New Media Turns Old School Politics Upside Down

A Revolution of One is host of Carnival of the Liberals #62, posted yesterday, without my contribution, which is a little late, but better late than never. For readers unfamiliar with it, CotL is a by-weekly carnival of liberal bloggers. Every issue the host blog selects and features the ten best posts from all posts submitted. Their badge is in the lower part of the right-hand column of this blog. There's info on who is hosting future carnivals and the designated theme, if the host decides to have a one.

The theme for CotL #62 is New Media. We asked all participants to post on the topic of, or to include, some type of new media. The video above is of a presentation by Lawrence Lessig, Sanford Law professor and CEO of the Creative Commons given at the University of Pennsylvania. Lessig, through Creative Commons is the champion of changes in copyright law that make it easier for new media to be created without breaking the law, topic of the video below. In the first video Lessig gives his reasons for supporting Barack Obama, beyond the fact that they were colleagues at the University of Chicago.

Beyond being an example of how new media is a major factor in this Presidential primary, and the future general election race, it is about the candidate that is entirely, IMAO, a phenomenon of new media. Without it I doubt that this most unlikely candidate for president would be the almost certain nominee of the party. All of the candidates understand and use new media in their campaigns. They all have web sites and blogs and Youtube videos of their speeches, campaign ads, and the ability to contribute to their campaigns online.

But for the Obama campaign a new media political strategy has been key. Before the existence of new media it would have been nearly impossible for someone like Obama to overcome the war chest and old guard party organization of a candidate like Hillary Clinton. But for the other campaigns, their use of new media seems more an adjunct, or add on to the old strategies, more than the essence of their strategy. An article in Rolling Stone in late March describes how the Obama campaign combined techniques of new media, social networking using technology from sites like Facebook, with old school community organizing to outflank the traditional top-down approach of the Clinton campaign.

"They have taken the bottom-up campaign and absolutely perfected it," says Joe Trippi, who masterminded Dean's Internet campaign in 2004. "It's light-years ahead of where we were four years ago. They'll have 100,000 people in a state who have signed up on their Web site and put in their zip code. Now, paid organizers can get in touch with people at the precinct level and help them build the organization bottom up. That's never happened before. It never was possible before...."

"....We're seeing the last time a top-down campaign has a chance to win it," says Trippi. "There won't be another campaign that makes the same mistake the Clintons made of being dependent on big donors and insiders. It's not going to work ever again."

A regular part of Obama's stump speech is to say that change happens from the bottom up and not the top down. New media, created and controlled by the average citizen is inherently grass roots. What the Obama campaign has built is unprecedented. An entirely new type of campaign which will shape every political campaign for the foreseeable future.

Carnival of the Liberals at A Revolution of One

Welcome to A Revolution of One and the April 11, 2008 edition of Carnival of the Liberals. First I'd like to thank everyone for great submissions. Thanks for making it difficult to pick 10 out of a group of great posts, and for participating in our theme which is New Media. If you haven't hosted yet, eliminating posts is harder than you may think. In some cases it just came down to being on topic, because it was the only way to judge. I'm posting the submissions now, but I haven't quite finished my own post, which will follow shortly.

Also I'm going to submit this post on Digg.com and I'd like to ask you all to digg it to help bring more readers and bloggers to CotL. I apologize to those of you who I didn't get back to about your submission. For some reason I didn't get all the submissions in email. I replied to every one I received, but when I picked them up from the CotL site I found I had twice as many as I got in email. Which was a pleasant surprise.

One quick plug for this site, I am in the middle of an extreme makeover the blog, so please come back in a few days and check it out. Something I probably should not have tried to roll out at the same time as the carnival. But enough of the preliminaries, the posts chosen for this edition are:

In Current Events:
Allen in Fort Worth presents Hillary Clinton, Bosnia, Serbia, Sniper Fire, My Friend Igor, Taking Your Daughter To War Zones, and other stuff like that posted at The Whited Sepulchre, saying, "Youtube videos and blogs are making Hillary Clinton's claims of combat zone experience look ridiculous."Shan Siddiqi presents Perceptions, misconceptions posted at The Optimist's World, saying, "Misconceptions cause wars. To fight war, we must fight these misconceptions and the false perceptions that they create."

Annie presents Oh Bless Us, Everyone! posted at Home of the Brave, saying, "Journalism, campaign reporting and campaign messaging trainwreck. Meanwhile the gist - preventable deaths continue unabated, under-resourced health facilities struggle, and everyone loses."

On Liberalism:
Ebonmuse presents The Keyhole posted at Daylight Atheism, saying, "The explosion of new media has given us access to a vast wealth of information, but sorting through it has for the reliable sources has become ever more difficult."

greensmile presents Re-electing war 2008: tragedy vs pathos posted at The Executioners Thong, saying, "Are you really liberal? That would, I believe, mean you could put aside your ire at obtuse war supporters to understand where they are coming from...and thereby start to rescue them."

