Media on HuffingtonPost.com

NY Post Circulation Sinks To 508,000

2009-11-09T07:59:31Z

Nearly every paper in America has lost circulation, but The Post more than most -- down almost 30 percent in 2.5 years, to 508,000 in the most recent reporting period, against 544,000 for The Daily News.

Sara-Ellen Amster, Ph.D.: The Chronicle of Darth Vega: May the Force Be with Him

2009-11-09T06:56:58Z

Most troubled newspapers have tried to stay afloat by squeezing out every cent they can from newsrooms with staff layoffs and buyouts and by reducing newshole so that local papers are stuffed with wire stories.

But The San Francisco Chronicle is taking the opposite approach beginning Monday to attract more readers to a daily newspaper that resembles a magazine, although not every page will be glossy. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/11/04/financial/f120113S09.DTL
113S09.
Why not try it?

When all else has not worked, there appears to be nothing left to lose. By putting more resources into the look of the paper, at least the management is improving the product, rather than further stripping it down.

The publication has already implemented the same cost-cutting measures as peers nationally, which have suffered circulation declines averaging more than 10 percent. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/10/26/newspaper-circulation-losses-accelerate-except-at-the-wall-st/

Despite efforts thus far, the largest newspaper in northern California still has experienced a nearly 26 percent weekday circulation decline between April and September from the same period one year ago -- the largest downward spiral in the nation. Last year, The Chronicle lost $50 million, causing owner Hearst Corp. to threaten its closure. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ioa3uSyYR8QVFUjT0CHrmwpM8KwgD9BOUQB80

The Chronicle's novel approach today by turning glossy is gutsy and goes against expectations, but risks making all involved look like anachronistic fools. After all, this location is on the very peninsula where Craigslist.com and google.com continue to siphon the oxygen out of advertising revenue that had it still existed, could have fueled The Chronicle plan. The Internet is a far superior delivery system that can reach people on their cell phones and portable laptops without threatening a single tree. And the Internet is not going away. The Chronicle's online readership is actually growing. Combined, the print and online paper reaches 1.9 million people in the Bay Area during a typical week and is starting to turn a profit - some weeks. Putting more energy and money into a print product is probably doomed to failure.

Magazine-quality publications are very costly to produce, print and transport to allegedly more sophisticated and wealthy clientele. No matter how bright and literary they are, readers of print publications - newspapers and magazines both -are dying off. Their replacement millenials are less dedicated to any media form that isn't on a wireless network. Just ask Gourmet magazine, which recently closed its doors after publishing since 1941.

Publisher Frank Vega, who was nicknamed Darth Vega during tough battles with union workers in Detroit, has been tapped as fixer for The Chronicle.http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-05-04/news/darth-vega-to-the-rescue/

As if ignoring other societal media trends, Vega told SFGate.com and San Francisco Business Times that the decline was an expected result of a shifting strategy that will rely less on advertising revenue and more on income generated from readers. "We feel the readers have to make a conscious decision about the paper," Vega said. "And we're pleased that we still have the healthiest audience for any media outlet in the Bay Area." http://links.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/27/BUDV1AAV94.DTL#ixzz0WIqtthL1
Say again? If there were enough readers to generate income there would not be a problem.

The newspaper has hiked its weekly subscription rate from $4.75 18 months ago to $7.75 today. That's quite a lot of money to pay in an era where the public is used to getting its news for nothing. In a recession, high prices usually do not translate to more customers.

With that kind of charge - almost $400 a year - readers will expect something for the money, a less disposable product, one that can't double as fish wrap or cat liner, sure, if they are inclined to buy such a product at all.

Vega was groomed as a local publisher by USA Today founder Al Neuharth who was king of short news stories and colorful sections in the early days of McPaper. As vice president for circulation, Vega presided over the bolting down of more than 100,000 newsracks in 1982 in cities across America on the launch of USA Today. The ubiquitous boxes mimic TV screens. Instead of USA Today's blue mast, Florida Today's flag is orange. At the time I worked there in the late '80s, Florida Today in Melbourne, Fla., where Vega served as publisher, restricted its story length with the idea that no one read anything more than headlines and captions. Stories often were not allowed to jump inside the paper.

In The Chronicle case, the emphasis must be on the quality of reporting and writing to produce a worthwhile product for the community. For Democracy's sake, I hope that happens in the tradition of longer magazine material, the muckraking style that was popular in San Francisco in 1936, when John Steinbeck wrote about the Dust Bowl experience of poor migrant farmers, but as the goal is fiscal survival this probably is a pipe dream. Darth Vega or not, it pretty much doesn't matter what Vega tries. Up against the Internet, how can he win?

The Chronicle's leaders must focus on the quality of what's printed on its pages as readers will expect to get more specialized information for their expenditure if anyone will even fork up that kind of cash - (maybe if the paper paid for lunch also or got Starbucks to throw in free lattes?)

As the best stories still come from print journalism, the magazine idea is laudable. Yet Vega, so lucky to ride the upward path of USA Today all those years ago has found himself on the wrong side of history this time. The time for print is passing rapidly. Steinbeck got his start in San Francisco in newspapers with the muckraking series in a publication few have heard of now. The vehicle of print made him a literary giant, a voice for the suffering of poor migrant farmers in the then San Francisco News. After first merging with The Call-Bulletin, The News was eventually swallowed by The San Francisco Examiner in 1965. The complication now is that society is fragmented and The Chronicle must establish its niche among the tech-savvy, youthful generation that really does not have much time, money or affection for old media. The Examiner is now a free paper, not exactly its former glorious self.

The real place that Vega and others must concentrate on is the Internet. If he wrote his series today, Steinbeck would have been called upon too add multimedia elements to his package on the migrants so as to allow it to run in both print and online editions.

Times have changed. The readers/viewers would probably rather peruse The Chronicle on an iPhone application than purchase it or subscribe in print, no matter how pretty the pages look or feel. In Silicon Valley, a gadget will always trump a newspaper as a status symbol. The chance of The Chronicle's success is so small that the first papers indeed may be snapped up as keepsakes of a bygone era but not as part of a regular habit.

Anonymous Democratic Strategist Claims White House Discouraged Fox News Appearances

2009-11-08T23:53:59Z

At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning from the White House to never appear on Fox News Channel, an outlet that presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation as a political opponent bent on damaging the Obama administration.

TV SoundOff: Sunday Talking Heads

2009-11-08T14:02:58Z

Good morning. This is your weekly liveblog of the events soon to be transpiring on your teevees, while you, hopefully live your lives. My name is Jason. Ever get the feeling that an overheated sense of super deep-fried significance tends to get attached to everything, until we're all practically dying of glucose-induced, candy-flavored ball-lightning shocks of the brainstem? Because earlier this week was election day. Hardly any elections were held, at all! And the significance of said elections was pounded into my face by mallet wielding on-air sea lions barking over and over again about WOO GAMECHANGERZ 2010 MAYBE 2012 DOESN'T THIS HIT YOU MIND LIKE A DAISYCUTTER.

Well, no! In fact, at the end of the week, even buffeted by the latest fad of Tea Partying, the House went right out and did what they were going to do all along -- ALL YEAR LONG, REALLY -- and pass their health care bill. And even then, that was a story told with RAW EMOTION AND INTENSE ECTSTACY as the MOST IMPORTANT PROCEDURAL VOTE OF ALL TIME went down exactly as everyone predicted it would (with an added cushion of votes gained from those elections on Tuesday that were supposed to be read as the TOTAL PULVERISATION OF HEALTH CARE REFORM IN OUR LIFETIMES!

Where were you when the House did this? Me, I was girding myself, with liquor, in advance of the moment when that saggy and unloved sack of malted bile, Joe Lieberman, ruins everything. GOOD TIMES, AMERICA.

Anyway, yeah, I've been looking forward to the toxic shock of this Sunday for a few days now. As always, you should feel invited, but not required, to do any of the following: leave a comment, drop us an email, or follow me, as some do, on the Twittering. Et maintenant...

FOX NEWS SUNDAY

Chris Van Hollen, Mike Pence, Joe Lieberman, and Bob McDonnell? I could get hypoglycemic on all the charisma I'm about to be dosed with.

Well, hey, health care passed by five votes, but there was a contentious vote over an abortion measure offered by Bart Stupak. For more on that, hie thee to Ezra Klein. Then, the GOP mainly recited the same talking points again and again, except for John Shadegg, who dragged a baby onstage with him in an effort to get written about on Wonkette, for being preposterous. I think he was successful.

