Tonight, Frontline on PBS will be starting a series. Here's the ad:
And a preview of part one on insurance, and the insurance lobby:
Bottom line: what really went on in getting "reform" passed. It's a good information set if you have an opinion about the legislation, want to learn about the process, or can never get enough Wendell Potter, this is the show for you.
There is a lot to write about today, and I'm having trouble getting a handle on all of it. In some ways, I'm appalled, in other ways, just plain saddened.
So, let's start with my email inbox. In 2008, I knew a guy named Gerry. He lives on Long Island, but had come down here to PA CD-6 to work on the Obama campaign. I saw Gerry 7 days a week for months, and Gerry's a nice guy. About once a week we'd get something to eat where we could sit at a table and use utensils and talk about something other than the chatter related to the work. From Gerry to me yesterday: "What did we make all those phone calls for?"
Last January 20th, I watched the Inaugural in a conference room with my co-workers, including one who was so apolitical that she'd never seen an Inaugural before. I had tears of joy the whole time. Her note: "I hear you're still crying, but for many different reasons."
I have answered neither.
The FEC decision? DISASTER. It won't do any good, but if you want to sign the petition showing your displeasure with the Roberts Court, it's here. Do I agree with what it says? Absolutely, but I don't believe that citizen action can overcome a SCOTUS decision. It's likely that Congress will at least try to act to take the teeth out of the decision, which will buy a number of years. That is, McCain-Feingold passed in 2002, and it took until 2010 to punch the teeth out of it. If Congress passes something this spring that affects this years' cycle, it will take a while to get through the courts. By then, maybe the Roberts court will be no more.
Health care? In thinking about it, I feel like an abused spouse. Back in February, with the withdrawal of Tom Daschle, I knew it was over in any meaningful way: like being hit the first time. But like FAR TOO MANY abused people, I stayed in the relationship: I listened when he said he wouldn't hit me again. And believed that he could change. That Harry Reid would grow a set. That Barack Obama would honour his campaign promises and the Democratic platform, that elected Congressmen and Senators who were registered Democrats would actually act like Democrats. I was not surprised with the stomach sucker-punch.
Media? Air America is shutting down come Monday. The radio station that launched with Al Franken and Rachel Maddow is filing for bankruptcy. Right wing radio continues unabated. Is it that we write and blog, and they haven't learned the written language and therefore are restricted to radio? Probably not, but it pains me that we cannot have a progressive radio station with enough support to stay in business.
Another media tidbit: starting in 2011, the NYTimes will be charging once one views more than 10 articles in a month.
Obama going after the banks? HA! Like the "consumer bill of rights" related to credit cards, there will be some huge smackdown. And then the teeth will be removed. And then, like health care, there will be appeasement and capitulation.
SO.
Putting it all together: my gay friends cannot get married, somehow they don't count under the 14th Amendment. One asked on Facebook "Why do corporations have more rights than my partner and I?" Every day, more people lose health insurance, and more die because of it. The banks help the rich get richer, while new unemployment claims are up. Free, left-wing radio has died. Others will follow the path of Times, and information will become more expensive.
I read a lot. Often I am dumbstruck by the incongruities.
Today is the Massachusetts special Senate election. And yes, we'll be here live blogging tonight. And I don't think anyone really knows what will happen. Even in yesterday's DCW poll, there was no consensus. That's never happened before, that there was such a split. As for the outcome, some people think that if Scott Brown wins, it will be the death of health care reform, and others think that it will be a great opportunity for progressives to make the bill better. Incongruous outcomes.
The trauma continues in Haiti. Yesterday, an orphanage moved its children from the rising mob mentality encircling it. More planes will land, the port will be one day closer to opening, which is predicted for later this week. The president of Haiti is seemingly nowhere to be found. (I had been unaware until yesterday that he was an agronomist.) Hopefully he'll show up, or at least Haiti will get a better puppet to oversee reconstruction. I had also been unaware until yesterday that the power of the earthquake was 35 TIMES greater than when the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Please remember to give all that you can: you have indoor plumbing, potable water, and a bed to sleep in housed under a roof that won't fall on you.
The incongruity here relates to the other side of the island. 85 miles north of Port-au-Prince. There's a party going on there. Honest: snorkeling, bbqs, and all-around fun. It is, to me, horrifying.
