Bloggers on TV?

Those Volokhs point us to what seems to be a television show about bloggers:
Welcome to the “Bloggers” web site.
This is where you can make your submission to our TV show.
If you’re interested in being a part of our TV show, you can do so by submitting a video that encapsulates you and your blog.
We

The Illusion of Truth

Folks are all atwitter about chief Eason Joradan’s Op-Ed in the Times in which he confesses that CNN deliberately spiked stories that might offend the Hussein regime:
Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN’s Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard

A New Lair for Lair

Lair finally drank the cool-aid and has made the leap to Moveable Type! As is often the case with such things, he has a new url, so go check out new Amish Tech Support.

Practical Advice to The Agonist: Wear the Scarlet ‘P’

Sean-Paul Kelley, aka Agonist, has been called to account by Wired News (following Strategic Armchair Command‘s lead) for plagarizing material from Stratfor.
From Wired News:
“Kelley’s insightful window on the details of the war brought him increasing readership (118,000 page views on a recent day) and acclaim, including interviews in the The New York Times and on NBC’s Nightly News, Newsweek online and National Public Radio.
The only problem: Much of his material was plagiarized — lifted word-for-word from a paid news service put out by Austin, Texas, commercial intelligence company Stratfor.
“You got me, I admit it…. I made a mistake,” Kelley said. “It was stupid.” “

To my knowledge, Kelley has not disputed the facts of these charges, and has admitted guilt both to Wired, and in his own posts here, here, and here:
“I want to state explicitly that what I did was inexcusable and for many readers may be unforgivable. I understand that and am willing to accept the consequences of my actions.”
Many of the blogosphere’s finest have already weighed in on the issue: Glenn, Ken Layne, Colby Cosh, Glenn again, and Meryl have all condemned Kelley’s actions. Dan Drezner also joins in, and has a roundup of links.
I have found Sean-Paul to be a decent fellow in the limited interactions I have had with him. He was one of the first to actually advertise on TTLB, and more recently, has steered some of his now-stratospheric traffic my way via a few links over the past weeks. Just this past weekend, I e-mailed him first to point out some of my recent work (I’m not too proud to link-whore), and later to wish he and his new bride well on their recent wedding.
None of this changes my opinion on the core of this matter, however: Sean-Paul screwed up badly, and his poor judgment reflects not only on himself, but on webloggers as a whole. In a small way, we will all pay for his mistake: weblogs have lost some small bit of credibility today in the eyes of the world. It was inevitable that there would, some day, be a bad apple who let the world say “Aha! We knew those weblogs couldn’t be trusted.”
Sean-Paul, through his choices, has allowed himself to become that bad apple.
So what now?
Misdeeds should have consequences. Even now, Sean-Paul continues to reap the benefits of his earlier transgressions. Perhaps the people flocking to his site tonight would be doing so today even had he not lifted Statfor’s work. But more likely, many of them would not. And more appalling is the fact that even now, new readers to Sean-Paul’s site — today, and next week, and the week after that — may never know that he has admitted to such a breach of ethics.
And so I have a suggestion. If Sean-Paul is truly repentant for his actions: if he truly wishes to apologize and begin anew, then he should put a banner message at the top of his site, informing of readers of his past plagiarism, and linking to the relevant Strategic Armchair Command and Wired News articles.
And he should leave it there. Not for a day; not for a month. Maybe for years. Maybe forever.
With such a warning label, every reader who comes to his site will be able to make a full and informed judgment for themselves whether to trust what they read there. And with time, Sean-Paul would be able to continue his own work with the knowledge that his readership was there with full knowledge of both his strengths, and his failings: that the traffic was there were there because he had earned it.
Would this repair the breech of trust he has committed? No. Many — myself included — will always be wary of The Agonist in a way we never were before. I have removed the link to his site which I had placed on my header to the Cross-Blog Iraq Debate posts, which I added to point Yahoo and Google searchers to appropriate weblog resources on the Iraq conflict. (These posts are at the very top of search results for ‘blog iraq’). I do not expect that I will be putting it back.
But even if adding such a warning would not repair all the damage, taking such a step would be a significant and meaningful action that would admit guilt, and accept responsibility, in a way that his apologies to date have not. And that is something.
The Blogosphere itself can’t brand Sean-Paul with this scarlet “P”. He has to do it himself. But if he does, there is still a chance for Sean-Paul to salvage some dignity from this episode. It is my sincere hope that he does.

