Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KonKilo who wrote (12241)	10/14/2003 9:51:51 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793672

Money Quote: “He who masters the Internet will not only level the playing field, he will also level the opposition,” Another chapter in the saga of the "Rise of the Internet" "The Hill" ________________________________________ October 15, 2003 Grassroots growing fast in cyberspace Web adds pressure on U.S. lawmakers By Klaus Marre “A few of them will get their clocks cleaned in 2004,” said Larry Purpuro, former deputy chief of staff at the Republican National Committee, referring to politicians too unimaginative to adapt to the Internet. The Web already has helped raise millions of dollars in campaign contributions, aided grassroots efforts in legislative battles and is the tool used to build both large and small networks of activists. The big remaining questions are not whether the Internet will change American politics, but who will utilize the new technology best, and when its full impact will become known. Recently, grassroots campaigns have been credited with contributing to Democrats’ prevailing on two issues and setting Congress on a collision course with the White House. Last month the Senate passed a joint resolution of disapproval in an effort to overturn the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) relaxed media ownership rules, an effort spearheaded by Sens. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) by addition, the House and Senate, where Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) led the initiative, have voted on language disapproving the Bush administration’s proposed changes to overtime rules. That was especially significant in the House because earlier this year, lawmakers had voted to retain the Bush administration’s overtime rules. Many credited grassroots campaigning with getting several Republicans to switch their position on the issue to allow a nonbinding motion to instruct the conferees to pass. Wes Boyd, a founder of the grassroots group MoveOn.org, said one of his organization’s greatest successes was its contribution on the Senate vote on the media ownership rules. The vote involved an issue that people normally would not focus on but did when grassroots groups moved it into the spotlight and raised public awareness, he said. Although more times than not the group does not reach its stated goals, such as preventing the war in Iraq, Boyd said MoveOn.org always gets something out of its campaigns. “Win, lose or draw — we get stronger” because public awareness is raised and additional people join the organization, he said. An industry source said organized labor’s grassroots campaign on the overtime vote was aided by the unions’ ability to set up a system in which a union member “only had to hit a button” to send an e-mail opposing the Bush administration’s proposed changes to the overtime regulations. The source added that there is “no question” that the union’s grassroots effort had an effect on the overtime vote in the House because organized labor and other groups managed to flood members’ offices with e-mails and calls. Meanwhile, Purpuro, the architect of the Republican Party’s year 2000 online initiative, the e.GOP Project, said the growing importance of the Internet in politics will be clear in November of next year. “The Web will be revolutionary in this election cycle, but political pros are not as revolutionary in utilizing it,” he said. “Politicians and campaign pros are not known for innovation and risk-taking. Too many dumb politicians are wedded to the old ways [of campaigning].” In 2001, Purpuro was declared one of “25 Who Are Changing the World” of Internet and politics by PoliticsOnline, Harvard University and the American Association of Political Consultants for his work for the RNC. He is also the founder of Web consulting firm Rightclick Strategies. Purpuro’s message to his party this time around is that although Republicans outhustled Democrats online in the 2000 election cycle, the tide has shifted and the Democratic National Committee is “ahead in the game.” Patrick G. Ryan Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) after voting on FCC issues. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Liberal Democratic presidential candidates are “showing a higher level of sophistication” in utilizing the Internet, he said, adding, “Left-of-center organizations are showing more energy, innovation and more strength in numbers.” He cited MoveOn.org, EMILY’s List and gay rights groups as examples. “I can’t think of a group on the right,” Purpuro said, adding, though, that they “have a lot of potential.” Jim Moore, a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, agrees that left-of-center groups are “putting a lot of energy in this and are getting a lot of traction.” Some of this is happening “out of necessity” because Republicans dominate direct mail efforts and talk radio, Moore explained. “The Howard Dean phenomenon should be a wakeup call to all political operatives who think in 2004 it will be business as usual,” Purpuro added. The former Vermont governor began his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in relative obscurity, but his anti-war views and the use of the Internet have helped to propel him to frontrunner status. In the last two fundraising periods, Dean has raised half his contributions online, and his campaign has utilized the Internet to build a growing base of tens of thousands of active volunteers. Moore said the Internet is “changing the culture of political fundraising” by allowing individuals “who never considered making a contribution” to give money. Dean is the main beneficiary so far. While long-established candidates are getting the vast majority of their campaign funding from individuals giving at least $1,000, Dean gets his money from smaller contributions. At the end of the June reporting cycle, President Bush received 69 percent of his funds from those giving the maximum contribution of $2,000, while Dean got less than 10 percent from such large donors. Presidential candidates Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) each received over 70 percent from those giving at least $1,000. MoveOn.org’s Boyd said the political direction of the Internet and the relative success of the organizations using it would be more accurately described as inside/outside rather than left or right of center. He argued that the Internet can capture the “roiling discontent” of those frustrated with current leaders and the political process. As opposed to television and radio, the Internet is not a tool for narrative but rather for conversation, Boyd said, adding that MoveOn.org selects the issues it get involved in by listening to its participants and looking “to where the energy is.” After deciding to become involved in an issue, MoveOn.org, which has 1.7 million participants in the United States, tries to be “civil” and “get people to use their brain,” he said. “If politics at the dinner table means getting screamed at by your uncle,” people will stay away from the process, Boyd said. An effective political campaign includes organization, fundraising and communication, Purpuro argued, stating that “the Web represents the most cost-effective, high-impact tool a campaign can use.” “Howard Dean’s success should erase the doubts from the greatest cynics,” he said. Purpuro calls the Internet “the great equalizer in politics” that propelled Dean from an “asterisk” to a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Dean’s organization has used the Internet “beautifully,” especially by giving people the chance to become actively involved in the campaign, Purpuro said. Dean Campaign Manager Joe Trippi made this year’s list of “25 Who Are Changing the World.” “Advantages of the medium allow for the easy collection of small donations but more importantly the participation of small donors [in the campaign],” Purpuro said. Moore said he believes the Internet is an effective political tool because it gives people the chances to become involved by building activism “from the ground up.” People are not limited to listening and watching, as in radio or television, Moore said, but also can communicate with others and take action, such as attending or staging political events or donating money. The impact of the Web is not limited to Dean’s campaign and will be evident in the election, Purpuro said. “Web-driven Davids will take down well-funded Goliaths,” he predicts. Boyd also said the Internet is most valuable in political campaigning when not seen as just another source for money. “Leaders … need to see the Internet as a way to engage people,” he said. Boyd argued that the Internet would help candidates tap into small donors online and said he hopes that groups such as MoveOn.org would “decrease the importance of ‘big money’ [in the political process].” One of the events that led to a surge in support for Dean was his placing first in a MoveOn.org online primary. Tens of thousands of MoveOn.org participants allowed the organization to pass on their contact information to the campaigns. Boyd said the possibility of retaining people’s contact information is one thing that sets the Internet apart from other forms of grassroots activism. “At an antiwar march, at the end of the day everybody goes home” but the organizers do not get everybody’s address. The Internet, however, enables organizers to mobilize large numbers of people instantly in the future, he said. AFL-CIO Legislative Director Bill Samuel said MoveOn.org began a new kind of grassroots movement that complements union efforts. Samuel said organized labor had been effective in get-out-the-vote efforts in election fights but had not done as well in legislative battles. He credits groups such as MoveOn.org with having helped to change lawmakers’ minds on the overtime issue. The industry source who