And then we come to NBC. In the interest of full disclosure, I've never seen The Tonight Show: not Allen, Paar, Carson, Leno nor O'Brien. I know of it, and of the people, but I'm never awake at that hour. But I've been following the "war" - because it is a parable that covers much of politics, and Haiti: a microcosm of many things that are wrong in the world today. Here you have one of the longest running shows on TV, a true "franchise", like the US Senate. It has a job to do: give people a laugh before they drop off to sleep, after the evening news. (Which often includes things that make you want to cry, courtesy of the US Senate.) Everything was going along fine, for more than 50 years, when the issue of buying people off interfered. (Think: big business, big Pharma and the insurance industry.)
NBC wanted Conan O'Brien, and promised him in 2004 that he could have The Tonight Show in 2009. Jay Leno didn't want to leave, but he had passed his prime, and was no longer doing the job expected of him in terms of being responsive to his constituency audience. (Think Norm Coleman as Jay and Al Franken as Conan, but with a different outcome.) He went to prime time, which he predicted would be a disaster, and it was. Therefore, NBC decided, they would just move Jay back to 11:35, and then Conan to 12:05. Conan said no. In a certain way, everyone loses. NBC loses a franchise because of the bad blood Jay brings back to 11:35, Jay loses his "good guy" image, Conan loses the show he's worked his life for, and many people lose their jobs.
Now, think the US Senate (NBC). Not responsive to their constituency (audience), most members, albeit not all, caring only what they can get to line their pockets from the special interests (advertisers). With a certain number of Jay-like people, and a certain number of Conans. Comcast will likely beat NBC into submission, but I don't know an equal force for the Senate. Wait.....what about the voters? Wouldn't that be a joy....It seems to have worked in Minnesota.
I leave you with this, because I love the moron song....
Last night, President and Mrs. Obama, along with a host of other luminaries, attended the Kennedy Center Honours. This year's recipients (pictured left to right) are Mel Brooks, Dave Brubeck, Grace Brumbry, Robert De Niro and Bruce Springsteen.
Prior to the festivities, there was a reception at the White House for the honorees, and President Obama's remarks are posted after the jump.
It's so refreshing to see a President who appreciates the arts. We haven't seen this since the Clinton White House.
In his remarks, the president said some very nice things about the individual contributions these people have made to music, film and stage.
President Obama makes note in his remarks about how he can't repeat a lot of Mel Brooks' jokes, implied "especially from Blazing Saddles." This is a film that, with its original language, could certainly not been made today. Which is sad, as, in the original, it is one of the funniest movies ever made.
Congrats to all the honourees. You will be able to see the full presentation on TV later this month.
The question is whether or not they should end up in jail.
Forget for a moment that someone is innocent until proven guilty: despite any legal maneuvering, it would be incredibly difficult for them to prove that they did NOT crash the state dinner at the White House last week.
For me, it's simple. I think they should be charged with trespassing, lying to Federal officials, and anything else that can be thrown at them.
Others may thing this is a minor prank with no harm done, but I don't see it that way. While the couple didn't mean any direct harm to the President or anyone else in the party, if they are NOT prosecuted, it becomes much easier for others who do intend harm to attempt entry in the future.
Others may contend that this event was good in that it exposed security flaws, especially related to the White House Social Office, which should have had someone at the gate to double-check against the guest list. This was always done until Desiree Rogers became Social Secretary. Surely the major part of the blame belongs with the Secret Service, but having the double-check person who KNEW the guest list would have made a big difference. Those are political and process problems.
But the Salahis knew they weren't invited. They had reached out to the Defense Department to get an invitation with no joy. They had no invitation. Letting them get away with it, no matter whose "fault" it was at the gate, is to say that the White House doesn't take this sort of breach seriously. It means that other people will try not only crashing parties, but other ways of gaining entry.
The White House, the Justice Department, the Secret Service and the Social Secretary's office all need to say that the White House is the center of the Executive Branch of the United States, and it is inviolate. By the way, I'd charge them under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, as well as Title LX11, Criminal Code, Chapter 635, Section 2. Based on Federal sentencing guidelines, this would get them between 1 and 2 years. Each.
