You know those special amps used by Spinal Tap that go to 11, in order to provide "that extra push over the cliff"? It appears Fox News has gotten a hold of some and hooked them up to its coverage of health care reform.

As the reform bill moved closer to a vote in the House, the Fox News noise machine went into overdrive, hurling every false and misleading claim it could muster.

The week in Fox News health care hysteria began with an oldie-but-goodie -- Steve Doocy, Bill Hemmer, and Bill O'Reilly all claimed or suggested that the bill will, in O'Reilly's words, "require American taxpayers to fund abortion." But it doesn't, at least not beyond what is currently permitted under current law. Fox News, unfortunately, is not alone in repeating this falsehood.

Then, Doocy and Hemmer, joined by Neil Cavuto and several other hosts, jumped on the idea that a legislative procedure the House is reportedly considering to pass the Senate's version of health care reform would allow them to do so without a vote. Wrong again -- the House would need to vote to implement that procedure.

Carl Cameron, however, broke through the noise on this issue, pointing out that the process would simply pass the bill "in one vote instead of two" and that the process "has been used, literally, for centuries" -- indeed, Republicans made copious use of the "self-executing rule" when they controlled Congress. Even Charles Krauthammer conceded that it's constitutional. Still, that didn't keep Alisyn Camerota from scoffing that the rule "might as well be a self-immolating rule."

Fox News then pounced on a survey claiming to have found that 46 percent of primary care physicians would consider leaving their profession if health care reform passes. O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and contributor Dr. Marc Siegel all portrayed the survey as having been published by the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.

Except it wasn't. The article was written by the physician-recruiting firm that conducted the survey, and it actually appeared in an employment newsletter produced by the publisher of the New England Journal of Medicine, not the Journal itself. Further, the survey itself was not all that scientific -- done via email contacts taken from the recruiting firm's database -- so any claim that the survey's results accurately reflect the view of the American medical community is dubious at best.

Fox News' Megyn Kelly did eventually note that the survey was "not a scientific poll." But that didn't keep Glenn Beck from insisting -- hours after Kelly corrected the record -- that "The New England Journal of Medicine says that if this bill is passed nearly one-third of doctors will quit practice medicine."

(Beck, meanwhile, is keeping up the long tradition of Fox News hosts pushing partisan political agendas by joining with Republican Rep. Steve King to promote an anti-reform rally in Washington.)

Fox News contributor and serial misleader Dana Perino made her own non-contribution to the health care debate, asserting that the reform bill's Medicare investment tax on those making over $200,000 a year is "so disturbing ... because the people who make that money are the small business owners." In fact, fewer than 1.3 percent of small business owners would be affected by the tax.

When the Congressional Budget Office released new numbers detailing how the reform bill would reduce the deficit by $130 billion over 10 years, Fox News didn't want to talk about that -- it spent far more time highlighting how much the bill would cost instead of how much it would save. And when that didn't seem to work, it tried to discredit the CBO as untrustworthy and unreliable. Never mind that when the CBO issued "favorable" numbers last fall on a Republican health care reform plan, Fox News praised the CBO as "nonpartisan."

The Fox News spin is even confusing its own hosts. Brian Kilmeade can't quite comprehend how a bill can cost money yet reduce the deficit, and Kelly admitted, "I don't understand anything they're talking about when it comes to this potential law."

Fox News' inept war against health care reform, while in keeping with its function as the communications arm of the Republican Party in exile, is making itself look like the Spinal Tap of news. It doesn't really need that "extra push over the cliff" -- after all, that's what it's been speeding toward for years.

At this rate, it probably won't be too long before a Fox anchor spontaneously combusts.

A whole lot of shaky earthquake claims goin' on at Fox

How much does Fox News oppose health care reform? It's pretending natural disasters didn't happen if they're inconvenient to the anti-reform agenda.

On March 18, Doocy took exception to President Obama's statement that a provision in the health care reform that would help Louisiana cope with Medicaid shortfalls resulting from Hurricane Katrina might also help Hawaii because it "went through an earthquake. "Hold it. What Hawaiian earthquake?" Doocy asked. "There was an earthquake in 1868 that killed 77. There was an earthquake in 1975 that killed two." After noting that the provision applies to states that have suffered a natural disaster "within the last seven fiscal years," Doocy added: "Essentially it boils down to just one state, and that is Louisiana."

Doocy seems to have forgotten that there was an earthquake in Hawaii in 2006. Not only did it cause tens of millions of dollars in damage, the Bush administration "declared a major disaster exists in the State of Hawaii and ordered Federal aid to supplement State and local recovery efforts" as a result of the quake.

But Doocy didn't need to rely on federal agencies for information on the quake -- Fox News reported on it at the time. (Investor's Business Daily similarly ignored its own reporting to suggest there was no recent Hawaii quake.)

It seems that rather than trust the federal government or his own news organization, Doocy chose instead to trust right-wing bloggers, who were spreading the misinformation. That runs counter to a 2007 memo -- issued after Doocy and other Fox hosts falsely claimed that Obama was educated in a madrassa -- in which Fox News vice president John Moody reportedly wrote, "For the record: seeing an item on a website does not mean it is right. Nor does it mean it is ready for air on FNC."

Media Matters has written Fox News requesting that Doocy correct the record. We shouldn't have to, since Fox News is supposed to have a "zero tolerance" policy toward on-air mistakes, but then, these are the same folks that ludicrously insisted that a Fox & Friends graphic in which poll numbers added up to 120 percent contained no errors.

The latest right-wing witch-hunt target: Jim Wallis

Fox News has long been a leader in witch hunts against Obama and his administration (or, really, anyone who can be remotely tagged as liberal). Now Glenn Beck, as an extension of his repeated challenged Beck to a debate over social justice, Beck demurred, his vaguely threatening statements making it clear his witch hunt was more important than reasoned debate: "In my time, I will respond. ... Just know the hammer's coming. ... And when the hammer comes, it's going to be hammering hard and all through the night, over and over."

