

    And I’m beginning to think that’s part of the reason for the hostility towards them. A lot of bloggers look at blogging as a sort of commando raid on journalism – us against them. Now that more ‘professional’ voices are coming together, maybe some of the commandos are concerned that they’ll be playing second fiddle to them and if that’s true, have a little confidence in your own voice.

    What’s wonderful about blogging is that it’s democratic; it doesn’t matter who you are. You could be a professional journalist from the IHT or you could be Marty Spencer from the corner. If you have a voice, that’s all that matters.

  • If there was one real complaint that I do have about OSM it is that they don’t allow comments onsite at the end of their news items. Even the BBC online does that.

  • Eileen,

    Some time past performance is an indication of the future.

    I’m not going to list them all but there have been so far quite a few amateur hour mistakes. Start with the “evolving” business plan, then go on to the name debacle, for the top two.

    Ten this Dennis the Peasant guy makes the CEO look like a not very honorable person and the CEO confirms it with “no written agreement”.

    I’d say they had less than a week to fix those three or four problems.
    1. Get a new CEO – the old one is a) tarnished b) not up to the job
    2. Get a name
    3. Get a business plan
    a) results desired
    b) time to results
    c) cost of results
    4. Mission statement

    At that point they are no longer digging a hole. Then they can go on to develop the business. I don’t think they have weeks. Days maybe hours.

    If the Venture guys get skittish it may already be over.

  • http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/21/1140210&tid=149&tid=95&tid=1

    A thought – I don’t think they need to ‘put on the breaks’ – far from it – no offense to Jeff – but I would implement Jeff’s solutions, one by one, and keep moving on. Evolve. Learn on the move. But do it quickly.

    Since they have funding – a small staff with zero bureaucracy (well it should right) – and they are so new – with little Google visibility or users who have bookmarked it – yet – this is all very doable. Over time, Jeff’s suggestions will become far harder as audience increases, pages get cached, etc. This *could* be a success – and part of me wants to see that take place – even with these huge missteps. We need more successes in this space. There is room for plenty.

  • Niko

    Yes, but when implementing changes they shouldn’t do it in a way so that it seems they’re adopting the very same techniques they accuse their “competitors” of *cough* NY Times *cough*.

    Case in point: stealth editing/removal of restrictive terms of use w/o admitting that these ran counter to the claims of the mission statement.

    Google cache: http://tinyurl.com/br5bf

    Current: http://osm.org/site/about/privacypolicy

  • (On the original post) Good points. I’d go with all of them, except perhaps the ideological stuff… not being too clued in on OSM, I don’t know what they’re aiming for with that.

    Guys like David Corn show more smarts in the service of their ideology by glomming onto efforts attractive primarily to conservatives/middle-of-the-roaders, just as Alan Colmes is far braver to defend his ideology on FoxNews (where there are minds to be changed) than any number of raving leftists on DU or Daily Kos, merely assuring each other that Rethuglicans stink.

    Thankfully for conservatives, liberal Democrats who aim to change minds are blissfully undercut, marginalized, and ridiculed by the rest of their party.

  • O’McSomething

    whoo, whoo, whoo…didja see that osm had the first us link to a story about zarqawi possibly beeing seriously dead only he’s probably not. and now even as we speak or read or whatev “OSM Staff in Barcelona” is compiling information and hot, hot, hot blog posts about GM cutting 30,000 jobs in north america. and they (osm’s staff network of worldwide blogs) are updating about all those jobs in north america from barcelona at 5.15pm central european time. now don’t that beat just beat all? and everyone is getting paid in euros.

  • APF

    Not even babelfish can translate that comment.

  • Pingback: PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science » Why the OSM Matters()

  • Pingback: Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » OSM: More Compelling Content, Please()

  • I think they’re trying to latch on to the counter intuitive business notion that you can make a lot of money selling services surrounding a free product (open source). But isn’t that what newspapers have always done with with ads?

    Open Source is an old business model(free content + ads) applied to a new industry (software). Old media was open source, why the hell are they using it to describe the future?

  • Eileen

    In OSM’s first week, 63 bloggers from many sides of the aisle participated in its first blogjam edited by Glenn Reynolds. http://www.osm.org/site/articles/11212005prewarintelcarnival/

    OSM is currently the top search topic at Technorati. http://technorati.com/

  • Yes – exemplifying the influence of the group of blogger that are on the OSM blogroll already has. They are a top link at Memeorandum too. And I expect the words “open source media” in Google to go to OSM shortly as well.

  • Man oh man….


    #21 NiceLass 11/21/2005 04:35PM PST

    I have an idea for OSM. Attach a message board discussion forum to it. You’ll get so much traffic you won’t know what to do. Just appoint some trusted lizardoids as moderators and you’ll be in business!

    Yeah, that’s the ticket…

  • Parrot Media

    I think it’s funny that a so-called “screenwriter” and “novelist” couldn’t come up with a better name than Open Source Media, which in itself is basically plagiarism.

    I think it’s funny that a so-called “graphic designer” couldn’t come up with a better design for the Open Source Media site than the current eyesore.

