Social media: yer doin' it rong

By Carl 

Did you know there was a Republican presidential debate last night?

Don't bother looking for repeats of it on CNN or video on YouTube. 

It was held on Twitter:

Now there's the @140townhall, hosted by the Tea Party, for a few hapless GOP 2012 candidates. 

I don't think enough attention has been paid to how terrible, asinine and embarrassing it was. It was almost funny. The only way it could possibly have been worse would have been if Romney had showed up.

To give you an idea of the level of discourse, which you can read in less time than it took the candidates to misstype, Bachmann's opening statement begins as follows: "TY for this forum. I'm running 4 POTUS 2 bring the voice of the people back to DC."

How... dignified.

Now, in truth, Twitter may be the best venue for the GOP to debate issues: 140 characters means you can't explain anything, you can't easily obfuscate, and you have to create bumper sticker answers on the fly.

Plus, as I often say, Twitter is for twits. This is perfect!

Except what's the point of having an exchange like that if no one knows about it? What's the point of having a debate if it's going to become a muddled mess of snappy answers that you can't even really be certain thread to the other participants?

You might as well ask Dickie Goodman to sample the candidates' position papers and create a "debate" that way.

This points up the contrast in how social media is used by both parties.

The blogosphere/Blogtopia (© Skippy, The Bush Kangaroo) is well-established and -- as conservatives are wont to do -- pretty bipartisanly effective well after the blog-world lost its uniqueness.

Facebook is similarly fairly familiar now, and conservatives have made inroads there as well. Sarah Palin's Facebook page is among the most popularly and most carefully watched pages on the site.

This is a far cry from not too long ago, when Rupert Murdoch purchased MySpace as an attempt to "Fox News" social media, thus abandoning hundreds of conservatives to a lonely outpost on the edges of the cybergalaxy.

Now we have Twitter. Twitter is great for alerting people: you need a quick fundraising hit, or an urgent policy announcement, you link to it on Twitter and it gets around. Twitter is great for a wiseass like me (even though I don't tweet) who can snap off one-liners.

Twitter is not great for a dialogue. And therein lies the problem for the Republicans. They bring a rubber band to a knife fight.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Top Ten Cloves: Other Pope Tweets

By J. Thomas Duffy


News Item: Pope sends first tweet, launching new Vatican site


10.  Can't wait to see Transformers 3 ...


  9.  Anybody know how to upload some pics to FB? ... Shitass things won't take ...


  8.  Don't know bout this writer, but we doin fabulous with deals from Groupon ... Got this badass iPad with bomb of a discount!


  7.  Who looks better in his shorts, me or that Weiner guy?


  6.  Tell the Egyptians to "Get A Life!"


  5.  Follow Me! ... I want to make a run at Lady Gaga this month, for tops!


  4.  WTF NY? ... We'll have to reach out to our boy Pat Robertson, see if he can conjure up a hurricane or tornado ...


  3.  Here's a "Shout Out" to my boys in Philly ... Hang tough, we'll all get thur this (and use the Woodstock thing, it's the bomb)


  2.  I don't know about you, but I would $$ to see Bachmann and Palin mud wrestle!


  1.  Hey ChrisF on Haypi Kingdom, I'm cummin' after U MFer! ... U stole my crops!



Bonus Riffs


Blessed be thy tweeters: Pope issues praise in fewer than 140 characters


Know Thy Pope


Retro Garlic: "We Got An Eight-Page Layout With Viceroy ... The New Pope Is A Thinking Man ..."


Vatican Discounts "Bonfire Pope"; Says Flames "Not Hunched Over Enough"


Top Ten Cloves: Things The Vatican Has Done To Make Good Friday Even Better

Cross posted on The Garlic: All The Cloves Fit To Peel

Was Weiner framed?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the start (of Weinergate), Rep. Anthony Weiner has claimed that his Twitter account was hacked. While he says that he cannot say "with certitude" that the photo in question is not of him, which is a bit odd, he stresses that he did not send any such photo and that he is "the victim of a prank."

Is that credible?

Yes. Yes it is. I won't get into the details, but blogger Joseph Cannon -- and you're right, Jon Stewart, it does sometimes take bloggers to do the investigative reporting that the "mainstream" media refuse to do, or are too lazy to do -- explained what might have happened in an essential post earlier today. Suffice it to say that it's incredibly easy to "hack" (although it's not really hacking) into a Yfrog e-mail account like Weiner's and from there to make it seem as if a photo originated with the Twitter account connected to the Yfrog account. Again, Cannon explains how, and he's discovered an anomaly, added to all the other evidence, that proves the photo in question must have originated somewhere else -- that is, not with Weiner.

