Read more of this story at Slashdot.

A test for the media

On MSNBC on Thursday, Time's Jay Carney offered an assessment of the McCain campaign's most recent assault on the media: "Clearly, the campaign has decided that one way to win is to attack the media. Now, that could work. It does not have a great history of working. 'Annoy the Media: Re-Elect George Bush,' 1992 -- Bush got, I think, 39 percent of the vote or 37 percent of the vote."

Carney didn't explicitly say it, but he seems to be under the impression that the point of the McCain campaign's attacks on the media is to win support from voters who dislike the media. And he seems to think the Republicans only occasionally wage a war on his profession.

In fact, it is a constant war, the point of which is not to merely win a few votes from people who dislike the media. The point is to make voters distrust the media, to make them believe the media are out to get conservatives and thus cause them to discount news reports that are unfavorable to conservatives, and to cow the media themselves into running fewer such reports. (It serves another purpose, too: It helps a nominee whose heiress wife shows up at the convention in an outfit estimated to cost $300,000 pretend to be a man of the people raging against the "elites." But that's a story better told elsewhere.)

And it does indeed have a great history of working. No, it has a spectacularly successful history of working -- of helping conservatives win both short-term and long-term victories. Don't take my word for it: Longtime Washington Post reporter Tom Edsall, now of The Huffington Post, has explained:

The conservative movement has been very effective attacking the media (broadcast and print) for its liberal biases. The refusal of the media to disclose and discuss the ideological leanings of reporters and editors, and the broader claim of objectivity, has made the press overly anxious, and inclined to lean over backwards not to offend critics from the right. In many respects, the campaign against the media has been more than a victory: it has turned the press into an unwilling, and often unknowing, ally of the right.

Take one example of right-wing media bashing contributing to short-term electoral success: Under fire from the White House and conservative activists, CBS News spiked a report questioning the Bush administration's case for the Iraq war that was supposed to air shortly before the 2004 election.

During that year's presidential debates, Bush told Americans, "I'm not so sure it's credible to quote leading news organizations" -- a direct assault on the media from the president of the United States in the biggest forum he had. But that was only a small drop in the steady stream of media criticism that came from Bush and his allies during the 2004 election.

If Jay Carney is going to point to election results to assess the success of the GOP's assault on the media, he can't simply cherry-pick the elections the Republicans lost; they've been doing this every election cycle for 40 years.

But the conservatives' attacks on the media aren't simply about the next election. They recognize that each such criticism makes voters and the media more likely to believe the next -- so even if the 2004 attacks hadn't worked, they still would have been successful.

And there would be nothing wrong with any of that -- if the Republicans' complaints had significant merit. But they frequently do not -- and they often don't even pretend that they do.

A few weeks ago, for example, there was a frenzy of conservative whining that Barack Obama had gotten more media coverage than John McCain. Now, the amount of coverage each candidate has gotten, by itself, tells us virtually nothing. What was the content of the coverage? Was it positive? Negative? True? False? Fair? Balanced? The conservative complainers made no attempt to assess this -- they just yelled that Obama was getting more coverage. Well, O.J. Simpson got considerably more coverage than Mother Teresa in 1994 -- anyone want to argue he got more favorable coverage? Anyone want to argue that, by covering Simpson too much, the media were demonstrating that they were in the tank for him?

Still, despite glaring flaws with the Republicans' criticism, the media took them seriously, and many journalists adopted the complaints as their own.

The past week provides a useful case study of how the Republicans' assault on the media works.

Last Friday, John McCain announced that he had chosen Sarah Palin to be his running mate. The media had a few questions -- basically, who is she, and is she ready to be president? So the McCain campaign threw a tantrum, insisting the media were being unfair. As usual, the complaints were short on details and merit -- but the media still took the complaints seriously, treating them as one of the most important topics of the past few week.