Anyway, la: Van Hollen and Pence. Van Hollen says the message of last night's vote is that "it's time to begin to fix a broken health care system." Also, some more pleasant sounding boilerplate. Pense says the message is that the Democrats weren't listening to the yelly, Hitler-mustache drawing children at town halls OR the election day results in the two races where the GOP fared well. Also: TEH LIBRUL ESTABLISHMENT! WHY DO THEY ACT LIKE PEOPLE VOTED FOR THEM TO DO THINGS. Also, some more angry sounding boilerplate.

Van Hollen suggests that the 2008 elections are relevant, and that in 2009, the Dems got two YES votes from John Garamendi and Bill Owens. On health care, last night's vote was "one very big step on a long journey." The "public option" by the way, seems to be being rebranded as the "voluntrary option."

Pence is like, NO YOU DIDN'T GET THE MESSAGE. He thinks that people should be impressed that a "third party conservative" almost beat the Democrat in the NY 23rd race. That would be impressive if it weren't for the fact that no Democrat has actually won that seat since Amerigo Vespucci first scrawled his name on a map.

Meanwhile, unemployment: Van Hollen says that the outgoing administration ate killed the world, remember! We just sort of haven't succeeded in arresting that free fall, and hey, along the way, we conducted some bank stress tests predicated on the notion that everything was going to be a lot better. Mike Pence says, "the first thing you do in a hole is stop digging," which is like, his favorite cliche. I'm sure that there are dry cleaners in his district that give out free collar starch whenever he says it. Anyway, from Pence, we get LOLZ SPENDING FREEZE PLEASE? Pence would like a strong no-growth, pro-cyclical set of policies to exacewrbate the downturn forever.

Anyway, the Nidal Hasan shooting. "For answers, we turn to Joe Lieberman." Lieberman says that Fox is going to have tamp down their anti-Muslim fervor, it's too early, it's premature, but, you know what? MAYBE IT WAS THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE TERRORIST ACT TO BE COMMITTED SINCE 9/11!! OKAY? DID I MAKE SOME NEWS TODAY!?

Wallace asks Lieberman a bunch of questions about warning signs, and I'm like, "Shouldn't we wait for investigators to tell us what's going on here?" Lieberman's read reports and stuff that makes his all a'scurred! He'll hold some hearings with Susan Collins. That's because he chairs the Senate committee that deals with Homeland Security. Lieberman says that he will vote against the public option by not allowing the bill to come to a final vote, and if he does so, he shouldn't chair that committee anymore.

I'll let Chris Blakeley get mad at Joe Lieberman, because why not?

Every time Joe Lieberman, self-serving, opportunist of the first order, opens his mouth to take care of himself, I am reminded that he was Al Gore's choice for Vice President of the United States. Although I still see Sarah Palin as the worst VP choice ever, I now must admit that Joe Lieberman has moved ahead of Dan Quayle on that list. While I am thinking there is nothing self-serving Joe could do to supplant Palin, his performance this morning on FOX News Sunday has made me less sure of this.

It is no wonder the Democrats are so ineffective when they reward self-serving Joe's active support of the Republican candidate for president in 2008 by allowing him keep his Homeland Security Committee chairmanship. Joe, ever the self-serving opportunist, now expresses his gratitude by vowing to filibuster the Health Care bill if it includes the public option (Joe has to take care of himself by taking care of those Insurance company donors) and this morning on FOX News Sunday, spewing forth unsubstantiated claims to fan the fear of terrorism (to propel his committee into the media spotlight) by saying "if" Major Nidal Malik were acting as an Islamic terrorist, this was the worst domestic terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Then, as an after thought, self-serving Joe noted that we need to let the investigation go forward "before" jumping to any conclusions. Way to illustrate John McCain's recent presidential campaign slogan, "Country First," self-serving Joe!

I think that Joe Lieberman does exemplify two of the three syllables in McCain's slogan very aptly, though, Chris!

And now! Bob McDonnell! His victory was STRIKING! Can his success be replicated? Maybe! If you run to the center, keep the teabaggers away, and run against candidates who voters don't like and who make tons of structural mistakes during the campaign, then maybe!

Anyway, Chris Wallace is like, WHERE DID ALL THAT GREAT SOCIAL CONSERVATISM GO? McDonnell says, uhh...hey, unemployment is bad, mmm'kay? Wallace is like, are you going to forget about the crazy people, though? McDonnell more or less says, uhhhh...please stay out of our state! I'm POSITIVE! EVERYONE STAY POSITIVE! SMILE!

Wallace wants McDonnell to commit to jacking over Planned Parenthood, and expand Virginia's death penalty (which is ALREADY the deathiest death penalty in the world). Then he asks McDonnell about the health care bill, and all the times the word "Shall" is in the bill (THAT'S THE MEME, BY THE WAY?). Know what McDonnell's number one problem is, Chris? TRANSPORTATION. All of your crazy concerns are secondary to fixing Virginia's transportation problems.

Chris Wallace asks McDonnell is he wants to be Vice President, he doesn't. He pledges four full years as Virginia's governor.

Now, Panel Time! With Brit Hume, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol and Kirsten Powers, filling in for Juan Williams.

What about the health care? Brit Hume says that maybe there's some Democrats who are vulnerable now! Unless of course the economy improves? Or maybe the voters in their districts are okay with their health care vote? Anyway, that's Brit Hume, doing the best he can to scare. Liasson says that the bill continues to become a reality, and it's becoming more centrist.

Kristol, who's predicted failure for the bill, aggressively attempting to engage hsi pea brain, and comes up with reverse-engineered hypotheticals about how maybe if people who no one knew months ago were asked questions that no one was asking about a future outcome no one could have divined, maybe the imaginary people would have told their imaginary interlocutors that they would have thought health care would have passed the House by a wider margin. Of course it's just as likely that someone would have said, "Oh, yeah. The Speaker probably managed her cushion so that those who felt like they'd be hurt politically signing their name to it could pretend to not support it in the final vote...that's how these things work."

Powers says Obama might be better off by spending the next year talking about big picture. Hume says that health care doesn't matter, unemployment does, and that's fairly correct. Liasson says, well sure okay, look for Obama to talk about the economy, forever, all next year, cosigning Powers' "big picture" notion.

Kristol says, "THIS BILL BURDENS THE ECONOMY!" But that won't be an issue in 2010! The bill won't go into effect until 2013.

Apparently, during commercial, everyone was arguing with each other. Powers was apparently attempting to defend the administrations' efforts on the economy. She notes that unemployment is a lagging indicator. Well, it's pretty lagging! One of the fundamental electoral points I'd make is that time is more on Obama's side than Congress'.

It's too bad that the best part of this discussion happened during commercial. Maybe Kirsten doesn't just sit there, inert and sad, when the camera is off, like Juan Williams!

Anyway, the panel is now asking if "political correctness" -- a media created bit of faddish fussery that was passe over a decade ago -- played a role in the killings at Fort Hood. If a cultural relic can be loaded into a firearm and shot at people, then yes. Kristol goes on to bizarrely scoff at the suggestion that the incident shows bases need additional force protection. "We need soldiers to protect soldiers from other soldiers?" he asks, mockingly. No, idiot! We need LESS SOLDIERS TO DIE IS SOMETHING LIKE THIS -- AND BY THIS I MEAN "GUY WITH A GUN ON A MILITARY BASE" -- HAPPENS AGAIN.

Powers says that it's wrong to extrapolate the incident into "act of Islamic terror" without any evidence that goes beyond the suggestion that this guy just snapped. Brit Hume starts to object, but Wallace calls the panel short, telling viewers that anyone who'd like to see Brit yell at Kirsten some more will have to do it online.

THIS WEEK

Anyway, Gen. George Casey is here, to talk about the Fort Hood incident. He says his trip to the base with John McHugh was both "gut wrenching" but also "uplifting" in that he got to witness the way the soldiers there bore up under the tragedy and supported one another.

Casey begs off making comment on matters pertaining to the investigation, like whether or not there were any other perpretators. He does suggest that early reports that their may have been accomplices may have been founded on bad premises. SURPRISE SURPRISE, to everyone who doesn't remember Balloon Boy.

As far as warning signs go, Casey cautions about speculation based on anecdotes. "Let the investigation take its course." As far as Muslims in the military goes, Casey says that "what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but it would be a greater tragedy if the Army's diversity became an additional casualty."

He goes on to say that the Army will "take a hard look at ourselves" to prevent similar occurences, and continue to take strides to improve the "mental fitness" of the force. I draw from this that while Casey feels obligated to leave all possibilities on the table, he's pushing the story in the direction of "guy who snapped" over "guy who was a stealth jihadist."

