-
sponsorship
Roger Simon says John Edwards could rehabilitate himself by becomng the "poster boy for tort reform," He forgot about the sex tape. ... 6:47 P.M.
___________________________
Jimmy Carter cites racism as anti-Obama factor. Instant reaction: Kiss of Death. Gift to the GOPs. Remember the Carter era of smug moralizing? Anyone want to go back to that? ... P.S.: A good example of how, if the MSM wants to tilt against the Republicans, it's often too wedded to its own conventions--e.g., the desire to 'make news' with an ex-Pres.--to be effective. ... No sophisticated campaign propagandist would say, "OK, let's throw Jimmy Carter at them. They'll be reeling!" ....6:42 P.M.
___________________________
Obama Overexposure Tour continues. ... Next: Bloggingheads? Mediaite Office Hours? 6:40 P.M.
___________________________
Jeffrey Lord gives a good description of the MSM Gatekeeper's Greatst Hits. Then he goes on and on. Makes Rabbi Saperstein look like Marcel Marceau. ...P.S.: Lord lays it on as if only conservative bloggers, etc, have been rebelling against Big Media. As if he wants a piece of the Mark Levin business. Depressing. ... [via Lucianne] 6:40 P.M.
___________________________
Why did the GOP lead in "generic" ballot evaporate on Rassmussen, even as Obama health bounce also vanished? Is the Joe Wilson heckle hurting? ... Could this be an example of a successful kamikaze-style attack? Wilson's "You lie" badly damaged its target (Obama has apparently now caved on the central issue of verifying legal status) but it also damaged Wilson. ... Except that it's not clear it damaged Wilson himself, reelection wise. It's his party that's maybe been hurt. "Kamikaze" isn't the right analogy. ... What's the word for a kamikaze attack in which the pilot survives but the carrier he took off from gets sunk? ... 6:23 P.M.
___________________________
Twitter is not @marcambinder's friend! It broadcasts his initial take--which is often 180 degrees wrong. Example #1: Twittering as if Obama would be mad at the networks that his off the record "jackass" comment leaked. #2: Twittering as if town hall rebelliousness would help the Dems. ... 6:09 P.M.
___________________________
That False Consciousness Keeps On Coming: Workers at Boeing factory vote to un-unionize. By secret ballot. ... Because when it comes to decertifying unions, union lobbyists insist on the sanctity of the secret ballot. ... 6:08 P.M.
___________________________
Jack Palance Plays Elmer Gantry: Andrew Breitbart + Good Haircut = Slightly Scary Rabble-Rousing Potential. ... 6:05 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
"'I'll sue you for defamation!' is the toothless wonder of the legal world," declares a confident and defiant HuffPo blogger. But is it really toothless? ... Background: Sarah Palin's attorney suggests that an Alaskan blogger has been defaming the Governor, and is threatening to sue not only the blogger but also "those who republish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post." I would have thought that this threat was decidedly non-toothless--that if a blogger really was publishing something defamatory about Palin (or anyone**), and if HuffPo or the NYT published the blog on their web sites, they'd be on the hook for defamation just as if they'd published an article by one of their own reporters.
That was before I learned about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. It's imprecisely worded, but if it really does immunize HuffPo and Gawker and even Slate or the NYT, etc --by requiring any libel plaintiff to recover damages from the actual original blogger, as some cases suggest--that would change a lot from what I thought I learned in law school. The changes go way beyond defanging Palin. I'm obviously way behind thinking about this, but off the top of my head, here are some of the possible ramifications:
a) It would be great for blogging, because it would mean lawyers for big journalistic outfits (like the Washington Post, which owns Slate) won't require blogs to be edited. In fact, they won't want the blogs to be edited, lest that be interpreted as implicating the big journalistic outlet itself in any libel. "Curation" is for co-defendants!
b) Most bloggers themselves are probably poor enough to be judgment-proof, although some HuffPo bloggers might have deeper pockets than HuffPo itself;
c) It means unverified undernews would now have a prominent, semi-official, de facto-sanctioned home, namely judgment-proof blogs on big news sites;
d) Are they really going to apply this to organizations that pay freelance bloggers for their submissions? If not, the statute might protect HuffPo (which usually doesn't pay bloggers) but not Slate (which pays me). But does this paid/unpaid line really make sense, since readers don't necessarily know who's paying what to whom when evaluating a blog's credibility? Is HuffPo all that different from Slate? And I don't want to give my editors another reason to cut my salary to zero. ...
e) What about repeating these protected-by Sec. 230-but-unverified blog allegations in the core MSM? If actual reporters working for actual traditional news outfits can then relay 'the fact that Judgment-Proof Blog X is reporting Y rumor'--despite the traditional rules saying news outfits couldn't do this, but hey, why cut them out of the new vibrant "diversity of political discourse"?--we've really entered a new world. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with it. ...