Perhaps the best example of how phony the GOP's complaints were: the McCain campaign's cancellation of an appearance by McCain on Larry King Live because, they said, CNN anchor Campbell Brown had behaved improperly in interviewing campaign spokesperson Tucker Bounds the night before. They didn't really say what Brown had done wrong -- probably because all she had done was ask simple questions that Bounds couldn't answer. After Bounds said that as governor of Alaska, Palin leads the state's National Guard, Brown asked him for an example of a decision she had made in that capacity. He didn't answer. So she asked him again. That isn't inappropriate; that's exactly what she should have done -- that's journalism.

And that drove the McCain campaign crazy.

So, did all the complaints work?

Consider this: Wednesday night, Sarah Palin falsely claimed she had told Congress she did not want funding for the "bridge to nowhere." She didn't; that was a lie. Congress had said a year before Palin became governor that Alaska need not spend the federal funds on the bridge. And Palin had initially supported the bridge, not opposed it. And once she became governor, Palin kept the money. Palin's false claims Wednesday night were not new: She had said the same thing in previous campaign appearances since McCain picked her -- and several media outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times had debunked the boast. But when Palin told the lie during her convention speech -- after days of McCain complaints that the media had been too hard on Palin -- those newspapers ignored the lie.

That wasn't the only false claim in Palin's speech that went un-debunked by the media. She falsely attacked Barack Obama's legislative record -- and media uncritically quoted the false claims. She lied about Obama's tax plans -- she said he "wants to raise" them, even though John McCain's own economic adviser has admitted that is false -- and, again, the media repeated her claim without debunking it.

Instead, much of the media gushed over her speech. If you watched MSNBC yesterday, you would have seen reporter after reporter talk about the McCain complaints that the media were too hard on Palin. And you would have seen reporter after reporter lavish praise on Palin's speech. But you wouldn't have seen them say much about the actual content of Palin's speech -- certainly not about whether she told the truth in it. At one point, Andrea Mitchell declared that "what came through" in Palin's address was "the authenticity."

Nonsense. "Authenticity" doesn't consist of doing a good job of delivering a speech -- not if the speech is riddled with falsehoods. But most of the media didn't tell you about the falsehoods, they just fell all over themselves praising the speech -- even praising the "authenticity" of someone who stood before the nation and repeated lies she had already been caught telling.

So, did the McCain attacks on the media work? They certainly didn't hurt.

And this isn't the first time a McCain assault on the media has appeared to pay off. He and his campaign have spent much of the year attacking the press.

And it seems to have worked: McCain still hasn't faced the media scrutiny reporters kept insisting would come eventually.

The media have told us a lot about Barack Obama and Tony Rezko, for example -- but kept key details about John McCain's relationship with Charles Keating a secret. Did you know that Cindy McCain was business partners with Keating around the time John McCain was meeting with regulators on Keating's behalf? Probably not: The Washington Post hasn't told readers that fact during this campaign; The New York Times has made only brief mention of it. ABC, CBS, NBC -- nothing.

Or how about the fact that John and Cindy McCain would save nearly $400,000 a year under John McCain's tax plan -- a tax plan that includes the extension of Bush tax cuts McCain once bashed as unfairly skewed towards the wealthy? Have you seen any media mention to that lately? It wasn't long ago that news organizations thought John Edwards' wealth was important to keep in mind in assessing his policy proposals -- but that apparently doesn't apply to John McCain.

The McCain campaign's war against the media shouldn't be surprising; this is what conservatives do. The only real question is what reporters are going to do about it. Are they going to fall for the absurd argument that John McCain -- arguably the national politician who has received the most favorable media coverage over the past decade, if not longer -- is being unfairly treated by reporters who still haven't given him any serious scrutiny? Are they going to cower in the face of right-wing bullying as they have so many times in the past?

It's hard to imagine that they won't. But there have been some encouraging signs this week. Time's Carney seems legitimately irritated that the Republican vice-presidential nominee refuses to face reporters. And colleague Joe Klein -- who has, in the past, been awfully kind to McCain -- urged fellow reporters not to back down in the face of the barrage of criticism from the right:

There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme.

The next two months will constitute a test for reporters: If they fall for the idea that they're treating unfairly a candidate who has long referred to them as his "base," what won't they fall for? If they won't stand up to these attacks, what will they stand up to?