Meryl, Sullivan, and More Shameless Merchandise-Related Whinging

My old friend notes that I received a link from Andrew Sullivan over the weekend (thanks, Andrew!), commenting:
So let’s see now. My friend Da Bear, whom I set on his way to stardom, got a link from Andrew Sullivan, something which I have yet to achieve (well, unless you count the link from Andrew’s week on MSN, which, come to think of it, almost counts), and has also fairly consistently kicked my ass in average visits since, oh, five minutes after I launched him into the blogosphere. But am I jealous? No. Regretful? Not a bit. This is my friend. I am glad for my friend’s continuing success. (Repeat nine more times.)
Damned whippersnapper.

First, Meryl: I don’t know why people say bitterness in unattractive — you wear it so well! Downright sexy, if I dare say it.
Now, to the substance of your remarks. You note that I have “fairly consistently kicked [your] ass in average visits since, oh, five minutes after I launched him into the blogosphere.” Well, actually, I think mostly that’s not quite true — I’ve always had a lot of inbound links, thanks in large part to the Ecosystem, but I think my daily traffic numbers have often lagged behind yours.
So don’t feel too bad. Now as for the Sullivan thing: yes, I got a direct link from Daily Dish, making my Sullivan number 2. (Sullivan numbers, for those joining the party late, were meant to denote just how “connected” a blogger is to the great Andrew. The man himself has a number 1; anyone he directly links to has a number 2, and anyone they link to is a 3, and so on…) And you rightfully console yourself that at least Andrew chose to link to you from his Slate commentary; so maybe that gives you a Sullinumber of 2.5, or something.
But I fear I must remind you: he linked to me from that commentary too.
So does that make mine 1.5?
Perhaps; at any rate, I think it’s safe and logical to conclude that regardless, for Sullivan numbers (and perhaps other things), in some deeply scientific and precise manner, I am indeed 1.0 better than you. (I also, for the record, go to eleven).
None of this, however, consoles me over the fact that my perfidious and fickle readers have utterly failed to avail themselves of my fine merchandise, with a few extremely limited exceptions. I thought by adding the TTLB Teddy Bear and designer TTLB panties and thongs, I’d be able to please everybody. But apparently not… it appears TTLB shall have to revise its financial plan for the quarter, and perhaps delay the Lear to next fiscal year…

My morning with Amnesty International

My masochistic streak was itching this morning, so I decided to take a wander over to International, and see how they were doing. Human Rights Watch actually did something useful this week, so I figured maybe we could be on a roll.
So what’s their top story on Iraq?
Iraq: Use of cluster bombs – civilians pay the price
Amnesty International is deeply concerned about the high toll of civilian casualties and the use of cluster bombs in US military attacks in heavily populated areas.
On 1 April, at least 33 civilians including many children were reportedly killed and around 300 injured in US attacks on the town of al-Hilla. Amnesty International is particularly disturbed by reports that cluster bombs were used in the attacks and may have been responsible for some of the civilian deaths.
“The use of cluster bombs in an attack on a civilian area of al-Hilla constitutes an indiscriminate attack and a grave violation of international humanitarian law,” Amnesty International emphasized today.
“If the US is serious about protecting civilians, it must publicly commit to a moratorium on the use of cluster weapons. Using cluster munitions will lead to indiscriminate killing and injuring of civilians,” the organization added.
According to reports, the type of cluster bomblets used in al-Hilla was BLU97 A/B. Each cannister contains 202 small bomblets — BLU97 — the size of a soft drink can. These cluster bomblets scatter over a large area approximately the size of two football fields. At least 5% of these ‘dud’ bomblets do not explode upon impact, turning them into de facto anti-personnel mines because they continue to pose a threat to people, including civilians, who come into contact with them.

