October 12, 2004

• Despite my leanings, I'm not really trying to lean this in one direction or another. History, rumors, and simple observation tell us that the Republicans are very good at manipulating the media for at least a certain period of time on any issue. Democrats, at least the current batch, don't seem so good at that. Also, certain members of the Bush team have a tendancy to use underhanded tactics in elections, so chances are that much of the despinning would be leaning towards the Democrats. However, it's not unheard of for the Democrats to exaggerate numbers or be selective in their rememberances, so there's always the possibility of something there as well. If Bush, for example, managed to create peace in the middle east, lower gas prices by $1.00/gallon, and sign into legislation various clever and effective ways of preserving the environment, all in the next couple of weeks, then I think that would be something worthwhile that should be allowed to stand. On the other hand, if it's revealed that some candidate a) has an illegitimate child; b) Bin Laden is amazingly captured right before the election; or c) rumor had it that someone was selling weapons on the black market in Viet Nam, then I think perspective should be in. The traditional media will run scandalous stories in a heartbeat simply for the joy of the additional ad revenue it'll bring, or because it's what their readers want, or whatever. But there are outlets who try to remain impartial without being afraid to use their judgement. Spinsanity and Factcheck are two examples of this, and there are plenty of others. As respectable news sources see through the smoke and post opinions, could we help to make the rest of the internet take note, then hopefully get outlets of the traditional media to pick up on the momentum? Or is this too ambitious for our small band of admittedly clever monkeys? Obviously the simple way of bringing attention is by posting intelligently presented links to as many high-traffic sources as possible, such as Slashdot, MeFi, Fark, various messageboards and weblog comments, etc. This is the traditional technique of googlebombing. It might even be effective on google's news aggregator. Beyond that, one could write in to local newspapers or tv news shows to bring their attention to these articles, possibly getting a good editorial, or getting the media to pick up on them. It would be nice to see that we, the people, could make a difference. Does anyone else have any good ideas? Am I, as they say, "high"?
• I feel that the information that could or should damage Bush is out there, it's just a matter of what the media (and the Kerry campaign) choose to put the focus on. As I mentioned in another thread yesterday, there is documented evidence that Bush (and Blair)planned the Iraq war well in advance and never had any intention of letting diplomacy work. Yet Bush repeatedly says, in debates and elsewhere, that he gave diplomacy every chance to work. To me this is a huge deal: planning a war in advance, going through a fake diplomatic process, and continuing to lie about it to the public as out soldiers continue to die. Yet no one seems to care. link #1 (more about Blair but implicates Bush) link #2 British again, cannot find a credible American source on this, which is kind of my point here
• I saw David Letterman do a video skit in which Osama Bin Laden was explaining to Bush why he was going to be late for the scheduled October capture. The point being, the "Look-we-got-Osama" October Surprise theory has been out there so much that if OBL were suddenly to appear in US custody, I figure there would be quite a bit of skepticism about it. Perhaps not enough to sway the election back to Kerry, though. Yeah, it's a shame that Bush forgot that it's easier to get re-elected if you've done something good for the country. I don't recall anyone being worried about an October Surprise with Clinton. But then, Bob Dole had already done some impromptu stage-diving at that point...
• I personally would love to see a site where the claims of politicians, government officials, NGOs, etc are examined and determined to be fact or crap. So much of the internet/TV/press is filled with opinion masquerading (often badly) as "facts." Factcheck.org and Spinsanity are huge steps in the right direction, but I'd like to see something more exhaustive, asking questions like: How much pork is in the federal budget *exactly*? Is social security really doomed by 2015? Is global warming really due mostly to industrial emissions, or are natural causes more to blame? There is such a dearth of concrete apolitical discussion on so many subjects and so much hyperbole and grandstanding that almost everyone is basing their opinions and making their voting decisions on who says the things they want to hear. If we all had good, solid information that we could all trust, regardless of side, we as citizens and thoughtful, reasonable people would be better able to have discussion and make decisions that resulted in positive change and/or thoughtful maintenance of status quo, and less partisan, antagonistic argument that, ultimately, neither sways entrenched views or furthers productive debate.
