I like Gawker, especially Jezebel and io9. I certainly “trust” the Gawker bloggers as much as I do those at serious-journalism old-media sites like the NYTimes and WaPo (from which, of course, the Gawker empire steals repurposes some of its best material) and rather more than I would stuff from Politico or Huffingtonpost. But there are, I think, two mutually conflicting impulses that drive all reporters: the desire to share cool new information (which is essentially empathetic), and the urge to demonstrate that one has more & better information than everyone else (which is about asserting control). Nick Denton, Gawker Emperor, seems to have achieved his success by taking the grassroots blogging-impulse—Look what I found, everybody!—and monetized it for hipsters-by-association—Look how cool we are that we know better than to be impressed by this, which you probably haven’t even heard about yet. Something about the sociopathic purity of Denton’s refusal to acknowledge the communal impulses of what could be called journalism’s better nature can drive other (“real”) journalists slightly crazy:
Gawker is one of those things which, like neighborhoods, are never as good as when you first discovered them. What it is selling, essentially, is a pose of knowing, cool detachment. Very little of what Denton publishes qualifies as gossip in the traditional sense. It’s a sensibility. As the audience for that sensibility grows, and as the individual voices evolve to suit the expanded reach, the early movers and élites naturally feel some sting of betrayal. But Denton is, above all, a realist, with little patience for nostalgia. He’s the hipster who turns, unapologetically, into a developer.
In the spring semester of 2002, Denton helped an old source from Budapest teach a class at the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. The course, which Denton now describes as “a great example of contrasting journalistic approaches,” was called “Freedom of the Press: Political Change and the Media in Hungary.” Denton was at the time the chairman of a company called Moreover Technologies, an early news aggregator. His co-teacher, Peter Molnar, was a former member of the Hungarian parliament who had drifted away from politics and into academia as the progressive youth movement that he had founded got co-opted by populist right-wing elements. “I was brought in to provide a bit of ‘Here’s how it works in the real world,’ ” Denton said. “So he would talk in class about the plight of the Gypsy minority, and then I would say, ‘Yeah, except no one’s going to actually commission that piece, so, to the extent that you actually want to make a career out of journalism, which I assume you do, you’d do well to find topics of more interest to your audience.’ ” The course involved a weeklong field trip to Hungary. Molnar wanted the students to investigate human-rights issues relating to free speech; Denton encouraged travel-section features about spa culture. “He got quite acrimonious,” Denton said.
The more Denton recalled his Berkeley experience, the more it seemed that he viewed Molnar’s academic piety as an extension of his ultimate failure to gain political traction in Hungary—responsibility as a cover for weakness, and a reluctance to grapple with humans’ true appetites and desires. “People who are as inflexibly idealistic as that never pull it off,” Denton said. “They never succeed. And you don’t need to indoctrinate a whole other generation of people to lead frustrated lives.” As for Molnar, “I find him hugely annoying,” Denton said. “I don’t see what the point is unless you succeed at what you’re doing. I don’t have a huge amount of time for noble failure.”
For Molnar, who is now a senior research fellow at Central European University, the experience still smarts, eight years on. His interpretation of the root of the conflict differs from Denton’s. His politics did not suffer from excessive idealism; they were undermined by the “false realism” of cynics who refuse to draw a meaningful line in the sand. “I don’t want to say negative things about Nick,” Molnar said, sounding less frustrated than nervous. “I don’t like to say negative things about people in general.”
It has to do with motivation. Denton says things about his motivation, and they almost sound as if they are describing his motivations, but at heart he seems completely alien to most writers and editors. It is as if everyone is telling the story of a famous restauranteur, when unknown to everyone—unknown even to himself—he suffers from undiagnosed anosmia…
Denton the hypothetical restauranteur talks quite sincerely about crispness and juiciness and saltiness, in a way that makes them sound like shared and complete food values. But he can’t taste flavors! He is wealthy and successful in the food business, and people are lining up for his restaurants, but if you ask him, “What is the best appetizer here?” the answer is, “The critics gave us really helpful notices on the crab fritters, which was good for publicity, but the blooming onion alone accounts for 70 percent of revenue.”
Then you ask, “What is really flavorful?” and the answer is, “The old chefs always complained about the blooming onion, because they think they’re much better than the customer, and I don’t like blooming onions myself, but the new chefs understand it much better.”
Other, older kinds of restaurants are failing. It is Denton and his new chefs who will remake the restaurant business. Everyone agrees on this point.
And then Denton says, “I have always loved restaurants.”
Since we’re going for style points here, I’m putting my money on a scenario in which South Carolina decides to nullify the healthcare reform law and prohibit its enforcement. Obama nevertheless directs the IRS office in Charleston to dispatch tax delinquency notices to uninsured residents. Governor Nikki Haley instructs the state police to barricade the IRS in order to prevent it from delivering outgoing mail, at which point Obama sends in Army troops to reopen the office. This is taken as a tyrannical abuse of federal power, and Rep. Joe Wilson files immediate impeachment charges. The impeachment bill passes with 220 votes — 201 from the Tea Party, 18 from the rump Republican Party, plus Bobby Bright — and is sent to the Senate. Chief Justice John Roberts presides, wearing robes decorated with the scales of justice stitched in gold lame, but Tea Partiers and Republicans eventually rally only eight Democratic supporters and the charges fail by a single vote. Mary Landrieu, who spends the entire trial vacillating loudly and publicly about the weight of history, eventually provides the one-vote margin of victory and immediately commissions a book about her experience, Keeping Faith: How One Woman Made a Difference in Trying Times.
