Day: December 29, 2005

Established dog bites back

“So yes on the evidence this is FUD,” says L’Ombre de l’Olivier, meaning the “fear uncertainty and doubt” that attacks a “large incumbent company . . . when it sees a threat on the radar screen from a start up.”  He refers to the WaPo “hit job” on embedded blogger-journalist Bill Roggio — Bloggers, Money Now Weapons in Information War U.S. Recruits Advocates to the Front, Pays Iraqi TV Stations for Coverage, which Roggio rebutted in Disinformation Operations: Flaws in The Washington Post’s article on Information Operations.

L’Ombre calls the WaPo story

fascinating stuff because the production of FUD is a sign of an organization whose product is facing a competitive threat that it can’t beat head to head. I would say that Bill and Michael Yon, Michael Totten and, for that matter the Iraqi bloggers at Pajamas Media, are indeed a threat to the MSM [MainStreamMedia] foreign reporters. The reason they are a threat is that they are providing a better quality story. They don’t make the elementary mistakes that MSM journos do such as calling a Bradley a tank or failing to note such inconsistencies from their sources. One could go on, but the fact is that Bill & co, as well other Citizen Journalist efforts are making it clear that journalism is not something that has, in the jargon, a moat or high barriers of entry. In fact thanks to the web it has about the lowest barrier of entry of any profession. All that is required is a story and an ability to write and the web then helps that story and writing ability, if either or both are attractive, to get wider coverage.

You don’t need a master’s from Columbia or Medill, you don’t need apprenticeship at City News.  No wonder the officially accredited take umbrage.

Established dog bites back

“So yes on the evidence this is FUD,” says L’Ombre de l’Olivier, meaning the “fear uncertainty and doubt” that attacks a “large incumbent company . . . when it sees a threat on the radar screen from a start up.”  He refers to the WaPo “hit job” on embedded blogger-journalist Bill Roggio — Bloggers, Money Now Weapons in Information War U.S. Recruits Advocates to the Front, Pays Iraqi TV Stations for Coverage, which Roggio rebutted in Disinformation Operations: Flaws in The Washington Post’s article on Information Operations.

L’Ombre calls the WaPo story

fascinating stuff because the production of FUD is a sign of an organization whose product is facing a competitive threat that it can’t beat head to head. I would say that Bill and Michael Yon, Michael Totten and, for that matter the Iraqi bloggers at Pajamas Media, are indeed a threat to the MSM [MainStreamMedia] foreign reporters. The reason they are a threat is that they are providing a better quality story. They don’t make the elementary mistakes that MSM journos do such as calling a Bradley a tank or failing to note such inconsistencies from their sources. One could go on, but the fact is that Bill & co, as well other Citizen Journalist efforts are making it clear that journalism is not something that has, in the jargon, a moat or high barriers of entry. In fact thanks to the web it has about the lowest barrier of entry of any profession. All that is required is a story and an ability to write and the web then helps that story and writing ability, if either or both are attractive, to get wider coverage.

You don’t need a master’s from Columbia or Medill, you don’t need apprenticeship at City News.  No wonder the officially accredited take umbrage.

Get serious

ARE PHONE COMPANIES HELPING THE GOVERNMENT SPY?

One question arising from the revelation that the government monitored phone calls without court approval is whether phone companies cooperated

is online (email) head for Chi Trib page-one, top left one-column story by telecom writer Jon Van.  It’s punchy and gets right to it.  The hard-copy head is something else, vague and indirect:

Phone giants mum on spying
In past, industry has cooperated with U.S.

It’s as if you play it vague and indirect with breakfasters and Metra riders because Trib is comfy waking-up fare, but you don’t really get serious until you’re online.

Meanwhile, it’s the civil liberties angle again, not defense.  Is it ever defense?  Trib editors — news editors, that is — just don’t get it: a) we’re at war and b) there are other news-deciders to follow besides NY Times, whose sloppiness in reporting the NSA concoction has been amply debunked by Power Line, where you can find a really serious treatment of the subject.

Later:

Reader Bob asked, “Where  would Cynthia get such info?” 
I noted that as for cooperation with the Chinese, Drudge had it months ago, quoting a mainstream source.
Reader Cynthia:
Funny you should mention the Drudge Report. I was just in Japan, visiting some missionary friends, and another missionary I met while I was there loved having someone to talk politics with, and told me he really relied on Drudge to keep him informed of what was really happening in the U.S.

I will say, on behalf of Ms, that at least they just developed software that warns people when they are saying something unacceptable: putting in the wrong words prompts the error message “This item contains forbidden speech. Please delete the forbidden speech from this item.” Forbidden speech includes the Chinese for “democracy,” “demonstration”, “democratic movement” and “Taiwan independence.”

A friend of mine who is very involved in the Libertarian party (started the Illinois chapter, in fact, and has been their candidate for Senator at least a couple of times) got rid of SBC as her ISP, she was so upset about their participation in Chinese censorship. While I confirmed the Microsoft story myself before saying anything (I do know that rule), my friend has such good contacts that it didn’t seem necessary to check on the SBC story — and having traveled quite a bit in China myself, I can’t imagine anyone being allowed to operate any business there if they didn’t cooperate. China’s government knows we’re drooling over China as a market, and they don’t feel any pressure to alter their humans rights position.

Get serious

ARE PHONE COMPANIES HELPING THE GOVERNMENT SPY?

One question arising from the revelation that the government monitored phone calls without court approval is whether phone companies cooperated

is online (email) head for Chi Trib page-one, top left one-column story by telecom writer Jon Van.  It’s punchy and gets right to it.  The hard-copy head is something else, vague and indirect:

Phone giants mum on spying
In past, industry has cooperated with U.S.

It’s as if you play it vague and indirect with breakfasters and Metra riders because Trib is comfy waking-up fare, but you don’t really get serious until you’re online.

Meanwhile, it’s the civil liberties angle again, not defense.  Is it ever defense?  Trib editors — news editors, that is — just don’t get it: a) we’re at war and b) there are other news-deciders to follow besides NY Times, whose sloppiness in reporting the NSA concoction has been amply debunked by Power Line, where you can find a really serious treatment of the subject.

Later:

Reader Bob asked, “Where  would Cynthia get such info?” 
I noted that as for cooperation with the Chinese, Drudge had it months ago, quoting a mainstream source.
Reader Cynthia:
Funny you should mention the Drudge Report. I was just in Japan, visiting some missionary friends, and another missionary I met while I was there loved having someone to talk politics with, and told me he really relied on Drudge to keep him informed of what was really happening in the U.S.

I will say, on behalf of Ms, that at least they just developed software that warns people when they are saying something unacceptable: putting in the wrong words prompts the error message “This item contains forbidden speech. Please delete the forbidden speech from this item.” Forbidden speech includes the Chinese for “democracy,” “demonstration”, “democratic movement” and “Taiwan independence.”

A friend of mine who is very involved in the Libertarian party (started the Illinois chapter, in fact, and has been their candidate for Senator at least a couple of times) got rid of SBC as her ISP, she was so upset about their participation in Chinese censorship. While I confirmed the Microsoft story myself before saying anything (I do know that rule), my friend has such good contacts that it didn’t seem necessary to check on the SBC story — and having traveled quite a bit in China myself, I can’t imagine anyone being allowed to operate any business there if they didn’t cooperate. China’s government knows we’re drooling over China as a market, and they don’t feel any pressure to alter their humans rights position.