During the September 5 edition of CBS' The Early Show, co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez did not challenge McCain campaign senior adviser Steve Schmidt's assertion that "Senator [Barack] Obama has a plan to raise" taxes. Rodriguez did not note that Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income families, and McCain's own chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has reportedly said that it is inaccurate to say that "Barack Obama raises taxes." According to Obama's "Tax Fairness Plan," "Barack Obama's plan will provide $80-85 billion in tax relief to America's workers, seniors, and homeowners." Obama's proposed tax cuts include "a new 'Making Work Pay' tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family," a "universal mortgage credit" which "will provide the average recipient with approximately $500 per year in tax savings," and the "eliminat[ion]" of "all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year."

In its analysis of Obama's and Sen. John McCain's tax proposals, the Tax Policy Center concluded that "Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households."

Rodriguez also did not challenge Schmidt's claim that Obama is "against" expanding domestic drilling. In fact, although Obama's energy plan states that "with 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, the U.S. cannot drill our way to energy security," Obama calls domestic oil and natural gas production "critical to prevent global energy prices from climbing even higher" and proposes "set[ting] up a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling" in Montana, North Dakota, Texas, Arkansas, and Alaska.

From the September 5 edition of CBS' The Early Show:

RODRIGUEZ: Thanks, Jeff. I'm joined now by Steve Schmidt, John McCain's senior strategist. Good morning, Steve.

SCHMIDT: Good morning, Maggie. It's great to be with you.

RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. So, what was John McCain's strategy last night, and what do you think he accomplished?

SCHMIDT: Well, what he wanted to do was talk to the American people about why he is ready to be president of the United States. American people got to hear his remarkable story, his journey from that 4-by-6 foot squalid prison cell in Vietnam to accepting his party's nomination. He's someone who has fought every major special interest in Washington, somebody who's put his country first, and what we have to do to change America is to stop the "me first" politics that you see out of so many of the Washington politicians. Senator Obama talks --

RODRIGUEZ: Steve, we heard all this from Senator McCain last night, but I just want to ask you, as I watched the biographical videos and heard all these personal stories, I was reminded of what Rick Davis, your campaign manager, said this week. This campaign, this election is not about the issues; it's a composite view of what people will take from -- about the candidates. Do you think you've focused enough on the issues?

SCHMIDT: Well, it will certainly be about the issues and Senator McCain talked about them last night: For example, $700 billion a year going overseas to countries who don't like us because of our dependence on foreign oil. Senator McCain has a real plan to start moving this country towards energy independence. We need to drill for more oil here, now. We need to build nuclear power plants. Senator Obama is against both. And if you're against both, we will never be energy independent. Senator McCain has talked about reducing the wasteful spending in Washington that is bankrupting our kids' future. Senator Obama wants to raise spending. Senator McCain is going to hold the line against tax cuts. Senator Obama has a plan to raise them. So, when we talk about the people --

RODRIGUEZ: Steve, I don't want to repeat --

SCHMIDT: Sure.

RODRIGUEZ: I don't want to repeat everything that Senator McCain said last night 'cause our viewers heard that already. I want to ask you in the limited time that we have left one more question about your running mate, Senator McCain's running mate Sarah Palin.

SCHMIDT: Isn't she great?

RODRIGUEZ: I know that you raised a million dollars -- I know that you raised a million dollars after her speech, so apparently John McCain's supporters think she's great, but Senator Obama's campaign raised $10 million. What do you think that says about Sarah Palin?

SCHMIDT: Well, I think she did a great job. She gave one of the great speeches that anybody has seen in a generation at -- out of a candidate from either party. She's going to have broad appeal across the country. She's somebody who understands what working families are going through. She's been one of the great governors in this country. She's the most popular governor of any governor in the country. And she's an expert on energy issues and it would be good to have an expert on energy issues who can help lead this country into energy independence working with Senator McCain in the White House.

RODRIGUEZ: All right. Steve Schmidt, thanks for your time this morning.