    I think it’s funny that a group of people who openly support the mess in Iraq have brought forth a mess of their own. Any conclusions here?

    And if it does survive, and becomes an all conservative thing, here’s my suggestion for the name: Parrot Media

  • 4-5 not-conservatives makes a 57+ conservative trainwreck balanced?

    next you’ll be telling me Reynolds is a libertarian.

    and Eileen, sweetie, the reason that OSM is topping the charts at Technorati is cuz we’re all laughing and pointing.

    do yourself and click some of those links.

    the only success story from OSM is it’s made the previously obscure Dennis the Peasant a hit.

  • I think it’s funny that a group of people who openly support the mess in Iraq have brought forth a mess of their own. Any conclusions here?


    I’ve been thinking that would make the basis of a really interesting essay i just haven’t had time write


    – not enough troops / poor preparation
    – overconfidence in technology and “new paradigms”
    – “Old Europe” vs. “Althouse has jumped the Shark”
    – reliance on cronies & no-bid contracts
    – “shock and awe” launch party
    – hype based on bad intelligence
    – a “go it alone” approach (bruising potential allies and creating ill will)
    – easy to launch, hard to manage the blowback / insurgency
    – a “cakewalk” & “we’ll be greeted as liberators” : ideological idee-fixees as substitutes for a solid post-invasion plan


  • It’s interesting that you said “a conservative Huffington Post.” I think that’s exactly what they are trying to do.

    Conservatives are well-known for their willingness to sink money into long-term projects like think-tanks and newspapers that lose money year after year; because they understand the importance of having a solid media platform from which to push their agendas.

    I think they are attempting to get away from being openly bias, like FOX or ClearChannel, in order to regain some of the credibility that the right-wing has so thoroughly lost in this past year.

    It will take them some time, but with 3.5 million dollars behind them… I’m sure someone will come up with the right mix eventually.

  • Eileen


    You must be alternating between OSM and Harry Potter to keep up with the latest, eh?

    I’m willing to take a wait and see attitude. Apparently you and your brethren on the left aren’t. Yawn. How many times and ways am I not surprised any more.

  • kat

    If you don’t like it, don’t click on it. Isn’t that the advice Jeff always gives about TV channels you don’t like. This sour grapes stuff makes one look bad.
    I like OSM–I like the site design, I like the name, I like the people. And I hate Huffington Post. Different strokes for different folks. Quit acting so FCCish.

  • Eileen


    Nice to see you, kat.

  • Oh yeah: Shifting rationales

    We invaded Iraq bacause of the 9/11 connection… nope make that the WMD… nope, make that regime change… nope, make that defying UN resolutions…

    Open Source Media gave up their name… nope, they gave us permission… nope, we forgot to check… nope, we’re actually called OSM now… etc

  • Eileen

    Can’t help it…

    In such a good mood in spite of…

    Here’s a word to ‘help’ the lefties, like you’re always trying to ‘help’ the rest of us. Call it a little gratis gravitas or vice versa.. If ya’ll would devote 57/63 of the time (not an accurate count, tony, but who’s counting – and which is a helluva lot better representation than we get in reverse via the MSM) and energy you expend criticizing, pointing and laughing, cutting and running and just generally trying to tear things apart, you might actually accomplish something.

    Or maybe you need a manager? Sometimes, just sometimes, they’re helpful. Pool your resources, eh?

    Meanwhile, here’s the remote so you can click off. Just trying to ‘help’ soothe your fevered brows…


  • Geek, Esq.

    The question becomes what can a person get there that they can’t get from:

    A) Foxnews; or

    B) Drudge?

  • Eileen

    Geek, Esq.,

    Good questions, but I don’t get Fox News on my cable lineup. Or CNN, thank God.

    Is it true that the left thinks the right is only entitled to one news network, one D.C. paper and no web sites? I know they’re always trying to ‘help’.

    Drudge tells me zilch about the Whys of the Media Blackout and Bias re The Riots in France AND in several other countries simultaneously. Nor does it collect media citations along with blog quotes and cites in one place. Nor does Drudge host blogjams..

    But we’re only a week into it. Anyone who insists on coming to grand conclusions at this point or sooner has/had an agenda.

    Eileen, J.D. – just for you, Geek.

  • Oh you defenders of a name just because you defend the personalities behind the group…


    They’ve changed the name. And will be changing the name across thier site over the next couple days. Good for them.

  • DavidS

    And it wasn’t their fault they screwed up the first time – nasty men in suits made them do it…

  • Pingback: California Conservative » PajamaGate: OSM vs MSM — Will The Blogosphere Go Corporate?()

  • Hi, Nice! http://t973783est0.com [url=http://t973783est1.com]test1[/url] test2

  • Stay so good and many people come back – sure http://madonboys.ifrance.com

  • learn about the benefits and the side effects of anabolic steroids.

    anabolic steroids

  • Pingback: Will blogs evolve out of existence – Gary Stein thinks so. | Open (minds, finds, conversations)...()

  • Pingback: OSM Name Games - ProBlogger()