And who was the culprit? The evidence appears to point to Dan Wolfe, "a partisan zealot" who "was obsessed with Congressman Weiner. His obsession strikes many as downright pathological." It was Wolfe who first "reported" on the the photo.

Whether Andrew Breitbart is behind it is another matter, but his right-wing site Big Government has been reporting salaciously on Weinergate from the start. And of course the photo was first published there. 

You do the math.

Even if Breitbart wasn't involved, he went with the photo, and the story, without knowing the details, which is par for the course for him. And regardless of his involvement, it seems pretty clear that this was indeed a vicious right-wing prank.

Surprised?

My views on Weinergate

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Reluctantly, I wade in...

First, if Rep. Weiner really did tweet a photo of his penis, or rather of his underwear with a prominent bulge, he's an idiot (among other things). Have we not learned that social networking, like much of the Internet (e.g., Craigslist), isn't private?

Second, he's not handling the crisis well. Even if he didn't do it, even if he finds the media's obsession ridiculous, he should know that treating the media poorly will only hurt him more (and make it seem as if he's done something wrong that he's trying to cover up. Given the absence of facts, what matters is image, and his image is suffering.

Third, this may very well have been (yet another) conservative dirty trick, with someone hacking into Weiner's Twitter account. Breitbart? Someone operating with Breitbart's backing? Maybe. It would fit the profile.

Fourth, Weiner's lawyer is looking into "what civil or criminal actions should be taken, but why hasn't a formal investigation been launched yet, by Capitol Police or the FBI? Shouldn't Weiner want there to be an investigation?

Fifth, is it Weiner? (Whether it is or isn't, how ridiculously stupid is this? A poll asking if it's him? How would anyone know? What bothers me as much as anything about "Weinergate" (because, of course, it has to be a "-gate," is how lascivious the media are, not to mention much of the public.) 

Sixth, who cares?

Rashard Mendenhall clarifies controversial Twitter remarks

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Pittsburgh Steelers running back Rashard Mendenhall, you've probably heard, posted some rather interesting tweets on the killing of Osama bin Laden. I wrote about them on Wednesday, defending Mendenhall but not excusing a couple of the more inexcusable tweets.

Presenting himself as a 9/11 Truther? Not so good.

Seeming to be an Osama apologist? Also not so good.

But saying that there's something wrong with celebrating death, with the lust for bloody vengeance, refusing to be a judge (which only his God can truly be), and encouraging thought instead of ignorance? What's so wrong with that?

While defending Mendenhall, to a point, I made sure to stress that he needed to clarify his remarks, to explain himself. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because he appears to be thoughtful, peaceful man. I said that he should have been more careful, that Twitter isn't the best place to express such nuanced thoughts. I said that we shouldn't be too quick to judge. I admired him, in a way, but I was prepared to be more critical if he didn't 

Well, Mendenhall took to his blog (as reported by the Post-Gazette), a blog now with just a single post, for clarification. I encourage you to read his post in full. Here's some of it:

I appreciate those of you who have decided to read this letter and attain a greater understanding of my recent twitter posts. I see how they have gotten misconstrued, and wanted to use this outlet as a way to clear up all things that do not truthfully represent myself, what I stand for personally, and any organization that I am a part of.

First, I want people to understand that I am not in support of Bin Laden, or against the USA. I understand how devastating 9/11 was to this country and to the people whose families were affected. Not just in the US, but families all over the world who had relatives in the World Trade Centers. My heart goes out to the troops who fight for our freedoms everyday, not being certain if they will have the opportunity to return home, and the families who watch their loved ones bravely go off to war.

And he responded specifically to objections to one of his two objectionable tweets, the one in which he said that people shouldn't celebrate death but also in which he wondered how people could hate a man (Osama) they'd never even heard speak:

This controversial statement was something I said in response to the amount of joy I saw in the event of a murder. I don't believe that this is an issue of politics or American pride; but one of religion, morality, and human ethics...

I wasn't questioning Bin Laden's evil acts. I believe that he will have to face God for what he has done. I was reflecting on our own hypocrisy. During 9/11 we watched in horror as parts of the world celebrated death on our soil. Earlier this week, parts of the world watched us in horror celebrating a man's death.