Two days after characterizing the media's coverage of Gov. Sarah Palin as the result of "the deep sexism that runs through our society," Fox News contributor Dick Morris said on the September 4 edition of Neal Boortz's nationally syndicated radio show, following Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention the previous day, that "when a woman wants to attack, it's hard because she's seen as strident or shrill." Morris added: "[Sen.] Hillary [Clinton] has that problem perhaps because she is strident and shrill. But Sarah did it very pleasantly, and it was a wonderful model." Similarly, in his September 4 New York Post column, Morris wrote of Palin's speech: "Many women look bad when they attack their opponents, too often seeming strident and shrill. But Palin was funny and irreverant [sic], with a biting wit and a joy of combat that was exhilarating to watch."

On the September 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Morris stated of the media's coverage of Palin: "A man would never have had to go through this. That his husband -- that her husband with DWI 20 years ago, that her daughter is having a kid, that there's a fight going on between her sister and her husband and the husband tasered the kid." He added: "It would never be asked about a man. It's the deep sexism that runs through our society."

During the September 3 edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show, after airing a video clip of Morris' comment about "the deep sexism that runs through our society," host Jon Stewart highlighted several previous statements from Morris' appearance on the November 5, 2007, edition of Hannity & Colmes including, "When a woman wants to be president, she shouldn't complain based on gender," and "This is what Hillary Clinton always does -- she retreats behind the apron strings."

From the September 4 edition of Cox Radio Syndication's The Neal Boortz Show:

MORRIS: I think a couple of things happened. First of all, we discovered a superstar last night.

BOORTZ: You really think so?

MORRIS: Oh, absolutely. This woman is incredible. And you know what it is? She brings an English parliamentary political sense to American politics. We're used to the Rocky model.

BOORTZ: Yeah.

MORRIS: Punch them in the ribs and train on cow carcasses. The British don't do it that way. They do it with humor, and ranking people out, and mocking them. And that's what Sarah did. And when a woman wants to attack, it's hard because she's seen as strident or shrill. Hillary has that problem --

BOORTZ: She did it very pleasantly last night.

MORRIS: -- perhaps because she is strident and shrill. But Sarah did it very pleasantly and was really neat. It's a wonderful model.

From Morris' September 4 New York Post column:

With sass and wit, sarcasm and sincerity, courage and strength, Sarah Palin last night showed us a new model of female politician.

Her family stories were genuine and real. Her commitment to special-needs children was moving. Her contempt for special interests was obvious.

And her putdowns of Barack Obama's rhetoric and her praise of John McCain's character and achievements were welcome and well delivered.

Many women look bad when they attack their opponents, too often seeming strident and shrill. But Palin was funny and irreverant, with a biting wit and a joy of combat that was exhilarating to watch.

Sometimes she reminded us of the hockey mom she is. Other times, she was an American Margaret Thatcher - mobilizing humor and biting satire to mock the opposition.

From the September 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

SEAN HANNITY (co-host): Well, I got to tell you, one of the things that has emerged in this campaign, in my view, is -- Sarah Palin has been now in the public spotlight for five days. There have been tougher and harder questions that have been asked relentlessly by a biased news media about her daughter than about Barack Obama, who's been running for 19 months.

MORRIS: A man would never have had to go through this. That his husband -- that her husband with DWI 20 years ago, that her daughter is having a kid, that there's a fight going on between her sister and her husband and the husband tasered the kid.

HANNITY: Right.

MORRIS: It would never be asked about a man. It's the deep sexism that runs through our society.

HANNITY: What is going to be the net result of that?

MORRIS: Well, right now, the whole election hangs in the balance. If McCain has to get rid of Palin, get rid of McCain. He's dead.

For sheer entertainment value, I think American politics in general, and Presidential campaigns in particular, are about the best bang for my buck, even as a non-American. For little more than the cost of an internet connection I can spend endless hours being amused. This 2008 campaign may be the most entertaining yet. While I rarely use this blog to discuss politics (and especially when I'm as ignorant of a topic as I am with U.S. politics), today I'll make the rare exception. Over the past few days I've bookmarked a whole lot of links and today will try to tie a few of them together.