You only think I make these things up, but here is the memo from Fox, courtesy of TPM:
Subject: Quality Control We had a mistake on Newsroom today when a wrong book cover went on screen during a guest segment, the kind of thing that can fall through the cracks on any day with any story given the large amount of elements and editorial we run through our broadcasts. Unfortunately, it is the latest in a series of mistakes on FNC in recent months. We have to all improve our performance in terms of ensuring error-free broadcasts. To that end, there was a meeting this afternoon between senior managers and the folks who run the daytime shows in which expectations were reviewed, and the following results were announced: Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors. Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the "mistake chain," and those who supervise them. That may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all obviously play a role in performance reviews. So we now face a great opportunity to review and improve on our workflow and quality control efforts. To make the most of that opportunity, effective immediately, Newsroom is going to "zero base" our newscast production. That means we will start by going to air with only the most essential, basic, and manageable elements. To share a key quote from today's meeting: "It is more important to get it right, than it is to get it on." We may then build up again slowly as deadlines and workloads allow so that we can be sure we can quality check everything before it makes air, and we never having to explain, retract, qualify or apologize again. Please know that jobs are on the line here. I can not stress that enough. I will review again during our Monday editorial meeting, and in the days and weeks ahead. This experience should make us stronger editorially, and I encourage everyone to invest themselves one hundred and ten percent in this effort.
Notice that the problem was the book cover. The Spunky Palin book cover. Two other recent "errors" also related to things involving her.
So here's the question: when they say "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" is that a firing offense? When they out and out LIE about someone's party, or numbers, or their slant on something that happened, is that an "error"? If it's on purpose and part of how they do what they do, is the commentator's job safe? When Glenn Beck claims that President Obama is, well....you know - is that an error or an acceptable piece of "reporting"?
I think I know where he might be going: Hazelton, Pennsylvania. It appears that Lou "Get Every Immigrant OUT of here" Barletta is planning on challenging Paul Kanjorski. Again.
Barletta is the mayor of Hazelton, has been for almost a decade. He's the one, you might remember, who became Dobbs' darling when, in 2006, he spearheaded incendiary and illegal legislation against immigrants in Hazelton. Dobbs visited, and did a number of shows from the town, in support of Barletta.
Lou actually has a number of options: the Lou and Spunky road show, anyone?
Actually, I don't really care where Dobbs goes: I'm interested in whether or not CNN replaces him with an actual newsperson, or another reactionary talking head. It's just too bad that on his way out of midtown, he won't take Glenn Beck with him.
Quick trivia question: which daily US newspaper has been in business longer than any other? Clue: it was started by Alexander Hamilton in 1801. Give up? The New York Post. It's been owned on and off since 1976 by its current owner, Rupert Murdoch, and it's bleeding circulation. It lost $70 million last year.
Next question: what is the newest paper in America. Albeit web-based, last Thursday, The Texas Tribune launched in Austin. They didn't cover the horror of Fort Hood, which occurred the same day. They stick to Texas government. Their Friday stories included a state rep who switched parties (from D to R), and the 50 highest-paid state employees. Today, they have a great piece on why Johnny can't read, if he goes to school in Texas.
The Tribune didn't come cheap: to launch the 12 person newsroom cost $3.7 million dollars. Their highest paid employee, by the way, will pull down $315,000 for his first year (15% deferred). It is NOT a profit-making venture, separating it from most of the rest of media.
So why did people invest? It had to do with the need for more transparency in Texas government, plus this:
The theory is that a group of well-compensated editors and writers [...] will create valuable reporting shared by citizens and other news media outlets, a kind of digital version of public radio. [...]
“People have suggested that journalism is too important to be left to nonprofits, but I think it is too important to be left to market forces,” [said Evan Smith, Tribune editor].
If it is able to get traction, the Tribune will be a great model for other sites which do actual investigative journalism. If it works, maybe this will get traction.
Last night on The Ed Show, David Shuster was filling in. On one segment the guests were Markos Moulitsas and Tom Tancredo. The buzz is all about Tancredo storming out because Markos pointed out that Tancredo got a medical deferment from Vietnam service (because of depression) while Markos served in the military. Everybody has that.
I want you to watch the last minute, which is Shuster's comment. He's INCREDIBLY CORRECT.
We've written before about how much of the MSM has closed out many of their local bureaus. For a lot of base news, they depend either on one another, as through pool reports, or through AP, Reuters or another bureau.
Next week, the Tribune Company newspapers will cease using AP materials, with the exception of sports statistics and any information not available from any other source. This experiment will last one week, as the Tribune Co. evaluates cost cutting methods. The Tribune gave AP a required two year warning last year that it might drop the AP service beginning in October of 2010. This situation will affect Tribune dead tree editions, but not web content nor its television stations.
Besides the content provided by the staff of its own titles, Tribune Co. newspapers will draw from such news sources as Reuters, the Washington Post, New York Times, Agence France Presse, Cable News Network, Global Post, Bloomberg and McClatchy newspapers during its AP-less trial. Not all of those sources are normally available to Tribune Co. papers.