Meanwhile, Michael Steele and Tim Kaine. Will the health care bill wreck Democrats' electoral future? Kaine says no, this was AWESOME HISTORY, put it in the HISTORY CHANNEL, and the bill is amazing, and we should talk about it as if it didn't have to get reconciled with a Senate bill and survive another vote. BECAUSE: PRETTY.

Steele, of course, is all: GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTHCARE, BOOGAH-FOO! Why won't the White House meet with the GOP? What happened to all those days of fawning over Chuck Grassley, where did those times go? Kaine argues, Steele does his best "Bish, pls!" act. Kaine points out that the hastily offered bill didn't include rules getting rid of pre-existing conditions.

Steele says: "Where's your tort reform, where's your portability, where's your small business pools, where's your program for health savings accounts?"

Well, "health savings accounts" are an idea that would be mooted under a comprehensive health care bill, so the reason that's not in the bill is because it's unnecessary. As for the rest of those things, know what? They are IN THE BILL. Take it away, Igor Volsky:

3. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR - POLICIES ACROSS STATE LINES: "Interstate competition allowing people to buy insurance across state lines." [Sen. John Thune (R-SD), 9/8/2009]

HOUSE BILL - POLICIES ACROSS STATE LINES: Allows for the creation of State Health Insurance Compacts - permits states to enter into agreements to allow for the sale of insurance across state lines.

4. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REFORM: "Why not bring about reasonable restrictions and limits on medical malpractice claims to end the era of defensive medicine?" [Rep. Mike Pence (R-IA), 9/9/2009]

HOUSE BILL - ENCOURAGES MALPRACTICE REFORM: The bill establishes a voluntary state incentives grant program to encourage states to implement "certificate of merit" and "early offer" alternatives to traditional medical malpractice litigation.

5. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR - HIGH RISK POOLS: "Senator McCain has a proposal sometimes called high-risk pools at the state level...These are efforts I think we can have bipartisan agreement on and deal with the question of pre-existing conditions." [Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), 9/10/2009]

HOUSE BILL - HIGH RISK POOLS: To fill the gap before the Exchange becomes available in 2013, the bill creates an insurance program with financial assistance for those uninsured for several months or denied policy due to preexisting conditions.

[...]

8. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR - PROTECT SMALL BUSINESSES: "Helps employers offer health care coverage to their workers by reducing their administrative costs through a new small business tax credit." [Republican Health Solutions Group]

HOUSE BILL - PROTECTS SMALL BUSINESSES: The bill exempts 86% of businesses from the requirement to provide coverage. Businesses with payrolls below $500,000 are exempt while firms with payrolls between $500,000 and $750,000 would pay a graduated penalty. Small businesses would also receive a tax credit that helps cover 50% of their health care expenses.

I don't know what Steele means by "small business pools," so I went ahead and guarded against whether or not he's conflating "small business protection" and "high risk pools." Read the rest of Volsky's piece for seven more things that the GOP requested...and GOT, in the House bill.

Steele says that the Democratic bill should be compared to the GOP bill. OKAY! Take it away, Matt Yglesias!

The good news is that the House GOP bill does reduce the deficit. CBO says adopting their plan would reduce the deficit by $68 billion over ten years relative to current law. The number for the Democratic bill, however, is $104 billion. So in exchange for that lesser deficit reduction, the Republicans must cover more people right? Well, of course not. Instead, under the Boehner Plan the number of people without health insurance will stay steady at 17 percent. The Democratic plan will see that sliced to just four percent.
The CBO also says that for most people the GOP plan won't lower premiums: "In the large group market, which represents nearly 80 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by zero to 3 percent compared with amounts under current law." And insofar as their plan does reduce premiums, it's by making your coverage worse:

The second source of change in average insurance premiums is changes in the average extent of coverage purchased. Those changes can reflect both changes in the scope of insurance coverage--the benefits or services that are included--and changes in the share of costs for covered services paid by the insurer--known as the "actuarial value." With other factors held equal, insurance policies that cover more benefits or services or have smaller copayments or deductibles have higher premiums, while policies that cover fewer benefits or services or have larger copayments or deductibles have lower premiums. Provisions in the amendment that would reduce insurance premiums by affecting the amount of coverage purchased include the State Innovations program, which would encourage states to reduce the number and extent of benefit mandates that they impose, and provisions that would allow individuals or affiliated groups to purchase insurance policies in other states that have less stringent mandates.

To repeat myself from yesterday, this is basically a plan that works well for you if you never get sick.

There are days where I imagine a time where Sunday Morning interlocutors read things like the above and resolve themselves to be armed with actual information, should their guest attempt to glibly slide by some talking points they've been honing for a month. I think to myself: such a talk show would be neat.

Anyway, Tim Kaine is doing his pirouette around the election results. Steele is carving up statistics and inflating the results. "The Democratic Party had better pay attention!" he says. I'd like to extend some congratulations to the people of THIS WEEK. GREAT JOB, GUYS! This is precisely the sort of discussion you could have pre-scripted. It's all terribly terribly unpredictable.

Apparently, small business owners have "roosts" in their "back pockets." Maybe they should give tax credits for building aviaries.

Kaine says: "I am a governor!" Steele says, "I was a Lieutenant Governor." Kaine says, "We are building things!" Steele says, "That's government contract work" and it's not permanent. I say: Do you want it to be permanent? Temporary work until the private sector is growing seems like just the thing to keep people at work without adding permanent government jobs. Steele says "what about the brother on the corner by the grocery store." I think he just plugged the new Clipse album!

Kaine calls NY 23 the "gift that keeps on giving." At least for a year! Kaine is actually pretty hilarious, saying that Sarah Palin supported the Democratic candidate, by helping to drive out Dede Scozzafava. But that's that. Bye, you two.

Panel Time! We got Will, Luntz, Brazile, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts. George Will is concerned about TEH JOBS. Card check will kill jobs, as will health care! Sam Donaldson says that Paul Volcker will save us, and Obama is "odds on" for re-election, and someone needs to tell Sam that Obama isn't LISTENING TO PAUL VOLCKER, and that's uhm...what's the word I'm looking for? Oh, yeah, "PROBABLY STUPID." I guess that's TWO WORDS.

Frank Luntz says we are all teabaggers, except for the youngs, and that 1994 is going to rise again! Brazile says, it's not 1994, because there's not a bunch of crazy scandals and widespread retirements. Also, the GOP in 1994 had a plan, whereas the GOP in 2009 is deciding on whether or not they should band together with the crank faction. The lesson of 2009, by the way? NO! DON'T DO THAT.

Sam Donaldson agrees with me, so he gets a lollipop. Someone give him one.

Will says, OH YEAH? EVERYONE HATE TEH INFLATION. Donaldson says, "We have no inflation." Alex Tabarrok says: "I wish ...that inflation [was] around the corner. We could use some inflation to get back on track. Nominal wages are simply not flexible enough to get the job done in short order and there is much to fear from populist backlash."

Now the panel is sort of generically attempting to kick off 2010 coverage. It's going to happen, folks.

Sam Donaldson, meanwhile, is trying to fill in for the absent Paul Krugman: "More stimulus!" Frank Luntz is reeling off his version of Superfreakonomics. Roberts says, "Whatever, check your demographics, they are awful." Will agrees that it's a problem, and that the GOP needs to be the party of ideas...and, uhm...well, CHECK OUT FAIRFAX COUNTY! So many schoolbuses! So much McDonnell support! And Sam Donaldson is yelling about Glenn Beck and the poster comparing health care reform to Dachau.

And then, for no reason, we get Jon Voight, being totally mental. Luntz tries to make a point about how that comes from a lack of faith in "American exceptionalism." Cokie Roberts counters by saying that if people like Jon Voight are any guide, then American exceptionalism isn't too exceptional.

Donna Brazile explains to George Will how buying health insurance across state lines, like firecrackers, isn't the end-all-be-all he thinks it is. Frank Luntz is now wandering out of his crank-Sabermetric pocket to complain about how long the bill is, "LONG BILLS SCARE AMERICA." Whatever, Frank, I made it through INFINITE JEST just fine.

Sam Donaldson is like a Cialis commercial today! He can go all night long!

Frank Luntz feels sorry for Evan Bayh and Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu -- all they've done is stand in the way of fixing problems so that they can continue to run on a platform of the urgent need to fix those problems again and again!

MEET THE PRESS

Okay, so, let's get through this, shall we? Haley Barbour and Ed Rendell? Ugh, DO NOT WANT. Tom Brokaw has found Berlin! But first, here's General George Casey. This runs in the same direction as the earlier interview on ABC. Casey has to limit comments on the investigation, he's worried about "speculation based on anecdotes," there are professional investigations going on, they "will take a hard look at" themselves.

