Craigslist vs CNN

The people at Craigslist are in a pissing match with CNN over its ambush interview of Craig Newmark a couple of months ago.

It's worth reading. CNN ought to be glad it doesn't depend on classified ads.

I Give 'Em an F

No, I'm not picking on CNN because this could happen anywhere that doesn't have enough editors or value them enough to make sure they get a couple of looks at everything before it gets published.

H/t Charles Apple and Susan Schrock.

Not Always a Mob

Several years ago, when I took a voluntary, sidetrip out of newspapering for a year, all sorts of opportunities arose to get involved in social causes which I'd not pursued previously. One was a day spent at an anti-Klan rally in Connecticut, where some ugly little dweebs had proclaimed the state open to their racist "thinking" but a whole bunch of Nutmeggers were not inclined to agree.

Quite a mix of people attending this rally, which was called to confront the dweebs who were promising to burn a cross or some other hateful act. Some members of the crowd were extreme activists against racism on a global level; others were liberals or just Connecticut residents who didn't want these characters around. A lot of people seemed to think that their presence would scare away the half dozen dweebs.

We were all trudging up the hill where people were supposed to make speeches, sign up for various projects, etc. Suddenly, mixed in the crowd were three guys who were dressed a little differently, in overalls, plaid shirts, etc. Someone decided these three were the Klan guys and, in a flash, many in the group went from crowd to mob, knocking the guys down and pounding on them until several others were able to rescue them and identify them as anti-Klan people. The rush of something--adrenaline, rage, animal behavior--was instantaneous, physical, which swept through the crowd. You could see it on people's faces even as we felt the sensations, though, luckily, not all of us participated in the violence. It was shocking, to say the least.

Why does this matter? Because too many in the media are proclaiming the crowds that overran the Wal-Mart worker and trampled him to death last week were animals, a mob that needs to be punished. No doubt, many people behaved badly. Maybe more security would have helped.

But there are a couple of bigger issues here.

One is that people often don't behave themselves in crowds. They act with and as others do, driven on by the prevailing emotions. I'm commuting now and have been regularly surprised at how often a minor fracas can break out and civility break down, even as the basic system works just fine.

The second is the underlying issue of whether this whole Shopping as Holiday Tradition idea is a good one and whether we, in the media, should continue to encourage it. And we do. On many news sites and TV reports were expressions of shock at what happened at the Long Island Wal-Mart, alternating with shots of happy, fired-up people rushing pell-mell into other stores. Our endless emphasis on the importance of Black Friday to the overall economy has, I suspect, ramped up the pressure on consumers who think they have to grab any and every bargain. It's taken years to get us to stop incorrectly saying that Black Friday is the biggest shopping day of the year. I wonder how long it will take us to stop sending photographers off to produce slideshows of enthralled and desperate shoppers looking for ridiculously discounted merchandise.

I confess to, for the first time ever, having succumbed and participated in our own little holiday shopping extravaganza this year. Teenager and I went late Thursday to stand, calmly, in lines outside the Juicy Couture store at a new outlet center near us. (OK, PacSun, Old Navy and a couple of others, too.) If it had been a mob scene, we would have departed. And I'm certainly not going to do it again because I'm basically opposed to the whole concept; we did it partly out of boredom, partly out of the idea of Event because that's what Teenager is into these days, and partly to find a decent, though not insane, bargain. All reasons that others cite, I realize, and which, deep down, I oppose, but found myself lured into this year because who knows what our own and the country's economic situation will be two months from now.

The word "mob" came up in a different context this weekend, when several news sites began reporting on a chaotic crowd swirled around a CNN reporter. A number of my favorite blogs posted this video but the comments quickly began criticizing the reporter. She may or may not have made a mistake in some of her reporting, as some blog commenters charged and blaming her for the crowd's behavior, but at any rate, I found myself frightened for her while watching the tape. A group, understandably emotionally charged up but that shifts so quickly is dangerous; if they were indeed drinking, so much the worse. The commenters who decided she'd made an error and that's what the crowd was reacting to weren't paying attention. But, decide for yourself.

Ruling the World

The Nation reports on the dominance of white men in the pundit world. Have I mentioned how much I hate the word "pundit" especially when it's mispronounced as "pundint"?

It's still all about the white men. Hillary Clinton's loss has renewed critiques that American political media is slanted, sexist and dominated by men. While Clinton and Obama broke barriers in the Democratic primary, swiftly dispatching white male Senators with more government experience, the race was still refereed, scored and narrated by white male commentators, an influential constituency in presidential politics. Pundits talked a lot about gender and racial progress during the campaign, of course, but the elite opinion media continues to employ, groom and promote a commentators corps that is disproportionately white and male.