I wonder how much AP content the Trib will pull from WaPo and the Times. Also how it will affect the disparity of content between its dead tree editions and web sites.
I've been trying my own little media experiment. If you're a long term reader, you are used to seeing pieces drawn from information I've plucked from the dead tree edition of the USA Today. You may have noticed that you haven't seen one for a while. For the past month, I've gone dead-tree-free. USA Today offers two types of on-line content. One is a web site which is poorly organized, lacking in much of the content in the paper edition, and replete with a close to useless search function. The other is an actual web copy of the paper itself. I'm pretty convinced if one has a 42" plasma tv onto which one can project the web version, it would be readable. Otherwise, it's incredibly hard to deal with: either the text is too small to read, or you can only see a little piece of the page. The format does not lend itself to web viewing, although the content is terrific.
There is no doubt that I, as a blogger, lack an important data source by not reading the paper every day. USA Today has done some terrific investigative journalism, unique topics and information. Because I pay for that data, attribute it, and adhere to the fair use doctrine, what you read here is likewise enhanced when I use their information for both presentation and additional analysis.
There is also no doubt that media is changing. The MSM is not the monolithic voice of authority that it was a generation ago. But from the pool that follows the president, to the play-by-play sports stats, to the data digging necessary to find out that yes, Virginia, there is BPA in your canned green beans, SOMEONE has to do the raw data collection. Will the Trib newspapers suffer from the lack of the AP? Will the bloggers who do analysis suffer if they lack access to such data? Will it cause the data SOURCES to become even more limited?
I don't know. But like the Trib (albeit on a much smaller scale) I'm trying to weigh the sources that are free against the paid sources to make sure there is maximum benefit for the most reasonable cost.
The Baltimore School System decided to implement a "Meatless Monday" program. It's pretty simple: it means that Monday's entree will be vegetarian. The idea was to cut costs and introduce kids to healthier foods. Yes, honest, vegetarian lasagna is healthier than an "all-meat" hot dog.
Lou Dobbs did a segment on this, and on the day that they were filming the choices were vegetarian chili or grilled cheese with corn, green beans and fruit. He thinks its a "political storm in the making" and his reporter's background source was, wait for it, the American Meat Institute (AMI), who feel this is a denial of choice, and "indoctrination". What is AMI?
AMI is a national trade association that represents companies that process 95 percent of red meat and 70 percent of turkey in the US and their suppliers throughout America.
Here's the thing: is it choice when 21 out of 21 meals a person eats in a week each have meat in them? Sure it is. It's also a choice when 0 of 21 meals have meat in them. Eating a vegetarian diet is certainly not unhealthy, and it certainly is a choice for no meals, one meal or all meals in a week. Another great example of cognitive dissonance.
Still, I want to thank Lou. I hadn't had a grilled cheese sandwich in a long time. So last night for dinner, I panini-pressed Havarti with eggplant, red pepper and basil in Ciabatta. YUM!
Last week, the new Pew poll indicated that there is a disconnect between the stories in which most people are interested and to what the MSM chooses to dedicate air time.
As you can see, more than double the people are interested in health care and H1N1 than in Afghanistan, but it garners a lot more air time.
Before we get there, a few notes on the flu. First, three pigs in Minnesota (now killed) were identified as having H1N1, which means....that really IS "swine flu". NO! you CANNOT get H1N1 from eating pork products.
In addition, CDC is now considering the autumn outbreak to be widespread and epidemic. Vaccines are in short supply, and people, especially under the age of 18, have been dying. The very good news is that the death rate would be much higher except the Australians have been treating with extracorporeal oxygenation, which they believe has halved the mortality rate. (Remember, their seasons are opposite of the Northern Hemisphere, so their apex was earlier this year.)
But back to what news is covered by the MSM. What's truly sad about it is that the MSM tends to have a band wagon mentality, and therefore, what you see on one channel, you see on another. That's not the case with (blogging) internet news/information services and sites. For people who get their news from the internet, the choice is there to go for general news (e.g. CNN) aggregators (e.g. HuffPost) or any of the targeted sites. But if your "news" is the networks, you're missing a lot of what likely matters to you.
As someone who writes on the blogosphere, I can tell you that it's not always easy to decide what to write about, and what to skip. Part of it is that, unlike the MSM or the huge sites, a blogger is normally either one person, or part of a small team. In addition, bloggers generally have actual jobs, and therefore the amount of time which can be dedicated to blogging is far more limited than if it were someone's real job.
