Bloggasm

Angelo Carusone says he didn’t start his campaign to pressure advertisers into ditching Glenn Beck’s radio and Fox News show as an opposition to his politics — though he admitted that their views significantly differ — but rather he saw Beck’s rhetoric as distinct from other commentators. “For me, the real motivator was what he had been doing to the political process, which was really feeding it into a frenzy,” Carusone told me, and then he listed off a number of the more outrageous claims that had escaped unfiltered out of Beck’s mouth over the last year — warnings of concentration camps being set up by the Obama administration, calling Obama a racist, and any number of the outrageous, much-parodied conspiracy theories that had debuted on Beck’s famous chalkboard.

So in July of 2009, inspired in part by the success of a civil rights group in getting advertisers to back away from Beck, Carusone launched his Stop Beck campaign. Since then, the University of Wisconsin law student has pressured between 100 and 200 advertisers (depending on the source) from either pulling their advertising from Beck’s program or from Fox News all together.

“The way I sort of looked at it was that appealing to Fox News wasn’t going to cause any results because they’ve already made their support of Glenn Beck very clear by hiring him and paying him,” Carusone said. ” … It’s about getting ad revenue, and part of the reason that he stands up there and says all these outlandish things is so that he can get attention and then try to translate that into advertising dollars. The way I looked at it is that companies, by supporting him through advertising, they’re continuing to support his platform. So I decided that they were the appropriate targets here.”

His methodology is relatively straight forward: Compile a list of Beck’s advertisers and approach them (usually on Twitter) one-by-one to point out the host’s more outlandish statements, and then encourage other Twitter users to do the same. Rather than going after all the brands at once, Carusone told me he’d usually pick one or two a day and focus entirely on them. “I don’t want to make it about politics, I just highlight the indecent remarks that he makes,” he said. “The sexism, the preying on racial anxieties, some of his more willful distortions, the ones that have dangerous consequences, and I ask if they’re comfortable associating their brand with that. And by and large, many of the advertisers say no, and they modify their advertising agreements accordingly.” Because he typically warns the companies privately before he begins the campaign, sometimes they say they’ll pull their advertising before he even publicly targets them.

Though it can be difficult to determine how many pulled advertisements are directly attributable to the law student, he pointed out that every advertiser from the UK has pulled its ads from Beck’s program (“His UK broadcast, instead of running commercials, runs Sky News updates during the breaks.”) and some companies have publicly announced via Twitter their decisions.

Fox News spokespeople have vaguely responded to his efforts, claiming that when most brands pull their advertising from Beck they simply move it to other shows on Fox News, meaning no lost revenue for the network. “For them to suggest that it’s not having an effect is nonsense,” Carusone responded when I brought this up. “I fully acknowledge that it would have a better impact if these advertisers were dropping Fox News as a whole, but just because we’re not having a maximum impact doesn’t mean we’re not having an effect. I think, in part, there’s such a progress in the UK, but in the UK the reason he’s not running with any advertisements is that advertisers there were dropping Fox News as a whole, and they were dropping Fox News entirely because of the Glenn Beck controversy. I think the effect there was very visible.”

The organizer said that his project has even slowed down a bit simply because there are very few major brands left that will touch Beck. In fact, when you check the remaining sponsors on his compiled list, it does seem to be populated with smaller (and shady) companies — Goldline, Carbonite, among others.

Many in the blogosphere have complained that mainstream pundits seem to face few consequences no matter how wrong or outrageous their comments, and I asked Carusone if his method was perhaps a vehicle to bring real accountability. “This is a very first step,” he replied. “What has excited me about it is that people have started taking action. On the one hand I think this could be over and done with if we got more attention. The fact that he has lost so many advertisers, the fact that he’s lost all his advertisers in the UK is a major story. The fact that he’s still on the air is quite significant; the reason he’s still on the air is that Fox News is absorbing the loss and nobody is pressing them. The whole point of us doing this is to create the question so Fox News would have to address these issues and there would be some accountability. I think this is a very good model.”