And then he apologized for anything that might have been misconstrued:

Nothing I said was meant to stir up controversy. It was my way to generate conversation. In looking at my timeline in its entirety, everything that I've said is with the intent of expressing a wide array of ideas and generating open and honest discussions, something I believe we as American citizens should be able to do. Most opinions will not be fully agreed upon and are not meant to be. However, I believe every opinion should be respected or at least given some thought. I apologize for the timing as such a sensitive matter, but it was not meant to do harm. I apologize to anyone I unintentionally harmed with anything that I said, or any hurtful interpretation that was made and put in my name.

It was only meant to encourage anyone reading it to think.

With respect to the controversial tweet about hearing Osama's side, I think that Mendenhall wrote inartfully. In other words, he just didn't express himself well. His explanation helps, but obviously he should have been more careful with his words. Because, as it is, that tweet comes across not necessarily as pro-Osama but at least as deeply ignorant. (A lot of us heard Osama speak. A lot of us know the other side. But we still hated the man and were content, if not happy, to see him killed.)

Overall, Mendenhall's clarification, which according to the Post-Gazette he wrote himself, shows him, like his Twitter feed generally, to be an intelligent, humble, and thoughtful man. In a world full of knee-jerk jingoism, including some of what we saw in the aftermath of the killing Sunday night, such a nuanced sense both of self and of the world is truly admirable. (And, in a pro athlete, truly remarkable.) I was a fan of the athlete before. Now I'm a fan of the man.

The problem, though, is that Mendenhall did not address his 9/11 Truther tweet: "We'll never know what really happened. I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style." Does he really think that something else was going on, that, say, the U.S. government was behind it, or is he merely musing on a distantly remote possibility? I'd certainly like to know, as would his other fans, as would pretty much everyone else for that matter. He deleted that specific tweet, and so maybe he doesn't think he needs to explain it, but he must know that anything that goes public on a social networking site is likely to remain public no matter what, and that tweet remains out there regardless of whether or not it's in his feed.

So, Rashard, will you not take the time to clarify it? You seem to be a good and decent man. You say you want us all to think. Well, then, give us more than a single tweet about 9/11 and tell us what you really think. I, for one, am certainly open to having a conversation about it, and I suspect that many others are as well. I know you've encountered a lot of knee-jerk jingoism already, but not all of us are like that. And while I will disagree with you if you really are a 9/11 Truther, and while most others will too, you would do well not to let that tweet stand as your only statement on the matter. I suspect your views on that are much more nuanced. So what are they?

Tyrant on Twitter: Hugo Chavez takes to social networking

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As the proprietor of this blog, and generally as a blogger who has made a tiny bit of a name for himself, I find myself on a lot of mailing lists. Some are fine (Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's and Rep. Steny Hoyer's, for example), some annoy me (most of the conservative/Republican ones), and some are just downright amusing (if not in a funny way) -- such as that of the "Embassy of the Bolivarian Republican of Venezuela to the U.S.," which, as you might expect, bombards me with bombastic pro-Chavez propaganda.

I suppose I'm on that mailing list because I've written extensively on Chavez, though hardly in a friendly way. I prefer to call him "The Tyrant of Caracas." (See, for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Yes, it's pretty clear I loathe him.)

Anyway, whatever. I usually ignore the e-mails, but it's helpful, I suppose, to get the propaganda straight from the source, via a diplomatic channel in Washington.

What I learned yesterday is that Chavez is a big hit on Twitter:

Just two weeks after joining Twitter, President Hugo Chavez has become Venezuela's most followed user of the online social network, with over 265,000 followers as of Monday, May 10. He is also amongst the only heads of state that is using the network to directly engage with followers, both in Venezuela and around the world.

President Chavez joined Twitter on April 28, and within 12 hours had gained more than 45,000 followers. Since then, his Twitter account – @chavezcandanga – has gained followers at a rate sometimes exceeding 1,000 per hour. It is estimated that within the first month of use, President Chavez will gain one million followers.

While his first tweets were merely informational, on May 3 he began responding directly to other Twitter users, a practice replicated by virtually none of the other heads of state that use the service. (His first response was to a Mexican girl, to whom he wished a happy birthday to her sister.) He has also taken to responding to tweets during presidential addresses and speeches.

His is certainly a dictatorship with a smiley face. And while he may be popular on Twitter, it's apparent that social networking does not discriminate against tyranny. Hitler no doubt would have been bigger than Ashton Kutcher.