Research and writing takes time. Unless you're an aggregator, where all you need to do is post a link with a sentence or two, or if you're an idiot and simply choose to spout off whatever crosses your pretty little head. Therefore, choices are involved. The DCW team receives all sorts of tips through our email address on the left side bar, which we work on as we're able, and we try to promote as many diaries as possible, especially on topics we haven't gotten to yet, or weren't on our collective radar.
We, the DCW team, look forward to when health care is less of a consuming issue, the flu season has ended, and the 2010 elections kick off in earnest. HONEST!
Until then, there are some things that we'd like to cover, but just can't get to, given our time and manpower. If you'd be interested in helping out, please let us know. We're looking for people who can help collect polling data, someone who is willing to commit the time to sort through the Congressional calendars and put up the hearings and votes for the week, and anyone who would like to follow a specific election in their geographic area. If that's you, please drop us a note.
And keep those cards and letters coming in: we love your comments, we love getting your emails. Thank you all for being part of the DCW community.
Last Saturday night, Barack Obama spoke at the Human Rights Campaign dinner, and said that he would repeal DADT. Some people didn't think he went far enough.
That's right. Harwood quoted an anonymous White House source:
For a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn't take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off their pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely-divided country is complicated and difficult.
"My comments quoting an Obama adviser about liberal bloggers/pajamas weren't about the LGBT community or the marchers," he wrote. "They referred more broadly to those grumbling on the left about an array of issues in addition to gay rights, including the war in Afghanistan and health care and Guantanamo -- and whether all that added up to trouble with Obama's liberal base..."
OOOOH!!!! It's so nice to get mentioned by the White House.....even anonymously.
Seriously, in 2007 what got Obama's campaign going was the grassroots: and a lot of that communication was blogging and other new media. I remember reading about a town in Texas. When the Obama campaign arrived, there were already a number of local groups (Women for Obama, Hispanics for Obama, LGBT for Obama) each with a local network of people who knew one another through the internet BECAUSE they supported candidate Obama. Blogging was encouraged to raise money, set up events, and spread the word. Candidate Obama loved the bloggers. Back then, we were a large part of his base.
In an interview with Time Magazine released today, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn offered a blunt assessment of Fox News: "It's opinion journalism masquerading as news," she said. "They are boosting their audience. But that doesn't mean we are going to sit back."
THAT, I understand. In my mind there is a huge difference between Fox, which is an arm of the Republican Party, dedicated to lies and obstruction, and progressive bloggers. We in the latter camp love a lot of what Obama is doing, we just want MORE.
The Federal Trade Commission has come out with new rules affecting bloggers who hawk products and services. You can read the whole rule here, but the bottom line is that if a blogger recommends a product or service, and he/she has been paid to do so, the information must be disclosed. The idea is that it's important for readers to be apprised of any relationship between endorsement and manufacturer/advertiser/etc.
This is good on a number of levels: first, it helps to keep "results not typical" advertisements separate from legitimate reviews of products and services.
The DCW team supports this rule. We would have followed it, but no one has ever given us anything and asked us to endorse it. We have, in the past, noted certain paid and (free) public service advertisements appearing on the sidebars in our posts. That was fine in the past, but we won't be doing after the rule goes into effect on 1 December 2009. For example, on our left side bar is an ad from Health Care for America Now (HCAN). We, the DCW team, support HCAN's actions. They didn't pay me to say that, although they did pay DCW $30 for the ad. And believe me, we don't make money on DCW, the small amount we receive from ads and donations goes for paying for the platform to keep the blog operational and subscriptions we use for data.
And yes, we know that we are not the kind of bloggers targeted by the new FTC rule. It's truly intended for the bloggers who claim independence when pimping a diet where you can lose 50 pounds in 10 days, 5-shades whiter teeth in 5 minutes, and things like that.
Every once in a while, someone comes on to DCW, and uses the diary function to hawk his/her products and/or services. We've always taken those diaries down as soon as we become aware of them, as we do not believe it fits with what we do here, and we will continue to do so. Rule or no rule.
There is a lot to write about today, and I'm having trouble getting a handle on all of it. In some ways, I'm appalled, in other ways, just plain saddened.
Last night, President and Mrs. Obama, along with a host of other luminaries, attended the Kennedy Center Honours. This year's recipients (pictured left to right) are Mel Brooks, Dave Brubeck, Grace Brumbry, Robert De Niro and Bruce Springsteen.
As you can see, more than double the people are interested in health care and H1N1 than in Afghanistan, but it garners a lot more air time. 
