I'm currently engrossed in a book written by Howard Dean's 2004 campaign manager, Joe Trippi. I remembered Dean as being the first candidate for any office that I was really excited about, and it's one of the things that led me to follow politics as closely as I used to follow insignificant shit like the NFL off-season. The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Democracy, the Internet, and the Overthrow of Everything is a chronicle of Trippi's career, technology in politics, and everything that went right and wrong on the failed Dean for America campaign. Someone recommended this book to me in a message board thread for Barack Obama volunteers, and the words they used to do that keep echoing in my head as I work through it each day on the train: Howard Dean's campaign pioneered the use of the internet to organize and fundraise for a presidential campaign, but we are witnessing the perfection of those methods in Obama's run.
Indeed, the parallels between the campaigns are incredible. I feel like I'm experiencing a second edition of Trippi's book being written in realtime by Senator Obama. In the book, for example, Trippi discusses the use of the website Meetup.com that allowed supporters of Governor Dean to organize rallies for the candidate by themselves, and how those in attendance at those rallies grew exponentially throughout spring and summer 2003. As I'm reading this, I keep refreshing the Facebook event I launched to notify WCU students about the episode of MSNBC's Hardball being aired live here with Senator Obama next week - and that number is growing just as quickly in front of my own eyes now. Although it's not a truly supporter-organized event open to the public, 500 people had jumped on this shit in the first 24 hours after it was posted. People continue to subscribe for updates even though it's open to current WCU students only.
It's long been my firm belief that the Internet will change the way our democracy works, but witnessing little stuff like this firsthand makes Joe Trippi some kind of Internet prophet to me. His articulation of these ideas are now four years old and are just starting to manifest themselves in the public sphere. The same concepts that propelled Dean to front-runner status in 2004 now allow me to help recruit hundreds of new volunteers and raise thousands of dollars for my candidate in 2008 as effortlessly as if I were just updating my list of favorite music on Facebook.
My recommendation: read Trippi's book, and set your TiVo to record Hardball live at West Chester University on Wednesday, April 2nd to see just one of the tangible results of his Open-Source Politics concept that will change the way government works for us.
Showing posts with label msnbc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label msnbc. Show all posts
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Joey / TJ Stream of Consciousness - Don Imus
TJ,
I was reading this article...well it was more like a rant on the whole Don Imus thing. And I was wondering what you thought of it, because it seems to cross a few really important issues pertaining to radio, racism, free speech, etc.
This thing i read is not very good. it makes some good points, but is poorly argued. I think its kinda sad. Especially how it relates to Michael Richard's explosion. It seems to really allow for a space to deal with issues of racism in the open and public, the way everyone discusses them in private. And maybe it would get worse if we acknowledged that, but maybe it would get worse before it gets better.
But also I was thinking about the radio part of it, and i was wondering what you really think about shows like Imus or Howard Stern or i don't know, Opie & Anthony. Like is it just talk for the sake of talk? Does it do something constructive? Does it have a purpose?
Because Radio is a public space and it has to fulfill a public good. doesn't it?
Joey
Joey,
I actually thought that was a pretty well-reasoned article (although not written very well). I can understand why the guy is pissed, and he doesn't simply say that the Imus thing was Sharpton playing the race card and then left it at that. Too many people have just said "oh well he's playing the race card" and then moved on to why it's not fair instead of explaining why he's doing it. I'm right in the middle of Barack Obama's book, and the chapter on race, so this is really a strange topic for me to try and approach right now. So I guess I won't.
From a purely radio-guy perspective, I am happy Don Imus was fired. I'm not happy with WHY he was fired, or HOW he was fired, but I'm just glad he's gone. Good riddance. These types of shows -- his being some ridiculous fusion of Stern's Morning Circus format and Limbaugh's Right-wing squawkbox format made for what I consider to be a pretty watered-down, crappy show in general. It wasn't as ever as outrageous as Stern, nor was it as extreme as Limbaugh -- it just sucked. It's even weirder to me that such a show would be simulcast on MSNBC, masquerading as a news show every morning.
I'm glad he's gone because, as you well know, I'm not a big fan of either format, or what they're doing to radio, or the amount of money or listeners they manage to pile up. I don't like what Stern, Limbaugh, Hannity, O&A, or Imus are/were doing to radio. Now, of course, one of them is gone and we now have Michael Smerconish to fill in where Imus has left, but I like the idea that this may send ripples throughout the DJ world, letting broadcasters know what is and is not allowed. And I don't care about the political correctness of it -- Imus used his microphone to trash a group of people that had no rebuttal. Pre-1987, that station COULD have lost it's license for something like that, unless he agreed to give them time on-air to defend themselves. Now, without the Fairness Doctrine, people just say whatever the hell they want to on-air without fear of consequences. It has led to a severe erosion of civil discourse in broadcast media, and that's hurtful to our democracy and our culture at large. It's the reason no one can talk about something like why "nappy-headed ho's" is unacceptable to say without people shouting and pointing fingers and getting all defensive right off the bat.
