Trolling through my tweets I saw this gem from the Washington Editor of The Nation. Just who, I wondered, was the magazine pummeling in a dark alley?

Well, as it turns out, they’re taking on the federal government, with a bit of help from some friends:

A few hours after Bush’s signing [of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008], The Nation joined with the ACLU in a lawsuit filed in the US District Court (Southern District) of New York challenging the constitutionality of the Act. The Nation is suing on behalf of itself, our staff and two of our contributing writers–Chris Hedges and Naomi Klein. The defendants are the Attorney General of the United States, Michael Mukasey; John M. “Mike” McConnell, Director of National Intelligence; and Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Security Service. We filed suit along with a coalition of other plaintiffs including Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, Global Fund for Women, PEN American Center, Washington Office on Latin America, Service Employees International Union and several private attorneys.

Is it the role of a magazine to join such a lawsuit? Well, as editor Katrina Vanden Heuvel argues, warrentless wiretapping is not just an ominous form of creeping surveillance, it’s also a threat to investigative journalism. In the course of gathering information, independent reporters regularly communicate via phone and e-mail with political dissidents, activists and foreign journalists around the world—exchanges that could be classified as “foreign intelligence information” under the new act. Reporters like Hedges and Klein—who write about sensitive topics in conflict zones—will find it difficult to maintain the confidentiality of their sources under such conditions. “We are proud, then,” she writes, “to join with other patriots who understand the government’s legitimate interest in protecting the nation against terrorism can be fulfilled without sacrificing the constitutional liberties that make the US worth defending.”

F*ckin’ A! Way to “take it to the hill”…

Tags: buildtheechoimpact

The panel I moderated at the Free Press conference was featured on the O’Reilly Factor! (Of course, they were far more interested in Robert Greenwald then me.) But to get such a reaction from Mr. O’Reilly about the conference and the “lunatic left”-this is what we call impact! Or under our impact measurements–we’re calling “Poking the Bear.”

Definition
Poking the Bear: Purposefully mocking or baiting a conservative figure in order to create pushback that generates buzz.

Robert opened his presentation by letting the audience know that Fox News was taping in the room. “They’re going to try to aggressively attack some of the high-profile guests here, so get to know them…say hello to the liars, distorters and people at FOX news…and a particular word to Bill O’Reilly, who’s too frightened to come out, ‘Hi Bill.’” And guess what they did?

Check it out. 30 seconds in.

So I’ve been a little slow on the blogging the last week and a half and that’s for a couple reasons.
1) I have carpal tunnel and tendonitis in my left wrist. Very painful and hard to type.
2) Jess and I were prepping for a presentation at the academic National Conference for Media Reform pre-conference where we presented our theories and latest examples from our book. (Happy to share if you want. We’re also figuring out how to get it on slide share.)
3) I was also prepping for my moderation of the NCMR panel, “How the Independent Media Makes Change.” In short, the panel rocked. (And I don’t usually say that about panels.) Panelists included Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake, Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films, Jeff Morely of the Center for Independent Media and Daisy Hernandez of ColorLines. I’m going to be posting video and commentary on that asap. (I’m struggling through learning the new Imovie8 and having problems importing. Ah, technology.)

But most of all, I and the rest of The Media Consortium team were consumed by preparations for the launch of Live From Main Street. I could tell you all about it, but let me just repeat snippets of what LFMS host Laura Flanders wrote at the Huffington Post.

A year ago, a group of independent media professionals looked ahead to the 2008 election season. Anticipating the same stump speech in 50 states and the same old reporting to go along with it, they wondered, ‘what if, instead of the candidates’ horse-race, we covered goings-on around the track?’ The project we came up with together is Live from Main Street: a series of live events, in five states in five months, bringing audiences the local perspective on critical national issues.

On June 8, in Minneapolis, Live From Main Street kicked off in the Twin Cities. Locals weren’t just backdrop for a report a national story: they were the main event. On stage — discussing the election, organizing, media and more, were organizers, journalists, artists — sharing their accounts of the free speech challenges their community’s facing in the run-up to the Republican National Convention. And it wasn’t all bad news. Alongside the grim reports of permits denied and protests squashed, we heard the latest word on “unconventional” convention plans — “our roving reporters will be mounted on bicycles connected by GPS” Marlina Gonzales of the UnConvention told Live From Main Street. “Today’s Main Street is a new Main Street” said Malkia Cyril, Executive Director of the Center for Media Justice. Politicians make old assumptions at their peril, she added. It’s not just about bias, it’s about getting the story wrong.

