I searched and found only a brief comment on this, but I think it needs more attention. Anyone aware of a 'new media' convention happening in Austin this weekend?

•    Detention Watch Network has created a new interactive map that is now accessible on their website.  The map is a comprehensive tracking system that allows users to view the locations of detention centers, community organizations, ICE offices and immigration courts across the United States.

Fireworks on the 4th of July always make me cry. I'm not affraid to say it. There's something about it, all the senses are activated as an idea--what once was the dream of a few revolutionaires--plays itself out in vivid colors and exsplosive bursts right before you.

Every week, the explosive equivalent of one Hiroshima sized bomb is detonated in Appalachia. Entire mountains are removed, and valleys filled in, in a barbaric form of coal extraction called mountaintop removal.

America is only now hearing the stories of hope and horror, of flash flooding and families, and the growing resistance to the status quo in the heart of America's oldest mountains.

Appalachian Voices and iLoveMountains.org are helping to spear-head an effort to stop mountaintop removal by working with small local blogs from around the country, the success of which is based on the participation of the blogging community and of new journalists like YOU. To supplement the organizing going on in the coalfields, we have instituted the "Bloggers Challenge."

Einstein said that in the middle of every difficulty lies opportunity.  Would it be that the e=mc2 guy would have been in the midst of my week's converging opportunities, the only difficulty he'd have would be sifting through all the options converging in one kismetuous explosion of possibility called the Personal Democracy Forum (Pdf 2008: Rebooting The System,) brought to you by the people at personaldemocracy.com.

In a recent first, the Personal Democracy Forum held a "Twitter Debate" between Obama and McCain surrogates. The PdF is a really interesting collection of people from various backgrounds, who jointly hope to promote, understand, and evolve technology in democratic uses.

The moderator of this debate was none other that Wonkette Emeritus herself, Ana Marie Cox. The surrogates in question were RNC Director of Communications, Liz Mair and Michael Nelson, Clinton's Director for Technology Policy at the Federal Communications Commission, IBMer, and Visiting Professor of Communication, Culture, and Technology at Georgetown University.

In this week's issue of TIME magazine, arriving in print and online tomorrow, columnist James Poniewozik uses the passing of Tim Russert to highlight the decline of the Old Media and the rise of the New Media, described as  "bloggers and YouTubers: a diffuse army of the uncredentialed, uninhibited and - most terrifyingly - unpaid.  In Russert, the press lost its most authoritative mass-market journalist, just as it is losing its authority and its mass market."

Poniewozik  explains: "It's too simple to say that the new media are killing off the old media.  ...What's happening instead is a kind of melding of roles.  Old and new media are still symbiotic, but it's getting hard to tell who's the rhino and who's the tickbird."

So, rhino or tickbird, hear this: He goes on to cite a DailyKos "scoop" this week in his evidence of the trend.

If one chooses to listen to Bill Moyer's address to the National Conference for Media Reform, the message is clear to all who will digest it - the media and press are at a critical crossroads. Like David and Goliath in the Valley of Elah, what will be our "stone" that challenges and reforms the corporate control of our airwaves and print news?

My sincere opinion, for what it is worth, is for us to unite, develop, and launch a mainstream alternative cable news network.  Grand and unattainable as it may seem, one must believe that new, true voices of reporting can reach the masses.  Is it possible, I believe it can be done!

A month ago today, I wrote about John McCain's YouTube problem. New media tools allow ordinary Americans to fact-check his factless speeches and to compare the "new" McCain to the "old" McCain":

McCain's Achilles' heel has always been his policy oscillations.  His limber "principles" allow him to sweep from one side of an issue to another; they are generally lauded as badges of maverickness in the press and recognized by the reality-based community  largely as panderiffic moments of Washington as usual. And until now, because the traditional media has refused to properly cover these flip-flops and distortions, McCain has been able to get away with saying one thing and doing another, or voting one way and soon thereafter voting another. But how will the real McCain -- whiplash policy McCain -- play out in 2008, where video and blogs will be able to juxtapose his stances and statements in such a manner that shatters the myth of McCain as an "honest broker"?