Sigh. OK, let’s be clear: I have no idea whether the story above is true. I have no idea whether or not the U.S. military is utilizing cluster bombs in Iraq (but I’ll bet somebody reading this does — chime in anytime). But wow, talk about lack of sourcing! “According to reports” is the closest we get to understanding where these alleged facts come from — and that’s it! I’m not even asking for a hyperlink here — although I would remind Amnesty that it is 2003, they might want to learn how to do that — but perhaps attributing allegations like this to, well, somebody might help readers make a judgement? It would be petty to note that perhaps AI isn’t interested in their readers actually making any judgements at all — other than to simply nod their heads vigorously, murmoring “the horror of it!” on cue.
But not to be discouraged so easily, I clicked on the Act Now link for this story, and received:
Take action!
Please email or write to the defence ministries of the US, UK, Australia, Spain and Iraq using the sample letter below as a guide. You may also send appeals to your own government representatives if they are taking part or considering taking part in military action.
Please also write letters to the newspapers and other media in your country using the information contained in this action.

And was provided a nice form letter, as follows:
Dear
I am writing to you as reports emerge of cluster bomb and anti-personnel landmine use in Iraq to express my concern at the potential use of indiscriminate weapons that may not sufficiently distinguish between military and civilian targets and which will thus contravene customary international humanitarian law.
I urge you not to use weapons that are inherently indiscriminate. By their very nature anti-personnel landmines and chemical or biological weapons cannot be used in a manner which does not violate the principle of distinction between civilian and military target.
Although cluster bombs are designed to be targeted at military objectives, the fact that five per cent and sometimes a much greater proportion fail to explode on impact means that unexploded bomblets are left behind on the ground. They can then be triggered by civilian victims, functioning in exactly the same way as anti-personnel mines, which have been banned by the 1997 Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty.
If the US is serious about protecting civilians, it must publicly commit to a moratorium on the use of cluster weapons. Using cluster munitions will lead to indiscriminate killing and injuring of civilians.
Long-range missiles that are inaccurate, such as long range Scuds, should not be used. Nor should aerial bombing from altitudes of above 15,000 feet, since recent experience in Kosovo has shown that this does not allow for full adherence to international humanitarian law requiring parties to make every effort to distinguish civilians from military targets.
Given the continuing reports of long-term health and environmental damage that may be caused by depleted uranium, the use of uranium-tipped weapons should be suspended pending further independent medical evidence showing that these weapons do not have delayed indiscriminate effects.
Yours sincerely,

Whoah! Now I understand what they’re trying to do here: craft a letter that can be sent to all parties in the conflict. But it tends to mangle the facts and accusations all together a bit, doesn’t it? I mean, I was worried about those little cluster-bomby things, I hear they’re all evil and stuff, but what’s this about land mines? The U.S. Army is laying mines! The bastards! And chemical weapons? I knew they were hypocrities! Oh, wait, that was Iraq? Was it? Huh?
But the final kicker comes when you click on the link to “view the list of addresses to use for this action”. Groups like Amnesty always want to make it as easy as possible for folks to send their messages, so naturally they provide the addresses. Five nations are listed — Australia, Iraq, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Every one of them has a simple, explicit, easy-to-use address: except one.
Guess which one.
Bing. Iraq! Amnesty advises:
Letters addressed to President Saddam Hussein should be sent directly to the Iraqi embassy in your country. If there is no Iraqi embassy in your country then you can send appeals to your country’s Interests Section for Iraq. If so, please enclose a covering letter explaining your aims, asking them for assistance in obtaining a response, and requesting that your letter be forwarded to government officials in Baghdad.
Oh, that will help. Amnesty is a master at these campaigns, so I’ll bet they actually have statistics that could tell us exactly what percentage of people will take the effort to hunt down an embassy address like that as opposed to just mailing a letter when they are given the address explicitly. But I’ll bet there’s a big difference!
Just a suggestion, kids, but maybe you could have put the three addresses for U.S., U.K., and Australian citizens to use? This is your English-language site, after all.
Anyway, thus ends my brief foray into human rights activism. I emerge more baffled than I began; my head filled with visions of chemical cluster bombs and Spanish land mines. But perhaps that was the idea all along…

Human Rights Watch: Iraqi POW’s “Treated Well”

Kaus notes a story I heard myself on NPR this morning: that Human Rights Watch has conducted independent interviews with POW’s who surrendered to Kurdish forces in Northern Iraq. Kaus notes the interviewer’s conclusions that the Iraqi’s suffered terrible treatment at the hands of their own commanders, but he breezes right by the other major news of the piece:
“The Iraqi soldiers all reported good treatment by the Kurdish forces to whom they had surrendered….All of the detainees interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that they had been treated well by the Kurdish Pesh Merga

Marshall on FoxNews

Marshall posted a note this morning indicating he’ll be on FoxNews today to “debate whether it’s okay for anyone to question or criticize Don Rumsfeld’s war-planning.” Appearance is scheduled for somewhere around 5:15 PM EST.
Hey Josh, mention TTLB and I’ll send you a mug!