Over the next five months, Live From Main Street will be hosting town-hall type discussions about critical issues in Miami, Denver, Columbus and Seattle. We want to take the agenda-setting out of the hands candidates’ consultants — and put an ear to the voters themselves. In Minneapolis, the focus was on civil liberties and the need for media diversity. In Miami in July, the attention will shift to cities and sustainable development. In Columbus, the topic’s voting; in Seattle, national security from a female point of view. We’ve heard from the politiicans. At the end of the election season, Live From Main Street hopes to have heard– and amplified what voters mean by that catchword “change.”

The first LFMS was an amazing success–with a raucous crowd of 450 people. But instead of me telling you about it: let’s just watch, shall we?

Welcome to Live From Main Street

Amy Goodman on Independent Media

Civil Liberties in the Twin Cities Pre-RNC

Live From Main Street: What the nation can learn from Minnesota

Jon Stewart had a biting and funny “report” on the DNC committee rules meeting that decided on how to divvy up the Michigan and Florida delegate count. But to make it even better, Stewart videochecked progressive blog favorite, firedoglake.com. Check it out, it’s about 4:30 in. (Hint-it’s a wacky lady.)

You must watch this. But have nothing sharp or heavy near you, because you’ll want to throw something at your computer.

And now that you’re sufficiently mad, go sign the petition.

So, yes, for some reason I’ve been on an MSNBC kick lately–or maybe because that’s where some of the most interesting stuff has been happening. But I promise that this will be my last post of the week with MSNBC footage.

But I thought I’d note that Chris Hayes, Washington Editor of The Nation, was a guest on Countdown with Keith Olbermann Friday night. Chris was discussing the two faces of Sen. John McCain. Now yes, that’s noteworthy (and definitely worth learning about), but what was really interesting for me (as a a media geek) was who he was talking with. Keith was absent from the show that day and in his stead was our fast rising progressive journalist and TV personality star, Rachel Maddow (one of the high-impact personalities we are featuring in our book).

Let me ask you, when was the last time you saw two progressive journalists dominating a major cable channel for even 5 minutes and having an interesting, journalistic, topical conversation that didn’t involve defending themselves from loud-mouth pundits or having to scream over the conservative blow hards? If you know the last time, let me know, but I surely can’t think of it. I’m sure that this has to do with MSNBC’s bottom-line decision to go more “left”–but I’m not going to argue with it. Watch the clip.

That’s what you’ll get watching this.

Congrats Nation and Mother Jones!

The National Magazine Awards held their annual awards and two of our favorite mags were acknowledged.

• MoJo won for General Excellence (circulation 100,000 to 250,000)
• Public Interest–The Nation, for two-part series on a Purple Heart-winning army specialist injured in Iraq who was one of many veterans denied medical and other benefit

Check out the whole of winners here.

Tags: impact, awards

I’m supposed to be on vacation (I’m on a small island called Bonaire), but I can’t help myself. (So forgive me that I’m crunching what should be two posts into one.)   But I just read this post from Josh Levy from the PDF blog and the first two bullet points stuck out for me.  Both of these news items continues to fill out the concept of how the progressive media is having an impact on the political debate.   One is a specific case study and one is an analysis of the larger progressive  “noise machine.” First bullet point.

This story (a Huffington Post/Off the Bus collaboration) comes shortly after antoher OTB pro am journalist, Mayhill Folwer broke Obama’s “bitter” comment.  I don’t necessarily agree that the bitter comment was worth the amount of panting and dissection that the mainstream media gave it, BUT the fact that is that a citizen journalist’s work drove the MSM political news cycle for days.   Talk about IMPACT!   I think that this collaboration b/w HuffPo and Off the Bus, hits our “impact” categories of:

• Uncovering the News
• Pioneering New Journalism Models

What else do you think this collaboration has done? Here’s our “in development” list.

Second bullet point from Josh.

I read Jon’s post.  Here are some highlights.

Very true.  The power of the web has allowed progressives to take many of their grassroots/bottom up strategies for campaign creation and execution online.  Not only is that the right thing to do (hey–the people most effected by the issue gets to help decide what to do about it?!?), it has proven politically powerful.  Jon continues.