On the larger issue of combat stress, Casey says it's a matter that the Army is keenly aware of, and that they are working hard to restore the 'balance point." He highlights a number of programs to indicate that the Army is working hard to get help for people who develop post-traumatic stress disorder, and do more in advance so that soldiers have better coping skills ahead of trauma.

As far as a concern about backlash against Muslim soldiers, Casey says: "Yeah. I think those concerns are real. And...they're fueled, partially at least, by the speculation about-- based-- based on anecdotal-- evidence that people are presenting. I think we have to be very careful with that. Our diversity, not only in the Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."

GREGORY: Do you have any reason to believe that having Muslims in the Army-- puts them in a very difficult position? Makes them more conflicted, fighting a war against Muslims in Afghanistan or Iraq?

CASEY: I think that's something that they have to look at on an individual basis. But I think we as an Army have to be broad enough-- to bring in people from all walks of life.

People should reflect on this matter in the way that David Frum encouraged, earlier this week.

Oh, my. Ed Rendell is not looking well.

Haley Barbour thinks health care is doomed. Rendell says it will. LET'S BATTLE!

Rendell points out that Arkansans LOVE THEM SOME PUBLIC OPTION, so Blanche Lincoln should vote for it. Barbour insists that the people who defeat the bill will be popular. There's nothing interesting being said, because these two guys are saying the same things that have been said for months.

Meanwhile, the MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER happened right? Barbour thinks it was good for the GOP, Rendell thinks it's anti-incumbent but not anti-Obama. Barbour has got even more obscure election results to spin gold from. Rendell says, "A year in politics, is light years." This is like Mark Halperin's The Page got up and started talking. By which I mean, starting boring the bejeezus out of me.

Here's a great question formulation by Gregory: "Is the President going too fast on the economy, when unemployment is at 10%" No, no. Of course, slow down. Gregory is part of this new strain of moron who doesn't believe the president can do more than one thing at a time. This vision of management did not exist until it was clear that was how Obama was going to have to govern -- two wars and no health care and a decade-long employment crisis and a collapsing economy exacerbating all three -- and the media felt obligated to inveigh against MULTITASKING. On a long enough timeline, Meet The Press and David Gregory could potentially mount the case that almost everything we've settled as possible and doable is actually rimming with stupidity.

Let's watch Barbour run away from Sarah Palin:

DAVID GREGORY: Sarah Palin got involved in that race. She endorsed the independent conservative. What role does she play right now in the Republican Party?

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR: Well, she doesn't play any official role in the Republican Party, but a lot of people care about her. A lot of people are fond of her. And she's like a lot of voter-- politicians who are very well regarded in our party.

DAVID GREGORY: What do you think of her?

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR: I like her.

DAVID GREGORY: Is she--

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR: Don't always agree with her, but, you know, my wife doesn't always agree with me, either.

DAVID GREGORY: But is she an important Republican leader in your book?

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR: Oh, I think she is. I think she's got somethin' to offer.

DAVID GREGORY: Right.

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR: One of the great things--

DAVID GREGORY: Do you think she could be President?

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR: One of the great things about when your party's out of power, you don't have a spokesman. You have a lot of spo-- I don't want to say (UNINTEL) 1,000 flowers bloom. But you have a lot of different people. And that's healthy for your party.

DAVID GREGORY: Do-- do--

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR: The Democrats do that when they're out.

DAVID GREGORY: Do you-- do you think she speaks for the party?

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR: I think she speaks for herself, just like I speak for myself.

DAVID GREGORY: Do you think she could be President?

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR: Look, it's a long way away from there. Every time we-- every time people ask me about President, I remind them, David, any Republican who cares about the future of our country, they should be focused on the elections in 2010. Those are the elections that matter. We'll worry about President after 2010.

Gregory somehow restrains himself, limiting the number of times he asks Barbour if he's running for President to two.

Rendell says no to a second stimulus: "I don't think we need a second stimulus. I would like to see our transportation infrastructure spending, which is the best job producer, I would like to see that front-loaded-- and start in January or February of this year." He gives Obama a "solid B" on the economy, because of the stimulus.

Barbour says that regardless of what Obama does in Afghanistan, he's not going to criticize him, which is interesting: "But right now, if the President does the right thing here, I'm gonna applaud him. If he doesn't, I'm not gonna criticize him."

Okay: Panel time! Today we have David Brooks and EJ Dionne and Rachel Maddow and Ed Gillespie.

What is the state of the LOLSURGE? (34,000 troops, by the way, is the leak.) Brooks says Obama is wondering who he is supposed to partner with in Afghanistan. Maddow says that Obama is not going to find a magic troop level number that will stop the GOP from criticizing him.

Gregory, in a rare feat, points out to Gillespie that Bush 43 took a lot of time, dithering, before his own LOLSURGEOMGZ. He says sort of what Haley Barbour said as far as politicizing the war, but darkly reminds that Bush paid a price for Iraq.

Will there be momentun from the House health care bill? Maddow says that Bart Stupak's amendment is a poison pill that will lead to a "revolt" from female Democrats if it's not stripped in conference.

EJ Dionne does a great job retelling history, pointing out that all the dire warnings of TEH SOCIALISMZ came up when Medicare was being passed, and the GOP ended up not just not repealing Medicare, but defending it. He predicts that years from now, Ed Gillespie will be on MEET THE PRESS, telling viewers that the GOP would never cut the bill "he is now calling Pelosicare."

That's a bleak vision from Dionne: I had sort of counted on Meet The Press being off the air, 20 years from now!

Maddow points out that the more fiscally irresponsible choices are implementing the GOP bill or doing nothing, and predicts that anyone who votes against the bill will pay a price. That leads to Brooks, agreeing, but saying that the bill is "fiscal insanity" and that the "system" -- what system he refers to isn't clear -- needs to be fundamentally changed. Where that places the solution - beyond mere doomsaying - isn't clear. Perhaps Brooks has some fifth-dimensional health care plan he can only communicate to aliens.

Here's a hot scoop of conventional wisdom jizz on the MOST IMPORTANT AND FEARFULLY SYMMETRIC OFF-OFF YEAR ELECTION OF THE LATTER HALF OF THE FIRST DECADE OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY OF ALL TIME. Dionne says the "substantive lessons" for Democrats are in Virginia, not New Jersey. Gregory suggests that McDonnell kept his alienating social conservatism hidden behind a run to the center. Gillespie says, UHM, LET'S AGREE TO CALL THAT, "transforming conservative principles into practical solutions." So, I guess that means McDonnell will fix Northern Virginia's traffic infrastructure by fighting its homosexuality.

Maddow says, WHATEVS, CREIGH DEEDS WAS TEH SUXXORS. Reporting from Sam Stein backs this up:

A Research 2000 Virginia Poll conducted for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee reveals that 64 percent of Virginia voters who supported Barack Obama said that the party's gubernatorial candidate, Creigh Deeds, was "not progressive enough." Driving the point home even further, 58 percent of Virginia voters who are registered as Independent but supported Obama in 2008 election, likewise, said that Deeds was "not progressive enough."

The findings cut against the conventional wisdom that emerged from the 2009 gubernatorial elections, which held that Democrats lost in Virginia and (to a lesser extent) New Jersey by not pushing more moderate positions.

Only eight percent of Democratic Obama voters in Virginia and 16 percent of Independent Obama voters in Virginia said they thought Deeds was "too far to the left."

In its survey, PCCC also looks at how a public option for insurance coverage played in the Virginia governor's race. And it concludes that Deeds was hurt by his opposition to the public plan. Forty-one percent of respondents said that Deeds declaration that he would "opt-out" of a public plan as governor made them less excited about his candidacy. Only Six percent said it made them more excited.

Brooks mislays the voting shifts by independent voters. They aren't shifting away from the White House because they're worried the White House is spending too much, or "moving too fast." They are getting disillusioned by the White House's timidity and incrementalism.

Maddow says, "Job numbers are the holy grail of the next election," and points out that they should be aggressive in combatting unemployment, because there's no scenario in which the Democrats AREN'T going to get criticized for spending. It's a good point. I remember driving from Charlottesville to Ithaca, and going through Pennsylvania, and seeing all those threatening signs for how much the ticket was going to be if I got busted for going even 56 miles per hour. So I made myself miserable, driving the speed limit. On the way back, I realized that under those conditions, I could get a big ticket by ACCIDENTALLY speeding. Given those circumstances, it actually made more sense to just speed like the dickens.

That was the smart decision. If you are going to get damned no matter what you do, don't get damned having done nothing. Go big!