commented on the overtime vote said more people now get involved than before because it takes less effort to send a form e-mail to Congress. “In the old days, a businessman or a worker had to write a letter, which took much more time,” the source said, adding that in the future, “a written letter will mean much more.” Dennis Johnson, associate dean of the Graduate School of Political Management at George Washington University, agreed, saying that one problem faced by those launching online grassroots campaigns is that e-mail does not have as much weight in congressional offices as letters do. He said it is “a lot cheaper to mobilize people faster” through the Web. However, Johnson said that once everybody is using the Internet as a tool for grassroots operations “it will dull the impact” of each campaign. Although Johnson said that the importance of the Internet on politics will increase, he called the impact of MoveOn.org’s involvement in the overtime vote “relatively minor,” adding, “MoveOn was not the reason” for how the vote turned out. Johnson, the principal investigator for the Congress Online Project, which analyzes congressional websites, said that to be most effective, the Internet has to be used as “one of many tools.” Johnson argued that merely sending out thousands of e-mails would not equal an effective grassroots campaign. He believes a good understanding of politics has to be a staple for successful Internet lobbying campaigns. “Strength in numbers and getting the right message out at the right time to the right member” is important to succeed but tricky to accomplish, Johnson said. However, Purpuro said times are changing and lobbyists will have to adapt to the tools of a new generation, adding that e-mail could replace the personal contacts lobbyists currently tout. “Eighty-five percent of Hill staffers are under 35, and they are online all the time,” he said. Further evidence of the importance of the Internet in politics is that lawmakers are making more use of the medium and becoming more skillful at it, Johnson said. In its second year of analyzing congressional homepages, the Congress Online Project identified more good websites than it had the year before. He added that currently House Republicans and Senate Democrats are doing a better job with their websites than their respective counterparts. However, challengers may be doing an even better job with the Internet as they build their own grassroots campaigns to unseat incumbents. Many experts say there will be a watershed moment in the future that will show how powerful the Internet has become. While they do not want to predict when this day will come, it could be Nov. 2, 2004 — Election Day. “He who masters the Internet will not only level the playing field, he will also level the opposition,” Purpuro said.

To: KonKilo who wrote (12241)	10/15/2003 2:04:45 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793672

Good article on Fox News. If I watch anything on cable, it tends to be MSNBC. "Press Think" ____________________________________ Notes on the Creature Called Fox A reader asks: What if we see a shift to a more riotous and partisan press? So I opened my notebook and flipped to Fox. Tom Mangan, who has an elegant weblog for editors, wrote to me: One for your “what’s really happening” file: we’re seeing a return to the partisan press of previous eras— Fox News being the most obvious example. Talk radio has become the de facto voice of the GOP, with a few exceptions. The right, of course, accuses us (meaning, the mainstream press and the TV networks) of being the de facto voice of the left, which they know to be untrue but it’s a useful lie that provides them an ideological rival and an excuse when their ideas can’t get traction. Somehow the non-partisan press needs to find a way through this new maze, and the last 50 years haven’t provided many clues on where to go, what to do, in this new era of partisan media. The image that stuck in my mind was “the maze” that old-school journalists find before them, according to Tom. Except that I pictured it as an amusement park too. Over the main gates is the zooming, screaming Fox News Channel logo, and beyond that are scattered portals through which we are to enter the new maze for news. Through one tunnel, marked Opinion! in fat letters, thousands of people stream, chattering in anticipation of what they will find. Another tunnel just says Talk, and it has equal traffic. Through another, called Fair and Balanced, an even bigger crowd shuffles, shouting “fair and balanced,” their happy taunt. We Report, You Decide takes the overflow. Liberal Media with a big thumb pointing downward is also a popular way in. The crowds there seem the edgiest. Around a corner is Pretty Plastic Blondes Read the News with modest but steady traffic. And over there, the eye cannot miss the O’Reilly Factor entrance, with a billboard-sized head shot marking the spot where thousands a minute find their way. But an