Sarah Palin is undoubtedly the most electrifying and polarizing figure we've seen in U.S. politics for a long, long time. She has completely changed the face of election. A week ago the media could not break away from Barack Obama. Today Sarah Palin is dominating the discussion. She was the perfect foil; if anyone doubts McCain's smarts, I'd say he has proven himself the wily veteran with this pick. This has become an Obama vs. Palin election. At least for now, McCain is taking a back seat in his own Presidential election campaign. It's all about Sarah. Chuck Colson's article on clashing worldviews is interesting reading. "In the life of Sarah Palin, we see the clash of worldviews playing out before our own eyes. Consider every major controversial issue in American politics and culture right now . . . and somehow, they touch her personally." Everyone can either love or hate Palin; few are ambivalent.

It's little wonder that many evangelicals are quickly learning to love her. The little boy Piper Palin spit-shined in front of the nation is living, breathing proof of Palin's commitment to life--probably the single most important issue to a vast number of Christians. In an age when 90 or 95 out of every 100 children with Down Syndrome are destroyed, Trig is, well, alive. That, in and of itself, is almost miraculous today. Asked about her brother's Syndrome, Palin's daughter Willow said, "I don't care - he's my brother and I love him." Trig is exactly who God made him to be and he is a gift to that family.

But the greatest source of Palin's appeal must be her sheer normalcy. She is exactly the kind of pit bull hockey mom you'd meet anywhere in Alaska (or Canada). She's so unlike the majority of the politicians who strive for the White House. It seems almost a mistake that she is up on that platform.

People on the Loonly Left know they hate Palin but they are struggling with how to hate her. They turned first on her children, insisting that her infant son could not possibly be her own. They smeared her for having a baby in her "old age" (as if they all had their families in their prime child-bearing years) and determined that the baby must be her daughters'. The stupendous stupidity of leveling and believing such a charge showed just how far people would stoop to attempt to discredit her. Of course the controversy was quickly resolved when the McCain campaign announced that Palin's daughter was pregnant with a child of her own. Perhaps worst of all, she was going to keep the baby and will marry the father. While I read many articles assuring the American public that Palin was lying about being the mother of Trig, I don't recall reading nearly so many retractions or apologies.

Things got even weirder than this. Liberal feminists (is that redundant?) began to turn on Palin. You would think women would be thrilled to see a woman who is poised to rise higher in government than any woman before her, but this was not the case. While these feminists would have cheered Hillary Clinton as President or Vice President, Palin was not exactly the woman they had in mind. Not the hockey mom, church-going mother of five who is undoubtedly a better shot than Dick Cheney! And not the woman who is a powerful figure while remaining feminine and attractive. Stand to Reason says "One of the things that bugs me about the Feminist movement is it seems to tell women that they have to act like men to be equal to them. And in the process women are no longer feminine and instead take on some of the worst aspects of masculine nature... Gov. Palin seems to have a feminine appeal while displaying her capability and strength."

And so feminists wondered if she could possibly take care of her family while dealing with her responsibilities as Vice President. The feminists said this! Eventually there was something of a backlash and prominent feminists were forced to speak out. But the damage had already been done--we had seen another example of how far the left is willing to go to discredit this McCain/Palin ticket. They'll gladly violate their own principles to keep McCain out of the White House. It truly was a shameful week for the press.

Interestingly, while feminists have been asking whether Palin can care for her nation and her family, Christians have been wondering the same. Is it right for a woman to take on a position of such responsibility? Is it right for her to assume a position of leadership? No sooner had Palin been announced than Voddie Baucham wrote a much-publicized article in which he said this: "My point is simple. The job of a wife and mother is to be a wife and mother. Anything in addition to that must also be subservient to it. There is no higher calling. Moreover, I believe Paul's admonition [in Titus 2] should lead us to reject any notion of a wife and mother taking on the level of responsibility that Mrs. Palin is seeking." Baucham believes that the pro-life party is using Palin as a pawn in a move that is distinctly anti-family. Those who know of Baucham will know that he is very conservative when it comes to the role of women (going so far in The Return of the Daughters to suggest that women should probably not go to college).