Dionne has this crazy idea that the Democrats should point out that government actually does good things. And then Gillespie all but proves Maddow's point: "HEALTH CARE WILL BE A JOBS KILLER." Well, the day is never going to come where Ed Gillespie isn't going to insinuate that the policies the Dems put forward are going to kill jobs, SO THEY MAY AS WELL BRAVELY PUT FORTH THEIR POLICIES.

Meet The Press ends with old footage from the show, and Tom Brokaw, revisiting the Berlin Wall, I guess because they wanted to remind us that the NBC News Division was once capable of vital news coverage or something?

Oh well, I guess we'll all remember where we were when NBC News remembered where they were when the Berlin Wall fell, unless the internet explodes! Have a great week, everyone!

SNL Mocks Fox's Election Coverage, Glenn Beck's Spelling Problems (VIDEO)

2009-11-08T12:59:34Z

"Saturday Night Live" opened last night with a sketch lampooning Fox News's election coverage. Yes, the 2009 elections dominated cable news coverage consisted of exactly two gubernatorial races and two congressional seats, but that didn't stop Fox News from spinning it as a referendum on Obama's presidency.

SNL's sketch focused on a panel lead by Greta Van Susteren (aptly played by Kristen Wiig) of three conservative voices and Joe Trippi, representing all Democrats. The latter was not called on to speak once.

At one point, Greta threw to Glenn Beck--Jason Sudeikis's greatest role to date--who was crying, trying on hats, and having linguistic problems on a chalk board. "Oh, and Greta, I also realized you could rearrange the letters of your name to spell 'A Great' and it was a great night--a great great night for a great great nation."

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

3 Journalists Freed By Iran

2009-11-08T02:10:03Z

TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian authorities have released three journalists who were among more than 100 people arrested during pro-government and opposition street demonstrations this week, the country's official news agency reported.

One of the reporters, Farhad Pouladi, is an Iranian who works for Agence France-Presse. The other two are foreign reporters, but the report by the IRNA news agency did not identify them or say for whom they work.

Police detained 109 people during the rallies this week, IRNA said. Sixty-two of them were handed over to judicial authorities for trial on charges of disturbing public order and the rest were released after questioning, said security spokesman Azizollah Rajabzadeh, according to the news report.

Iranian security forces beat anti-government protesters with batons Wednesday on the sidelines of state-sanctioned rallies to mark the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Embassy takeover. The counter-demonstrations were the opposition's first major show of force on Tehran's streets in nearly two months.

The protests showed the determination of Iran's opposition to reassert its voice. But the latest marches drew far fewer demonstrators than in the weeks after the disputed June 12 presidential election, suggesting the relentless pressure by authorities could be taking a toll.

The protesters believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's victory over a pro-reform candidate was rigged.

The IRNA report said the three journalists released Saturday had been taken into custody Wednesday as they headed to cover the rallies outside the former U.S. Embassy.

Iran has imposed wide-ranging restrictions on media that include bans on firsthand reporting of street demonstrations and other events not authorized by authorities.

IRNA said two political activists jailed over the country's postelection turmoil, Ali Tajernia and Ebrahim Amini, have also been released on bail pending a verdict in their trial.

More than a 100 political activists and protesters have stood trial since August on charges of seeking to topple the ruling system through what the government has described as a "velvet revolution."

Rosie O'Donnell Says "F*ck" On Jimmy Fallon Show, Calls Glenn Beck "Carnival Barker" (VIDEO)

2009-11-07T23:30:03Z

Rosie O'Donnell was a guest on Late Night With Jimmy Fallon Friday night. The comedian and former talk show host weighed in on Fox News "carnival barker" Glenn Beck and dropped a the f-bomb when she talked about her new show on Sirius XM radio.

Rosie On Glenn Beck:
O'DONNELL: Yeah, it's not ever going to be me and Glenn Beck.
[ Laughter ]
FALLON: It won't be.
O'DONNELL: No.
FALLON: Crying hysterically. No.
O'DONNELL: No. [ Crying sounds ] "Obama is ruining everything. I want drugs. Be afraid, America, we're in trouble."
[ light laughter ]
FALLON: You don't want to hear that everyday now.
O'DONNELL: I don't understand why people enjoy that carnival barker. I don't get it.
[ Laughter ] He's a scary man to me.

WATCH:

O'Donnell used a few choice words as she recounted an exchange with a new employee, saying "shit" twice. At the end her story, Fallon reminded O'Donnell about the swearing and she turned to the audience and said "fuck." None of the swear words made it on air. The were beeped out. It's also worth noting that Fallon's network show doesn't go on air until 12:35 a.m.

WATCH:

Karl Frisch: The Right-Wing Media's Election Analysis Just Ain't That Good

2009-11-07T22:10:21Z

Back in 2001, conservative media figures were adamant. Democratic Party victories at the ballot boxes during the off-year elections had little national significance.

Fox News contributor Dick Morris said at the time, "[I]f you have a Republican president, people are going to vote Democrat, and if you have a Democrat president, they're going to vote Republicans." Proffering further spin of the GOP losses, Fox News contributor Mort Kondracke said, "We have no way of knowing" how the 2001 outcome would affect the 2002 midterms, a sentiment echoed by conservative writer Michael Barone, who declared on CNN, "I don't think that the issues and personalities" in the Virginia and New Jersey races "are going to be congruent with very many" races in 2002 or 2004. Then there was Laura Ingraham on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes noting that "[b]oth sides are going to spin this," before offering her own spin: "[T]o call this some kind of watershed moment against Republican views is nonsense."

For anyone watching Fox News in the weeks leading up to this year's off-year election, it should have been apparent what was afoot on the conservative network.

In the two weeks leading up to their November 3 elections, Conservative Party congressional candidate Doug Hoffman (NY-23), New Jersey Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie, and Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell appeared on Fox News and its personalities' radio shows at least 16 times for live interviews lasting a total of 114 minutes and 36 seconds.

As leading Republican politicians and activists celebrated Fox News' role in pushing just the right message and helping their electoral chances, two Fox News employees spent time fundraising and recruiting volunteers in support of GOP-backed candidates. Fox News host Mike Huckabee used network airtime to collect email addresses for his PAC, which in turn used the addresses to recruit volunteers for GOP candidates on Tuesday's ballot, including McDonnell and Hoffman. Meanwhile, Fox News contributor Karl Rove was shilling for the Republican Governors' Association to help Christie's bid in New Jersey. All the while, Fox continued to feature his spin of that same election.

So, Fox News gave Republican candidates a huge platform to communicate with conservative activists and voters while Fox News employees recruited volunteers and raised money for them.

What else did Fox need to check off the list before Election Day? How about telling people how to vote and pre-spinning Democratic Party losses before a single ballot had been counted? Check.

One Fox News graphic actually stated that if the GOP were to win the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey -- races with no direct influence over congressional efforts to reform health care -- it would mean "no gov't-run option" in health care reform.

Sean Hannity, Fox News' apparent GOP get-out-the-vote captain, went all out advising his radio listeners how to cast their votes, telling one caller to his radio show, "Don't forget -- go vote for Christie tomorrow in New Jersey. All right?" and his New Jersey audience in general, "get to the polls" and "stop Obama-care in its tracks." On his Fox News program, Hannity told Hoffman, "I hope I'm on the air this time tomorrow night and I'll be able to declare you the winner." Marching to Hannity's tune, CNN's Lou Dobbs declared Hoffman was "change [he] can believe in" while Fox News' Bill O'Reilly piled on predicting a Hoffman win.

But what if -- right-wing media fear of fears! -- Democrats were to pull off a victory in New Jersey? Well, there'd be just one thing to explain it -- cue the ominous music -- Voter Fraud.

Rush Limbaugh warned his audience that "fraudsters" at ACORN, SEIU, and the New Black Panthers would try to affect elections on Tuesday and that "tomorrow's going to be a dry run for Democrat mischief and malfeasance, getting ready for 2010 and 2012." Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com took the bait, baselessly -- and predictably -- accusing progressives of trying to "steal" the New Jersey governor's seat. As did Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund who fabricated evidence of voter fraud in New Jersey and anonymously sourced voter fraud innuendo. Completing the circle, Limbaugh echoed Fund's baseless accusation warning of an "ACORN factor" and a "vote fraud factor."

Fox News hosts and political analysts capped off Election Day celebrating and shilling for conservative and GOP candidates. When the dust settled, Republicans had won the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial contests while Democrats had won the open New York congressional seat -- a seat targeted by tea-partiers and not held by a Democrat in nearly 150 years.

