It probably went something like this…

Presidential Aide: Mr. President, two airliners have been flown into the World Trade Center Towers.

George W. Bush: Those are the big ones in New York, right?

Aide: Yes sir. We think there might be as many as 3,000 dead.

Bush: Who did it?

Aide: We think they were Saudis.

Bush: Damn, I’ve played golf with those guys.

Aide: No sir. These are probably extremists.

Bush: No shit. What are we gonna do about it?

Vice President Cheney: Mr. President, we have to invade Iraq but we need to invade Afghanistan first to make it look good.

Bush: Do we think that prick Saddam had something to do with it?

Cheney: Sir, we don’t know that he didn’t.

Bush: I’d like to nuke that fucker. Does he have nukes or chemical weapons or something.

CIA Director George Tennent:
There’s no evidence of that, Mr. President.

Cheney: Take another look.

Tennent: Yes sir.

Cheney: When we invade, I think I can get my friends at Halliburton to pitch in.

Bush: Cool.

[Fast forward. The Liberation of Irag is not going well]

Bush: Goddamn it Rummy, I thought you said this thing would take a few weeks and we’d be greeted as liberators. Everyone going to Camp David with me and the First Lady, take one step forward… not so fast Rummy!

[Later]

Bush: Karl, we’re in the shit here. What should we do?

Karl Rove: Well, you’re in your final term… just drag the thing out and leave it for the Democrats.

Bush: Can we do that?

Rove: I don’t see why not. We can say things we’re looking good when we left.

Bush: But things look like hell!

Rove: Just wait. They’ll look a lot worse.

Bush: But won’t history show that I screwed the pooch on this?

Rove and Cheney: (Looking at the floor and ceiling respectively)

Cheney: Uh, no sir, Mr. President. All anyone will remember is the Middle East exploded on the Democrats’ watch. Uh, listen guys, I gotta run. I’m going skeet shooting with Scooter.

Update: Just in… a plan for withdrawal.

Will Twitter be bigger than Facebook?

The guys (no gender implied) at AdRants are big fans of Twitter:

“Writing on Entrecard Graham Langdon makes the argument Twitter will be bigger than Facebook. He’s right. Twitter is many things but it lacks the baggage and some of the “creepy” aspects of Facebook. All within 140 characters, Twitter is IM, email, mobile app, chat room, focus group, news source, a wall on which to bounce ideas, a research resource, presence indicator.

It’s usually the simplest of things that have the most value. Facebook is bloated. Twitter is Internet Lite (I refuse to dub it anything with a 2.0 attached). It’s a simple but ever so powerful interface that brings so many things together and functions as a jumping off point to an endless collection of resources and information.

It’s pretty much guaranteed you’ll interpret this as idiotic puffery but until you use Twitter, really use it for a while, you won’t really understand what you’re missing and you don’t realy have the right to comment. Seriously. Give it a try.”

I confess I’ve given up trying to explain Twitter. And it took me more than a year to come around.

Technology in the Missouri Senate

Shields200I got a few minutes with Missouri State Senator Charlie Shields this morning. Senator Shields –the Majority Floor Leader–  was kind enough to let me ask a few questions at a very busy time for the legislature. I wanted his take on how the Senate uses –or doesn’t– use technologies like laptops, the web, smart phones, Blackberry’s, blogs and podcasting.

The House allows laptops in the chamber but the Senate doesn’t. The concern seems to be that senators would be surfing the web or checking email and not paying attention to debate and the business of the senate. Senator Shields does not agree with that position and feels it’s just a matter of time until laptops are allowed.

I asked about Blackberry’s and smart phones, which are allowed. He said you don’t have to look hard to find a Senator checking his email.

The media can have laptops in the press gallery at the press table. I didn’t ask but assume there is wifi access for the media because I could get it in the hallway waiting to talk with the senator.