If there were any question, yesterday's speech in New Orleans makes clear that McCain has another YouTube problem. In the digital era, Americans turn to the internet to receive information about their candidates.  It's not enough to have a nice little soundbite quoted in the press.  No, the modern voter has the ability to seek out context and primary sources.

So no matter how good Harold Ford may think McCain's speech was yesteday, no matter how sharp a line may be when quoted in the morning papers, the fact remains that the unfiltered McCain is painful to watch on video.  He's awkward, like a teenage boy forced to take ballroom dancing classes because his mom is obsessed with Dancing with the Stars.  He's condescending, as if he were born with the egos of a thousand Friedmans. He's smug, like the kiss-ass co-worker who crows about how much the boss loves him.  And he's downright boring, with the exception of when he allows himself to raise his voice and pound his fist, and then we have before us all the captivating sound and fury of a sparking and walking wind-up godzilla toy.

Perhaps that explains why the McCain camp is so slow (reluctant?) to include videos of the candidate's speeches on his website. If you headed to johnmccain.com to check out his speech, you're encouraged to "READ THE SPEECH." Click on "speeches" and you're greeting with a bland page of links, linking you to -- you guessed it -- the text of his speeches. His "multimedia" page is filled with his ads (which, for the most part, spare us the agony of having McCain speaking on the screen for more than a few seconds at a time).  

Contrast this with Barack Obama, who has available on his website for every voter to see every major speech he has made (including yesterday's).

The internet is a visual medium, and as voters increasingly turn to that medium to help them make their choice in the fall, McCain's other YouTube problem will become a liability.  Because no matter how much his campaign tries to avoid making available video of his speeches or tries to creatively edit them so McCain doesn't look like the William Hung of Political Idol, if there's a YouTube, there's a way for American voters to see the real McCain in all his stilted glory.

Hey Kossacks!  I just wanted to say thank you for all the helpful feedback on the research essay I posted the other day.  It was extremely long—much too long, frankly—but a lot of Sunday afternoon readers made their way through it and posted some really insightful comments.  I'll be back at the drawing board for the next few days putting their suggestions into practice as I continue with my research, and then off on a conference trip over the weekend.

As soon as I get the chance, though, I'll start rewriting that ginormous essay into a series of easily readable chunks, per a valuable suggestion by Demi Moaned and iampunha.  I won't simply repost—I know that's frowned upon and it's kind of useless for everyone.  I'll rework stuff to incorporate the ideas that were shared, and you can also look forward to me dropping pretentious and borderline-unreadable phrasing like mutatis mutandis.

More info and some fun links after the jump. :)

In addition to being a vibrant community, Daily Kos also lays claim to being a news outlet.  It's a valid claim.  Lots of people get their news from this site, both from its front page and its myriad user diaries.  So, as a communication researcher, I think it's worth looking at similarities and differences in how the traditional news media, and online political communities like Daily Kos, represent the world.

I've been a reporter, and I'm an enthusiast when it comes to the present and potential value of alternative and new media.  I'd love to shoot the breeze about my personal experiences, and we can.  But, as I'm working toward a masters thesis, I'll focus below on how these media are represented in the academic literature.  Let me start by talking about the traditional news media, then move on to new media and Daily Kos.  Finally, I'll wrap up with a bit about my study and a few hypotheses.

A note to prospective readers: This is a rather lengthy essay.  I apologize in advance for my long-windedness.  I wanted anyone's who's interested to have all the details.

In the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., "Rarely do we find men who engage in hard, solid thinking.  There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions.  Nothing pains some people more than having to think."

Moyers has always been both willing to think and unwilling to simplify, which I suppose is why he wound up in public broadcasting.  But the reason he finds such a follower in me has more to do with his message than his mode.

Follow me below for more:

John McCain has a YouTube problem.

The Republican candidate who is hailed by the press as a "maverick" has benefited greatly from the media's adoration (Chris Matthews once famously said "The press loves McCain. We're his base, I think.").  Wooed with BBQs and bus trips, members of the press have largely given "St. McCain" a free ride (as an aside: see SusanG's excellent book review of "Free Ride" here).