While Fox News' Brit Hume acknowledged that "Barack Obama was not a central issue" in New Jersey -- exit polls decisively showed he wasn't an issue in any of the targeted races -- others in the conservative media were blind to the readily available exit polls. Hume's Fox colleague O'Reilly said the New Jersey governor's race was a referendum on Obama. El Rushbo dismissed the exit polls entirely, saying the governors' races were all "about Obama" and that the election results show "[t]here is no question this is an anti-Obama vote."

Fox & Friends graphics described the election results as "shockwaves," "winds of change," a "Republican revival," and a "blueprint for success." In a truly odd attempt at spin, Fox News declared that the results meant "Obamacare" was dead, while its sister network, Fox Business, claimed the markets "like[d]" "Big GOP Wins In NJ & VA."

So, exit polls said Obama had nothing to do with Democratic losses in New Jersey and Virginia, where, incidentally, the GOP nominees downplayed their right-wing positions -- and this is good news for Republicans?

What about Hoffman, the unambiguously right-wing Conservative party candidate in New York who conservative media types spent weeks hyping? How would Fox News and company spin his loss of a seat, again, not held by a Democrat in far more than 100 years?

In an attempt to paint Democratic Party victor Owens as a conservative, thus explaining away his win in a historically GOP district, right-wing bloggers sought to highlight the "under-reported fact" that he "campaigned against the public option" even though Owens had expressed support for a public option since September.

Limbaugh blamed "party bosses and these big thinkers like Newt [Gingrich]," who "screwed the whole thing up," while leaping to the defense of Sarah Palin, who had championed Hoffman. Limbaugh asserted that Palin "is not damaged at all" by the loss of her candidate. And in an about-face only fitting for someone of Limbaugh's ego - err ... stature -- the conservative talker switched his stance on "moral" victories, which he'd lambasted Democrats for in 2006, declaring Hoffman had a "good showing."

So, yes, if one thing is clear after the 2009 off-year election, it's this: Conservative media figures haven't a clue when it comes to election analysis.

Oh and one last note on Tuesday's election, did you hear the nasty anti-Obama election night story that Fox News concocted out of thin air? The conservative cable outlet reported, remember this is not true, that President Obama watched an HBO documentary about himself, rather than following the election results. A story so grand -- gosh the president is such a narcissist! -- that the fact-challenged liberal media bias hunters at Newsbusters wet themselves over it before eventually conceding that Fox News had "misreported" the incident -- a nice way of saying "made it up."

I guess, in addition to the analysis, they haven't a clue when it comes to reporting either.

Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, or sign up to receive his columns by email.

David Colbert: Publishing's Next Big Thing and Its Next Big Headache, Part I

2009-11-07T20:39:43Z

A contractual problem threatens the ebook business of all the major publishers.

It begins with the next big thing in book publishing: advertising.

Have you used any free iPhone apps that generate revenue for their creators by running small ads above or below the apps' primary content?

Have you seen photos of the Barnes & Noble Nook ereader, with its second, independent display that's capable of showing advertisements?

A reader spends a lot of time with a book. Ads will have time to sink in. That makes the medium valuable. Google isn't getting into the book business for charity.

But before book publishers can enjoy ad revenue, they need to solve a big problem:

Most modern publishing contracts state that publishers may not sell advertising with their books.

That restriction appeared in the early 1970s, when cigarette companies started an intense program of buying insert ads in paperbacks. (Lorillard Tobacco, which may have been the first, began its program in August 1971 with 12 million inserts spread over 156 titles.)

Authors objected. In time, advertising restrictions became standard clauses in publishing contracts.

Publishers who stick to that promise will have to walk away from revenue. They might have to limit the platforms and apps they support. They'd certainly lose sales to ebooks that are supported by advertising. Those other books will be priced low or given away to attract more readers for the advertiser.

Publishers and authors will have to negotiate a solution.

That may not work well for the publishers. With a reputable publisher, the author's worst-case split of subsidiary rights is fifty-fifty. Contracts that allow advertising usually mention that figure.

That's less profitable for a publisher than the current revenue split of ebook revenue, which is closer to 75/25 in the publisher's favor.

Worse for publishers, a fifty-fifty split will be a dream when they sit with the agents of their top authors. Publishers will have to offer better, or they can forget about new books from those authors.

No matter the final split, this will be a big headache for some publishers.

And there's a kicker.

It's possible that no matter what deal is struck, some publishers won't be able to hold up their end of it.

The reason for that, and the possible consequences for some of the larger publishers, is coming in Part II.

Geoffrey Dunn: Palin Usurped "Concession" Speech

2009-11-07T20:22:24Z

In their new book Sarah From Alaska, Shushannah Walshe and Scott Conroy have provided drafts of two versions of a speech that vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin was to have delivered on Election Night 2008 in Phoenix--if only John McCain and his top brass, including Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter, had allowed her to do so.

Headlines reporting the story in the Los Angeles Times declared "Sarah Palin's Speeches Were Ready but Never Seen -- Until Now," while ABC posted its story as "Sarah Palin's Never-Heard Concession, Victory Speeches."

While Palin did not deliver her concession speech on election night, she did, in fact, deliver most of it, nearly verbatim, only eight days later at a meeting of the Republican Governors Association on November 13 in Miami, Florida.

Here are two examples:

Concession: My fellow Americans, tens of millions of you shared our convictions and gave us your votes. And I thank you for your confidence. For us, it was not our time ... not our moment. But it is our country ... the winner will be our president ... and I wish Barack Obama well as the 44th president of the United States.

RGA: Tens of millions of Americans shared our convictions and they gave us their votes. ... But for us, it was not our time. It was not our moment. But it is our country. And the winner will be our President. And I wish Barack Obama well as the 44th President of the United States.

***

Concession: I will remember all the young girls who came up to me to our rallies, sometimes taking off from school, just to see only the second woman ever nominated by a major party in a national election.

RGA: For years to come, I'm going to remember all the young girls who came up to me at rallies to see the first woman having the privilege of carrying our party's VP nomination.

Walshe and Conroy spin a fascinating account how Palin's concession speech, crafted by former Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully and his associate Lindsay Hayes, became a final skirmish in what had become an ugly and open civil war between the McCain and Palin camps during the GOP campaign. It got so bad, according to Walshe and Conroy, that Schmidt ordered the lights be turned off on Palin, fearing that she would still try to deliver the speech and steal McCain's final dignity from him at the close of the campaign.

Palin clearly built her remarks at the RGA around those crafted by Scully and Hayes, whose salaries as speechwriters were paid for by the Committee to Elect John McCain. Virtually every thought or phrase in the Scully-Hayes concession speech made their way into Palin's RGA remarks. While Scully acknowledged that he was aware of their use, Palin did not notify McCain's top senior advisors that she was going to be hijacking these remarks at the RGA (one told me that he was completely unaware), even though they had been paid for by the campaign.

While Palin made a number of small changes to the original concession speech and added many additional comments to her RGA remarks, there was one significant change that she made in the eight days after they were crafted. The original read:

And when a black citizen prepares to fill the office of Washington and Lincoln, that is a shining moment in our history that can be lost on no one.

In Miami she removed what, in the original context, was a rather awkwardly constructed, if not disturbing, racialized reference to Obama, to:

And as he prepares to fill the office of Washington and Lincoln, know that this is a shining moment in American history.

Few people beyond Scully probably were aware that Palin had incorporated the remarks into the RGA speech. "[Palin] was so polarizing," Walshe and Conroy conclude in what is an otherwise surprisingly empathetic portrait of Palin, "that she inspired a civil war within her own campaign during the final days before the election."

Award-winning writer and filmmaker Geoffrey Dunn's book The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power will be released by St. Martin's Press in spring 2010.

Stephen Viscusi: Unemployment Numbers Worsen; Next Year's Numbers Will Be Even Worse

2009-11-07T19:26:48Z

Economists tell us that the recession may soon be ending. "Recession" is an economic term. The "NY Times" tells us "if statistics went back as far,(unemployment) the measure would almost certainly be at the highest level since the Great Depression....In all, one out of every six workers--17.5 percent were unemployed, or underemployed in October.

As a HarperCollins and Random House author and Jobconomist, I am predicting right now--next year 2010--will only be worse!

Who am I? The star of the upcoming TV series "The Headhunter From Hell" and I am the author of the HarperCollins global bestseller "Bulletproof Your Job".

The world has changed, as have government programs. Most lost jobs will NEVER be back. What were then bread lines in 1929 are not, people applying for food stamps cards. People, who once had an Amex card, now have what looks like an Amex credit card, but people can use to buy groceries. What were "food stamps" are now food cards. In some states, you can even use these cards at COSTCO.

