Spinning Surveys -- keep thinking

You've probably seen recent stories that over 40% of Republicans -- or an even higher fraction of Tea Partiers -- think the current President wasn’t born in this country. You may also have heard Rush Limbaugh talking about what the people surveyed think in dramatic (or even bombastic) terms. It's spin.

Here's the thing:

No matter if you’re listening to Limbaugh, watching cable TV, or reading about it in Salon or your favorite blog-site, the surveys only tell you what people say, not what they think. Pundits are free to theorize about what the survey means, but to go beyond and tell us what people are thinking? That is plain, unmitigaged guessing, and it's almost certainly motivated by the desire to keep ratings up and make money from ads - which sadly relies all together too much on spin intended to keep you coming back for more, no matter if the source is right-leaning or left-leaning politically.

Allegedly expert commentators and media darlings alike may choose to infer the Republicans responding to such surveys “think Obama wasn’t born in America,” but it’s equally valid to infer they simply wish that he wasn’t -- you could even suggest they want you to think they think he wasn’t born here, but the fact remains that all you know is what they've said.

The data, the facts, are how those people responded, nothing more. You can’t know what a person is thinking; that's why the American legal system, for instance, is predicated on actions, not media coverage, commentator speculation, or inferences drawn by partisan pundits paid to keep ratings up.

Keep thinking.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Salon.com's loss can be a gain for its ex-employees

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

This one comes from the Scooby-do "ruh?" files, er, Valleywag.com. John Cook explains that San Francisco based news website Salon.com is laying off six people to become more of a "true website."

Salon CEO Richard Gingras told Gawker they released three editors, one writer, one photo editor, and one producer. After some digging, Valleywag's Cook produced this list:

Jeanne Carstensen, managing editor
Kevin Berger, features editor
Katharine Mieszkowski, senior writer
Joy Press, culture editor
Caitlin Shamberg, multimedia editor
Julie Coburn, photo editor

My recommendation is that all of them start their own blogs and video channels, and then get their own sponsors or sign up as a You Tube Partner, as I have been. My prediction for news in new media is that more and more it will become personality-driven. That is we'll follow people and news about or by people far more than brands, unless the brand happens to be a person.

Do we have this already? Yes. It's in - drum roll please - the entertainment industry. We follow bands and singers less than record labels. It's as if record labels are a dime-a-dozen and performers move from one to the other or start their own. That's where news is headed.

Why?

I think it's a function of how people use the web: to look for information about other people. We like to learn what other people have to say or what they did; it's no surprise that the largest internet traffic draws are people and what they do. Now, very soon, that something's going to be reporting, blogging, or vlogging about the news.

In the wake of this development websites like Salon will die a slow death. Sites like The Huffington Post will survive and thrive because they get that people want to read what, for example, Alec Baldwin thinks about Michael Vick.

Is this a bad development? No. It's more honest. By that, I mean it's more attune to where our culture is going. I really don't like the idea that we had to rely on a few brands to deliver the news. It opens a lot of questions in hindsight, like what other news did we miss because an editor considered it not newsworthy?

The Drudge Report hit the Internet big time after reporting on a story Newsweek buried: the affair between then-President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Now, we know who Matt Drudge is and Newsweek's a shadow of its former circulation self.

With this Drudge the man has become Drudge the brand as much as Rush Limbaugh has on radio. Yes, they're both conservative, but they set the standard for the future of news. And since nature abhors a vacuum, liberal personalities will grow to take on Drudge and Limbaugh on the Internet and radio. Indeed, we already have Andrew Sullivan and his blog, as one example, and Taylor Marsh as another. News by pundit. It's only a matter of time before we have more names that become brands, moving from place to place online or being in many places at once.

Buckle up.

Salon's Max Blumenthal Smears Zennie, Having Smeared Sarah Palin's Friend Steve Stoll

If you regularly check out my blogs or videos, you may remember my interview with Steve Stoll, who was presented in a Salon website article on "Sarah Palin's Right Wing Mentors " as a member of the John Birch Society.


Well, when I created a blog post with the Salon article as a base , Stoll saw it on Google and -- having pretty much had it with this Salon article getting repeated all over the place online (just Google "Steve Stoll palin ") -- contacted me.  After some back and forth, Stoll agreed to talk to me via video -- I agreed to give Stoll a platform to present his case.


In doing so, Stoll got to clear his name, which was pretty much dragged through the mud in the article.  First, he's not a member of the John Birch Society and is a Barack Obama supporter.  He's not the weird guy that Max and his co-writer David Neiwart painted him as.  Stoll's mentioned all over the place in the article, as if they talked to him.


They never did.