So yeah, while I agree people need to lighten up, and that Sharpton is a race-baiting hack, I also think that the Rutgers team didn't deserve to be trashed on national radio. And I also am glad for the effects this will have on other talk-show hosts to clean up their acts and not abuse their positions as national broadcasters to character-assassinate defenseless people. I hope we see some more constructive on-air conversations now that this has happened, but I'm doubting it.
The guy who wrote this article is being very cynical when it comes to the "public airwaves" when he says that it's a government lease. He's ignoring the fact that voters control that government, so the "parent company" at that rental center is still, indeed, the American public. However, they're not the ones that got upset about the Imus comment. Sharpton got upset, then he got advertisers upset, and then Imus got yanked. There was no real sense of outrage at the networks that carried his show, and until this got all the publicity, nor was there outrage among the public. So, unfortunately, this guy is half-right about how if the public isn't involved in the equation there, why bother making mention of it being on the "public airwaves"? This entire incident was dealt with in-house, without any repercussions from the FCC or from the listening audience (at least not until well after the fact). For that reason, I'm not optimistic about the potential for change in the talk format.
But whatever. I'm talking myself in circles here, I think. I've had so much time to think abotu this and hear about it from every perspective that I just don't know what to think anymore. Does the end justify the means in this case? I'm tempted to say no....which means, then, that realistically, I think Don Imus should still have a job.
TJ
TJ,
I like the points you made. I thought the article said some good things too, but it was unstructured and had very little to support the arguments made. It jumped around a lot which make me think it was poorly thought. or written in the heat of the moment.
I'd like to talk to you more about the obama book when you finish.
but the whole issue makes me think of the phrase "going through the motions" because that's what i feel is going on.
that IMUS has to be controversial and this "nappy headed hos" comment is the best he can do.
that CBS or NBC or whoever, fired him because thats what they were supposed to do
that Al Sharpton had to react so strongly, because you know what, that's what he's supposed to do.
But do you think that he's just going to get hired somewhere else when this blows over just like Opie and Anthony?
Joey
To Be Continued....
I was reading this article...well it was more like a rant on the whole Don Imus thing. And I was wondering what you thought of it, because it seems to cross a few really important issues pertaining to radio, racism, free speech, etc.
This thing i read is not very good. it makes some good points, but is poorly argued. I think its kinda sad. Especially how it relates to Michael Richard's explosion. It seems to really allow for a space to deal with issues of racism in the open and public, the way everyone discusses them in private. And maybe it would get worse if we acknowledged that, but maybe it would get worse before it gets better.
But also I was thinking about the radio part of it, and i was wondering what you really think about shows like Imus or Howard Stern or i don't know, Opie & Anthony. Like is it just talk for the sake of talk? Does it do something constructive? Does it have a purpose?
Because Radio is a public space and it has to fulfill a public good. doesn't it?
Joey
Joey,
I actually thought that was a pretty well-reasoned article (although not written very well). I can understand why the guy is pissed, and he doesn't simply say that the Imus thing was Sharpton playing the race card and then left it at that. Too many people have just said "oh well he's playing the race card" and then moved on to why it's not fair instead of explaining why he's doing it. I'm right in the middle of Barack Obama's book, and the chapter on race, so this is really a strange topic for me to try and approach right now. So I guess I won't.
From a purely radio-guy perspective, I am happy Don Imus was fired. I'm not happy with WHY he was fired, or HOW he was fired, but I'm just glad he's gone. Good riddance. These types of shows -- his being some ridiculous fusion of Stern's Morning Circus format and Limbaugh's Right-wing squawkbox format made for what I consider to be a pretty watered-down, crappy show in general. It wasn't as ever as outrageous as Stern, nor was it as extreme as Limbaugh -- it just sucked. It's even weirder to me that such a show would be simulcast on MSNBC, masquerading as a news show every morning.
I'm glad he's gone because, as you well know, I'm not a big fan of either format, or what they're doing to radio, or the amount of money or listeners they manage to pile up. I don't like what Stern, Limbaugh, Hannity, O&A, or Imus are/were doing to radio. Now, of course, one of them is gone and we now have Michael Smerconish to fill in where Imus has left, but I like the idea that this may send ripples throughout the DJ world, letting broadcasters know what is and is not allowed. And I don't care about the political correctness of it -- Imus used his microphone to trash a group of people that had no rebuttal. Pre-1987, that station COULD have lost it's license for something like that, unless he agreed to give them time on-air to defend themselves. Now, without the Fairness Doctrine, people just say whatever the hell they want to on-air without fear of consequences. It has led to a severe erosion of civil discourse in broadcast media, and that's hurtful to our democracy and our culture at large. It's the reason no one can talk about something like why "nappy-headed ho's" is unacceptable to say without people shouting and pointing fingers and getting all defensive right off the bat.