We have all seen old newsreels of news stories, of people jumping out of windows, as they lost their family fortunes, mostly all on paper. Banks collapsed, and were closed. People were depressed and in despair. We are told suicide, seemed the only way out for so many. The same applies today for those who have been unemployed and underemployed for long periods of time. People write about the tormented guilt the feel about being of of work. The only thing worse then being unemployed today, is to be the spouse or partner, of a person unemployed (worse if that other person is working). You feel helpless, yet you want to put on a good face. It is torture, I am told. Thousands write me each day for workplace advice (Stephen@viscusi.com). I tell them how to keep the job they have at all cost, I give them unconventional secrets on not giving up hope and how to find the new job--and even how to create a resume, that will get them a interview (www.bulletproofyourresume.com). Then, I tell them something unconventional-- "Pray". Belive it or not, very few, ever are offended. The power of Prayer, can and does work in the job work.

I cannot help but feel, from the e-mails and letters I get from my viewers and readers that, the suicides of 1929, from bank collapse and stock market collapse, will now be copy-catted-- to suicides of people, who can no longer find work, in 2009 and 2010-- Men and woman, but mostly white men over 50 who can no longer find work. Worse, for them, because everyone will be talking about the "changing economic news for 2010", and the stock market will rise, and -so, if you are currently unemployed, with all this positive economic news, you understandably will feel bewildered, depressed, stressed., that if things are getting good again--how come you can't find a job?

I dare say the yammering of the money talking heads, like Jim Cramer "Mad Money", and Suze Orman, who will be in glee over the fact that they are semi "relevant" again. These money talking heads will keep their jobs, even though you will not be getting yours back. Let me be the first to say, I could not write a book on how to tell how to invest your 401K, anymore, than I would expect, a money talking head or author, could tell you how to save your job or find a new one.

For the very first time, people who had always held "good jobs" - cannot get back to work. Men tell me they are emasculated, and the women tell me, they feel, whatever the reverse of that is.
What is left for these people? My viewers and readers tell me they cannot pay their mortgage or rent--maybe then cannot pay child support. Therapy, Prozac - all that stuff, often does not help. Time will tell if my terrible and sad prediction about these "unemployment" related suicides in 2009 and 2010--is correct.

Much like it takes the economist, a year to tell us when a recession ends or starts - when the statistics, of suicides, of those unemployed - when they are statically studied years later, we will learn that there were more suicides in 009 and 2010, from distressed unemployed people.
So, in spite of the fact that the stock market may raise in 2010, jobs will not. Barely a hiccup of growth in jobs. Nothing.

"Jobconomist." A new word I invented that describes, an employment expert, whose experience, based on history, and changing technology. One needs not be a genius, one just needs to be a realist, understand people, business, and follow patterns of the past. Jobconomist--are mostly intuitive-- or maybe "counter-intuitive" is a better word.

I am predicting as a "Jobconomist," that very few new jobs will be created in 2010. At least another 14 months of, unemployment for those of you who are unemployed? If you are lucky enough to have a job, the thousands of people that have read my latest book, "Bulletproof Your Job" (HarperCollins) - tell me, that in this book, I give realistic techniques and strategies on how you can still be "the last employee standing." The book is published in 9 languages. My first book is called "On the Job" (Random House).

Now do not kill the messenger---or yourself, but I know I am right.

The rising stock market, changing political climate and talking heads, babbling over money, and politics, will distract you next year, from realizing that, the fact our economic recession may be ending--but the dire job climate, lack of growth, will remain.

So keep sending me your resumes and letters. Visit my own website www.bulletproofyourresume.com

Mostly know, that things will get worse before they get better, and after you finish reading this column, with me: Close your eyes, take just a moment to "Pray". Pray for fr the job you have if you have one, pray to find one if you are looking and pray for your friends family and even strangers. Take a deep breath. You are not alone. Times will get better. You will find work, I promise you.

Stephen Viscusi is the author of the HarperColins book "Bulletproof Your Job" Available in 9 languages. He is a world renowned Jobconomist. He is the founder of www.bulletproofyourjob.com a career consulting and resume service. He is the host of the up comiing network TV series "The Head-Hunter From Hell".
He welcomes letters and questions about the workplace and jobs to "Huffington Post" readers and will answer your questions, in this BLOG column.
Follow him on Twitter, Facebook and Linken

Stephen@viscusi.com

Made be duplicated or quoted without permision as long as your credit author.

Bill Lichtenstein: More Irony in Ft. Hood Tragedy: Hasan on Mental Health Panel with Army's "Top Psychiatrist"

2009-11-07T18:11:57Z

In yet another twist of irony, in a case already replete with it, Maj. Nidal Hasan, 39, the alleged gunman in the November 5th Fort Hood shootings, served as the co-chair of a panel which examined “Medical Issues for Psychiatrists in Disasters” at the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) annual conference held this past May in San Francisco.

Among the other experts on the panel was Col. Elspeth Ritchie, M.D., M.P.H., a Harvard-trained psychiatrist who is widely referred to as the “Army’s top psychiatrist,” in her role as the Medical Director at the Strategic Communication Directorate Office of the Army Surgeon General.

Dr. Hasan’s role as co-chair of the panel would indicate that he was better known professionally, and more highly regarded in his field of disaster psychiatry, than has been previously reported. The annual APA conference is attended by nearly 20,000 psychiatrists and mental health professionals from around the world, and is a premiere venue for the discussion of new research and best practice treatments in psychiatry.

According to the APA, Hasan’s conference panel focused on the role of psychiatrists when treating patients in disaster settings, including how psychiatrists should be integrated into the general healthcare response teams in a disaster.

Among the issues covered by the panel, according to the program summary, was that during a disaster, “Psychiatrists will be asked to provide psychiatric care for those with and without medical illness and, at times, may even be needed to attend directly to the medical needs of this vulnerable population. As such, it is essential that psychiatrists are aware of the most commonly encountered medical issues in the disaster setting, such as wounds . . .”

According to the APA, the other presenters on the panel were co-chair Mark Viron, MD, a clinician affiliated with the outpatient psychiatry department at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston; Brooke Parish, M.D., a psychiatrist with disaster and forensic psychiatry training, and an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University Of New Mexico; Catherine May, M.D., a Washington, DC. psychiatrist; and Col. Ritchie. None of the participants on the panel have responded to phone calls or emails by deadline.

It is not know role Dr. Hasan played in proposing the panel, writing the discussion summary or choosing the panelists. However, Hasan’s interactions with the other psychiatrists, trained in treating trauma, during the preparation and presentation of the panel less than six months before the shootings, may well provide additional insights into Hasan’s state of mind and his perspective prior to the tragedy.

Among the other experts on the panel was Col. Elspeth Ritchie, M.D., M.P.H., a Harvard-trained clinician who is widely referred to as the “Army’s top psychiatrist,” in her role as the Medical Director at the Strategic Communication Directorate Office of the Army Surgeon General.

According to the APA, Hasan’s conference panel focused on the role psychiatrists have in treating patients in disaster settings, including how psychiatrists should be integrated into the general healthcare response teams in a disaster.

Among the issues covered by the panel, according to the program summary, was that during a disaster:

“Psychiatrists will be asked to provide psychiatric care for those with and without medical illness and, at times, may even be needed to attend directly to the medical needs of this vulnerable population. As such, it is essential that psychiatrists are aware of the most commonly encountered medical issues in the disaster setting, such as wounds . . .”

According to the APA, the other presenters on the panel were co-chair Mark Viron, M.D., a clinician affiliated with the outpatient psychiatry department at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston; Brooke Parish, M.D., a psychiatrist with disaster and forensic psychiatry training, and an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of New Mexico; Catherine May, M.D., a Washington, DC. psychiatrist; and Col. Ritchie. None of the participants on the panel have responded to phone calls or emails by deadline.

It is not known what role Dr. Hasan played, as co-chair, in proposing the panel, framing the discussion, or selecting the panelists. However, Hasan’s interactions with the other psychiatrists on the panel, all of whom are trained in treating trauma, as they prepared for and participated in the discussion about trauma and disaster less than six months before the Fort Hood shootings, may well provide additional insights into Hasan’s state of mind and his perspective prior to the tragedy.

Georgianne Nienaber: The Campaign: The Audacity of Hope Did Not Die in Maine

2009-11-07T15:23:14Z

I am terrible at writing headlines, but in these times of Google searches and social networking, article tags and Twitter hashtags, headlines are important. "Hope springs eternal" won't cut it when referring to what happened in Maine last week regarding gay rights. The linkage of "audacity" and "hope" is a winner, especially since I was clever enough to work "campaign" into the tease. But The Campaign is not about Obama and not about Maine, either. It is about the dedication, hard work, patience, and tenacity of a young filmmaker, born and bred in Mississippi, who is fighting with every ounce of her heart and soul to complete a documentary about the heart-breaking battle against California's Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California. What happened in California was a clear harbinger of last week's repeal of Maine's law legalizing gay marriages by 53 percent to 47 percent.