Follow me on Twitter

UPDATED BELOW

Brad Friedman had heard from someone at Acorn that the New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt had scheduled a meeting with leaders of the anti-poverty organization, but Hoyt’s column that hit the web over the weekend still came as a surprise to the blogger. Friedman, who writes for the progressive Brad Blog, has just spent the last two months leading a movement pressuring the Times into correcting false claims that conservative activist James O’Keefe had dressed as a pimp before entering Acorn offices last year, a controversy that led to Congress attempting to defund the organization. But until Hoyt published his column the public editor had showed every intention of ignoring the issue. In an email exchange with Friedman that took place a month ago, Hoyt declined to recommend the Times issue a retraction, despite overwhelming evidence that the paper of record got many of the facts wrong in the story.

“Under the circumstances, I am recommending to Times editors that they avoid language that says or suggests that O’Keefe was dressed as a pimp when he captured the ACORN employees on camera,” Hoyt wrote in his email to Friedman. “I still don’t see that a correction is in order, because that would require conclusive evidence that The Times was wrong, which I haven’t seen.”

But sometime between writing that email and penning yesterday’s column, Hoyt had a change of heart. In the op ed itself, he specifically links to Friedman’s blog when acknowledging that he was “wrong in defending the paper’s phrasing.” After a careful investigation into the case, the public editor said he’d make a recommendation to issue a correction, but still seemed to assert that the Times got the gist of the story correct. He said that the audio of the video was mostly in context and quoted an official as saying, “They said what they said. There’s no way to make this look good.”

I spoke to Friedman, who, along with Media Matters and dozens of other bloggers, kept constant pressure on Hoyt and the Times to correct the record. He didn’t seem overly enthused by the piece.

“I’m delighted to see him admit that he was wrong, at least in making excuses for the Times coverage and their cover-up for that coverage, frankly,” he told me. “They really tried to cover up for it and there has been no accountability and still no correction, no retraction, no apologies. The damage is by and large done and probably uncorrectable … [The column] is a step in the right direction and I’m glad to see that he admitted that the paper was wrong and that he was wrong on at least a couple of the points, but he said that, ‘well, we might have been hoaxed, but we more or less got this story right anyway,’ and then he bases his reasoning for that on [interviews with] the hoaxers that hoaxed them in the first place.”

It’s been two months since Friedman first began the drumbeat at the Times, and in those two months he said that the newspaper has published subsequent articles that have gotten parts of the story wrong, including mentions that O’Keefe “posed as a pimp” (others have claimed that even though O’Keefe didn’t wear a pimp outfit he still essentially “posed” as a pimp).

Still, even though the editor was slow to respond, it’d be safe to assume that if it hadn’t been for the constant pressure from bloggers, this matter may have gone longer without being addressed. I asked Friedman if this was a victory for the progressive blogosphere in policing the coverage of more traditional news outlets.

“It shows there’s an opportunity to police the mainstream corporate media failures,” he said. “It doesn’t mean that we will actually do it. I can’t speak for the progressive blogosphere, I can speak for myself and a small handful of progressive bloggers who jumped into this. The lessons are not to be learned from me and Eric Boehlert at Media Matters [who also wrote extensively on the issue] and a few others. The lessons are to be learned from the right wingers, who, when they are done wrong, when someone reports a story that adversely affects the right wingers, they yell and scream and go to war, and frankly that’s what progressives need to do. That’s where you need to get your lessons from. ”

But would the column at least result in the Times being more cautious when reporting on O’Keefe in the future?

“I would like to believe that’s the case but I’m not yet convinced. I think it’s still early and I’m loathe to even call it a victory. There’s a lot of accountability to come, both at the New York Times and the scores of other media outlets that reported the same erroneous nonsense.”

