People think that citizen journalism and reporting happen to well-to-do navel gazers who have nothing else than to type their egos on a blog post.
Blogs took off here in the United States when no information post 9/11 was being offered by mainstream media. I used to clip articles from the BBC and foreign language news sources, frustrated out of my wits with the misinformation we were being forced fed by the likes of the New York Times and CNN.
I sometimes wish I were younger and with no kids to do more on the ground reporting like the good folk of IndyMedia.org. These people go to places where Big Media doesn't see the Big Money, to break the news that will effect We The People the most.
Which is why it shocks me when I read reports of killed journalists. We should consider them the modern day martyrs of our very real information war.
I can't remember if those were the exact words of the guy, but this was said to me at Wednesday's Blogging and Politics event and, well, I am still shocked at the comment.
Why? Because he said it after I commented "when was the the last time you saw a Puerto Rican black woman being part of the political discourse?"
This guy for some reason found it necessary to call me a shrill because I am a Puerto Rican black woman being part of the political discourse. That somehow, the only way a Puerto Rican black woman can only be part of the process if she is shrill or offensive or part of an echo chamber. That somehow there is no merit to what I as a publisher am trying to accomplish with my blogs because of the kind of mentality that will rationalize, "if no Puerto Rican black woman made it before, then there's a reason for why you shouldn't be here now".
I was shocked and I am still shocked that this guy said what he said.
BTW : If you were there, please feel free to correct me in the wording of this asshole
If you click around this page, you'll very likely see a little banner titled "What is the future of the Internet?".
This is a bit of crass dishonesty on the part of big telco. For more info on net neutrality and why it matters, check out SavetheInternet.com.
In any event, Hillary Clinton has now added her voice to the forces of good. This is from an email she sent out this morning: read more »
Actually, it's Perez Hilton's fault. Getting Perezzled is worse than a slashdotting. On that note, with the C&Ds found after the jump, I can say I am now in the proud company of Perez Hilton and Nick Denton. Does that make me a mediawhore?
I actually am trying to make a serious point about the current use of copyright law. My point with this pic is very simple : invocation of the Digital Copyright Millenium Act ought not to be used as a substitute for a marketing or business plan.
Who in their right minds does not release a picture of the most famous baby in the world as part of their media and communications strategy? Not just that : who in their right mind would want to have two "exclusive" separate launches of the same photographs?
This is the age of digital globalization and as such, you have to think of worldwide strategies. That means, you launch at the same time all over the world. Yes, it takes a bit more logistics work but the payoff is huge. The computer industry understands this but nobody has milked its potential for hype more than Steve Jobs. It's why the man is a marketing genius.
People and Hello! should have synchronized their launching strategies. As it is, this C&D goes to show they've been operating under a 19th century communications model --and it is why the DCMA is a joke. It does not protect copyrights. It protects outdated and ineffective business models.
What do you think? Are they right or wrong for using copyright law to cover for their lack of a marketing strategy?
You can find the legal verborrhea after the jump. read more »
I am worried about 2008. I am worried that people are deluding themselves about Hillary Clinton's electability as president. I am worried that Democrats will not win this year more seats in Congress or the Senate.
But what I am worried most of all is that progressive Democrats, those people who believe government ought to have a good does of "by the people for the people" decision making, socially responsible policies and libertarian values, are being swept aside in favor of the corporational-style of politics the Bushites have unleash on this country.
It is not that I don't like money. I do. I wish I had truck load of it to give it to the groups and people and organizations I believe are making a difference. So yes, I like money. It' just that I believe you cannot favor one part of the equation for another.
The New York contingency of the Democratic party has made the very deliberate decision to not have a grassroots media strategy. Incompetence aside, the Ferrer mayoral campaign shot themselves in the foot because they kept heeding the NY Capitol Hill's advice to stay away from bloggers.
I personally had set up 3 conference calls with bloggers from all around the country for Ferrer. I had worked up the troops and personally asked Markos, Armando and DavidNYC of DailyKos to lead the charge and put a good word for the candidate. I even was able to speak directly to Fernando Ferrer and ask him "do you want the bloggers behind you". He screamed, YES! Calls in the morning, I'm ready. And every single time Fernando Ferrer's communications people sabotaged the effort.
Ferrer, of course, lost.
Yes, yes, I know :
--Clinton will win her Senate seat.
--Spitzer will be the next governor of New York.
Come time to campaign for 2008, though, the seeds of discontent will have had time to bloom and flourish. Come time for the Democrats to call on the people who actually do the work of democracy on the streets of each county, each city and each neighborhood; they will find themselves scorned and outside of the loop of growing social networks blogs like this are building throughout the state.
That's why I am worried.
Democrats will not be able to win 2008 without the networks of social progressives and moderate Republicans that are popping out all over the political landscape via blogs. Democrats will not be able to win 2008 without showing they can take dissent and dish it out as well.
A certain congressman once told me : "We don't want to deal with the nastiness of blogs".
My reaction has always been : Dude, these are the people that want you to win.
Which is why I cannnot stress this enough to the people partying in Buffalo : Activists who take to blogs are not nasty because they hate you. They are pissed off because they think you're not listening. They are people like me who have no significant anmount of money to give but have words, have wit, have wisdom to spare; but more importantly, have influence over their own networks of voters.
Which is why you have to understand why we are tired of knocking on neighbors doors for candidates we do not feel passionate about.
Rage comes not of emotion. It comes from the personal understanding that the country is going to hell in a handbasket.
Whenever I hear of politicos talking about the scourge of bloggers, it makes me wonder about their definition of courage. I mean, wouldn't you rather deal with the wrath of the people who want you elected? Why would you want to shun them and instead go to bed with the people who want you dead? Because, honestly that is what the extremiststs that have taken hold of the Republican party want : they want us all to go to hell. Literally.
That Hillary Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, Chuck Schumer and others in the New York State Democratic Party cannot trust contentious bloggers like the people of The Daily Gotham tells a lot about where we are headed to for 2008.
That's why I am worried.
The Democrats are starting to pave their road to failure in Buffalo, New York. If things stay the course, they're going to loose the 2008 elections to a pet rock.