Other more moderate conservative Christians spoke up. Writing for the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, David Kotter asked, "Does Sarah Palin Present a Dilemma for Complementarians?" He answered very well, saying, "From the outset we must remember that on November 4 the voters will not elect a national minister or pastor in chief. A president is not held to the same moral standards as an elder of a church. While it is a blessing from God to have ethical or even Christian political leaders, the Bible places no such requirements on secular governments. Even though the Bible reserves final authority in the church for men, this does not apply in the kingdom of this world." Al Mohler agrees, saying "The New Testament clearly speaks to the complementary roles of men and women in the home and in the church, but not in roles of public responsibility. I believe that women as CEOs in the business world and as officials in government are no affront to Scripture. Then again, that presupposes that women -- and men -- have first fulfilled their responsibilities within the little commonwealth of the family."

One blog I appreciated was Amy's (which has 173 comments and counting). Amy takes issue with the automatic assumption that a woman's highest calling is to be a wife and mother. "Being a wife and mother is a good and noble thing, but it is not the highest thing."

And I firmly agree with Amy and Mohler and Kotter. While Christians do want to maintain the focus on the family we have to be careful about stating categorically that a woman has no business running for Vice President. Palin's decision is one to be made with her family and with counsel from her local church. Beyond that we, as Christians, have to trust her judgment in this kind of disputable matter. Far be it from us to declare that she cannot do both and that she cannot do both with excellence.

The timing of this campaign is interesting since we are likely to be facing an election here in Canada in the weeks to come. Palin is an unique figure and for so many reasons. Her husband is a snowmobile racer, for goodness sake. I wouldn't be surprised if she gets a few write-in votes in our election.

Bilguun reports that head of the Republican Party of Mongolia was detained for questioning on 4 September, being reportedly a suspect in the ongoing investigation into the organizers of the July 1 riots.

Yochai says he wants to leave the question: Can free culture survive systematization? [Trying to keep up with Yochai. Failing. Posting without proofreading or spell checking. Caveat lector.]

In 1835, it cost $10K (modern dollars) to start a daily newspaper. Now it costs millions. The startup cost causes a bifurcation between passive audiences and professional, commercial producers. The industrial structure of mass media characterizes the modern age. But, consider that SET@Home dwarfs the computing power of the supercomputers created in industrial ways. This is a radical decentralization of inputs and processes: material, processing, storage, communication, creativity, wisdom. For the first time, the most important inputs are broadly distributed in the population.

This takes social action that’s always been there, and moves it from being important socially and peripheral to the economy, to being at the core.

In Wikipedia vs. Britannica, the core issue isn’t price. It’s authority. The most important part of the Nature comparative study of the two was the editorial that urged scientists to update Wikipedia, sharing traditional authority with the new medium.

Yochai shows a 2×2: centralize or decentraliced vs market-based and non-market. Now we have a four-way interaction among all the old players, from traditional to social-sharing non-profits.

This engages distributed sensing of opportunities for action, solutions, experimentatino, adaptation. You get new and exciting possibilities. The increasing complexity and speed of change has been pushing businesses to go beyond the old technique of hiring what they need. “We can learn faster by loosening the structure of who gets to be effectively active in the world.”

But Yochai wants to focus on participatory culture and democracy. “Critical to the success and power of social production … is the decentralization of practical capacity to act…but also locating authority to act where the capacity to act resides.” This is where commons-based resources are important: We can act on them without permission. This is also where peer production systems (people cooperating without firms) matter because it allows people to work together without permission. “Ownership no longer equals or entails authority.” We get a more diverse , more transparent, and maybe a more critical self-reflective culture (although here he leaves a question mark).

Yochai shows a kickass video of a guy in a suit figuring out how to play the drums, followed by another guy in a split screen plahing piano. By someone named Lasse something? If you have the url, could you post it in