I asked if any bloggers had requested permission to cover the senate. He said not to his knowledge. I wasn’t entirely clear on his answer to the question, would bloggers be allowed to cover the proceedings. I think both the House and Senate make a pretty clear distinction between the “real” media and bloggers.

Senator Shields was unaware of any of his senate colleagues blogging. It surprises me a bit that some of the more clued-in haven’t discovered the power of this tool.

As for personal tech gadgets, Senator Shields has a Blackberry and an iPod on which he sometimes listens to jazz podcasts and NPR’s Car Talk.

He concluded with the prediction that the role of technology in the Senate will increase dramatically in coming years. No doubt.

Update: Missourinet News Director Bob Priddy –who has been covering the Missouri legislature since the early 70’s– adds and clarifies:

“We actually don’t have a press gallery as the House does. We have a press table which is on the Senate floor.  The senate, of course, has had its sessions on the internet, first on our site, then on others, and then on its own site for many years.

The irony of the idea that Senators will be at their desks checking email or playing games or bidding on ebay is that most senators don’t stay on the floor unless the legislation being considered is really big or unless they have a specific role with any bill.  They can be in their offices checking their email or playing games or shopping on ebay.

The use of blackberries and smart phones on the Senate floor is a mixed blessing.  It does enable the senators to get information from their office or their staff without leaving their desks. But it also enables lobbyists to send them messages from the hallways, giving lobbyists access to the Senate floor although the rules don’t allow them in the chamber in person.  For some folks, that’s not a comfortable relationship but nobody has figured out a way to control that access, nor do they seem to want to.

The use of the computer has helped the amendment process. Senate staff sits at the other table at the front side of the chamber and can prepare amendments on the computer and run them into a printer pretty quickly.  It’s been several years since I’ve seen a Senator write an amendment at the desk. In fact, debate is often slowed or stopped so a Senator can go to the staff table and have the staff write an amendment.

Of course the computer has made it a whole lot easier for the people in the clerk’s office to compile the journal, prepare copies of bills with amendments included in them before the bill goes up for final passage—-and just generally manage the flow of documents that go through the place.”

PS: If you’re wondering why I didn’t just post the audio of the interview… I hit the wrong button on my new fancy-pants digital recorder and erased the interview. Please don’t take my car keys.

“I’m mad as hell and… anonymous!”

One of our reporters stepped on blogger toes earlier this week. Steve Walsh is a reporter for The Missourinet, a radio network headquartered in Jefferson City. He took over the network blog a few weeks back and has been doing a good job with it. The post in question attempted to make some “distinctions” between MSM bloggers and “political” bloggers.

“…while the MSM bloggers represent their media outlets and, therefore, must be truthful and accurate … the vast majority of the political bloggers are unaccountable … and sometimes fall short of telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

Ouch. That’s a commonly held view by a lot of reporters. And a lot of folks –bloggers and the public alike– would question the “must be truthful and accurate” part but that’s not what this post is about.

One of the blogs Steve “called out” is Fired Up Missouri. The blog represents the Democratic view of things and the blogger goes by the pseudonym “Howard Beale.” Howard Beale was the fictional news anchor in the film Network.

“Howard Beale” fired back and called Steve to task for a story he did some months ago. Your normal blogosphere kerfuffle.

Steve responded and made what I consider the check-mate move. He pointed out one key difference between MSM blogs like his and Fired Up Missouri. Steve signs his posts and the blogger at Fired Up Missouri does not.

This point trumps all others in my opinion. And adds heavy irony to the choice of the pseudonym “Howard Beale.”

“I want you to get up out of your chairs… go over to your computers… and post an angry rant to your blog… anonymously.” See? Doesn’t work.

But as luck –and some good detective work– I have discovered the identity of “Howard Beale” and will reveal it here at 5:00 p.m. this Friday. I think you’ll be shocked.