Kerry & Marshall: Regime Change Begins At Home

So a few days back John Kerry said:
“What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States.”
This, predictably, hasn’t gone over well with many folks, and equally predictably, Republican operatives and supporters have gleefully pounced on Kerry, denouncing the comments.
None other than Josh Marshall, however, is defending Kerry, labeling criticism of his remarks “bullying”:
“I’m just finishing up a study about how one group of people used overwhelming displays of violence to overawe and terrorize another group into docility and obedience. So, even though this is verbal rather than physical violence, I think I have an idea how this works… For the purposes of our present discussion, the particulars of Kerry’s remark are almost beside the point. This is no better than cheap bullying practiced by the president’s hacks.”
Slow down, cowboy. Did I read that right? Criticizing statements a U.S. Senator made in a public forum is equivalent to using actual physical violence as a tool of intimidation? Did I miss a memo?
But Marshall is not just interested in attacking Kerry’s attackers: he defends the substance of Kerry’s remarks:
“As it happens, I think Kerry’s original remarks are precisely on the mark. The 2004 election would always have been an important election. But the events of recent months have made it perhaps one of the most important elections in the last century. And the future of the country depends greatly on President Bush not being reelected.”
But Kerry wasn’t talking about the 2004 election. In fact, I’d argue he wasn’t talking about any election at all. When you hear the phrase “regime change”, do you think “an orderly, democratic transition of power to be held via the next regularly scheduled election?” No! You think “big guys with guns leading some ex-strongman on a perp walk out of the presidential enclave and off to The Hague.”
Now, do I think Kerry really advocates the violent overthrow of our system of government or our current President? Of course not. But that doesn’t change the fact that the most obvious interpretation of his remarks is, in fact, just that.
If Kerry didn’t mean to conjure such visions with regards to President Bush, then he quite easily could have substituted the words “new administration” for “regime change”. But he didn’t — he wanted to make a direct comparison between deposing Saddam Hussein (vicious murdering dictator) and President Bush (democratically elected President).
And if he gets abuse (verbal and written criticism, mind you, not threats of violence) for that — he deserves every bit of it. That’s not bullying — it’s holding an elected politician accountable for his own words.

Change the Story

Bradford DeLong, responding to my question to those who opposed war against Hussein’s regime (“What do you want?”):
[I want a] … world in which the story the rest of the world tells itself is (1) that of a patient U.S. that–as a last resort–overthrows a cruel and dangerous dictator who has been massacring his own people and is a threat to his neighbors.
I don’t want a world in which the story the rest of the world tells itself is (2) that of a U.S. out-of-control–whipped into war fever by a President who has lied about connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein–that invades and conquers a small country far away for confused sets of reasons that the rest of the world finds scary.
We need to cement the alliance–create a Concert of the Atlantic–if we’re to have much of a chance of keeping future crises from blowing up in our face.
So I charge you, Bear, to do everything you can to change the story the rest of the world tells itself from (2) to (1). For if this is not accomplished, Operation Iraqi Freedom will be an operational victory for the U.S. (and a definite victory for the Iraqi people) but a strategic defeat for America.