Busy

By Creature

Work is keeping me from the Internets, but I have had a chance to Tweet and re-Tweet over on the Twitter. So feel free to follow if you need a fix.

Twitter

By Creature

Okay, I broke down and set up an account. I figured my posts are pretty much Twitter-size at this point so why the heck not. Follow me me at: Creature_NYC.

Why Are You Even On FACEBOOK ?

I've been poking you all day !


Full disclosure is that I snagged this from FACEBOOK, dooh!


THE NILES LESH PROJECT - All Rights Reserved 2009
JOIN THE NETWORK OF NILES LESH / MIENFOKS PSEUDO FRIENDS !

This is why Europe thinks we're pikers

By J. Thomas Duffy

We meant to post this yesterday, but got sidetracked by things on the homefront (and, the possible start of an infection to the sinuses, which have been doing a non-stop tango for the past few days).

Once again, you would think cleavage was the single, largest, most dastardly problem facing this country.

Stumblin' Bumblin' Johnny McCain's little girl, Meghan, that prolific children's book author, posted a photo of herself on Twitter, and heads exploded.

Meghan McCain's Racy TwitPic Reaches 160,000 Views In 17 Hours (NWS)

Internet All A-Twitter Over Meghan McCain Photo

Apparently, Ms. Little Bloggette threw a hissy fit, in 140 characters or less, vowing to blow up her computer and never twit (or was it be a twit) again.

Ahh, but the Little Arizona Princess wasn't quite finished.

After showing the sexually-repressed PartyofNoicans her cleavage, she apparently threw on some clothes and banged out an "I Am Not A Slut" tirade over on her perch at The Daily Beast.

It must be beastly to be Meghan McCain and have everyone thinking you are a slut.

Worse, perhaps, to bring up the "s" word yourself if it wasn't specifically put out there.

This was about near a perfect "yang" to the Garage Attic Boy's "ying."

Paging Sanjaya Malakar




Bonus Meghan McCain Is Not A Slut Riffs

Ryan Tate: Meghan McCain Swears She'll Quit Twitter If You Can't Deal With Her Boobs

watertiger: Late Night: “Wait, My Fifteen Minutes of Fame Aren’t Up Yet!”

Wonkette: Jake Tapper Employs Secret War Code To Save Meghan McCain


(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Hateful twits, hateful tweets

By Capt. Fogg

". . . and forgetting long passed mischiefs, we mercifully preserve their bones and piss not on their ashes."

- Thomas Browne -

Unless, of course, the vitriol of human meanness courses through your veins, in which case you don your rabid pit bull apparel and gnaw on what bones can be found. I've rarely seen such hate, even at a time like this where hate is the entire foundation of American conservative politics. As fast as the greasy fingers can type, the Internet begins to fill with accusations of murder, treason, and more formless forms of evil known as "liberalism." There is no restraint in Mudville now that Ted Kennedy has struck out.

Too many blogs, too many twits, too many accusations to dignify with a reply, but one thing is held in common: the tribe that represents the worst traits of our remote ancestors feels victimized and therefore free from any obligation to decency. They lost an election, their worship of feudal corporatism, equal rights, and civic responsibility is being challenged -- at last -- and their true values finally revealed. It's as ugly as it's ever been.

I recently and reluctantly signed up for Twitter. I should have stayed at home. The necessity to keep it all idiotically short has brought out more unadorned ugliness than one finds on blogs.

Kennedy was a special pile of human excrement,

rages the ridiculous Breitbart.

IF a GOP possesses 1/100 of human failings of T. Kennedy he/she is TOAST,

is another one of his staggering lies with endless examples to prove it false. Malkin laughs that he didn't go to France for his treatment, as though it were funny or actually meant something, others follow suit and Chappaquiddick references spurt like pus from the septic boil of Republic sentiment, from those who would and do accept any act of presidential treason, dishonesty, and manslaughter -- and, yes, drunk driving. How many people died because George W. Bush was president? No, Kennedy was a "villain," "a bad, bad dude," a "duplicitous bastard," and a "prick."

Pissing on Kennedy's ashes is just a small part of the psychotic rage that fills the void once filled by conservatives. A conservative by nature does not respond to disagreement by using chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. That's what a madman does, that's what Mr. Breitbart is, that's what Ms. Malkin is, and this is what the end of everything sounds like.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Specter v. Grassley @twitter

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Seriously, who ever thought that twitter would become such a phenomenon? So much of one, in fact, and now so much a significant part of our culture and our politics, that two rather elderly men, Senators Specter and Grassley (both born in the early 1930s!), are using it to battle over those supposed "death panels."