The most traditional location to reach the political establishment, the Washington Post opinion section, is brazenly male-dominated. Seventeen of the 19 columnists are men; only three of the columnists are racial minorities. Guest op-eds could present more voices, but they rarely do. This year, only 12 percent of the Post's guest pieces came from women, according to a May count by ombudsman Deborah Howell. At the New York Times, eight of the ten weekly columnists are men; one is black. (The Times also recently created a bimonthly graphics column, a post filled by a black commentator.) And in an industry review last year, about one out of four columnists were women at the largest syndicates around the country, according to Editor and Publisher. As Times columnist Nick Kristoff lamented last month, even as reporting staffs diversify, white men dominate American punditry "from newspaper columnists to television talking heads."

Numbers like this allow stuff like this:

CNN Cracks Down

This is interesting--given the marriages/revolving door between government, corporations and media talking-heads jobs, it's probably pretty well near impossible to find people who don't have connections to someone. Good for CNN for dropping these guys but there are a lot more who are problematic. I'm not sure I'd be able to tell the difference between someone appearing as an analyst one minute and a campaign "surrogate" the next. And how would you identify or clarify someone like Pat Buchanan? Or his sister? Or Mary Matalin? Or Joe Scarborough, former Republican congressman now functioning as an MSNBC commentator? The list is endless.

(TPM) Exclusive: After Obama Complaints, CNN Bans James Carville And Paul Begala From Appearing As Analysts Until Dem Primary Is Settled
January 24, 2008 -- 7:11 PM EST // //
Okay, this is interesting. I've just learned that CNN has told top Dem strategists James Carville, Paul Begala, and Robert Zimmerman -- who are CNN mainstays but are all Hillary supporters -- that they will not be doing any more political analysis on the network until the Democratic primary has reached a conclusion.

I'm also told that this move came after the Obama campaign repeatedly complained to high level officials at CNN about the presence of Carville and Begala on the network.
After I reached him today and pointed out that he hadn't been on CNN in some time, Carville confirmed to me that the network had told him that he wouldn't appear until the Dem primary is resolved.
Sam Feist, CNN's political director, also confirmed the decision to me. "As we got closer to the voting, we made a decision to make sure that all the analysts that are on are non-aligned," Feist said, adding that the decision had been made around the start of December. "Carville and Begala are two of the best analysts around and we look forward to seeing them on CNN plenty of times in the future, once the nominating process has ended."


Feist pointed out that a few other analysts aligned with campaign had been told the same, and added that aligned analysts would only be appearing in contexts where they were acting as campaign surrogates. Carville did appear on Larry King on Jan. 9 as a surrogate.

No More Nice Words for CNN

Here's a thought: words matter. CNN just called Moveon.org "insurgents." Here's how the word is defined.

1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.
2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.
–adjective
3. of or characteristic of an insurgent or insurgents.
4. surging or rushing in: The insurgent waves battered the shore.

Iowa Explained

I like to beat up on cable news operations for their nonsense, but today CNN is running a Jeff Toobin piece called Iowa Caucus 101, explaining the arcane system, that's pretty good. Catch it if you can if you want to know what's going on out there. It underscores the silliness over all the oohing and ahhing over every blip in the polls.

Getting It Right

Why precision matters.

Here's what CNN says, on screen and on a voiceover, in reporting on the Supreme Court decision to take up a Second Amendment case:

"A well regulated Militia.." and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Except the reporter said it as one piece, as if militia and people were two separate groups, tied together by CNN's "and" and both were granted the right to bear arms.

The structure of the sentence has always been problematic, particularly because of the commas. But CNN just gave the wrong idea.

Here's what the amendment says:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Dobbs and the Race (Not Race)

If the stories floating around the Web tonight are true, that Lou Dobbs is seriously thinking about jumping into the presidential race, should CNN allow him to continue his program where, every night, he hammers politicians he disagrees with? For hours?

I realize there's no Fairness Doctrine and it probably wouldn't have applied to cable, but still. Dobbs, I think, has singlehandedly put immigration at the top of some voters' lists.

Here's a link to a link about the Dobbs story. After months of listening to him, it's fair to say that I think he's created a movement. Yes, there were certainly many people opposed to illegal immigration, amnesty and a lot of related matters, but when he's on the air, calling Gov. Spitzer an idiot--and that's the word he used--it seems to me he's moved from simple commentary on to promoting a specific agenda.

And I really wish some of these talk shows would stop distorting the facts and persuade us honestly. I don't mean just Dobbs, by any means. But all we're getting now is blather.