Follow me on Twitter

UPDATE: Patterico, a right-of-center blogger who has been a critic of Friedman’s and Media Matters’ reporting on this issue, wrote this in the comments section:

This post reinforces Friedman’s false claim that the manner of O’Keefe dress was central to the public’s reaction. Nonsense. The public’s reaction stemmed from videos that showed O’Keefe posing as a pimp for underage prostitutes, and receiving advice and help from ACORN on protecting that illicit business.

Friedman and his co-blogger have spent weeks constructing a false narrative, in which O’Keefe merely posed as Giles’s boyfriend, who was trying to save her from an abusive pimp.

While he did do that, Friedman and his guest blogger do not tell their readers that in office after office, O’Keefe said he wanted to set up a house for Giles and girls as young as 12-14 years old, who would turn tricks in the house and give the proceeds to O’Keefe for his Congressional campaign.

These facts are clear from the unedited audio and transcripts that have been available since the beginning from Big Government. On a radio show, Friedman admitted to me that he has not listened to the full unedited audio. Hoyt says he has.

That is probably why Hoyt has said Friedman’s characterization of what happened on the videos is “not credible” and motivated by a “partisan agenda.

Even Eric Boehlert, in his rare moments of (forced) honesty, admits that what ACORN employees said on the videos cannot be excused by the issue of O’Keefe’s clothing. Their inexcusable behavior Is why numerous employees were terminated and described themselves as contrite. It’s why Harshbarger admits that no context can explain away what the employees said. It’s why Friedman has to resort to fiction to portray the videos as innocent.

The Congressional Budget Office released it preliminary estimate of the Senate health care bill yesterday and found that the bill would reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years. Upon the report’s release, conservative bloggers and pundits began trying to discredit the CBO, saying that the office allows Democrats to cook the numbers and its estimates are often not a good indicator of reality.

If the CBO is so unreliable, then these bloggers wouldn’t cite it uncritically when it favors their positions, right?

Let’s see:

BEFORE

This only comes as news to people who haven’t worked in the private sector, of course — which means the entirety of the Obama administration and most of the Democratic leadership in Congress. It takes a CBO analysis for them to understand that increasing costs on businesses means increasing costs on their customers — or forcing them out of business altogether. This time, the CBO explains the impact of raising fees on financial institutions to the clueless

– Hot Air, 3/5/10

They insist that people will not see a reduction in benefits in the future in Medicare, and that these cuts strengthen the system for the future. The CBO’s letter shows that cuts to the budget will have to result in cuts to the system and benefits if Congress intends on using the money to pay for other efforts.

– Hot Air, 12/23/09

AFTER

The Washington Post comes closer to the real problem with any CBO analysis, which is that the bill attempts so many changes that a comprehensive analysis becomes almost impossible to make. Analysts start having to make a compounding series of assumptions that could well prove false, which would result in unpredicted outcomes.

– Hot Air, 3/19/10

***

BEFORE

On Wednesday of this week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) confirmed Butler’s analysis, writing about Democrat claim that Obamacare strengthened Medicare

– Heritage Foundation blog, 12/24/09

AFTER

The Congressional Budget Office admits its fiscal evaluation is “preliminary,” and others call the numbers “phony.”

– Heritage Foundation blog, 3/18/10

***

BEFORE

CBO: Two Cheers For Trickle-Down Economics

A new analysis of potential stimulus options from the Congressional Budget Office concludes that cutting employer payroll taxes would provide a bigger boost to GDP and employment than a similar cut in employee payroll taxes.

– Investor’s Business Daily, 1/14/10

The result of the narrow age-rating band in the House would be to raise costs for the young and healthy and make them less likely to sign up. CBO also finds that the House bill’s greater subsidies for out-of-pocket costs would be more attractive to less healthy individuals.

– Investor’s Business Daily, 11/2/09

AFTER

Five Reasons The CBO Figures Are Phony

The Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary “score” says the health care overhaul will cost $940 billion over the first 10 years, saving $138 billion over that time. But the CBO must assess legislation as written, rather than whether it will actually be carried out. Or, as the Economist put it, “The CBO is required to pretend to believe many impossible things before breakfast.”