So I was happy to make the video.  And Steve was happy too.  But then today, I have this public comment exchange with an "mblumenthal" -- Max Blumenthal...Which Max starts off with this:

Zenni describes our factual reporting as "character assassination," thereby taking Stoll at his word without any corroborating evidence. Zenni never asked for Stoll's opinion on the New World Order, never questioned his anti-government views, and never explored our reporting on the disturbing role Stoll played in Palin's rise through the ranks. If Stoll had an issue with Stein's allegations, he should have returned one of our dozens of calls. Zenni, you been bamboozled!

zennie62 (3 hours ago) 

Reply | Remove

Max. Rather than using this medium for insults, why not meet me and tell your story? What do you fear? What's the deal? I told you the deal I made with him here. But this kind of exchange from you is most disturbing.

zennie62 (4 hours ago) 

Reply | Remove

And on that matter, I am happy to present you with an equal time on video. But also it's good to think about it from Steve's point of view. I think the story would have been just as powerful without him.

mblumenthal (4 hours ago) 

0  

Reply | Spam 

| Remove | Block User

Stoll misleads and the ever-credulous Zenni enables. I left numerous messages for Stoll, giving him to opportunity to respond to John Stein's allegations. He never called back. My co-author, David Neiwert, not only called Stoll at least ten times, he appeared at his home to query him. Stoll never called back or came to the door. We reported Stein's allegations as allegations, not facts. Stoll, meanwhile, hid from the light of day. Further, he won't address his sabotage of John Cooper and Stein.

zennie62 (4 hours ago) 

Reply | Remove

Max, that's not fair. This all started by Steve contacting me, not the other way around. I'm not going to defend Steve, but I offer you the opportunity to tell your side of the story. I made a deal to give Steve his platform; that's how I drew him out.

zennie62 (4 hours ago) 

Reply | Remove

Additionally, I must remind you that in a world where "Online Reputation Management" matters, it would have been good not to use Steve's name the way you did as it impacts how other see him. He wanted to clear his name. Can't you understand that?

zennie62 (4 hours ago) 

Reply | Remove

Moreover, I guess you have to throw me into the "Chris Matthews" category because he was able to "draw out" Michelle Bachmann and let her fall on her own sword; such is the power of video. It's a different medium. I did draw out Steve. Those words are his. I'm proud of that. Also I Steve mentioned that you called him.

zennie62 (3 hours ago) 

Reply | Remove

"Stoll misleads and the ever-credulous Zenni enables." -- it also reads as if you have formed a view of Steve without meeting or knowing him. That's not good at all. I've talked to many people on my video who's views I do not agree with. But I give them a platform so that we can be informed. You imply that you did not attack Stoll's character, then turn around and do so. Geez, man.

Here's my point:  Max -- in this exchange -- seemed to me to have a kind of axe to grind regarding Steve Stoll.  Max says he wasn't trying to smear him, then goes right ahead and      does that in the public comments.   Moreover, if you look at the article, it does not report Stoll as "perhaps" or "maybe" having done something, it's written as if it was fact.  


I offered Max the chance to allow me to video his point of view.


I'm still waiting Max.  

Women Can Be Sexist Too: Clinton Supporters And Sexism

This video is nothing less than a monologue on how some remaining female supporters of Senator Clinton for President are, in pointing out sexism, being sexist themselves.

I point to Salon.com's Editor-in-Chief Joan Walsh as a main example and as one who looks the other way when Michelle Obama is the target of sexism and racism, but not Senator Clinton, followed by Harriet Christian, the terrible and outwardly racist Clinton supporter who gained national attention for her racist and sexist rant against Senator Barack Obama at the DNC Rules Committee Meeting of May 31st.

In fact, I point to this blog "Too Sense" and the article "The Limited Empathy of Joan Walsh" where the blogger dNa writes:

Walsh and Ferraro, experts both on being a black man and running for president, and presumably how easy such an endeavor is, given the vast number of black presidents we have elected. It wasn't that Obama built a top-tier fundraising organization, (from scratch) studied the primary rules and how to take full advantage of them, or ran an disciplined campaign with minimal conflicts it was because it was easy, because otherwise there's no possible way this nigger could have actually pulled it off.

Here Walsh demands a full exoneration for Geraldine Ferraro, complete with deference to her knowledge of how to win "Reagan Democrats," something Ferraro doesn't have the slightest idea how to do. Her supposed rapport with "Reagan Democrats" is based exclusively on the idea that they share the same racial prejudices as she does, which strikes me unbelievably condescending.

With the exception of the use of the "N" word, I totally agree. Joan Walsh lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, not the Deep South, and so should value diversity and attack both racism and sexism, wherever both exist. Instead, she sides with Reagan Democrats, who threaten to back Senator McCain for President.