In fact you need 67 votes to remove, not 60 as Drum assumes, but otherwise this seems pretty reasonable. What I look forward to most is the pro-impeachment editorials from David Brooks and Ross Douthat.
I want to be clear on one thing: I hope the Republicans don’t take the House, that’s why I’m giving money to Democratic candidates and doing phone-banking and canvassing. But if they do, I hope they’re crazy enough to try impeachment, which will be a big flop politically.
A major survey conducted by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University found that 80 percent of black Democrats are as interested or more interested in the midterms than they were in the 2008 presidential election, when their enthusiasm helped propel Barack Obama into office.
This year, 62 percent of all black Democrats say they’re likely to encourage others to support certain candidates, according to the survey, compared with 47 percent of white Democrats and 57 percent of all Republicans.
Should black people be allowed to vote in federal elections while we have a black president? I’m not suggesting that black people should be denied the right to vote, but that there are certain cases in which their stake in the matter may be too great.
“WE’RE NOT AWARE of a single case so far of a substantive error,” The Journal’s editorial said. “Out of tens of thousands of potentially affected borrowers, we’re still waiting for the first victim claiming that he was current on his mortgage when the bank seized the home.” The fund manager Barry Ritholtz, who writes the blog The Big Picture, and Naked Capitalism’s Yves Smith, whose chronicle of the foreclosure jumble has been encyclopedic, furious and convincing, would disagree. They’ve linked to stories in papers like the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and The South Florida Sun Sentinel about banks mistakenly taking over homes that hadn’t been foreclosed on. Not only was Fort Lauderdale’s Jason Grodensky not late on the payments on the house that Bank of American foreclosed on, but he didn’t even have a mortgage.
“Thanks for the query,” The Journal’s editorial page editor said, responding to an interview request, “but I think I’ll let the editorial speak for itself.”
(bold mine)
That’s how national journalism works these days. You imply something that isn’t true and when you’re corrected, you let that false implication speak for itself.
Thank FSM Murdoch’s going to bury this toilet paper factory within a few years.
Went to a dinner last night, and one of the speakers was Subodh (rhymes with “abode”) Chandra (rhymes with “tundra”).
Chandra is a really busy lawyer in private practice who has 7-year-old triplets. He’s not a candidate. So why did he travel 3 hours on a Thursday night to speak to us? Because he was invited, but why else?
Jon Husted is the Republican candidate for Secretary of State in Ohio, that’s why, and Chandra has something to say about that.
Here’s Chandra, in 2009:
Republican candidate Jon Husted adopted the suppression techniques while House speaker. This included the Ohio law that other lawyers and I successfully challenged in federal court that permitted poll workers to demand that naturalized American citizens who have been voting for years produce their certificates of naturalization at the polls before voting. The plaintiffs included longtime citizens, former Ohio First Lady Dagmar Celeste and immigration lawyer Margaret Wong. The judge — a George W. Bush appointee — said, “There is no such thing as a second-class citizen or a second-class American. Frankly, without naturalized citizens, there would be no America. It is shameful to imagine that this statute is an example of how the State of Ohio says ‘thank you’ to those who helped build this country.”
This Court harbors grave concerns about the ramifications of implementing amended R.C. § 3505.20. There is a very real possibility of “profiling” voters by poll workers or election judges exercising an unfettered ability to challenge on the basis of appearance, name, looks, accent or manner. The Ohio statute offers no clear standards to guide the inquiry into citizenship. It is offensive to single out a voter in the public polling place, thereby subjecting him or her to embarrassment or ridicule while attempting to exercise a citizenship privilege.
This Court has personally presided over numerous naturalization ceremonies and has witnessed firsthand the joy of these new Americans and their intense desire to participate in this nation’s democratic process. There is no such thing as a second-class citizen or a second class American. Frankly, without naturalized citizens, there would be no America. It is shameful to imagine that this statute is an example of how the State of Ohio says “thank you” to those who helped build this country.
The Republican candidate for Secretary of State in Ohio, the person who would be in charge of election process, promoted a law that was not only unconstitutional, but managed to personally offend the judge, who called it “shameful”.
He’s right. It is shameful. And Husted and the GOP should have to wear this law like a badge that says “unfit for this office”.
Instead, incredibly, Husted has been chosen by the GOP as their candidate to run a statewide election process. I can only assume they’re proud of it.
I’m breaking from my no politics Friday to point out one of the dumbest things written in the last couple years, courtesy of Tunku Varadarajan:
My first instinct as a libertarian is, of course, for Republican victories everywhere, particularly for candidates running specifically on a small-government platform. The big-government Bush Republicans have already been punished; now it’s time to get rid of the big-government Democrats—i.e., all of them.