Disclosure: The company I work for, Learfield, is the parent company of The Missourinet, the company Steve Walsh works for. I should also point out that I have come out here as supporting Barack Obama. I don’t think of myself as a Democrat because if he wasn’t running I wouldn’t be voting for the Democratic candidate. But if I have a leaning, it’s more toward the views expressed on Fired Up Missouri.

Sound bites, talking points and YouTube

Really interesting story at Politico by Micah Sifry and Andrew Rasiej about how YouTube is helping move us away from sound bite coverage to something more substantial.

“In the 1968 presidential election, the average amount of time given to a sound bite from presidential candidate on the network news shows was 43 seconds. In 1972 it dropped to 25. By 1988, it had shrunk to 9.8 seconds, and in 1996, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs and the Brookings Institution, to just 8.2 seconds. By 2004, a study by USC and the University of Wisconsin found that it had risen slightly to 10.3 seconds, but for all intents and purposes this was hardly much of an improvement.

Until now, all of national politics has operated within the context of those shrinking numbers. Since TV was the only way to reach millions of voters, and the only way to get your message across was to a) buy expensive airtime for 30-second TV ads or b) get free airtime by saying something memorable (and not damaging, unless aimed at your opponent), successful politicians have gotten very good at sticking to their talking points, speaking in sound-bites, and avoiding gaffes or detailed conversations as much as possible.”

My man Obama is proving these assumptions are out of date:

“So far, Obama’s videos have been viewed more than 33 million times on YouTube.com — and that’s not counting partial views, since YouTube only reports a full viewing as a “view.” His campaign has uploaded more than 800 video clips, and adds several more a day.”

In a pre-Internet era, the endless replayings on television of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s sound bites denouncing America would probably have deeply damaged Obama’s candidacy. But millions of voters have been flocking to the web to watch his 37-minute response to the controversy.

Our longest newscast on our four state radio networks is 4 minutes. Only three of those being news. Even more popular –with affiliates– are our one-minute “capsules.” Formats which demand shorter and shorter sound bites.

But we now routinely post longer –sometimes complete– interviews with the stories we post to our websites.

I have to believe everyone is better served by new media alternatives.

Why liberals more likely to be online

Karl Rove on why liberals are more likely to be online than conservatives:

“…a lot of people on the right have got active lives and are doing other things,” Rove said. “The idea of spending a lot of time on the internet and taking their talents and displaying them there is not something [conservatives] really do.”

That’s not counting the hours spent deleting White House emails.

“Hillary’s Last Stand”

Writing in the March 20th issue of Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi explores “The tragic self-martyrdom of a groundbreaking politician.”

“The Clintons always represented the notion that the old Democratic Party of unions and LBJ liberals was a thing of the past and that the way forward involved making nice with big business and the military. Her husband passed NAFTA, deregulated Wall Street, rammed through welfare “reform,” bombed Kosovo, chided Sister Soulja, opened the Lincoln bedroom to any foreign nation with spare cash and won two elections.

Winning convinced both of them that they were saviors of everything right and decent in the world. They’d discovered the winning formula, and we were welcome to kiss their asses for finding it. And so what if the formula involved selling out the unions on a series of draconian and insane trade deals, or cozying up to one of the most regressive employers in the world in Wal-Mart, or hiring an evil lobbyist stooge like Mark Penn to be your chief campaign strategist, or voting to give George Bush the authority to launch an illegal invasion of Iraq?”

Matt Taibbi is far and away my favorite political reporter (right after Kay Henderson!) and I buy a copy of Rolling Stone just for his pieces.

His latest leaves the reader with the impression that Hillary is kaput. I’m not so sure. He calls her “one of the most awesomely complex and fascinating public figures in the history of our country.”  But not in a good way.

I couldn’t find the article online but will update this post if I do.

Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations

Clay Shirky is an American writer, consultant and teacher on the social and economic effects of Internet technologies. He teaches New Media as an adjunct professor at New York University’s (NYU) graduate Interactive Telecommunications Program (ITP). His courses address, among other things, the interrelated effects of the topology of social networks and technological networks, how our networks shape culture and vice-versa. [Wikipedia]

“Who would want to be a publisher with only a dozen readers? It’s also easy to see why the audience for most user-generated content is so small, filled as it is with narrow, spelling-challenged observations about going to the mall and pick out clothes. And it’s easy to deride this sort of thing as self-absorbed publishing — why would anyone put such drivel out in public?

It’s simple. They’re not talking to you.

We misread these seemingly inane posts because we’re so unused to seeing written material in public that isn’t intended for us.” – Page 84

“For the last hundred years the big organizational question has been whether any given task was best taken on by the state, directing the effort in a planned way, or by businesses competing in a market. This debate was based on the universal and unspoken supposition that people couldn’t simply self-assemble; the choice between markets and managed effort assumed that there was no third alternative. Now there is.

Our electronic networks are enabling novel forms of collective action, enabling the creation of collaborative groups that are larger and more distributed than at any other time in history. The scope of work that can be done by noninstitutional  groups is a profound challenge to the status quo.” – Page 47

“For people with a professional outlook, it’s hard to understand how something that isn’t professionally could affect them — not only is the internet not newspaper, it isn’t a business, or even an institution. There was a kind of narcissistic bias in the profession; the only threats they tended to take sseriously were from other professional media outlets, whether newspapers, TV, or radio stations. This bias had them defending against the wrong thing when amateurs began producing material on their own.” – Page 56

“As Scott Bradner, a former trustee of the Internet Society, puts it, ‘The internet means you don’t have to convince anyone else that something is a good idea before trying it.'” – Page 99

“We are used to a world where little things happen for love and big things happen for money. Love motivates people to bake a cake and money motivates people to make an encyclopedia. Now, though, we can do big things for love.” – Page 104

“The invention of a tool doesn’t create change; it has to have been around long enough that most of society is using it. It’s when a technology becomes normal, then ubiquitous, and finally so pervasive as to be invisible, that the really profound changes happen, and for young people today, our new social tools have passed normal and are heading to ubiquitous, and invisible is coming.” – Page 105

“Any radical change in our ability to communicate with one another changes society. A culture with printing presses is a different kind of culture from one that doesn’t have them.”

Our social tools are not an improvement to modern society; they are a challenge to it. New technology makes new things possible: put another way, when new technology appears, previously impossible things start occurring. If enough of those impossible things are important and happen in a bundle, quickly, the change becomes a revolution.

The hallmark of revolution is that the goals of the revolutionaries cannot be contained by the institutional structure of the existing society.” – Page 107

“All businesses are media businesses, because whatever else they do, all businesses rely on the managing of information for two audiences — employees and the the world.” – Page 107

“Revolution doesn’t happen when society adopts new technologies — it happens when society adopts new behaviors.” – Page 160

“Another advantage of blogs over traditional media outlets is that no one can found a newspaper on a moment’s notice, run it for two issues, and then fold it, while incurring no cost but leaving a permanent record.” – Page 170

 

 

Radio owners waiting out “this Internet thing”

“As an advertising medium, the Internet is already larger than radio. It will approach $34 billion this year and is on a trajectory to overtake newspaper advertising within five years. In virtually all markets, the largest local Web site (typically run by a newspaper company) is now grossing more ad revenue than the largest radio station in that market. In some markets, the largest site is grossing more than the largest cluster of stations.”

“Your radio reps have a bounty on their heads. We survey more than 3,000 local Web sites every year about their revenues, expenses, number of salespeople and other revenue-related topics. The ones with the greatest market share and revenue have an interesting characteristic in common: a star-performing “former radio rep” on the sales staff. The word has spread that radio salespeople know how to sell the Internet, and newspaper and TV Web site managers have been recruiting them left and right. Radio reps know how to cold-call, how to generate new business, and how to sell reach and frequency. That’s a perfect match for Internet sales.” — Gordon Borrell, writing in Inside Radio