In this both Walsh, and Suzie Thompkins Buell, the founder of Esprit, have behaved terribly as San Francisco Professional Women of Power. Buell was recently quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying..

Susie Tompkins Buell, a Hillraiser from San Francisco, said, "What really hurt women the most was to look back and see all this gender bias." Ms. Buell said she hasn't decided whether to vote for Sen. Obama and plans to skip the August Democratic convention.

That's ridiculous and it means Buell's view is just like that of Joan Walsh, who one commenter at the Too Sense wrote of using less-than-kind terms...

Joan Walsh is an insult to white women. She has outright lied, presented misleading information, mischaracterized events, and overall has pushed for a vicious agenda of delegitimizing Obama. She and her coterie of "feminists" have shown themselves to be no better than neo-cons.

Salon was an interesting place for insightful articles, but especially for the past year it has been a complete fluff blog, with Joan Walsh showing such astounding immaturity, it has been a sad spectacle to watch. She has been reactionary, completely illogical, and completely emotional.

She should not be an editor of anything.

Finally, I point to efforts like those of The Denver Group to force a new election at the DNC Convention as divisive and driven by some of the worst elements in the Democratic Party -- some people who are both racist and sexist. The main persons here are Larry Johnson and the afforementioned Harriet Christien; Johnson a Clinton supporter best known for working to find a tape on Michelle Obama that does not exist.

They represent the worst elements of the Democratic Party and should be laughed at, then ignored. America made it's choice for Democratic Presidential representative. And even the Florida and Michigan voters knew their elected officials screwed up in moving their primaries forward. To change the DNC Rules would be to declare that the DNC Rules Committee has no backbone or teeth in any decision it makes, and so anyone could go on -- any state leader -- and thumb their noses at the DNC when it wished to do so.

That's not the right course for the DNC. We must end all sexism and racism in the Democratic Party. Period.

Clinton People Who Mention Obama's Past Cocaine Use; Must Answer For Clinton's Alledged Involvment In Cocaine Trafficing

According to a Huffington Post blogger , Clinton cronies are set to mention Senator Barack Obama's past and his use of cocaine, but this proves how the Clinton Camp is starting to panic and for two reasons:

1) It opens up the question of Senator Clinton and any past drug use she may have done. (Important, because Senator Obama is not covering up his past; what about Clinton?)

2) Now Senator Clinton has to answer -- again -- for the MENA controversy, which is expresses in this video:

Part One:



Part Two:



Part Three:



Part Four:



The video's description reads:

An independent group of researchers in Arkansas are charging that Governor Bill Clinton is covering up an airport used by the CIA and major cocaine smugglers in a remote corner of the Ozark mountains. According to Deborah Robinson of In These Times, the Inter mountain Regional Airport in Mena,Arkansas continues to be the hub of operations for people like assassinated cocaine kingpin Barry Seal as well as government intelligence operations linked to arms and drug smuggling.

In the 1980's, the Mena airport became one of the world's largest aircraft refurbishing centers, providing services to planes from many countries.Researchers claim that the largest consumers of aircraft refurbishing services are drug smugglers and intelligence agencies involved in covert activities.In fact, residents of Mena, Arkansas, have told reporters that former marine Lt. Colonel Oliver North was a frequent visitor during the 1980's. Eugene Hasenfus, a pilot who was shot down in a Contra supply plane over Nicaragua in 1986, was also seen in town renting cargo vehicles.

A federal Grand Jury looking into activities at the Mena airport refused to hand down any indictments after drug running charges were made public.Deborah Robinson says that Clinton had "ignored the situation" until he began his presidential campaign." Clinton then said he would provide money for a state run investigation of the Mena airport. But according to Robinson, the promise of an investigation was never followed up by Clinton's staff. In fact, a local Arkansas state prosecutor blasted Clinton's promise of an investigation, comparing it to "spitting on a forest fire."

...and in this Salon article , where the makers of the video "Citizens for Honest Government" paid their sources, which taints their claims, but one of the allegations is of President Clinton's cocaine use and the person behind the story is sticking to it.

Here's the article below, in full:

Among the allegations spread by Citizens for Honest Government's paid "expert witnesses" was that Bill Clinton, as governor of Arkansas, provided protection for the cocaine trade.

Beginning in late 1993, Nichols and three other individuals who received payments from Citizens told the press that Clinton, while governor of Arkansas, ordered state law enforcement officials to turn a blind eye to a cocaine trafficking ring operating out of Mena, a small Arkansas airport 120 miles west of Little Rock. Nichols and the group's other paid "witnesses" alleged that Clinton protected the cocaine operation because one of the ring's backers was a Clinton campaign contributor. They also alleged the drug smuggling ring was connected to a covert U.S. intelligence operation in Central America.