Right-wing website WorldNetDaily, meanwhile, blundered into the breach with a poorly written article that attempted to put words in Wallis' mouth. WND claimed that Wallis was a "champion of communism," even though Wallis has declared communism to be a "failed" system; asserted that Sojourners has published "a slew of radicals" while ignoring that it has also published a slew of conservatives; and alleged that "Sojourners' official 'statement of faith' urges readers to 'refuse to accept [capitalist] structures and assumptions that normalize poverty and segregate the world by class,' " even though the word "capitalist" -- inserted by WND -- actually appears nowhere in the statement. WND even falsely claimed that Wallis "labeled the U.S. 'the great captor and destroyer of human life.' "

Somehow, we suspect that Beck's upcoming assault on Wallis will be just as divorced from reality as WorldNetDaily's.

Erick Erickson joins the "scumbags" at CNN

Should a blogger who once called a retiring Supreme Court justice a "goat f---ing child molester" be rewarded with a regular commentary gig on CNN? Doesn't matter -- the deal's been done.

CNN announced this week that RedState editor Erick Erickson has joined the network as a political contributor, mainly appearing on John King's new show. The network claimed that Erickson is "a perfect fit" for King's show, adding that "Erick is in touch with the very people John hopes to reach."

Media Matters has detailed Erickson's history of outrageous statements, of which the aforementioned is but one.

Predictably, conservatives defended Erickson's new job, his fellow RedStaters among them. One of Erickson's RedState defenders, however, went a tad off-message: "From Non-Conservatives, to Academics and Liberal Elitists, to self-soiling and unprincipled Professional Politicians and firmly-entrenched good ole boys inside the M(ostly) S(cumbags) M(edia), each of these clowns has a tale of doom about the hell we're headed for compliments of CNN's hand basket."

We have to wonder: Does Erickson consider his new CNN colleagues to be "scumbags"?

This week's media columns

This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Eric Boehlert examines the media myth of Obama's "falling poll numbers," and Karl Frisch tells you how to annoy Glenn Beck in five minutes or less.

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace, and Digg

Media Matters maintains active online communities on the nation's leading social networking sites. Be sure to join us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace, and Digg and join in on the discussion.

Media Matters Minute now on YouTube

For some time now, radio shows and stations throughout the country have been carrying the Media Matters Minute, a daily, minute-long recap of our work topped off with the "most outrageous comment" of the day. We encourage you to subscribe (YouTube / iTunes /RSS) to the Minute's daily podcast, hosted by Media Matters' Ben Fishel.

This weekly wrap-up was compiled and edited by Terry Krepel, a senior web editor at Media Matters for America.

Jane Hamsher / Firedoglake:
Fact Sheet: The Truth About the Health Care Bill  —  click for a PDF of our health care reform fact sheet  —  I'll be on the new CNN show with Jon King that premieres at noon ET, available for live stream here — jh  —  The Firedoglake health care team has been covering the debate in congress since it began last year.

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

The key issue at the heart of Viacom's case against Google and YouTube, filed in March 2007, concerns whether an Internet service that probably knows that files are traded or shown illicitly or without license there, deserves the "safe harbor" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that protect ISPs from liability for their customers' actions. In a summary judgment motion filed yesterday with US District Court in New York and unsealed this morning, Viacom is bidding to have the judge wrap up the case -- an obvious signal that it believes its case is already strong enough.

As US law stands now, a service such as Grokster or the original Napster (not the Best Buy division that today uses that name) is liable when it intentionally establishes its service for the express purpose of trading in illicit files. It's especially liable when it finds some way to advertise itself for that purpose. An Internet Service Provider such as Comcast or Cox is not liable when its service is used for accessing one of these sites, when it doesn't advertise or offer these services explicitly, and when a customer can access them without direct intervention from the ISP. And a video site such as Veoh is not liable when any measure it might take to stop customers from sharing illicit files may also conceivably infringe upon the free speech rights of other customers who may not be trading such files.

Google, the current owner of YouTube, has been arguing the Veoh case in its own defense. But Viacom's argument -- which courts have been wrestling with for over two-and-a-half years and which we now know today -- is that YouTube is a different, special case. It's more like Grokster, it argues, in that it was founded on the principle of gathering an audience around illicit files.

"Defendants are liable under Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., because they operated YouTube with the unlawful objective of profiting from (to use their phrase) 'truckloads' of infringing videos that flooded the site," reads the opening passage of YouTube's founders single-mindedly focused on geometrically increasing the number of YouTube users to maximize its commercial value. They recognized they could achieve that goal only if they cast a blind eye to and did not block the huge number of unauthorized copyrighted works posted on the site. The founders' deliberate decision to build a business based on piracy enabled them to sell their start-up business to Google after 16 months for $1.8 billion. The Supreme Court in Grokster found no legal or societal justification for such intentional copyright infringement."

FOR MORE:

• Viacom and YouTube: Timeline of pertinent events by Tim Conneally

In a talking points document released today (PDF available here), Viacom cites various e-mails from various YouTube and Google executives, including YouTube founders Chad Hurley (CEO) and Steve Chen (CTO). Assuming these excerpts were not taken out of context, which is possible, they indicate that YouTube's founders were clearly building up a high-audience business with illicit files at their core, with the intention of selling out to somebody as soon as possible.

One excerpt has Chen suggesting that YouTube, apparently during its startup phase, "...concentrate all our efforts in building up our numbers as aggressively as we can through whatever tactics, however evil." Another suggestion, by an unnamed YouTube exec in response to an non-excerpted suggestion -- apparently asking, where should be get all this content -- reads, "Steal it! . . . We have to keep in mind that we need to attract traffic. How much traffic will we get from personal videos?"

And one excerpt attributed to Chen suggests that the whole legal process of handling DMCA takedown notices is so long and dragged on, that by the time YouTube should ever comply with one, it would be too late anyway: "But we should just keep that stuff on the site. I really don't see what will happen. What? Someone from CNN sees it? He happens to be someone with power? He happens to want to take it down right away. He get in touch with cnn legal. 2 weeks later, we get a cease & desist letter. We take the video down."

Viacom's argument that Google knows what kind of trafficking goes on via YouTube is substantiated by evidence in the form of e-mails, evidently sent prior to its acquisition of YouTube, from executives objecting to elements of what they perceived to be its business model. One message from Google's then-VP of Content Partnerships David Eun (now with AOL) to CEO Eric Schmidt cautioned, "I think we should beat YouTube . . . but not at all costs. [They are] a video Grokster." And in another excerpt, an unnamed Google executive asks, "Is changing policy [to] profit from illegal downloads how we want to conduct business? Is this Googley?"

