Here's the series:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10 - Reporter Summary of Events
Part 11 - Chuck Todd Summary

essica Yellin
Congressional Correspondent
I find myself in an interesting position. Today the blogs lit up with comments I made last night on AC360° and suddenly I’m being reported on.
It’s not the most comfortable position for a reporter.
So let me clarify what I said and what I experienced.
First, this involved my time on MSNBC where I worked during the lead up to war. I worked as a segment producer, overnight anchor, field reporter, and briefly covered the White House, the Pentagon, and general Washington stories.
Also, let me say: No, senior corporate leadership never asked me to take out a line in a script or re-write an anchor intro. I did not mean to leave the impression that corporate executives were interfering in my daily work; my interaction was with senior producers. What was clear to me is that many people running the broadcasts wanted coverage that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the country at the time. It was clear to me they wanted their coverage to reflect the mood of the country.
And now I’m going back to work covering the Puerto Rico primary from San Juan.

During the (Today's Show) interview, Scottie revealed the two things that really pissed him off with the Bush Administration. First, being set up to lie by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. And second, learning that Bush had--himself--authorized the selective leaking of the NIE.
are United States federal government documents that are the authoritative assessment of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) on intelligence related to a particular national security issue. NIEs are produced by the National Intelligence Council and express the coordinated judgments of the United States Intelligence Community, the group of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. NIEs are classified documents prepared for policymakers.
"Este es en hombre que nos entiende y que nos va a respetar."~Governor Bill Richardson
I think the questions were asked. I respectfully disagree with the gentle lady from the Columbia Broadcasting System [group giggles]. I think the questions were asked. . . . I can remember getting in trouble with administration officials for asking questions they didn't feel comfortable with.
It was just a drumbeat of support from the administration. And it is not our job to debate them; it's our job to ask the questions.
Emily Gould was invited to write a first-person essay which appeared in the NY Times Magazine with a cool photo of Emily on its cover. No big deal to me, but it's caused a firestorm of criticism mostly aimed at the NYTimes itself for being, well, capitalist in trying to gain commenters for its new blog system.
But I think what's missing here are two things. First, is what I will call the struggle of mainstream media to have some influence and say in the blogsphere. Second, there's Emily's very revealing attack on Gawker. 
I just read her entire post -- it's long; perhaps 20,000 words or so -- and what I came away with was that, 1) she broke the heart of her now-ex boyfriend Henry who she made read like someone who's afraid of success and was good for nothing except growing out of, and 2) that she essentially jumped into a relationship with a guy -- Gawker blogger Josh Stein -- who she worked with who didn't really "get" her like Henry did, but was able to convince her to spread her legs on cue, 3), she totally hated the Gawker Culture (but not its people) but worked her way into it because she was slowly becoming like Julia Allison, who's attention seeking personality Gould claims to dislike, but only because it's really the completion of what Emily was becoming (and since they're friends, arguably has become - see photo), and 4) Emily needs a new Mac as the one she's using is really old. I think about five years old at least. 
Of course, getting wrapped up in all that totally causes one to miss the bird's eye view of things. In this case, from the air there are a lot of people really pissed off about what Jezebel blogger "Moe" -- who's a friend of Emily's -- called a "masterbatory" blog.
It was. Writing the line "Josh and I sat together on the couch, and I put my head on his shoulder in a completely friendly, professional way" made Moe and me LOL, because there's no fucking way that one could even think of such an action as either just friendly or professional. But I'm sure it gave Emily much quasi-sexual pleasure to write that. But what's not a feel-good moment is the reaction to Gould's work.
Rachel Skalar at the Huffington Post just plain unloads on Emily , taking her to the woodshed for being so, well, self-revealing. Rachel ties together every negative blog and article on Emily's "Exposed" Times work, and leaves no whipping lash unused. Rachel's point -- again -- is that there are more interesting topics than the musings of a self-absorbed blogger with boyfriend problems.
What I find totally facinating about all of the crying and whining about Emily's NYTimes blog is that people are complaining that people are reading about this; Let's face it, no one's forcing us to do so. Rachel read it -- so did thousands of others. People don't seem to get that they like to read about other people. We're voyeurs. Period. Bravo that the NY Times and NYTimes Mag Editor Gerry Marzorati recognizes that -- I guess. Of course, it could have been the happy accident of some editor there -- perhaps Gerry Marzorati -- who thinks Emily's hot. I was about to write we'll never know, but in this "new revealling media" society, I take that back. We'll find out at some point in time.
Do we care? Yes. The simple proof of this shows up in the numbers. Not just for Emily, but on a smaller scale for what -- for example -- I wrote for the San Francisco Chronicle. A revealing article on a defense mechanism I used to deal with subtle racism I call my "Iron Man" suit. In writing it I discovered I gave a voice to many people who felt like me. And let's face it, we like feedback and appreciation; it's a drug that has all of us under its spell.
So what?
I think we're seeing the seeds of why some people don't succeed in new media on a personal level. One does have to be comfortable with a certain degree -- a high level -- of self-revelation. Either by the person or someone else.
What's funny is that no one is free from this, and choosing not to blog is no escape -- just ask Henry. I'm sure somewhere, he's hating every word of Emily's article as he plays a major part in it, and just because of his former association with her.
Welcome to the 21st Century. Eventually, therapists will have to properly sooth clients who's lives were exposed by some wayward blogger working for or starting their own media company. It's more the norm than you think. 
And if that's scary to you, I'm glad to get your attention because this new, revealing world of masterbatory blogging also has a sibling called "masterbatory video-blogging" both draw eyeballs, but there's something baserly attractive about seeing a video of someone talking about themselves or doing something either completely stupid or sexy or interesting. Plus, we have videos of people being caught doing something completely stupid or sexy or interesting, and its those works that get the most attention -- and that leads to money.
The eyeball economy meets "Masterbating Emily" - film at 11, Emily in metallic bikini.