In Opinion:
Carole G. McKay presents Hilary, Bill and Noah Webster posted at McKay Today, saying, "Can we take a candid look at how lying to ourselves and others costs us a price we cannot afford?"

omyma presents Blaming Muslims for Terrorism: Blood Sport for the Cheesecake Crowd posted at thinkbridge.

Mike Haubrich presents Early Morning April 4 posted at Tangled Up in Blue Guy, saying, "Forty years after the murder of MLK, the US still has to push for equality."

reallywrong presents Crashing the Gate posted at keep it really wrong.

In Politics:
DWSUWF presents Lets Play Oddball! Televison personality shoots self in head. Reloads. Shoots Obama Campaign. Reloads. Shoots self in head again. posted at Divided We Stand United We Fall, saying, "What do I know? I am just a pissant blogger and Keith Olbermann is a cable news giant. Let me be clear so there is no confusion about the point of this post. Keith Olbermann is not an Obama cheerleader and a sexist pig. He just talks like one."

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of carnival of the liberals using our carnival submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags:

carnival of the liberals, blog carnival.

I enjoyed every single post and look forward to hosting again sometime in the future. Check back for my post on New Media. Thanks again and....

-Fight the Powers.

Update: What Press Won't Show that Wright Said

I also posted on Daily Kos and got some comments there about Wright's quoting from, or paraphrasing of, Ambassador Ed Peck. No one has been able to find the actual appearance on Fox that Reverend Wright claims to quote. So there is some dispute that as to whether the words are actually Peck's. I still feel that the sound bite does not reflect Wright's intended meaning. It doesn't come close. The most salient comment I got there was this one:

Simple answer: the truth doesn't sell ads.
Scandal does. Plus, a 5 second sound-bite is easier to put on air than 5 minutes of a sermon.

by skrekk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:40:23 PM PDT

Sound bite journalism doesn't serve the public at all. It gives us half truths and stirs up controversy that does not help us solve problems. In fact it creates problems. This kind of journalism serves the corporate media, whose motivation is profit, not truth. It creates controversy and spectacle that they can use to draw our attention and while we're there, try to sell us something. Not that selling something in and of itself is bad. We have ads here. But when it comes at the expense of truth and when spectacle is disguised as news in order to do so, it is a corruption of the purpose of the media.

I think corporate media is a more appropriate name for the MSM precisely for those reasons. It's a more accurate reflection of their real purpose and the reason they often fail to serve the public good they purport to serve.

-Fight the powers.

The Colbert Report: The Word - The Gospel of John

Colbert skillfully draws parallels between the recent Obama religious controversy and John McCain's ties to right-wing religious nut cases Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

Daily Show with Jon Stewart: Obama's Wright Response

What the Press Won't Show You That Reverend Wright Said

Sometimes I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone when I'm watching TV and I see the media version of what's happening in the world and I see a completely contradictory version of it somewhere else. Or, metaphorically, like Charlton Heston must have felt at the end of the movie Soylent Green when he finally realizes that soylent green is made from people. It's not that I trust the media so unquestioningly that I can't wrap my brain around the fact that their version of what is real is so far from what actually is real, but that I just can't believe that it would be possible to have any remaining shred of credibility or status among the people of this country if you got something so absolutely, incredible wrong so many times. Even if you give people very little credit for paying attention to or caring about what's going on. Or even if you think they are not very smart. It still doesn't make sense.

Just how is it possible that you keep your status as the supposed watchdogs of government, and reliable sources of information from around the world? How can you not be laughed at when you call yourselves, The Most Trusted Name in News, or The Place for Politics, or the best political team on television, or whatever else the various marketing departments dream up for their news organizations? When I watch the in context versions of the sermons of Reverend Jeremiah Wright and contrast them to the endless loops we've been seeing on the networks and cable TV news shows for weeks, they leave me with two views of supposed reality that just do not jibe.

Last night I heard commentators on CNN and MSNBC still speaking as if they had no idea that the loop they play of Wrights comments on 9/11 are in fact a quotation and not his own words. That to me seems like a relevant fact. Even the people I trust to tell me much more of the truth than the the networks generally do, people like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, are repeating the same mainstream media narrative. And if we extend the conversation to what's happening in the blogosphere, I have not heard Arianna Huffington (though I'm behind reading her posts) put this into perspective. Arguably one of, if not the biggest story of recent weeks, and only one show in the mainstream media has taken the time to actually listen to one of Wrights full sermons and put what was said in perspective. It was CNN's Rich Sanchez and he did a very poor job of it. He continually tried to move the focus back to the prevailing mainstream media narrative of Wright and Trinity United as wild-eyed angry black militants that should scare the crap out of the average American.

This story could have potentially derailed the chances of the only viable African-American candidate for president, ever. Yet no one who calls themselves a journalist took any time to look beyond the surface of 10 and 20 second sound bites. It took Trinity United itself to start their own Youtube channel and blog to start to get the truth out to people. And one of the great ironies of the whole story is that it may bring the church more serious attention than it would have ever gotten even if Obama does become president. I am not a religious person at all and that is not the relevant part of the story to me, but it is interesting.