Evidence cited in Viacom's motion for summary judgment tells the story of how Google Video failed to be competitive against YouTube, even though its engineers persisted with efforts to filter out illicit content. One memo cited says Google Video may have been throwing out 90% of its uploads, for containing suspected copyrighted material or for being generally indecent.

"But Google's good intentions and compliance with the law were not paying off," Viacom argues. "YouTube was way ahead of Google Video in the race to build up a user base. Google executives understood that YouTube's success was largely due to what they euphemistically labeled its 'liberal copyright policy' of freely allowing infringing material. Losing the user race to YouTube because of the latter's copyright infringement, Google Video executives engaged in a 'heated debate' in 2006 'about whether we should relax enforcement of our copyright policies in an effort to stimulate traffic growth.' A top senior executive, Peter Chane, Google Video's Business Product Manager, argued point blank that Google Video should 'beat YouTube' by 'calling quits on our copyright compliance standards.' Chane specifically advocated switching Google Video to YouTube's 'reactive DMCA only' policy because 'YouTube gets content when it's hot ([Saturday Night Live's] Lazy Sunday, Stephen Colbert, Lakers wins at the buzzer)' and it '[takes us too long to acquire content directly from the [legitimate] rights holder.'"

It is that statement which Viacom appears to present as a smoking gun: a suggestion from a Google Video executive that it should acquire its competitor solely because its allegedly illegitimate business model is more successful than its own, legally compliant one.

In Google's memorandum in support of summary judgment in its favor, filed after Viacom, its attorneys do not take the tack or rebutting Viacom's scorching citations -- which, if substantiated, could theoretically become the basis for future criminal complaints. Instead, Google reiterates the argument that it's a service provider which, like Veoh, is entitled to safe harbor since it looks the other way, and does not actively seek infringing uploads.

Citing the Veoh finding, Google's attorneys argue, "What matters is that Veoh 'established a system whereby software automatically processes user-submitted content and recasts it in a format that is readily accessible to its users...Inasmuch as this is a means of facilitating user access to material on its Web site,' Veoh did not lose the safe harbor 'through the automated creation of these files.' YouTube is indistinguishable from Veoh in these respects."

YouTube, Google argues, did not have direct knowledge of the circumstances whereby the specific content Viacom claimed was infringed upon (much of it from Paramount) was shared with YouTube users. Since Viacom's arguments must, at some point, focus themselves upon the specific infringing of the content in question, the DMCA protects YouTube on that count as well, Google continues. But all that may be moot, Google points on, by virtue of the fact that under current US law, the alleged infringers must have directly profited from their actions. YouTube gains revenue through advertising.

Writes Google, "A service provider loses safe harbor eligibility only if the plaintiff can show both that the service provider had the right and ability to control the alleged infringements and received a financial benefit directly attributable to those infringements...As with knowledge, the DMCA's control inquiry is specific, not general. The analysis focuses on the service provider's legal and practical control over the particular infringing activity at issue. The statute's text makes that clear: The question is whether the service provider has the right and ability to control "the infringing activity" alleged by the plaintiff and to which a financial benefit is directly attributable."

A number of declarations in support of both motions were filed today. One supporting Google was particularly interesting, because it goes to specifically that last paragraph: It's from the owner of a marketing firm who promoted the works of recording artists who appear on MTV, a Viacom property. He claimed that some of the very works Viacom claimed were infringed upon through unauthorized uploading to YouTube, actually were authorized by none other than MTV itself, as part of the promotion of the artists under his contract.

If Google's interpretation of the law is affirmed, and if this gentleman's claims are proven, then this whole case could become history faster than a judge can even say "summary judgment."

Fox News reportedly draws a distinction between its "news hours," which it claims are objective, and its "editorial" programming. But on May 19, purported "news hour" anchor Megyn Kelly constructed an entire segment around "editorial" host Glenn Beck's criticism of New York's proposed restaurant salt ban, airing clips from his show and asking her guest to respond to Beck's arguments.

Kelly introduces segment by airing Beck clip. Kelly began her segment by airing a clip of Beck on the March 10 edition of his Fox News program in which he stated:

BECK: The government cannot make people healthy. If I want to stuff my face, I'm going to stuff my face. If I'm going to have a heart attack in 15 minutes because I stuff my face, it's my fault. If the firemen have to come to my house and cut a huge hole in the side of my wall because I'm stuck to my couch because I'm a big fat fatty just eating marshmallows all day and the firemen have to come in with a crane and pull me out and put me on a flatbed truck to take me to the hospital, you know what? I should have to pay the bill!

Kelly then said of the proposed ban, "It's got Glenn Beck all fired up."

Kelly repeatedly demands NY Assemblyman Ortiz respond to Beck's criticism. Kelly's first question to her guest, New York State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz -- who has introduced legislation banning salt in New York restaurants -- was: "Glenn Beck is all upset with you, Assemblyman. What do you have to say to him?" She later asked, "Ok, salt's not great for you, certainly not in large amounts in any event, but why isn't it up to us? As Glenn said, if I want to become a fatty fat fat, what business is it of yours?"

Kelly to Ortiz: "You wanted Glenn Beck to start talking about you." After Ortiz stated that he introduced his legislation in part because doing so focuses media attention on the issue of the health risks of excessive salt, Kelly stated: "So it's a media stunt. I'm on to you, Assemblyman. Ok. So you just wanted to get on America Live, you wanted Glenn Beck to start talking about you."

In response to criticism, Fox News claims its news hours are objective. The New York Times reported on October 11 that in response to White House criticism, Fox News claimed that its news hours -- which it reportedly defined as "9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on weekdays" are objective:

In an interview, Mr. [senior vice president for news Michael] Clemente suggested that there was an element of "shoot the messenger" in the back and forth. "Sometimes it's actually helpful to have an organization or a person that you can go up against for whatever reason," he said.