Yes!
Charge accepted, Brad. Is there any clearer definition of a blogger — of a writer — to be found, than one who changes the story of the world?
I’ll do my part. And I can only hope that it is enough…

The Command Post: Nothing’s Perfect

Well, had to happen sooner or later: I disagree with something done by the fine folks over at Command Post.
Journalist Michael Kelly was killed today in an accident while covering the war as an embedded reporter with the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division. It goes without saying that this is horrible, and my thoughts and best hopes go to Michael’s wife, children, and all those who counted him as a friend or loved one.
However, at the risk of being dismissed as heartless, I disagree with the Command Post’s decision to run the story on Kelly’s death “above the fold” today with a sticky note which has remained at the top of the front page.
The argument that no one death should be elevated above all the others occurring during this war — from Iraqi civilians to our own soldiers to other nation’s journalists — is so banal it barely merits repeating. Yes, Kelly was a journalist, and by all accounts, a fine one at that. And as such, he is most certainly closer, in some sense, than most of the other unfortunate souls who have lost their lives during this conflict to the authors of the Command Post — including myself.
Singling him out for such treatment, however, raises more questions than it answers. Will every American journalist who dies receive such treatment? Do they have to be a Washington Post columnist and Atlantic Monthly editor to deserve it — or would a stringer from the Podunk Daily Mail get the same honors? How about British reporters? Australians? And why, exactly, is a journalist worthy of such honor, but the American soldiers who sacrificed their lives today (there were at least three) are not?
But for the Command Post, there was another, more serious reason why the above-the-fold treatment was inappropriate: it just wasn’t news.
And news is what the Command Post is all about. Alan, Michele, and the dedicated team of authors that drive the site have done an extraordinary, exceptional job at establishing a straight-ahead, just-the-facts source for breaking news on this war that is second to none. Memorializing Kelly on the front page, while obviously done with the best of intentions and sentiments, distracts from the core mission of the site: to bring together the best sources of breaking news across the media spectrum. Because as tragic as this one man’s death was to all those who knew him: in the perspective of this war, and in the perspective of the world, it simply isn’t a big story.
To be clear: I can’t speak highly enough of the Command Post’s founders, its mission, its authors, and its amazing success over the past weeks. I take it as a small point of pride that I happened to be one of the very first bloggers other than Alan and Michele themselves (the first, I think) to post to the site following the launch. And I carry a similar-sized batch of shame for the fact that I haven’t found myself able to regularly contribute to the site to nearly the degree that I’d like to.
So I hope this will be taken as a constructive critique from one who wishes only the best for the site. I hesitated, for a moment, to post this, feeling a twinge of reluctance to directly criticize the folks that I’m rooting so hard for to succeed.
But I’m a blogger, as are they. And speaking our minds is what we do. It’s all we do. And when we start censoring ourselves — well, we might as well just give up entirely and get ourselves editors.

Predictions Watch

Ok, yet another reader-participation post. (Somehow my creative juices aren’t flowing, sorry.).
I’m looking to collect bold predictions which have already been made about the outcome of the war. These can be either pro- or anti- war; only limitation is I’d like to stick to near-term predictions about the immediate outcome of the attack on Hussein’s regime — long term speculation doesn’t count for this exercise.
It is too soon to begin reaching conclusions on the rightness or wrongness of such predictions — but I’m beginning to suspect that it won’t be long now. (See, I’m doing it myself! First prediction — N.Z. Bear: “It won’t be long now”.) And I think it is part of our blogospheric duty to be prepared to retroactively fact-check everybody’s ass — including our own.
Anybody is fair game: public figures, journalists, Big Media commentators, or of course, other bloggers. Direct quotes only, and include the date of the prediction where known. And of course, links to sources are highly desirable.
I eagerly await responses…

April French Day

It says something about something that when I saw this page, it wasn’t so much that I didn’t get that it was a joke — but that it seemed plausible to me:
France Declares WAR on United States
As I said to the person who sent me the link: I suspect it’s all a U.S. plot. French military assistance probably translates to training Hussein’s forces on optimal surrender techniques….

A question for those opposing this war

I’ve been noodling a piece about the current state of peace protesters, and the shift in meaning that occured between protesting to prevent a war, and protesting a war that is already in progress.
But frankly, others have done it already, so I’d be retreading old ground. So instead of doing that, and putting words in the mouths of those opposing this war, let me just ask a simple question:
What do you want?
I’d really like to know. And I’ll leave it at that, as I don’t want to prejudice the question any more. But please, if you oppose (or opposed) attacking Hussein’s forces in Iraq, I’d like to hear your “What I would do if I was President” speech. What actions would you take, and how would those actions be better (in whatever way you choose to define ‘better’) than the course we are pursuing today? And if you feel really intellectually honest, in what ways would your approach be worse?
Comment section is thataway…
-NZB