With a handful of exceptions, many members of the press refuse to hold McCain to the standards against which the Democratic candidates are being measured.  Accordingly, McCain has galloped by stumbles that may have doomed any other candidate: confusing Shiite (Iran) and Sunni (al Qaeda), not knowing whether contraceptives prevent the spread of HIV ("you've stumped me"), etc.  

But this is 2008, not 2000, and while McCain's oh-so-cozy relationship with the press means he can continue to avoid the glaring scrutiny which other candidates must endure, today's voters need not rely on the well-fed and well-pandered press corp to know the real John McCain.

From blogs to YouTube to every nook and cranny of the internet between, voters today are more skeptical of the press and more likely to rely on the internet for information than ever before.  We've seen how the tools of the new digital era can augment media narratives (see Clinton, Bosnia, & YouTube) and how they can provide context to other narratives (see Obama, Wright, and a speech on race with 4.4 million views).

Will these modern digital tools be able to affect -- or counteract against -- the St. McCain narrative?

McCain's Achilles' heel has always been his policy oscillations.  His limber "principles" allow him to sweep from one side of an issue to another; they are generally lauded as badges of maverickness in the press and recognized by the reality-based community  largely as panderiffic moments of Washington as usual. And until now, because the traditional media has refused to properly cover these flip-flops and distortions, McCain has been able to get away with saying one thing and doing another, or voting one way and soon thereafter voting another. But how will the real McCain -- whiplash policy McCain -- play out in 2008, where video and blogs will be able to juxtapose his stances and statements in such a manner that shatters the myth of McCain as an "honest broker"?

In this modern election era, for example, how will the following play out?

On how safe it is in Iraq:

Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told CNN that that President Bush’s escalation in Iraq is going so well, "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee." On Monday, he told radio host Bill Bennett that there "are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today."

This morning, during an interview with McCain, CNN’s John Roberts rebutted McCain’s assertions, stating, "I checked with General Petraeus’s people overnight and they said he never goes out in anything less than an up-armored humvee." He added that a new report by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey "said no Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat reporter could walk the streets of Baghdad without heavily armed protection."

Faced with overwhelming evidence that he was wrong, McCain denied he’d ever said it: "Well, I’m not saying they could go without protection. The President goes around America with protection. So, certainly I didn’t say that."

On the possibility of tearing down the Ninth Ward:

McCain said he didn’t know what his plans would be. "That’s why we need to go back," he said, "to have a conversation about what to do about it. Rebuild it? Tear it down? Ya know, whatever it is."

From North Carolina, Clinton seized the opportunity to attack. "Sen. McCain said he might want to tear down the Ninth Ward instead of rebuilding it," she said. "But I went to the Ninth Ward after Katrina and met with people there and saw the destruction and I saw the resilience in their eyes and they deserve our help to rebuild and regain their lives and their homes."

Steve Schmidt, a senior McCain aide, said Clinton’s attack was "inaccurate." "Sen. McCain has said the levees must be strengthened on time so people can make a decision on whether to return based on safety," he said, adding that he would like to see a "safe, vibrant community emerge" after the appropriate flood plan.

Even before Clinton made her comments, McCain had been asked to clarify. "I don’t remember ever saying it," he said Thursday afternoon on his way from Xavier University to the New Orleans airport.

On economics:

   RUSSERT: Senator McCain, you have said repeatedly, "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." Is it a problem for your campaign that the economy is now the most important issue, one that, by your own acknowledgement, you're not well-versed on?

   McCAIN: Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from. I'm very well-versed in economics.

On Saddam Hussein:

ROUND 1: Do you think Saddam is a threat?

"I believe that Saddam Hussein presents clear and present danger to the United States of America with his continued pursuit of...to acquire weapons of mass destruction." [CNN Late Edition, 3/3/02]

"I never said that it was a, quote, clear and present danger because of weapons of mass destruction." [Hardball, 9/17/03]

On Samuel Alito:

As John McCain neared his momentous primary election victory in Florida after a ferocious campaign questioning his conservative credentials, right-wingers buzzed over word that he had privately suggested that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was too conservative. In response, McCain said he recalled saying no such thing and added that Alito was a "magnificent" choice. In fact, multiple sources confirm that the senator made negative comments about Alito nine months ago [...]