Fox argues that its news hours -- 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on weekdays -- are objective. The channel has taken pains recently to highlight its news programs, including the two hours led by Shepard Smith, its chief news anchor. And its daytime newscasts draw more viewers than CNN or MSNBC's prime-time programs.

"The average consumer certainly knows the difference between the A section of the newspaper and the editorial page," Mr. Clemente said.

America Live replaced Live Desk in early 2010.

In a written statement provided to media outlets, Clemente compared Fox News' purportedly separate "news" and "opinion" programming to "the A-section of the newspaper and the editorial page":

An increasing number of viewers are relying on FOX News for both news and opinion. And the average news consumer can certainly distinguish between the A-section of the newspaper and the editorial page, which is what our programming represents. So, with all due respect to anyone who might still be confused about the difference between news reporting and vibrant opinion, my suggestion would be to talk about the stories and the facts, rather than attack the messenger...which over time, has never worked.

Fox's "news" division routinely promotes and echoes Beck. Fox News' reporters and "news" programs have routinely promoted and echoed Beck on stories such as the 9-12 Project, tea party protests, ACORN and former White House officials Van Jones and Anita Dunn.

Fox's news programs echo its "opinion" shows. Fox News' purportedly straight news programs echo its "editorial" programs, featuring smears, falsehoods, doctored and deceptive editing, and GOP talking points.

CNN:
Obama rips insurers in final health care push  —  FAIRFAX, Virginia (CNN) - President Barack Obama made a final, urgent public plea for health care reform Friday, slamming private insurers and accusing his plan's opponents of spreading lies and distortions.  —  The president's populist push …

As SXSW Interactive comes to a close and SXSW Music kicks off, it's worth taking a look at the ideas, trends, discussions, and issues that dominated the four-day technology summit. Here are the five areas that stood out the most to me.

Every year there is a product or two that monopolizes most of the buzz -- for example, you couldn't go ten feet in 2008 without hearing a discussion about Twitter. For 2010, the buzzed-about phrase was without a doubt location-based services. Although the start of this discussion was in 2009, these mash-ups of geography and social technology really hit their stride this year.

Foursquare and Gowalla are the clear leaders in this space, as evidenced by the major presence enjoyed by both at the conference. Foursquare had a record 347,000 check-ins in one day this week, and the use of the service will certainly continue as the music crowd floods Austin.

The discussion I had with most people centered around the question, "What next?" As in: Now that these services are gaining momentum and adoption, where is the business model? Other than high-level brand partnerships and individual locations offering incentives for customers to check-in, few other monetization and call-to-action results have been seen. I see plenty of value in getting 10 percent off my order if I am the Foursquare mayor of a restaurant, or in allocating a big ad spend for a custom promotion, but where is the middle ground for everyone else?

But apart from that, you know you're hitting some level of critical mass when CNN chimes in on how to use Foursquare to be cool (or at least not uncool).

In my 2009 wrap-up piece, I stated that 2010 would be the year of analytics. The data has been available for ages, but the tools to turn raw data into information -- and better yet, knowledge -- have finally found a strong value proposition. More and more products are emerging to monitor and analyze Twitter activity, social media trends, community management results, and overall impact and impressions.

Google Analytics is still a strong contender in the space, with almost everyone mentioning this as a core piece of the puzzle. Platform-specific tools such as Twitter Counter and bigger-picture services such as Radian6 were discussed at great length and examples were provided of their functionality.

The current Holy Grail of analytics (and I bet a buzz-topic at SXSW in 2011) is sentiment analysis -- not only knowing who is saying what how often, but getting a feel for the tone and meaning of what they are saying. Be on the lookout for more discussion and tools as time goes on. (MediaShift's Nick Mendoza looked at sentiment analysis related to the Oscars recently.)

There is no lack of articles on the multiple disappointments around this year's panels and keynotes (start here and here). Spotify's Daniel Ek and Twitter's Evan Williams both brought in packed houses, but by the end of their talks the attendance was sparse and the content was thin.

As someone who speaks at and attends many tech and music conferences, I've seen my fair share of highly informative panels, and have had plenty of my time wasted. I wish I could report that SXSWi had a non-stop stream of amazing takeaways, but unfortunately it didn't go that way.

It's not for lack of relevant, forward-thinking topics. And it's certainly not for lack of amazing speakers who are getting big things done. In my experience, it comes down to two things: Having to cater to a very wide audience with varying skill levels, and only having a short time to address a long list of topics. The solution? Keep the panels focused on the core topic -- I'm talking to you, moderators -- and keep in mind that the audience can read theory on any blog; what they need are actionable takeaways.

The reason I left most panels disappointed was that I felt it was a missed opportunity. With such brilliant and accomplished panelists, I should have walked out of the room with a few action items I could implement immediately. This was very rare.

The attendance at this year's conference says something positive about the state of the tech industry. Last year's attendance was approximately 10,000; this year, there were over 15,000 badge holders. The feeling is very reminiscent of the mid-'90s in Seattle, when a new wave of technology and investment quickly expanded the marketplace.

What seems great for the industry -- a glut of big thinkers and tech geniuses -- is not as ideal for the conference itself. Getting into panels meant waiting in long lines and, often, only getting in when someone else left. The same thing happened at most industry parties, where the RSVPs far exceeded room capacity. It was a constant feeling up "hurry up and wait."

Fortunately, AT&T thought ahead and brought in an extra cell tower, providing massive bandwidth for what seemed to be the biggest concentration of iPhones on the planet. I can honestly say it was the best 3G coverage I've ever had.

Something I noticed this year that I hadn't seen near as much in prior years was a number of parallel conferences, both perceived and actual. Depending on your interests and network, the conference experience tends to vary widely. In a single night you can find yourself in the middle of a raging party with young (and wealthy) tech entrepreneurs, a serious business dinner with corporate executives, and in a development workshop with programmers (that's their own unique type of party).

In addition, there were a number of side conferences, including fully off-site panels that almost felt like secret societies. Celebrity bloggers hosted workshops, independent organizations hosted roundtable discussions, and trade organizations fostered discussions focused on their interests. There was certainly something for everyone.

SXSW Music has now begun, and the tone of the conference has dramatically changed. Stay tuned for a report back on that experience...