But I find it difficult to believe that the broad web-site-protecting reading of Section 230 will hold up--it's a mere statute, remember. Congress can amend it. Is Congress really going to let average citizens get libeled by blogs on the New York Times web site without being able to sue the New York Times? ... On its face, the statutory provision, which protects "interactive computer services and other interactive media," appears intended more to protect outfits like American Online than traditional newspapers that host blogs or even new hybrid journalist/blogging/activist outfits like HuffPo. When Congress sees how that phrase has been interpreted, it may (as they say) revisit the issue. ...
**--Sure, public figures like Palin would have to show "actual malice," as defined in New York Times v. Sullivan. But that's not always impossible to do. ... 2:21 A.M.
___________________________
The "Savonarola of Sullivan's Island": Was he in love with the Latina hottie or with the "unashamedly navel-gazing culture of Argentina itself?" ... 12:11 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
So if one of these promising new cancer treatments winds up working 25% of the time, but costs $150,000, will Peter Orszag give to you? ... 12:14 A.M.
___________________________
Mark Krikorian on why Chuck Schumer's new get-tough rhetoric on immigration is a fraud:
Schumer also called for a biometric worker verification system, though this is also little more than a marketing gimmick. I'm actually not averse to it, but it's a pie-in-the-sky right now. Instead, to prove seriousness about enforcement, the government needs to implement the actually existing tools right now and upgrade them as time goes on. E-Verify, for instance, would be better with biometric identifiers. But it's darn good now, especially when combined with the Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS) and no-match letters, and they're working to integrate more photos (which are, after all, a form of biometric identifier) into the system too, by incorporating passport photos and getting states to provide their digitized driver's license photos. What we need is for Congress to phase in E-Verify for all employers now, something that will take several years to roll out, assuming judges even allow it to go forward. But this administration won't even implement the rule requiring federal contractors to use E-Verify, and the House has rejected a number of Republican amendments to do just that (and also rejected an E-Verify mandate for recipients of TARP funds). So Schumer's got a long way to go before he can overcome the public suspicion that "their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration." [E.A]
The obvious Schumer scenario: Congress decrees an amnesty plus fancy future employment-verification technologies. The amnesty happens, the technologies fail or are blocked. ... Even if you actually think both elements are necessary for immigration reform, wouldn't it make sense to first legislate the worker-verification system, then see if it gets past the Chamber of Commerce's and the ACLU's lawsuits, then see if it works, then (we're into Cory Booker's second term here) talk about the amnesty? ... 12:09 A.M.
___________________________
Quote of last week: "What color do we turn our icons now?" Ana Marie Cox, 6/25 ... Hard to believe the new, Twitter-addled Time and Newsweek both missed that one. [via Pareene] 12:08 A.M.
___________________________
Edwards sex tape. So disappointing. Just him and a mirror again. ... P.S.: But Rush & Molloy bury the lede--Obama's alleged promise to make Edwards Attorney General. ... Given what had already come out about Edwards and Rielle Hunter even before the Iowa caucuses, this may be one of those promises Obama knew he wouldn't have to keep. ... 12:07 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, who would succeed Mark Sanford should Sanford resign, needs to update his web site! His blog still has Sanford "hiking along the Appalachian Trail" (though Bauer is waiting for "a more definitive idea of what part of the Trail he was on"). ... P.S.: With his campaign to allow "I Believe" license plates, Bauer seems ripe for liberal mockery. And even papers that have demanded Sanford's resignation don't seem to have much confidence in him. The Spartanburg Herald Journal, after calling for Sanford to step down, writes:
“South Carolinians cannot be sure that Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer has the capability to lead the state in this recession. They can only hope that he will be up to the task.“
They can pray! ... Update:
"He’s an attractive, conservative Republican, single, straight — and he has a lots of attractive women that want to be his friend on his public Facebook and MySpace page," said [Bauer strategist Chris] LaCivita. "What’s their complaint? I’ll tell you — they're jealous."
1:46 P.M.
___________________________
Wagner Act Unionism is bringing its benefits to the Bay Area, where the BART transit system may go on strike despite having negotiated what seem to be generous wages and benefits:
A top-scale station agent and top-scale train operator each make $30.01 per hour, $62,860 a year, in base pay. The transit system also pays 100 percent of the so-called employee contribution toward pensions — an amount equivalent to 7 percent of a salary — though many other California public agencies require workers to pick up some or all of that contribution toward their state pensions.