• Agreement, Fes. Not to reveal myself a stoned slacker, but Jon Stewart is always harping on this point: that news "discussion" these days always seem to be, "Okay, let's hear what the Right thinks! Fine, now let's hear what the Left thinks! Okay, that was a great discussion!" No, it wasn't a discussion, it was duelling spin. I'd like to see journalists pull out their fact sheets and call folks on it when they stray. Imagine Brokaw going, "Whoa whoa whoa there, Congressman...you just said that there's no proof of Global Warming. But according to all THIS science [pulls 6 reams of paper from under desk] Global Warming is totally real. Not only that, it's being worsened by lax environmental laws. So when you say there's no proof, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Now, as you were saying?" It's beautiful in my dream world.
• p.s.--same with the leftward spin; I just pulled out global warming b/c it was the first thing I thought of.
• But I'm curious more on a short term effect, rather than a long-term solution. I have plans for some long-term solutions, but right now I'm concerned about the upcoming campaign. Can we do anything to change the election, aside from voting or buying candidates?
• We can promise sexual favors. I will have sex with any hot women who vote for Kerry if my wife lets me.
• Got a few million dollars, Sandspider? That's about the only way.
• Sandspider: I'm not sure, but I'd guess not. We are consumers of information, by and large, not producers of it, especially on the grand scale you mention. If, for example, Bush indeed does have bin Laden stashed away somewhere, and plans to announce his capture the last week of October, I would imagine that none of us are in a position to refute that claim. Really, that sort of thing would be exactly what Bush would try to minimize, were this true - the last thing he'd want is for definitive info proving bin Laden was being held in a room at Langley for the last 6 months to surface. To do what you suggest, we'd have to have inside info that we could move around very quickly. Lots of trouble there: (a) we don't have the inside info, (b) we are primarily web-based, with no access to press or TV, (c) even on the web, are we considered credible? (d) even on the web, how far could we promulgate a meme in a short time?
• Well, it's possible to do, the question is the feasibility. The trick would be to start with the minimum number of sources that you'd have to contact in order to ensure some sort of saturation, and see if we have enough people who are interested and capable. Following that, it would be a matter of ensuring that the message is appropriate to the various sources. The hardest thing, I think, is determining the proper sources, for people who aren't insiders. What we're looking at is a PR campaign. The easy way to get a message across is by using money, as shawnj suggests. However, it's not the only way. We've all seen that newspapers and television shows are lazy. If you can demonstrate that something is newsworthy, and that they won't have to do much work in order to cover it, then there's a good chance that it can be covered. Yes, Fes, we are consumers of information, but we're not necessarily consumers of mainstream information. We like the fringe information, the information that tickles and delights, or the information that hurts and agonizes, but by and large, we look for the information that you can't get just by reading the daily newspaper. We either see things that other people don't (for americans, it's stuff from the BBC, for example), or we pay attention to things that get lost in the media shuffle. So, how would we up the importance? There are lots of tools that are useful. Repetition, as the RNP knows, is a really useful tool. If you, as a news organization, start seeing something everywhere, and you aren't covering it, you think that maybe you're missing something. If the difficulty of covering it is minimized, as is the case with some scientific articles that go through the AP feeds with nicely quotable sections in it, then it's more likely to be covered. Unfortunately, few of us have access to the ear of an editor for a news outlet of import, nor the ear of a reporter. But if we, for example, took a PoliSci class with a professor who is quoted by newspapers with some regularity, then that's a way to get the information through, but the likelihood of that being the case is low. If we have post ability on multiple high-volume web sites, then it's more likely that we could at least get the google ranking of important stories up, so that if a reporter lazily does a google search on a story, then the hypothetical reporter would be more likely to see what we want them to see. Or there's the spectacular. If the graffiti bicyclist had waited until now, and had managed to get himself arrested around the hypothetical october surprise, then he could have made a statement about that, and gotten it printed in plenty of news outlets. It might not make first page, but it's better than not hitting at all. Of course, getting picked up by the police is not the ideal way to make a point, but it's a time-honored tradition, so there's that. And, of course, we have our secret weapon: middleclasstool, and his sexual favors.
• I second middleclasstool but my boyfriend would probably have to be there But seriously folks, I think I would call everyone I know. Not deletable email, but running up a ridiculous cell phone bill in the name of fairness and/or justice.
• Ashcroft warns of impending Terror attacks.
• This is the sort of thing I'm talking about.