almost equal number hustle through No Spin Zone, O’Reilly’s other door. Turn around and the Sean Hannity entry way is almost as large— and there he is on the screen above, Frat Boy Conservative, smiling and cocky, young and fit, earphones on, mike ready, welcoming you to his house of news. Tom Mangan, American editor, sees something at least a little like that stretching before him. He finds no entrance marked, “Good, Solid, Nonpartisan, Daily Journalism.” And yet signs around him say that from this maze Americans are to one day get their news. His question: What if the signs are right? What if we do see a shift to a more riotous and partisan press? (Forecast by James Fallows, among others.) For the remaining nonpartisan, newsgathering, shoe-leather journalism corps, is there a way into and out of this maze? It’s not clear. “And the last 50 years haven’t provided many clues,” writes Mangan, with a sense of alarm. Liberal Complacency Here is what I think, Tom. The most significant recent event in the political economy of national news has been the rise of Fox. Before Fox entered the game, there was an under-served market for news that departed from the consensus model. That model is still in place, with some variation, across PBS, CBS, the three NBC News properies, ABC, and CNN, as well as NPR in radio. The consensus in broadcast grew out of a similar one in newspapers and the newsweeklies. Mangan calls it nonpartisan reporting. I would call it neutral professionalism, with an asterisk* for everything about it that is not so neutral. Fox and others just call it the liberal media. This “other” market was not at all a secret. It had been proven by the political power of talk radio, the success of the Regnery publishing house, and many other like developments at the intersections of politics and media since the 1980s— a time when “unseat the liberal media” became a populist cry, not just in media but in politics. (Eric Alterman’s book is the best guide to these developments.) Along comes Rupert Murdoch, risk taking billionaire and globalist, who had succeeded before in going from zero to sixty with Fox and the NFL. He and his team spot complacency in the other networks. The executives and journalists working in the consensus model thought alike: people need national news from their television sets and we are it— the benchmark for quality, the definition of how it’s done. To which Fox said: oh yeah? We’ll see. And we did. Comes September 11th, and the market opening Fox had glimpsed—the news in a more exciting, even dangerous key—grew into something like the national mood, although this is impossible to separate from the projection of mood by news providers and politicians speaking through them to us. Combined with a good range of on-air talent, decent quality production, a hustlling, underdog mindset, a lower budget and fewer bodies (which forced innovation), and at least one national star—Bill O’Reilly—to put a face on Fox, plus the brand’s natural strengths in hype (take the ratio at CNN of pretty blondes chosen to read the news and double it), plus the war in Iraq with all the viewers there to be won… and, wow, Fox, at a fraction of the size of CNN overtakes CNN and leaves MSNBC way back— in the ratings. That’s zero to sixty for Murdoch. Twice. Like a Political Campaign But unlike the NFL, where Fox, the newcomer, had to show it could match what NBC, CBS and ABC had defined as “sports television,” (hiring John Madden did that) in the domain of news Fox decided not to match but to redefine what network news could be. With the NFL, you can’t go out and find better players to televise. So Murdoch payed big for the rights. With news, what’s to stop you from getting your own players and putting on a different show? This is where Roger Ailes, chairman of Fox News Channel, a man with a background in political campaigns, had a notion. It was indistinguishable from his suspicion that the consensus model in the press was weakly defended. As a political consultant Ailes had worked for Nixon, Reagan and the elder Bush. He thought there was a winnable audience there for news in a different political key. And he put his sense of the under-served market together with his knowledge of how winning coalitions are made, plus his familiarity with the mind of mainstream journalism (from having to manuever around the political press on behalf of his clients) to give birth to the Fox way. Ailes tried literally to unseat the liberal media by a.) not hiring it, and b.) preying on every weakness he could find. Like you would in a political campaign. For the bored, more excitement. (This was his biggest gambit.) For angry conservatives, angry conservatives. For nonideological audiences fed up with liberal sanctimony, less liberal sanctimony. For those weary of political correctness, almost none. For news hounds, some— enough news to stick around for the fireworks. For men, blondes. For Republican women, Britt Hume. For zappers, a faster