Trocadero's at 107 3rd Ave N in Minneapolis
will be ROCKIN' on
Saturday night, May 31st starting at 7pm.
Proceeds will support the
Obama for America campaign.
If you can't be there,
please donate now through
Obama's secure server.
Tickets are $50/guest, $100/host, and $250 to be an event sponsor.
Tickets are still available online.
Writing of "intensity" we have Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton really looking like she's letting loose on some person she was talking to. All I can write is "yikes" she needs to get her temper in check, lest be be matched with the tempermental Senator John McCain. Whatever, that's a really frightening photo, in all honesty.
In all of the talk and debate about Barack v. Hillary, it's easy to forget we're talking about people -- passionate people.
That passion comes through in Chelsea Clinton's intense yet happy stare as she talks to supporters at Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, Wednesday, Feb. 13, 2008, during a campaign event for her mother, Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. (AP Photo/Kiichiro Sato)
"Around the globe people are beginning to feel more safe, more connected and more positive about the future at the prospect of an Obama Presidency. Ask anyone in any country, anywhere. Polls are confirming it. People of all age, race, colour, creed and religion have joined together as one, to work and volunteer, most for the first time, to help bring positive change. The ripple effect of this positive momentum is building like a tsunami as it reaches out and begins to touch the lives of people everywhere. It feels like an election for a world President!"A great article, with some stirring video by Akin Salawu (known at YouTube as AkinScribe5) from earlier in the campaign season.

"I am no longer a conservative. I am now an ex-conservative. An ExCon, if you will. Join me and let’s try to make a difference."
"At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter if you are at war or at peace - the federal government must be fiscally responsible. Sure, if we are under imminent threat of being destroyed, then maybe caution goes to the wind, but, otherwise we must keep some level of restraint. While certainly a strong military & strong national security are vitally important, a strong economic & financial situation is at least equally important, perhaps even more important for a superpower. Just ask the U.S.S.R."