One might argue that the defeat in Maine provided a psychological boost to activists in California who will most certainly put the issue squarely on the ballot in 2012. Read any analysis and the pollsters will say that it is the young who will support the issue of gay rights. The young voters did not turn out in an off-election year.

The Campaign tells the story of a lost battle, inspiring hope through the passionate work of those committed to re-energizing the fight for gay rights. Christie Herring captures the essence of this emotional journey, blending in-depth observational footage with interviews of stakeholders -- from Executive Committee Members to first-time volunteers. So far there is only the trailer, but the footage is all there, ready to be assembled. There is also the priceless talent of the filmmaker.

Christie Herring is no stranger to the political process or social justice issues. Herring's first film, Waking in Mississippi, focuses on a controversial political race in her Mississippi hometown -- the 1994 election of the town's first black mayor which ended in the threat of a race riot. Today she is an award-winning independent documentary director. Her resume is impressive and includes PBS, National Geographic, MTV/LOGO, A&E, and the History Channel. Trying to get a documentary completed on the critical issues facing the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender communities isn't easy. But it is the unheralded individual, working from a sense of commitment to what is right, who can create a sea change.

It so often falls to the young to wage this fight.

Was it bigotry that defeated gay marriage in Maine and California, or was it ignorance? I can't judge, and the pundits from either side have no right to judge what was in the hearts of voters either. In the late seventies, when I was young and still hopeful, I was privileged to march with my gay brothers and sisters when the bigotry of Anita Bryant began to poison the political landscape of the country.

We had rocks thrown at us, and we were spit upon, but what hurt more was the absolute hatred in the eyes of Bryant's followers. Gays and their supporters were "evil," plain and simple. Gay marriage was not even in the lexicon in those days. Beauty queen Bryant preached an Old Testament activism and what stuck in her craw was a 1977 Miami-Dade County amendment to the local human rights ordinance making it illegal to discriminate in housing, loans, and employment based upon sexual preference. Her brand of hatred won, and the law was repealed. The following year, she supported the failed Briggs Initiative in California, which would have produced a witch-hunt against gay teachers or anyone who advocated a gay lifestyle.

So in some ways, one could argue that things are "better" now for the LGBT community, but Herring casts an unjaundiced eye upon what she terms the "the fault lines of religion, race, and sexual identity." She makes a good point. Have things really changed for the LGBT community except in the most superficial ways since 1977? I wonder. I study the trailer and am reminded of the pain we witnessed back in the days when the movement for true gay equality was in its infancy. One of the individuals featured in THE CAMPAIGN trailer speaks about how "personal" it is to hear people "yelling and screaming" about taking away the right to love--the most basic of human rights.

All Herring has is a trailer now, but it is an excellent, quality beginning, and given Herring's track record, there is a better than even chance the film will be made. Herring possesses her own brand of audacity, hope and generosity.

Over the last week, I have been full of emotion, thinking about what I was doing this time last year. On November 4, 2008, I was up at 3AM, after 90 minutes of glorious sleep, and I arrived at campaign headquarters at 4:15AM. I planned to film the headquarters before the lights came on at 5AM. To my surprise, the staff had arrived even earlier, unable to sleep in anticipation of Election Day. Twenty-three hours later, we were all still awake, holding onto hope that Prop 8 would not pass. I'm sharing THE CAMPAIGN trailer now as a reminder of that day and as a thank you to the campaign staffers, activists, and community members who put their hearts into this crucial work.

Films like The Campaign require our attention and our support. Because young people dared to face the hatred of Anita Bryant and her supporters, progress was made. My daughter's generation considers gay rights to be a non-issue. If I have grandchildren, I have some hope that the world they enter will allow them to make the simple and profound choice to love whom they wish. Films like The Campaign will provide the historical blueprint and record of how the fight was waged, how battles were won--and lost.

Hope does spring eternal, but its future rests with the young, the dedicated and the openhearted. Hope also requires belief.

Tom Vander Ark: How Social Networking Will Transform Learning

2009-11-07T14:47:52Z

There are plenty of theories about how to improve education. Most focus on what appear to be big levers--a point of entry and system intervention that appears to provide some improvement leverage. These theories usually involve 'if-then' statements: 'if we improve this, then other good stuff will happen.' Leading theories focus on people, schools, policy and community. Nonprofit ecosystems develop around theories, they ebb and flow with foundation interest. Although seldom discussed, leading levers differ substantially in terms of risk and return.

People. Teach for America was an early leader in what is now commonly referred to as the Human Capital agenda in education. With increased federal and foundation attention, alternative certification programs have achieved some scale but still train a fraction of all teachers and leaders.
• Problem addressed: weak talent distribution
• Key assumption: teacher effectiveness is the key variable; more good teachers will improve student achievement
• Risk: low risk especially with proven recruiting and training programs
• Return: low leverage for teacher programs (one announced this week costs $70k/placement), moderate leverage for leadership, potential for sizable impact with sustained investment over time
• Example: Advance Innovative Education, New Leaders for New Schools, New Teacher Project

Schools. Charter schools are the leading representative of the view that 'good schools will improve the system.' Proponents usually add a dose of competition and choice to theories about scaled impact. While market share in 14 communities exceeds 20%, national market share of the burgeoning new school development sector serves less than 4% of US students.
• Problem addressed: obsolete school designs with restrictive rules
• Key assumption: good schools are sticky--once they develop a constituency, they'll be around for a while
• Risk: low risk especially with proven models and operators
• Return: low-moderate leverage (funders bet on moderate returns given optimistic assumptions about competition, scale, and diffusion)
• Examples: Achievement First, Aspire, Green Dot, KIPP

Policy. A growing number of think tanks and advocacy groups are attempting to nudge the Gordian knot of policy in a slightly more positive and coherent direction.
• Problem addressed: three-tiered mess of American education policy
• Key assumption: a smart investment in advocacy can yield big returns
• Risk: high risk of little or no progress, possible unintended consequences
• Return: high leverage if successful; opportunity to change the opportunity set for millions of students
• Example: EdTrust, Democrats for Education Reform, Education Equality Project, EdSector, ConnCAN

Community. A small number of diehards attempt to organize community support or community services for better schools.
• Problem addressed: underserved communities are disenfranchised
• Key assumption: organizing creates power for change (and/or schools can't do it alone)
• Risk: transitory support and high risk of bureaucratically thwarted efforts
• Return: moderate-high leverage if support can be built around key opportunities
• Example: Communities in Schools, Parent Revolution, PICO, Parent Organizing Consortium

You could add 'data' to the lever list, but given the wide recognition of its importance, better data is usually incorporated into strategies in each category. You could add 'systems' approaches but they are usually cobbled together bundles of these four--more community for the left-leaning foundations, more choice for the right.

One problem not addressed by these theories is the lack of innovation diffusion in education--a good idea won't cross the street. Weak improvement incentives and strong bureaucracy have created a lousy marketplace for products and ideas.

In other sectors, platforms have proven to be a big lever: iTunes for music, Wal-Mart for consumer goods, Windows for computers. Platforms combine a set of technologies--including some we didn't know we needed that instantly become indispensable--into a disruptive value engine.

I'm betting on social learning platforms as a lever for improvement at scale in education. Instead of a classroom as the primary organizing principle, social networks will become the primary building block of learning communities (both formal and informal). Smart recommendation engines will queue personalized content. Tutoring, training, and collaboration tools will be applications that run on social networks. New schools will be formed around these capabilities. Teachers in existing schools will adopt free tools yielding viral, bureaucracy-cutting productivity improvement.

In the coming decade, most middle and high schools will adopt some version of 1:1 technology, online learning will play an increasing role, and learning experiences will be conducted and coordinated on social learning platforms. While adoption won't be simple and smooth, it will cut through the typical barriers that block other reforms.

The platforms that get big will have a business model behind them. Foundations will contribute to niche platforms and apps, but the big platforms will be dot coms not dot orgs. There's no stopping it and that's the beauty of disruptive innovation.

Three Foreign Journalists Reported Detained In Iran

2009-11-07T02:06:12Z

Iranian officials arrested a Japanese and two Canadian reporters during anti-government demonstrations this week and charged them with "unauthorized reporting," the semiofficial Fars News Agency reported Friday.