The allegations quickly found their way to talk radio programs and onto the Internet and began moving into the mainstream via articles in the American Spectator and the conservative Washington Times.

But what ultimately legitimized the allegations was a series of editorials and articles on the subject that appeared in 1994 on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

Rep. Jim Leach, (R-Iowa), chairman of the House Banking Committee, acknowledged in an interview in the fall of l996 that he had directed his committee staff to conduct a comprehensive investigation of the Mena allegations after first reading about them in the Wall Street Journal.

"I read the Journal editorial page with great interest," Leach told Salon. "They raised some very serious and interesting issues. And I made the decision that it should be an appropriate subject of a committee investigation."

Two committee sources told Salon that House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., also had read about the Mena allegations on the Journal's editorial page and had learned more about them from conservative supporters of his political action committee, GOPAC. Gingrich personally urged that Leach investigate the matter, the sources said.

David Runkel, a spokesman for the House Banking Committee, said that despite an exhaustive two-year investigation, the committee found absolutely no evidence showing any Clinton involvement in Mena drug-smuggling operations. "We engaged in an appropriate inquiry that uncovered valuable information about money laundering and other issues," said Runkel. "Regarding the president, we found no evidence of wrongdoing."

An investigation by the CIA Inspector-General also concluded last year that there was no evidence that Clinton had any role in protecting the Mena cocaine ring. Leach's House Banking Committee requested the CIA investigation.

Rep. Henry Gonzalez, D-Texas, the House Banking Committee's ranking minority member, was highly critical of the investigation. Gonzalez said it took up more than 13,000 staff hours at the Department of Justice -- "the equivalent of about one year's worth of work by eight full-time employees," said Gonzalez.

The request by Leach to have the CIA Inspector-General investigate, Gonzalez said, led to "six [additional] full-time [CIA] people reviewing over 40,000 pages of documents." In addition, four banking committee staffers worked on the probe at the expense of other important committee business, Gonzalez said.

Among those who were cited as sources about the alleged Mena operation in the Wall Street Journal's editorial page -- and received generous payments from Citizens for Honest Government -- was John Brown, a former deputy sheriff of Saline County, Ark. In l994 and l995, Brown received more than $28,000 from the organization, according to the accounting records. Brown also appeared on a Citizens-produced video about Mena.

"I did investigative work for them," Brown told Salon, adding that Citizens paid him while he worked as a private investigator and not as a police officer.

On Sept. 21, l996, Brown received at least one additional payment of $1,000 from the joint bank account controlled by Matrisciana and Ruddy, according to a copy of the canceled check obtained by Salon.

Another recipient of Citizens funds was Jane Parks of Little Rock. Shortly before the l996 presidential election, the American Spectator published a story by the magazine's editor, R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., that quoted Parks as saying that she had personally witnessed Clinton using cocaine in 1984, while he was governor of Arkansas. At the time, Parks said, she had been resident manager of an upscale Little Rock apartment complex. Parks claimed that her office was subdivided by a flimsy temporary wall. Parks told Tyrrell that she worked on one side of the partition while on the other side, the president's brother, Roger Clinton, maintained a bachelor pad.

"Mrs. Parks observed cocaine being brought into the apartment," Tyrrell wrote. "She also had to relay complaints to Roger about noise from his parties ... She stated: 'Once when I opened the door, Bill Clinton was sitting on the couch. He was staring straight ahead, looking stoned ... There were lines of cocaine on the table in front of him."

Later, she told the London Daily Telegraph that her husband, a private investigator who once did security work for the l992 Clinton presidential campaign, was killed because he had been involved with drug smuggling at the Mena airport. Parks also claimed she found hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash in the trunk of her late husband's car. She said that her husband had told her that Vincent Foster had directed him to smuggle drugs at Mena.

In l994 and l995, Parks and other members of her family received more than $16,000 from Citizens for Honest Government, according to the organization's accounting records. In 1995 Parks received an additional $6,000 from the joint bank account maintained by Nichols and Patterson, according to records and individuals with direct knowledge of the transactions.

Parks declined to comment for this article, but her son told Salon that she stands by her stories.

A former employee of the American Spectator told Salon that Tyrrell had several conversations with conservative activists in the closing days of the l996 presidential race to discuss ways to publicize Parks' charges against Clinton. The former employee said in an interview that "a lot of us had serious questions about the 'the president is a cocaine addict story,' and [Tyrrell's] sources ... But he does believe in these things, and it is his magazine."

Tyrrell did not return several phone calls from Salon.

A massive can of worms.