One personal, but relevant irony for me is that I found the story in context by going to Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia, the icon for unreliable information in the mainstream media was where I found that the media was still not correctly attributing the statements made by Wright on 9/11. That they had still not said that Wright was "[Paraphrasing] Edward Peck, former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq, former deputy director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under the Reagan Administration and former U.S. Ambassador to a number of countries." Wikipedia was my source for accurate information that the mainstream press had gotten wrong over and over again.

And to me that is the real story here. That through this very medium, through new new media, the people, both those misrepresented directly and those to whom the truth was misrepresented, have redress. From the editors of Wikipedia who have no motivation except to provide reliable information to people for free. Yes it is vulnerable to corruption, but it is self correcting and those who call it unreliable are no more reliable. And from the people at Trinity United who are just like you and me. Who saw their pastor misrepresented in the media and decided to become their own media and put their own story out so that people could make up their minds based on more than 20 seconds of sound out of entire career.

The career of a man who was a US Marine and served in the US Navy as a hospital Corpsman and who has a commendation from same for treating President Lyndon Johnson when he was hospitalized. The career of a man who traveled to Libya as part of an contingent which included Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan to free United States Navy pilot Lt. Robert Goodman, whose fighter jet had been shot down over Lebanon. And to bring that soldier held prisoner by a terrorist back home to America. I got that from Wikipedia too.

Maybe it is not that the people don't care, or pay attention when our news and view of the world is reduced to the 20 second sound bite, or that they aren't smart enough to understand it when it's not, but that they felt little power to do anything about it. Through new media they are starting to take back that power and the mainstream media should be paying attention. We the people are not only the government, we are the media too.

Please take the time to comment on this post, whether you agree or disagree. And please take time to pass it on to people who may not have seen Reverend Wright's comments in context. And finally, take time to write the mainstream media, whoever you get your news from and let them know that you are paying attention.

See update here.

-Fight the powers.

Barack Obama's Passport File Breached Illegally

MSNBC is reporting that two state department contract employees were fired today for accessing the passport file of Barack Obama without a need to. The unwarranted access took place in January of 2008 and tripped a automatic system that notifies supervisors that the file was access. Files are automatically checked, according to the report, to be certain that the access is for a legitimate purpose. The two employees were working for the Bureau of Consular Affairs.

The Obama campaign has demanded to know who access the files and for what purpose and why the access was not reported until now. A similar breach was reported of unwarranted access to Bill Clinton's passport in 1991 when the current president Bush's father was president.

Update:
A third employee is being reported as having been disciplined for the breach in security.

Update:
Keith Olbermann is now reporting the access was made on three separate occasions. The accesses were out of "curiosity". There is no indication that information was used in any way. The passport was accessed on January 9, February 21. The individuals who access it were fired. And again it was accessed on March 14 and that individual was disciplined.

Andrea Mitchell is suggesting that there should have been some kind of investigation into the access of the passport. That there should not have been any attribution of the reason for accessing it without investigating. How can one trust any reason put forth unless there was an investigation.

Update:
The Inspector General was not aware of the breach until today.

Update from NY Times:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was told of the security breach, which was first reported in The Washington Times on Thursday evening. Mr. McCormack said security measures used to monitor records of high-profile people like Mr. Obama worked properly in the three instances to alert department officials of the breaches.

“This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years,” said Bill Burton, an Obama campaign spokesman.

Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management, said that he and other top officials at the State Department found out about the breach Thursday afternoon, after [State Department spokesman, Sean D.] McCormack received a telephone query from a reporter.

A Clintonian Apology

This is the very reason the Clinton name is synonymous with a kind of, "depends upon what the meaning of is is", equivocation, hypocrisy and outright lying. She apologizes when she appears before a group of African American publishers. For days she refused, her campaign refused, her surrogates and Geraldine Ferraro refused to apologize. In fact, Ferraro is still refusing. Hillary Clinton has used the tactic of inserting race into the campaign throughout. And she will use it again. She is the Democratic version of the George Bush. Boldly saying exactly the opposite of what you mean and what you know is the truth. Hiding your true motivations. Saying one thing here and another there, depending on who you happen to be standing in front of.

You have to ask why this is the first time she has apologized for what Bill Clinton said way back in South Carolina? It's because she is in front of a group of African American publishers and she has to answer questions and if she doesn't appear contrite they will eat her lunch. That will not make a good sound bite for TV. Every second she of her campaign Hillary Clinton becomes more distasteful. Democrats may be making history, but they are making it ugly.

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Hillary Clinton's Campaign and Geraldine Ferraro

Again Keith saying exactly what needs to be said the way it must be said. Not holding back, not mincing words, not fearing the consequences. I just hope those to whom it is directed are listening.