Photo of Foursquare app by dpstyles via Flickr. Photo of attendee with Mr. Spam by Randy Stewart via Flickr. Photo of SXSW closing party logo by Fellowship of the Rich via Flickr

Jason Feinberg is Vice President, Direct To Consumer Marketing for Concord Music Group. He is responsible for digital and physical direct-to-fan solutions for CMG's frontline and massive catalog including the Fantasy and Stax labels.

This is a summary. Visit our site for the full post ».

A group of researchers have proven something we already expected to be the case: your Twitter follower count is somewhat of a meaningless metric when it comes to determining influence. To reach this conclusion, the researchers examined the Twitter accounts of over 54 million active users, out of some 80 million accounts crawled by their servers. They then went on to measure various statistics about these accounts, including audience size, retweet influence and mention influence. The conclusion? Those with the largest number of followers may be "popular" Twitterers, but that's not necessarily related to their influence. High follower counts don't always mean someone is being retweeted or mentioned in any meaningful ways.

Sponsor

The findings from this research project have been published in an research paper available here on the project's homepage.

The data the researchers had access to is astounding: 54,981,152 user accounts, 1,963,263,821 social (follow) links and 1,755,925,520 tweets. In order to collect this massive store of data, the researchers contacted Twitter and asked permission to crawl Twitter's service. Twitter granted them access and white-listed the IP address range for the 58 servers that were used in the data collection. In total, the crawler was able to scan 80 million Twitter accounts during the month of August 2009. Only 54+ million of those accounts were actually in-use at the time, which, in and of itself, is an interesting finding about how many people create a Twitter account and then abandon it. Only 8% of the active accounts were set to private, so they were ignored during the data analysis. The researchers also used the Twitter API to gather additional information about a user's social links and tweets.

The study focused on the largest part of the Twitter network - the "single disproportionately large connected component," notes the paper, that contained 94.8% of users and 99% of all links and tweets. Within that large network of "in-use" accounts, the researchers further narrowed down the data to focus on the "active users." These users where those who had more than 10 tweets and had a valid screen name that could be retweeted by others. (Interesting - it's possible to have an account and not a screen name?) That left "only" 6,189,636 active users out of the initial 80 million to examine.

To measure the influence of these 6+ million users, the researchers looked at how the entire set of the 52 million users interacted with these active users.

After examining the data, the researchers found that the most followed individuals spanned a wide variety of public figures and news sources and included accounts like CNN, New York Times, Barack Obama, Shaquille O'Neal, Ashton Kutcher, Britney Spears and others. However, the most retweeted users tended to be content aggregation services like TwitterTips, TweetMeme, and, interestingly enough, they counted the tech blog Mashable as an aggregation service, too. Other heavily retweeted users included Guy Kawasaki, the humor site The Onion and again, The New York Times. Meanwhile, those users with the most "mentions" - not a direct retweet including the original content of someone else's tweet, but just a casual mention of their name - were celebs.

These three measures of influence - followers, retweets and mentions - has surprisingly little overlap when looking at the top influentials. The top 20 lists from these three categories only had two users in common: Ashton Kutcher and Puff Daddy.

The researchers also examined the ability of Twitter users to influence others. They determined that the most influential users hold significant influence over a variety of topics, as opposed to being experts in just one area.

Out of the 6 million active Twitter users, the researchers picked the top 100 users in each of the three categories. Due to the overlap, there were only 233 distinct users on these lists. These were dubbed the "all-time influentials." Some of these accounts belonged to news organizations or celebs, but others were just regular users. Regarding that last group - it appears that those users who limit their tweets to a single topic are the most likely to increase their influence scores.

In the end, what the researchers found was that follower count alone is not necessarily a worthy measure of determining influence. Other factors come into play as well. Although some heavily-followed accounts are also mentioned and retweeted a lot, just looking at audience size doesn't reveal an account's ability to influence and impact the Twitter universe.

According to the project's homepage, the researchers are hoping to make the data they collected available to the community at large. Before doing so, they will discuss it with Twitter in order to determine that their data sharing plan agrees with the company's policy. They plan to have an update on this situation - possibly the data itself - by May 2010.

Digg this week unveiled plans to become a hub of web content, adding Twitter and Facebook shares to its Digg counts to present a more complete view of what’s popular on the web.

What’s more, Digg will soon let you log in with any of your social networking accounts — or even Digg stories without logging in at all.

Is Digg defining a new direction for the curation economy? And could the new site help us cope with information overload?

That’s the topic of my CNN column this week.

Tags: cashmore, cnn, digg

»  Google (NSDQ: GOOG) explains its core businesses, search, ads and apps, in layman’s terms. [Google Operating System]

»  Twitter analytics: The service has a 40 percent retention rate, may only reach 10 percent of all internet users and for the most part, is comprised of pointless babble and conversations. [Mashable]

»  Would you go back to buying CDs if they were $10 or less? [MediaMemo]

»  Rightsholders say the term “piracy” is too sexy. [ars technica]

»  Why Google TV will probably fail. [24/7 Wall St.]

»  A profile of sites like Texts From Last Night and FMyLife.com. [CNN]

»  Google (NSDQ: GOOG) explains its core businesses, search, ads and apps, in layman’s terms. [Google Operating System]

»  Twitter analytics: The service has a 40 percent retention rate, may only reach 10 percent of all internet users and for the most part, is comprised of pointless babble and conversations. [Mashable]

»  Would you go back to buying CDs if they were $10 or less? [MediaMemo]

»  Rightsholders say the term “piracy” is too sexy. [ars technica]

»  Why Google TV will probably fail. [24/7 Wall St.]

»  A profile of sites like Texts From Last Night and FMyLife.com. [CNN]

In anticipation of the upcoming immigration marches, Media Matters for America has compiled a review of the hateful and outrageous right-wing rhetoric surrounding the immigration debate in 2006.