In a conference call with bloggers that day, McCain said, "I don't recall a conversation where I would have said that." He was "astonished" by the Alito quote, he said, and he repeatedly says at town meetings, "We're going to have justices like Roberts and Alito."

The above is just a smattering of the materials available online which expose the real McCain -- the McCain who takes a position, then forgets taking said position, or denies taking said position, creating his own convenient reality along the way.  And when McCain's words are set against McCain's words online -- as they are, for example, in this YouTube video, or this one, or this one -- the effect is devastating.

McCain has enjoyed success thus far by courting the traditional media.  It is a tried and true model for him.  But the new media tools of 2008 pose a minefield for journalists' favorite "maverick." After all, unlike with members of the press, it's hard to get millions of YouTube viewers or thousands of blog readers to eat out of your hands.  

For over a decade, McCain has been able to craft the image of a moderate, independent guy by controlling the media environment around him.  When that control is non-existent online, when ordinary citizens are each armed with their own tools to tarnish McCain's shining armor, that's when the real McCain will be exposed.  

It remains to be seen whether truth ferreted out online will be able to impact the way an adoring press covers McCain's candidacy.  Will McCain's candidacy -- which thrives because of an obedient traditional media -- will be able to survive the rigors of campaigning in the digital era?

This quote is a few days old now, but I've been mulling it over a bit, and I think there's a lot more in it than just another opportunity to examine the extent of Joe Lieberman's suckitude.

The depth of Mr. Lieberman’s alienation stuns many politicians and scholars. "It’s one thing to have a principled position on an issue at odds with that of your party," said Thomas E. Mann, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution. "It’s another to become the champion of the other party’s nominee in a presidential election."

There is much speculation that the Democrats will run Mr. Lieberman out of their caucus (he now sits with Democrats and votes with them on most issues not related to the war) if they widen their margin in the Senate after the November elections. But Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Democratic leader, has pledged that he would not disown Mr. Lieberman under those circumstances and said he considered him a good friend.

A member of the Senate Democratic leadership, who insisted on not being identified, said: "The bloggers want us to get rid of him. It ain’t happening." He added: "We need every vote. He’s with us on everything but the war."

For most Democrats, however, that’s a pretty big "but."

Two things. One, "the bloggers."

Here's my rule -- and you can take it or leave it -- on referring to "the bloggers." You must keep in mind that blogs are communications tools, and that the people who use them aren't some new species from outer space. People who use blogs to communicate about politics are saying exactly the same things that they used to say, and that other people still say, to each other over the telephone, at the office water cooler, and over long lunches. This is just the first time that politicians and media types have ever had access to those conversations, because the tool we use puts them out there for them to see. (Yes, we are granting the media access to the minds of the voters. Where's the gratitude and groveling that politicians get when they grant access?)

So the bottom line is this: bloggers are just people who leave "paper" trails of their thoughts. If you have something to say about "the bloggers," try this simple exercise first to see if you might be talking out your ass: Substitute the word "telephone" for "blog." If your sentence still makes sense, you're onto something. If not, you're talking shit.

"The telephoners want us to get rid of him."

Well, that sounds a little dumb, really. But in this particular case, Senator Schumer Anonymous is probably onto something. Democrats who own or use telephones really do want to get rid of Lieberman, and in large numbers.

So that would be something of a confusing example. Yet it both makes a strong point and hews closely to the rule.

Thing two, and this is the big one:

"He's with us on everything but the war."

Yes, it's a pretty big "but." Here's another one, and obviously it's entirely attributable to his position on the war, but here it is: He's not with us on putting a Democrat in the White House in 2008.

That's more than a big "but." That's everything there is.

Remember where we are, not just on the war, but on almost everything. Everything Democrats could be doing, should be doing, wish we were doing, is always evaluated in light of how it will affect a Democrat's chances of winning the White House.

Every vote in the 110th Congress is being considered in light of whether or not it will make winning the White House in 2008 harder or easier, and almost no other criterion matters. Whether or not to fund the war. Whether or not, and how aggressively, to pursue the oversight that was promised as central to a Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006. And yes, whether or not even talking about impeachment could be countenanced.