So yeah, while I agree people need to lighten up, and that Sharpton is a race-baiting hack, I also think that the Rutgers team didn't deserve to be trashed on national radio. And I also am glad for the effects this will have on other talk-show hosts to clean up their acts and not abuse their positions as national broadcasters to character-assassinate defenseless people. I hope we see some more constructive on-air conversations now that this has happened, but I'm doubting it.
The guy who wrote this article is being very cynical when it comes to the "public airwaves" when he says that it's a government lease. He's ignoring the fact that voters control that government, so the "parent company" at that rental center is still, indeed, the American public. However, they're not the ones that got upset about the Imus comment. Sharpton got upset, then he got advertisers upset, and then Imus got yanked. There was no real sense of outrage at the networks that carried his show, and until this got all the publicity, nor was there outrage among the public. So, unfortunately, this guy is half-right about how if the public isn't involved in the equation there, why bother making mention of it being on the "public airwaves"? This entire incident was dealt with in-house, without any repercussions from the FCC or from the listening audience (at least not until well after the fact). For that reason, I'm not optimistic about the potential for change in the talk format.
But whatever. I'm talking myself in circles here, I think. I've had so much time to think abotu this and hear about it from every perspective that I just don't know what to think anymore. Does the end justify the means in this case? I'm tempted to say no....which means, then, that realistically, I think Don Imus should still have a job.
TJ
TJ,
I like the points you made. I thought the article said some good things too, but it was unstructured and had very little to support the arguments made. It jumped around a lot which make me think it was poorly thought. or written in the heat of the moment.
I'd like to talk to you more about the obama book when you finish.
but the whole issue makes me think of the phrase "going through the motions" because that's what i feel is going on.
that IMUS has to be controversial and this "nappy headed hos" comment is the best he can do.
that CBS or NBC or whoever, fired him because thats what they were supposed to do
that Al Sharpton had to react so strongly, because you know what, that's what he's supposed to do.
But do you think that he's just going to get hired somewhere else when this blows over just like Opie and Anthony?
Joey
To Be Continued....
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Olbermann re-ups with MSNBC
From MSNBC:
While Keith isn't exactly a model of objectivity in journalism today (see his World's Worst feature), he's certainly a refreshing breath of cool air in the face of windbags like Sean Hannity & Brit Hume, folks who disseminate conservative propaganda under the thinly-veiled guise of "news anchor". Keith, who knows a thing or two about putting on an engaging show, has sprinkled in the occasional Edward R. Murrow-inspired Special Comment, passionately lambasting the same news figures that the rest of the media coddles.
While it's ultimately the duty of a news anchor to concentrate only on the news rather than making news themselves, Keith is to be commended for stepping outside the bounds of that role to return fire at hacks like Bill O'Reilly, criticize the rest of the news media, and serve as the megaphone for the marginalized American public. His skyrocketing ratings are proving to the major outlets that people want true balance and integrity in their news.
Link via [Crooks & Liars]
Keith Olbermann will continue to be a thorn in Bill O'Reilly's side for at least four more years.
NBC News announced Thursday it had agreed to a "second term" with the MSNBC "Countdown" host, whose contract was due to expire next month. The extension will take him into 2011.
Besides feuding with Fox News Channel's O'Reilly, Olbermann has become a liberal hero. He has seen his ratings increase since launching a series of anti-President Bush commentaries late last summer.
His prime-time program averaged 715,000 viewers in January, according to Nielsen Media Research. While his audience is often less than a third of O'Reilly's in the same time slot, Olbermann's viewership is up 85 percent over January 2006.
While Keith isn't exactly a model of objectivity in journalism today (see his World's Worst feature), he's certainly a refreshing breath of cool air in the face of windbags like Sean Hannity & Brit Hume, folks who disseminate conservative propaganda under the thinly-veiled guise of "news anchor". Keith, who knows a thing or two about putting on an engaging show, has sprinkled in the occasional Edward R. Murrow-inspired Special Comment, passionately lambasting the same news figures that the rest of the media coddles.
While it's ultimately the duty of a news anchor to concentrate only on the news rather than making news themselves, Keith is to be commended for stepping outside the bounds of that role to return fire at hacks like Bill O'Reilly, criticize the rest of the news media, and serve as the megaphone for the marginalized American public. His skyrocketing ratings are proving to the major outlets that people want true balance and integrity in their news.
Link via [Crooks & Liars]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)