pace. For nodders, music a touch louder and graphics a touch grabbier. For nativists, nativism. For the paranoid, a message: no, you’re not crazy. For the opinionated, lots of people who are opinionated. For Amercans, the flag. For the red states, a red state news source. For the kids who watch Jon Stewart, something at least continuous with the spectrum of smirk. For talk radio’s legions, a similar environment in video. For people interested in ideas, more people with license to spout ideas. For the Bush White House, a friendly forum. For the occasional guest from NPR, a chance to feel outnumbered. For liberals, news that is no more intolerable than CNN is for conservatives. (Yes, liberals watch Fox too.) And for the tabloid mind in all of us, the tabloid mind over news. The Rhetorical Manuever This isn’t even a full list of agenda items Ailes & Company worked out. And it leaves out the most confusing item of all, a rhetorical manuever he found to frustrate press think and its aging consenus model. In redefining the genre, national news, and changing around what scholars call existing professional norms, Ailes made a crucial decision. And that was to publicly describe his creation—indeed, order Fox to hype it—as nothing more than neutral professionalism, the very standard from which he had creatively departed. Officially, which means the public face presented to the world, Fox stood for news that is “fair and balanced,” dedicated to accuracy, openness and truth, presented without fear or favor, a disciplined no-spin zone, a space free of ideology, non-partisan, friendly to no side in the culture wars, and most of all…. finally free of bias: Fox News Channel is “not a conservative network!” roars Fox News Channel chairman Ailes. “I absolutely, totally deny it. . . . The fact is that Rupert and I and, by the way, the vast majority of the American people, believe that most of the news tilts to the left,” he says. Fox’s mission is “to provide a little more balance to the news” and “to go cover some stories that the mainstream media won’t cover.” — Brill’s Content (Oct. 1999) Appreciate this, Tom. First Ailes moved away from the consensus model, which made Fox seem exciting and different. Then he took its entire language of legitimacy with him— and that seemed exciting and different. Ailes and Murdoch just started speaking the other side’s consensus language, daring the press tribe to challenge their words. Ailes knew this would set off a war of definitions, and it did. He wanted that war to come. Why? I said it earlier. He had contempt for the complacency—liberal complacency—on the other side, those well fed professionals who believed… “we’re it, the benchmark for quality, the definition of how it’s done.” They had stopped listening, and the country was changing. The press to Roger Ailes is like an incumbent in office too long. Ailes is an ironist, like all great media manipulators. The Fox News slogan, Fair and Balanced, has always been ironic because it is meant to say: “Ha! We’re the conservative alternative and yet more fair, more balanced than ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSBNC, Newsweek, the Washington Post and the holy New York Times, where—in a delusion that’s had its day—they claim to have no ideology at all! So we’ll claim to have no ideology at all, too. That will drive them nuts.” And you know, Tom, I think it did. The Paranoid Style in News The creature that is Fox News, including the O’Reilly factor, is way more complicated, more interconnected with other things going down (like right wing populism generally, the rise of opinion journalism generally), and more interesting—even fantastical—than most in the chattering classes seem to think. I am amazed at how easily some writers and controversialists come to an opinion about what Fox is and is doing. I don’t have an opinion, I have a maze of them. And don’t forget, Murdoch has Sky Channel. He’s global. Are you? Meanwhile, O’Reilly is moving week by week into Huey Long territory, perfecting the paranoid style in news commentary and intra-show controversy. About his brutal spat with Terry Gross, host of Fresh Air on NPR: “The far left has a jihad against Fox News Channel, and I’m pretty much the standard-bearer,” O’Reilly said. “They don’t like the fact that I’m powerful and that I speak my mind.” James Fallows had predicted it: “Sooner or later Murdoch’s outlets, especially Fox News, will be more straightforward about their political identity—and they are likely to bring the rest of the press with them.” Could be sooner, Jim. According to the Oct. 14th account by reporter Michael Klein of the Philadelphia Inquirer, “O’Reilly acknowledges that Fox News is right of center.” As far as I know, (the weblog world can correct me) that is a first. Rhetorically speaking, big news. I emailed Klein and he said he didn’t have the quote, but he definitely asked, and O’Reilly answered as written. Things get stranger if this is so. journalism.nyu.edu