Overall, BART employees - including managers and hourly workers - get average total annual pay of $71,633, including overtime, and BART picks up an average of $48,000 a year for each worker's benefits, the transit system said.
Workers contribute $81.90 a month toward medical insurance.
But for all that the taxpayers get a finely-wrought mesh of work rules:
Antiquated work rules hurt BART finances by ramping up overtime, BART officials said.
They point to rules requiring that two workers remove seat covers and backing for cleaning. A utility worker unsnaps the cushion. A journeyman mechanic is called in to remove two screws for the seat backing.
Among cleaning crews, a worker in one job classification cleans inside stations and another worker in another classification cleans outside the roof line of stations.
This isn't an example from the 1950s. It's an example from this week. Why would anyone fail to support a "card check" reform designed to encourage the spread of these practices? They worked in Detroit, right?...
Update: Here is a searchable database of BART salaries. ... It's the #1 most-viewed page in the Contra Costa Times at the moment, so it might be slow to load. ... 2:02 P.M.
___________________________
First hit, best hit. ... 8:36 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Josh Marshall's TPM has been presciently keeping the undernews fires burning on the Sanford scandal, even when the mainstream media (MSM) was buying the story that the governor had been hiking the Appalachian trail. But reading over TPM's post "Sanford Press Conference Leaves Unanswered Questions," I was struck by one thing: How uninteresting all the remaining questions are.** "[W]ould [Sanford] have stuck to the Appalachian story" if he could have gotten away with it? Duh! "[D]id he voluntarily tell the State's reporter that he had been in Argentina" or did she look at his luggage tags? Did he see his paramour on earlier taxpayer-funded junkets to Latin America? Other analysts wonder if he used taxpayer-funded gas to drive to the airport. Not sure anybody cares.
We have Faster News and Faster Politics and Faster Scandal. It seems likely that in the course of about 48 intriguing hours those who follow the news have basically learned everything important they need to know about the Sanford mess. He was in Buenos Aires. He cheated on his wife. He really seems to have been in love with this Argentinian. He's out of the 2012 presidential race. Things that ten years ago would have dribbled and drabbed out over the course of days or weeks now hit the Web within minutes. What's left?
Even the story about how scandals happen faster these days has already been done--by TPM, about 29 minutes ago.
There are some obvious implications to Faster Scandals. For one thing, they lead to Faster Comebacks. (Though that won't happen if, like John Edwards, you successfully prolong the suspense, leaving key details--like paternity--hanging for months and even years.) But there are also unanswered questions! Most importantly, what does Faster Scandal mean to Jerry Skurnik's "second electorate"--the one that doesn't follow the news and won't find out about the Sanford scandal until either a) they see it briefly on the nightly news or the front page of their MSM paper tomorrow, or b) Sanford runs for national office years from now, if he runs, in which case a significant segment of voters may suddenly discover that he's an adulterer (the way they discovered that Giuliani was an adulterer at an absurdly late date, namely the GOP primaries of 2008).
In general, you'd think Faster Scandal would mean diminished scandal. The rule of thumb for disaster spin has always been to get the whole story out fast--and now it typically gets out fast, whether the pol at the center of the scandal wants it to or not. A weeks-long story is now a one-day shotgun blast. (Edwards may be an exception in part because reporters have been reluctant to cause more pain to his wife and haven't bothered to smoke out all the key facts.) Back when the editor of the LA Times had a motto of "Do It Once, Do It Long, and Do It Right," it was a scandal-killer, in part because it avoided the extended period of uncertainty in which the media's tom toms of doom are beating and wavering sources can be panicked into coming forward. Now the technology of news has conspired to make the LAT's misguided motto the normal course of events.
But it's also possible that by blunting the initial impact of scandal's like Sanford's--and restricting it largely to Skurnik's first, informed electorate--the increasing speed of scandal means that when the second uninformed electorate finally does learn about it--say, during Sanford's 2016 presidential run--the damage will be all the greater. The news will seem fresher to more of them, because it didn't have sufficient impact back in 2009 to have been processed by everyone. ...
**--Yes, there is still the issue of Maria, who she is, etc. Photos tk. But even that is less interesting now, with so much of the story already out.
P.S.--Was it really about the sex, governor? Do you know anyone who's been to Buenos Aires recently and not wanted to stay there? I know four or five people who returned to California's alleged paradise only reluctantly. ... 5:07 P.M.
___________________________