I agree with many of these points.  (YEAH!) But let’s not forget the fact that while the progressive’s developing media network is becoming quite influential, the right wing continues to dominate the airwaves and newspapers.  They’re model, while creaky and old, still holds significant power and is a larger mouthpiece.  It also continues to have much more funds (both in corporate dollars and individual donors) to get out their message and “journalism.”  Combine that with shoddy work by the MSM (hello ABC presidential debate?) progressives still have a long way to go to balancing the scales.  But I like where we’re headed. 

Outraged by the debacle that was the ABC Presidential Debate on Wed. night, a group of progressive journalists and allies organized themselves to respond and repudiate the awfulness.  I’m so proud!  

After a quick survey of the intertubes, The Nation, TPM Cafe, The American Prospect, In These Times, Crooked Timber and Brave New Films have already posted the letter to their web sites.  Let me know if you see anymore media outlets that have run the letter or link to it.  I’ll keep you updated if there’s any response to it.

Here’s the letter and the signatories.

For 53 minutes, we heard no question about public policy from either moderator. ABC seemed less interested in provoking serious discussion than in trying to generate cheap shot sound-bites for later rebroadcast. The questions asked by Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Gibson were a disgrace, and the subsequent attempts to justify them by claiming that they reflect citizens’ interest are an insult to the intelligence of those citizens and ABC’s viewers. Many thousands of those viewers have already written to ABC to express their outrage.

The moderators’ occasional later forays into substance were nearly as bad. Mr. Gibson’s claim that the government can raise revenues by cutting capital gains tax is grossly at odds with what taxation experts believe. Both candidates tried, repeatedly, to bring debate back to the real problems faced by ordinary Americans. Neither moderator allowed them to do this.

We’re at a crucial moment in our country’s history, facing war, a terrorism threat, recession, and a range of big domestic challenges. Large majorities of our fellow Americans tell pollsters they’re deeply worried about the country’s direction. In such a context, journalists moderating a debate–who are, after all, entrusted with free public airwaves–have a particular responsibility to push and engage the candidates in serious debate about these matters. Tough, probing questions on these issues clearly serve the public interest. Demands that candidates make pledges about a future no one can predict or excessive emphasis on tangential “character” issues do not. This applies to candidates of both parties.

Neither Mr. Gibson nor Mr. Stephanopoulos lived up to these responsibilities. In the words of Tom Shales of the Washington Post, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos turned in “shoddy, despicable performances.” As Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher describes it, the debate was a “travesty.” We hope that the public uproar over ABC’s miserable showing will encourage a return to serious journalism in debates between the Democratic and Republican nominees this fall. Anything less would be a betrayal of the basic responsibilities that journalists owe to their public.

Spencer Ackerman, The Washington Independent
Eric Alterman, City University of New York
Dean Baker, The American Prospect Online
Steven Benen, The Carpetbagger Report
Julie Bergman Sender, Balcony Films
Ari Berman, The Nation
Brian Beutler, The Media Consortium
Michael Berube, Crooked Timber, the University of Pennsylvania
Joel Bleifuss, In These Times
Sam Boyd, The American Prospect
Lakshmi Chaudry, In These Times
Joe Conason, Journalist and Author
Brad DeLong, Brad DeLong’s Semi-Daily Journal and UC Berkeley
Kevin Drum, The Washington Monthly
Henry Farrell, Crooked Timber, George Washington University
James Galbraith, University of Texas at Austin
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University, TPM Cafe
Merrill Goozner (formerly Chicago Tribune)
Ilan Goldenberg, The National Security Network
Robert Greenwald, Brave New Films
Christopher Hayes, The Nation
Don Hazen, Alternet
Michael Kazin, Georgetown University
Ed Kilgore, The Democratic Strategist
Richard Kim, The Nation
Ezra Klein, The American Prospect
Mark Kleiman, UCLA/The Reality Based Community
Scott McLemee, Inside Higher Ed
Ari Melber, The Nation
Rick Perlstein, Campaign for America’s Future
Katha Pollitt, The Nation
David Roberts, Grist
Thomas Schaller, Columnist, The Baltimore Sun
Mark Schmitt, The New America Foundation
Adele Stan, The Media Consortium
Jonathan Stein, Mother Jones Magazine
Mark Thoma, The Economist’s View
Michael Tomasky, The Guardian
Cenk Uygur, The Young Turks
Tracy Van Slyke, The Media Consortium
Kai Wright, The Root