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigrant-rights marchers, immigrants are seeking to reclaim the Southwest for Mexico

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigrant rights marchers are "racis[t]"

Right-wing rhetoric: Pro-immigration marchers should be arrested or deported

Right-wing rhetoric: Stoking fears over displays of the Mexican flag

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigration is an "invasion"

Right-wing rhetoric: U.S., Mexico are in a state of "war"

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigrants are fundamentally altering American culture or way of life

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigration reform is part of plot to institute "North American Union"

Other hate speech and outrageous rhetoric

"Reconquista" is a discredited smear used by the right to generate fear of Latino immigrants. During the 2006 immigration debate, right-wing media repeatedly advanced the discredited smear that Mexican-Americans and Mexican citizens -- particularly "illegal aliens" -- are plotting to take over the U.S. Southwest for Mexico.

Dobbs referred to potential "army" of "illegal alien" "invaders" taking over Southwest. During an April 2006 broadcast of his now-defunct CNN show, Lou Dobbs introduced a report by stating: "There are some Mexican citizens and some Mexican-Americans who want to see California, New Mexico and other parts of the Southwestern United States given over to Mexico. These groups call it the reconquista, Spanish for reconquest. And they view the millions of Mexican illegal aliens in particular entering the United States as potentially an army of invaders to achieve that takeover." Correspondent Christine Romans reported, "Long downplayed as a theory of the radical ethnic fringe, the la reconquista, the reconquest, the reclamation, the return, it's resonating with some on the streets," and went on to say: "A lot of open borders groups disavow it completely. But the growing street protests in favor of illegal immigration, Lou, are increasingly taking on the tone of that very radicalism." [CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, 4/31/06]

CNN reporter referenced "the Vicente Fox Aztlan tour," used "Aztlan" graphic sourced to hate group. Lou Dobbs Tonight correspondent Casey Wian characterized then-Mexican President Vicente Fox's trip to Salt Lake City, Utah, as a "Mexican military incursion" and claimed that "[y]ou could call" Fox's trip to the United States "the Vicente Fox Aztlan tour." During Wian's report, CNN featured a graphic of "Aztlan" that was sourced to the Council of Conservative Citizens -- an organization whose "Statement of Principles" reads: "We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called 'affirmative action' and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races." [Lou Dobbs Tonight, 5/23/06]

Malkin: "[T]he vast majority of mainstream Hispanic politicians" embrace "the intellectual underpinnings of reconquista." On Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin declared that protesters in Los Angeles were "people who believe that the American southwest belongs to Mexico, that we don't have a right to enforce our borders, and who do nothing more than try to sabotage our sovereignty." Malkin later added that "the kind of quote-unquote 'pride' that a lot of these illegal alien activists are touting now goes much further than just being proud about one's heritage and one's roots. The idea, the intellectual underpinnings of reconquista, are embraced by the vast majority of mainstream Hispanic politicians." [Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, 3/30/06]

Wash. Times editorial: Protesters approve of "reconquista" agenda. A Washington Times editorial accused Latinos who protested against a proposal to restrict immigration of either supporting or having given "tacit approval" to the "reconquista" agenda of "Hispanic radicals," which the editorial said was the "reconquering of Mexican land lost during the Mexican-American war." [The Washington Times, 3/30/06]

Fox's Gibson suspicious that Latino advocacy groups are set on "retaking old Mexico territories ... by pure birth rate." While saying that he was citing an internal email from the National Council of La Raza, John Gibson claimed on his Fox News show that he was suspicious that advocacy groups like the NCLR favor "the so-called reconquista," which Gibson described as the "retaking of old Mexico territories, which are now part of the United States, by pure birth rate." Gibson also asserted that the NCLR "is a group dedicated to the betterment of the race," adding, "good, but try being American while you are at it, guys." [Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, 4/3/06]

O'Reilly: Purported immigrant protest "organizers" have hidden "hardcore militant agenda" to take back American Southwest. On his radio show, O'Reilly said that the "organizers" of immigrant rallies have a "hardcore militant agenda of 'You stole our land, you bad gringos.' " O'Reilly said that the "slogan" of the demonstrations' organizers was "[W]e didn't cross the border, the border crossed us," and that this meant that the organizers believed that Americans "stole [their] land." The organizers' hidden "agenda underneath," said O'Reilly, was that "now, we're going to take it back by massive, massive migration into the Southwest." [Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 5/1/06]

Buchanan: "Chicano chauvinists and Mexican agents" want to "take back through demography and culture what their ancestors lost through war." In his book, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, published in August 2006, MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan wrote: "Chicano chauvinists and Mexican agents have made clear their intent to take back through demography and culture what their ancestors lost through war." He also wrote that the United States must keep "Americans of European descent" from becoming the "minority" in order to "survive[]." [State of Emergency (Thomas Dunne Books)]

Malkin: "[W]e saw ... that supposed fringe" that favors reconquista "come out into the mainstream." O'Reilly said to Malkin, "So I know that there's an undercurrent of militancy that says, 'Hey, this is our territory. You stole it from us in the Mexican-American War. We're going to take it back now by illegal immigration.' But I think that's a fringe, nutty group, not the mass of millions that we have." Malkin replied: "Well, I guess I disagree with you there, Bill, because I mean, we saw in April and May of this year [2006] that supposed fringe come out into the mainstream. And it wasn't just a dozen folks who are ensconced in the ivory tower who believe that the Southwest is Aztlan and it belongs to them." O'Reilly later asked her: "You think that this massive immigration to the United States, 15 million strong, is a part of a plan to bring back territory to Mexico?" Malkin responded: "Well, I take the Mexican government at its word when it says that is exactly its plan." [The O'Reilly Factor, 8/23/06]

Malkin: "[M]ilitant racism from another protected minority group was on full display" from "Latino supremacists." In her syndicated column, Malkin wrote of immigration rallies, "Well, this weekend, militant racism from another protected minority group was on full display. But you wouldn't know it from press accounts that whitewashed or buried the protesters' virulent anti-American hatred." Malkin also wrote: "Apologists are quick to argue that Latino supremacists are just a small fringe faction of the pro-illegal immigration movement (never mind that their ranks include former and current Hispanic politicians from L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to former California Democratic gubernatorial candidate Cruz Bustamante)." [Creators Syndicate column, 3/29/06]

Savage: "[B]rown supremacists" are "behind these protests." On his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage said: "So, it seems to me that there's a certain group of immigrants that's not very happy and they're all Hispanic. I don't see any other racial group out there in the streets, do you? Now, that's very interesting. I'm not allowed to raise the issue or the specter of brown supremacists behind these protests. Don't tell me this is all about compassion for immigrants, because it is not at all only about compassion for immigrants. They are trying to provoke the takeover of the United States of America." [Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation, 4/11/06]