It is almost like he is unaware that McConnell and Boehner and all the same Republicans will be in charge should they win. Name one “big-government Bush Republican” who has been punished for anything. Cheney looks near dead, but that is punishment from God. The rest of them have not paid one bit for any of their sins.
Are libertarians just naturally the dumbest fucking people on the planet?
I agree with John that the Democrats should keep hitting the foreign donors angle to discredit this new round of corporate advertising. Maybe the DC media could take a moment from tsk-tsking and read the fucking Citizens’ United decision. Here’s the relevant passage:
Last, Citizens United argues that disclosure requirements can chill donations to an organization by exposing donors to retaliation. Some amici point to recent events in which donors to certain causes were blacklisted, threatened, or otherwise targeted for retaliation. [...] The examples cited by amici are cause for concern. Citizens United, however, has offered no evidence that its members may face similar threats or reprisals. To the contrary, Citizens United has been disclosing its donors for years and has identified no instance of harassment or retaliation.
[...] A campaign finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with effective disclosure has not existed before today. [...] With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are “ ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.” [...] The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.
Whether or not you agree with the rest of the decision, the Court clearly envisioned transparency as part of the deal. It hasn’t happened, and the electorate is having even a harder time than usual making informed decisions and giving proper weight to different speakers and messages.
This is what’s at stake, not some piddling little argument about whether the Sierra Club has some foreign donors, just like the Chamber of Commerce. Our stupid and infinitely distractable DC media would have us believe otherwise, and in doing so, they’re letting Congress off the hook for failing to quickly enact new transparency laws.
This kitty was living in the bushes behind my mom’s duplex, and one summer morning my mom called and told my 14 year old son that she’d been feeding the kitty and thought he would like to take her home. As I was stricken that morning with the results of a pretty good party the night before, I was in no shape to protest much. My son managed to coax her into a carrier with infinite patience and more than a few treats. Lucky for both of us, his patience was rewarded with the addition of Kittren to our little family.
Although extremely shy and skittish initially (she hid under my son’s bed for two days), she has since become the Queen of her (and our) world and all who deem themselves worthy of her attention. Five years later, our loyalty is intact….
It’s easy to make jokes from a safe distance about giving Texas back to Mexico, but there are still brave souls there defending the legacies of Texans like Don Yarborough, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, and Molly Ivins.
Warning: Absolutely NSFW (not safe for work), unless you have a preternatural ability to conceal your reaction to others’ distress, and liable to be what therapists call ‘triggering’ for those of us who still can’t recall our high-school days without flinching. Well worth watching, but in privacy and with one finger on the pause button. Just remember, it does get better.
Matt Latimer, first-past-the-post WH Ustabee in the highly lucrative Wingnut Wurlitzer ‘Dubya was never really a True Conservative™’ book race, provides a long, loving tonguebath via the Daily Beast to “The Cheney You Don’t Know”:
... [I]f those critics were hoping that Cheney would soon be departing the political scene, the former Veep is looking forward to disappointing them. This week Cheney—dozens of pounds lighter but in seeming good spirits, fresh from a period of healing sheltered from distractions by family and playing with the kids and grandkids—announced that he will soon be back on the campaign trail, back to issuing stern warnings about the failings of the Obama administration, and back to finalizing his long-awaited memoir that is likely to be published next year…
Since his release from the Bush administration, Cheney has proven uncommonly, even joyfully, resistant to the standard rituals of Washington, where political rehabilitation comes from nursing your wounds quietly in a corner, offering a few timely mea culpas to re-establish your mainstream credibility, and then joining some charitable enterprise with a member of the opposite party… Instead Cheney seems to be taking his dark and dastardly image and running with it. When every PR agent in the world would tell him to avoid subjects like waterboarding and interrogation policies, Cheney proudly defends the administration’s record. He has gamely adopted the Darth Vader label as his own. Parting company with a sidelined (and quietly retooling) Bush, who feels he “owes” Obama his silence, Cheney has become the tart-tongued voice of the opposition. In the past year he has labeled President Obama a “one-term president,” taken Vice President Biden to task for the administration’s terrorism policies, claimed that Obama was politicizing the war in Afghanistan and projecting “weakness” to America’s enemies. For the Republican base it has worked wondered. It is Cheney, not his former boss, who seems more attuned with the current tenor of the GOP.
To those who know [him], it is impossible to contemplate that Bush ever would have put himself in the position of handing decision making over to any other person. From the outset of the administration, moreover, Bush heard from a steady complement of competing voices, all of whom were less conservative, personally closer to the President, and more politically-preoccupied than Cheney. The strong-willed and ever present Texas contigent of Karen Hughes, Karl Rove, and Dan Bartlett would not have long stood for a vice president hogging face time with the boss. Condoleezza Rice, a longtime friend to the Bush family who is as close to the president as a sister, also was not one likely to be steamrolled. Chief speechwriter Michael Gerson, who once supported Jimmy Carter, was a key advocate of the administration’s signature policy known as “compassionate conservatism,” a confection of increased social spending and federal regulations that it is hard to imagine Cheney gleefully endorsing…
Continue reading Tanned, Rested, Ready: Darth Cheney Returns