Now, given the formulation that Congressional Dems have agreed to adopt that effectively vests all power in the executive (whether because they believe it, or just because "we don't have the votes"), this is not an unsound criterion. There's still room to question whether or not they should have acceded to total executive supremacy, but they did, and once done, betting everything on the presidency is the only thing that makes any sense.

Congress has no independent powers of its own that it's currently willing or able to enforce, if it's agenda is opposed by a determined president. It's legislation can be voided, its subpoenas ignored, its appropriations rescrambled after the fact. None of which abominations can be effectively challenged, for fear of damaging our chances at the White House. Which is why we're today witnessing the choreography of an elaborate dance surrounding the certain passage of the next multi-billion dollar round of funding for the occupation we all (including the choreographers) oppose:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is rapidly pulling together a carefully orchestrated plan for what looks to be the last Iraq war supplemental before November’s election: Let Democrats take separate, conscience-clearing votes on troop withdrawal timelines and economic stimulus proposals, then negotiate a deal with the Senate and the White House that would combine money for the war with some modest domestic spending.

Someone may be interested, by the way, in checking the math on Iraq appropriations made by the Republican Congresses from 2003 through 2006, and the Democratic 110th, just to see who'll own the majority stake in this occupation come November.

The key takeaway from this is that Congressional Democrats are convinced that the only responsible path, even for those who oppose the occupation, is to fund it, because the president is determined to defy Congress and keep the troops in Iraq even without funding, and let them suffer as sitting ducks in order to punish Democrats politically if they dare stop the flow of funds. This, in turn, means that Democrats acknowledge that: 1)George W. Bush is actually insane; 2) the only way Democrats can effectively end the occupation is to win the presidency themselves, and; 3) no political action that puts #2 at risk can be tolerated, even when the president eventually admits to having ordered the violation of the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, and eigth amendments.

But that just serves to underscore the fact that Lieberman's campaigning for the other side for the presidency can only mean he's left the Democratic Party -- according to Congressional Democrats' own definition. The one and only inviolable directive, and the sole underlying principle common to all Democratic Congressional decision making, has been the drive for the White House.

And yet, "it ain't happening." Will wonders never cease?

The next mystery to ponder: How, given these arguments, we ended up getting stuck with the worst of both worlds -- Lieberman, who opposes the Democrats' drive for the White House, and the embarrassment of paying for the war we oppose so as to preserve our best chances of winning the White House?

The news has been particularly good to young voters and the netroots and grassroots this week... which scares me, cause its rare.  Last week was the snafu by the Washington Post and everybody got on board questioning the validity of Catherine Rampell's cherry picked stats and inaccurate conclusions (including me).  But this week has been unbelievable in response to the constant battle we have been fighting on recognizing the importance of young voters and the validity of the netroots.

Thanks to Robert Alford, Professor of Law at Pepperdine University School of Law for his summary of remarks given by Chief Judge Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals at a symposium held at that law school on Friday.
Opinio Juris is an excellent blog devoted to International Law and Politics. I copied the bulk of Alford's summary in this diary because its content is highly relevant to the dailykos community and it should be shared as widely as possible. C.J. Kozinski's comments are not available in their entirety in print yet, either,  (unless someone else can find them) but I think they are profound considering their weighty source.

I believe the First Amendment (not just the free speech and press clauses, though) is America's priceless contribution to humanity. So, let's flesh out whether the new arrangement Judge Kozinski describes is better than where we've been.
Who wins in the age of "new media?" Are we giving the First Amendment a non-legal life, self- regulating, and more free?

Democrats fiddle as Rome burns

Okay, so "notworking" is far too strong of a term, but I couldn't resist the catchy title.  TechPresident recently did a brief review of Hillary Clinton's new Facebook app, mentioning that it's pretty good but that it came around a bit late.  This got me thinking about Obama's Facebook app and the my.barackobama.com social network.  Obama's new media staff has done an excellent job of leveraging the Internet (or the Interwebs as some of us prefer), making it one of the driving forces behind the Obama campaign.  However, the excitement over this new type of campaigning aside, I have two critiques of areas that I think could be improved upon.