Crazy. (And kudos to Specter, a quasi-Democrat, for telling Grassley, a Republican, to stop lying.)

By the way, I'm new to twitter, but I'm into it -- you can find me, and follow me, @mjwstickings. Come on, have a look. It's much more fun that I thought -- useless, in a way, but fun.

Back home, blogging and tweeting

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, I'm back home again after a lovely 2-week-plus vacation on Prince Edward Island, settling back into the old routine, back to normalcy. (But, then, what is "normal"?)

I'll have some posts up later tonight, or, if not, tomorrow, but be sure to check back for more from my fantastic co-bloggers and contributors. I thank them profusely for stepping up during my absence, especially Creature for making sure everything ran smoothly. I was able to blog a few times, but it was nice to take the time off without having to worry about this place. It was in good hands.

You may also notice, if you look over to the top of the right sidebar, that I'm now -- gasp! -- on Twitter. (Yes, I've succumbed.) What I post there will, apparently, be posted here, but only the most recent five tweets, and I invite you to follow me there, where I hope to tweet regularly. (It is surely a Sign of the Apocalypse that "tweet" and "twitter" have entered our vocabulary like this.) What could be better than the wit and wisdom, such as it is, of yours truly in 140 characters or less? (Yes, I know, a lot of things are better than that, but follow me anyway. The more the merrier. So spread the word. You can find me @mjwstickings -- or just click on the link.)

See you later.

-- Michael

The tweet heard 'round Tehran: A new channel of public diplomacy?

Guest post by Jessie Daniels

Jessie Daniels recently received a master’s degree from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. Prior to that, she worked as a national security staffer in the U.S. Senate. She is a Truman National Security Project fellow.

[This is Jessie's second post at The Reaction. Her first, on Obama's Af/Pak strategy, can be found here. -- MJWS]

As we watch with interest the events unfolding in Iran, one of the major stories dominating the headlines is the Twitter effect. Twitter, and other new media, have given a global voice to the angst over the elections and have made the intensity of those marching in Tehran palpable to those sitting on the couch watching halfway around the world. Most importantly, the social networking phenomenon has undermined the Iranian regime's attempts to isolate its country from the rest of the world and has, perhaps, opened a new chapter of informal public diplomacy efforts.

Despite the regime's efforts to prevent the outside world from witnessing the post-election ramifications, new media sites continue to provide the most up-to-date information on the events in Iran. Moreover, these sites have become forums not only for reporting but also for advocacy. For example, tweeters on Twitter have been urged to turn their avatars green in solidarity with the Iranian protesters.

The increased attention has also highlighted the complications faced by the regime as it tries to effectively counter the public reaction to the election results. The regime's dismissive rhetoric, which often plays well when denouncing the West, has instead stoked the flames of internal dissent. After Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad compared the protests to the "passions after a soccer match," members of the Iranian national soccer team wore green armbands during a World Cup qualifier in protest. Efforts to blame the United States and Israel for improper meddling seem to fall on deaf ears as the protests continue to resonate.

Events in Iran have sparked a debate here at home about what the U.S. should be doing in response. Some assert that the administration should openly and actively encourage the protesters in Iran while others believe that we should stay out of the process. Regardless of where one falls on this spectrum, though, these events already illustrate the power of a new public diplomacy channel present in new media venues.

As opposed to formal public diplomacy measures, such as educational and cultural exchanges, social networking sites like Twitter provide a way to informally connect people. These small-scale efforts could have long-ranging benefits. Right now, the American public is getting a glimpse of the Iranian public and gaining an understanding of what drives them, what they are fighting for, and how they are expressing their dissent. The Iranian protesters are also aware that they have a global audience, including those watching in the United States. Although the Iranian and American publics have been kept apart for three decades, new media may be helping to debunk stereotypes in each country that have been built up since the 1979 revolution.

In this paradigm, government works best when it works to ensure that free and open dialogue continues. Doing so can help to pave the way toward increased support for further engagement at higher levels. There will likely be opportunities for the administration to capitalize on this situation as it pushes forth with direct engagement. Already, however, social networking has gone far beyond allowing high school buddies to keep in touch. With a significant percentage of the population in Iran younger than 30, this method of connecting the Iranian and American publics could eventually lead to a level of engagement and understanding that is beyond the realm of formal public diplomacy.