“In fairness to the Tea Party types, I don't think they believe their point is invalid. It's core, in fact. What I do think is invalid is their tactic to freeze a vetted law. It's bad form, at least. But then sit-ins in Berkeley were never pretty.”
“Agreed, it is not. But my point is that this won't stop the Dem's from introducing the concept (i.e., running the play). They've shown no restraint in labeling House Tea Partiers as extortionist, kidnappers, etc.”
Interesting point about media looking for equivalencies, or false ones as you assert. You may be right.
Were HRC indeed on the beach, we would be witness to more innocuous things, but her public plays appear well aligned to her pursuit of the Oval Office and she has proven over time to be incurably strategic, sometimes to a fault. Here are two blogs I've penned, one in praise, the other not-so-much, that might clarify my essential thesis: HRC is a master playmaker.
“Glad to see a discussion on Authenticity. There's no doubting its import, like reputation, trust, values and other intangible assets. But here is the problem in your expectation of it (authenticity), particularly of entities that inhabit a marketplace. They can't do it. Not with any degree of, well, authenticity. The reason is that their central purpose is self-serving. Yes, we think of Patagonia, Ben & Jerry's and other socially-sensitive brands, but even these can't ever profess to put the customer's interests first. Their interest in "us" is merely a strategy by which they prefer to operate. Their goal is to survive and make money. Should the golf course have kept your comment? Of course, particularly yours! But can you blame them when their interests are fundamentally incapable of authentic expression?”
hp blogger Sam Fiorella on Aug 12, 2013 at 19:25:06
“Yes, that's just the point. You start by saying that "there's no doubting the import(ance) of authenticity" but then clearly explain why any business (which must be self-servicing at the end of the day to profit) cannot truly be authentic. It's quite the dilemma for businesses choosing to embark on social media communications. Should there be a "disclaimer" such as: "We're only going to be honest if it serves us."”
“The Crazy Ivan, while often a play of last resort, can work. It's the last thing that Obama's detractors would expect, and given his talents with preemptive plays (e.g., Trump), it would not be surprising to see him run it.”
“Just got Sam's book in the mail! It's ready to be dog-eared.
Great Q&A with CNN. What I take from this is some measure of confidence that what we're going through is not some cathartic DIS-intermediation of media, but a RE-mediation of media. CNN's evolution is proof that the big bang of social media is now, blessedly, beginning its collapse, not into a dense black hole or sorts, but into a rational and reasonably scaled journalistic community. Let's hope they're all as good as CNN.”
hp blogger Sam Fiorella on May 18, 2013 at 11:14:33
“Thanks Alan. Your point that we're seeing a re-mediation of media is well made. And thanks for picking up the book! Let us know what you think - hop on over to Amazon and share your thoughts.”
“Good point. The play he is running on (or with) McCain is a Screen. That's a framing play designed to borrow or glean something from someone or something other than the player. So Biden, by getting close to McCain, is using the pic to make a broader point, perhaps that he's a bipartisan kind of guy. But if your take is that he just looks old, then he might have run a bad play. Check The Standard Table of Influence online to know more about the upsides and downsides of the Screen play. Alan Kelly”