Fox's Asman wondered whether marches are a perfect chance to "round up these lawbreakers and ship them out." Guest-hosting Fox News' Your World, David Asman discussed nationwide protests of immigration reform and wondered: "With so many illegals hitting the streets, is this the perfect time to round up these lawbreakers and ship them out?" As Asman spoke, the on-screen text read: "Round 'Em Up?" Later, the text read: "Perfect Chance to Arrest Illegal Immigrants?" [Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/10/06]

Smerconish: "[L]aw enforcement ought to step in" at immigration demonstrations and consider "gathering ... up" undocumented immigrants. Guest-hosting MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Philadelphia-based radio host Michael Smerconish suggested that "maybe law enforcement ought to step in" at pro-immigration demonstrations and consider "gathering ... up" undocumented immigrants. Smerconish wondered why there was "zero discussion" of "gathering them up" at the demonstrations, when "[a]ll I keep hearing is how would we ever find them?" [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 4/10/06]

Doocy suggested "round[ing] them up right then, when they're saying, 'Hey, I'm right here.' " On Fox & Friends, syndicated radio host Erich "Mancow" Muller announced that he was "having a big rally here in Chicago" for a "group" that he said was "pro-illegal murder and illegal car thieves." Muller added: "We're just getting together, and we're going to be out on the street. We're for illegal murder and illegal car thievery. So, we just like illegal stuff." Muller added: "I just like illegal murder and illegal car thieves. So, you know, it's illegal, but -- and, in fact, all the people who have done it are going to be out there on the street, and hopefully, none of the cops will come arrest us." Co-host Steve Doocy then said: "Yeah, you wouldn't want to round them up right then, when they're saying, 'Hey, I'm right here.' " [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 4/3/06]

Media figures attacked Mexican-flag wavers, but not those waving Irish, Italian, or Israeli flags. Following immigration rallies, media figures criticized demonstrators for carrying Mexican flags, but the same media figures had not complained about people waving other nations' flags, such as Irish flags at St. Patrick's Day events, Italian flags at Columbus Day events, or Israeli flags at Israel Day events. Some commentators even dismissed the comparison. For instance, National Review editor Rich Lowry called the Mexican-flag waving "more ominous" than the St. Patrick's Day or Columbus Day displays.

Savage: "[B]urn the Mexican flag!" On his radio show, Savage urged his listeners to "burn the Mexican flag" in opposition to undocumented immigrants, telling them to "[b]urn a Mexican flag for America, burn a Mexican flag for those who died that you should have a nationality and a sovereignty, go out in the street and show you're a man, burn 10 Mexican flags, if I could recommend it. Put one in the window upside down and tell them to go back where they came from! And if that's a little to xenophobic for you, ask yourself why the xenophobes from Mexico wave their flag in your country." [The Savage Nation, 3/27/06]

Fox News: Waving Mexican flag shows "antagonistic edge," waving U.S. flag "just a cover" and "a ploy to win America's support." Asman cited demonstrators' use of Mexican flags as evidence of "an antagonistic edge" and suggested that the use of U.S. flags and signs written in English at pro-immigration demonstrations was "just a cover" by the demonstrators to conceal their "real intention, which is to keep things as normal among illegal immigrants in the country." Similarly, Neil Cavuto suggested that the pro-immigration demonstrators' U.S. flags were "just a prop" and "just a ploy to win America's support." [Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/10/06; 4/11/06]

Buchanan: Illegal immigration is "an invasion of the United States of America" and "[t]he whole world is coming." On MSNBC's Hardball, Buchanan claimed that the influx of undocumented immigrants into the United States is "not immigration" but "an invasion of the United States of America" that is "coming not only from Mexico," but "from the whole world." He reiterated: "The whole world is coming." [MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, 5/15/06]

Savage: "This is an invasion by any other name." Savage said, "We, the people, are being displaced by the people of Mexico. This is an invasion by any other name. Everybody with a brain understands that. Everybody who understands reality understands we are being pushed out of our own country." [The Savage Nation, 3/27/06]

Buchanan: "This is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history." In State of Emergency, Buchanan wrote of immigration: "This is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history." He also wrote: "We are witnessing how nations perish. We are entered upon the final act of our civilization. The last scene is the deconstruction of the nations. The penultimate scene, now well underway, is the invasion unresisted." [State of Emergency]

Tancredo: [W]e are at war with Mexico, in a way." On Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, WorldNetDaily.com columnist Tom Tancredo -- then a Republican congressman from Colorado -- said, "[I]n a way, we are at war with Mexico, in a way. I'll say it in this way: Mexico is aiding and abetting an invasion of this country. They are part of the problem. They are doing what they are -- in fact, they are creating situations along that border using their own military to protect drug trafficking into the United States, pushing their own people into the United States for a variety of reasons. It is an invasion. It is an act of aggression." [Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, 6/26/06, transcript from the Nexis database]

Beck sidekick Gray: "[W]e are in a war with Mexico right now." Pat Gray, who is now a co-host of Glenn Beck's radio show, appeared on Beck's then-CNN Headline News show and claimed that "we are in a war with Mexico right now." After Beck agreed that "we better wake up soon," Gray responded: "[O]r we're going to wake up dead." [CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, 9/25/06]

O'Reilly claimed to have exposed the "hidden agenda" behind the immigrant rights movement: "the browning of America." O'Reilly claimed that during his Fox News show, guest Charles Barron, a New York City councilman, had revealed the "hidden agenda" behind the current immigration debate. O'Reilly told his radio listeners: "[T]he bottom line is Charles Barron said last night is there is a movement in this country to wipe out 'white privilege' and to have the browning of America." But in the interview, Barron at no point claimed that he and other advocates for immigrant rights are motivated by a desire to force white Americans into the minority -- despite O'Reilly's repeated efforts to provoke such an acknowledgment. [The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 4/12/06]

Beck: "[I]llegal immigrants are attacking our culture, and our way of life." On his then-CNN Headline News show, Beck said, "[A]t the very least, illegal immigrants are attacking our culture, and our way of life. They are not melting into our melting pot -- they're here for the cash." He later said, "I mean, we've got all these threats coming in from overseas, but the simplest way is for us to lose the culture of the West is just to do nothing and let illegal immigrants not melt in and take the culture away from us." [Glenn Beck, 8/24/06]

Buchanan: "They're not welcome to come here and insult the symbols of our country, and that's what these outsiders have done." On Scarborough Country, Buchanan said that a Spanish-language version of "The Star-Spangled Banner" is "a provocation and an insult" and that immigrants are "not welcome to come here and insult the symbols of our country, and that's what these outsiders have done." Buchanan then said that the Spanish recording is "a good thing in this sense: The American people are awakening to the character of these people." [Scarborough Country, 5/1/06]

Matthews: Republicans "have a right to fear" a "cultural change" that would result in their hometowns "becom[ing] overwhelmingly Mexican." On Hardball, Matthews claimed that House Republicans who had passed a bill that would apparently have criminalized undocumented immigrants, their employers, and those who provide aid to them "have a right to fear" a "cultural change" that would result in their home states and towns "becom[ing] overwhelmingly Mexican." Matthews was responding to a suggestion by guest Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now, that "the Republicans who passed the House bill" are "afraid" that the United States will soon have "a majority Latino population." Matthews later said, "It's not my point view necessarily," before suggesting that "90 percent of this country" agrees with the "viewpoint" that "I didn't move to Mexico; Mexico moved to me, and I'm complaining about it." [Hardball with Chris Matthews, 3/30/06]

O'Reilly: "[Y]ou're on a nice block ... and then the house next to you is turned into an illegal alien Club Med." On his radio show, O'Reilly said:

You've got the folks who don't have emotion invested in it, other than the farmers down and the ranchers down on the border are going -- as the lady just called up, [caller] -- say, look, I got garbage in my -- on my ranch every day. I mean, I'm under siege. They have emotion invested in it. But those of us up here don't.

Unless you live in a town, like Farmingville, Long Island -- we went over this before -- where you bought a house, you spent a couple of hundred thousand dollars, you're on a nice block, your kids are happy, and then the house next to you is turned into an illegal alien Club Med. And this happens all over the country. [The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 3/27/06]

Buchanan: "I think what's coming is the complete balkanization of America." On Hardball, Buchanan said, "I think what's coming is the complete balkanization of America, and I'm afraid it's going to be by ethnicity and culture, and language, and every other way. ... And so, then, it's not like the country you and I grew up in, Chris, whereby we were monocultural. We were monocultural." [Hardball, 6/5/06]

O'Reilly wondered whether children of Mexican immigrants in U.S. "have any kind of traditional value system" or are "setting up Acapulco North." On his radio show, O'Reilly wondered whether children of legal and undocumented immigrants from Mexico who are attending school in the United States "have any kind of traditional value system at all, vis-à-vis what America used to be," or whether they are "taking their Mexican values, because most of them are Mexicans, and, you know, basically setting up Acapulco North." [The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 8/15/06]

Buchanan: "You're going to have a giant Kosovo in the Southwest, which de facto is going to secede." On Scarborough Country, Buchanan said: "[Y]ou cannot absorb 40 to 60 million more people. You're going to have a giant Kosovo in the Southwest, which de facto is going to secede from this country." [Scarborough Country, 6/5/06]

Buchanan: Immigration will turn U.S. into "a polyglot boarding house for the world, a tangle of squabbling minorities." On CNN's The Situation Room, Buchanan warned that "[w]e'll become a polyglot boarding house for the world, a tangle of squabbling minorities." He continued: "The problem with the immigration, basically -- let's take Mexico -- is these folks are breaking the law, first. Secondly, they're coming in huge numbers, like no other group before. Third, they're from a contiguous nation. Fourth, 58 percent of Mexicans believe the Southwest belongs to them. Fifth, the Mexican government is pushing them in here, and it's got a political and ideological agenda." [CNN's The Situation Room, 8/28/06]

"North American Union" is an absurd conspiracy theory. Right-wing media, including Dobbs, have obsessively warned that elements in the U.S. government are secretly plotting to merge the United States with Mexico and Canada in a "North American Union" similar to the European Union. During the June 21, 2006, edition of his CNN show, Dobbs stated that "the Bush administration is pushing ahead with a plan to create a North American union with Canada and Mexico" and later asked: "Do you think, our question is, maybe somebody should take a vote if we're going to merge Canada, Mexico and the United States as the leaders of the three countries are attempting to do with the security and prosperity partnership? Yes or no. Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com." Dobbs' CNN colleague Suzanne Malveaux later described the North American Union rhetoric as "conspiracy theor[y]." [Lou Dobbs Tonight, 6/21/06]

Corsi: "North American Union ... was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy." Jerome Corsi, co-author of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, wrote in a column that "President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy. Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico." [HumanEvents.com, 5/19/06]

WND's Farah linked Bush guest-worker proposal to plan by "one-worlders" to merge U.S., Mexico, Canada. Appearing on a radio show, WorldNetDaily founder and editor Joseph Farah claimed that the "one-worlders" of the Council on Foreign Relations have a plan to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada by 2010 and suggested that Bush's proposed guest-worker program is part of this plan. Farah said, "Sometimes, the conspiracies are right." [American Family Radio's Today's Issues, 4/4/06]

Buchanan: Vicente Fox's "ultimate goal" is making Mexico and U.S. "basically part of the North American Union." On Lou Dobbs Tonight, Buchanan said, "The government of Mexico is pushing its poor and unemployed into the United States to ease social pressure on itself. Secondly, they get $16 billion in remittances back to Mexico. Third, it is awoken to the idea that it can reannex the American southwest, which it used to hold, linguistically, culturally, ethnically and socially, not militarily by pushing all these people in there and creating a gigantic fifth column in America." Buchanan added: "The ultimate goal of Vicente Fox is the erasure of the border between the United States and Mexico. He has said as much and to make the two basically part of the North American Union in which Mexico will get ... a constant flow of cash from the wealthy USA and La Reconquista is the objective." [Lou Dobbs Tonight, 9/5/06, Nexis transcript]