– Investor’s Business Daily, 3/18/10

***

BEFORE

My syndicated column today torches President Obama’s fiscal freeze follies. A new CBO reports says the year-old Porkulus will now cost $75 billion more than originally estimated. Which is why the White House is scrambling to de-emphasize its spending discipline pose and talk about something else.

– Michelle Malkin, 1/27/10

Related news from the CBO this morning [she then block quotes a report that states, "The latest congressional budget estimates due Tuesday predict a $1.35 trillion deficit for this year, a top Capitol Hill aide says."]

– Michelle Malkin, 1/26/10

AFTER

The poor number-crunchers have been working overtime as Speaker Pelosi and the Dems have re-jiggered and re-jiggered to meet farcical fiscal discipline goals. It’s Enron-style accounting and everyone knows it.

IBD’s Ed Carson outlines “Five Reasons The CBO Figures Are Phony.” Spread the word.

Update: At a press conference to trumpet the preliminary numbers that Dems are treating like definitive Scripture, Pelosi proclaims: “I love numbers. They’re so precise.”

So. Precisely. Bogus.

– Michelle Malkin, 3/18/10

If you cannot trust government’s numbers, you cannot trust government’s words. This is the lesson of the House Democrats’ desperate promotion of a phony-baloney, Congressional Budget Office analysis of their latest health care takeover package.

– Michelle Malkin, 3/19/10

Follow me on Twitter

While listening to the audio, one finds it difficult to discern the identity of the person asking the questions, or the venue where the questions are being asked, but the person answering the questions is almost certainly Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

The anonymous questioner asks what can be done “about Obama and the birth certificate thing?” to which Cuccinelli responds, “It will get tested in my view when someone… when he signs a law, and someone is convicted of violating it and one of their defenses will be it is not a law because someone qualified to be President didn’t sign it.” He then claims that “as Attorney General,” he can challenge the birth certificate “only if there is a conflict where we are suing the federal government for a law they’ve passed.”

The questioner then asks how it can be proved Obama’s birth certificate is a fake.

“Well… that’s a good question,” Cuccinelli says. “Not one I’ve thought a lot about because it hasn’t been part of my campaign. Someone is going to have to come forward with nailed down testimony that he was born in place B, wherever that is. You know, the speculation is Kenya. And that doesn’t seem beyond the realm of possibility.”

This is the same Ken Cuccinelli who recently came under fire for encouraging Virginia universities to rescind their anti-gay discrimination policies, a move that several groups have condemned as rooted in homophobia and bigotry.

The audio in question was released today by Ben Tribbett, a Virginian political blogger who is often credited with breaking the George Allen “macaca” video. The blogger uploaded the video onto YouTube with a still image of Cuccinelli as a visual.

I spoke to Tribbett, a former colleague, on the phone about the story. In order to protect his source he wouldn’t tell me where and when the audio takes place, or when he first learned of it; he would only say that it took place “at an event Ken was at.”

“I think it shows a shocking lack of judgment for an Attorney General to be having this kind of blunt conversation with a conspiracy theorist,” Tribbett said. “I think his lawsuit against the EPA, his letter on anti-discrimination policies and this audio shows that he is turning the Attorney General’s office into a circus freak show.”

Tribbett said the lack of details about the where and when of the audio wouldn’t make it harder to pin this on Cuccinelli, and that he reached out to the attorney general via email over the weekend with no response. He said that he’ll run any reaction from Cuccinelli if he offers one.

The video is below:

Follow me on twitter

News broke today that Facebook is considering suing the Daily Mail over false claims that an author created a fake profile of a young girl and was approached by dozens of older men wanting to meet for sex. The problem? The author, Mark Williams-Thomas, didn’t actually use Facebook, but some other social network.

Before this news broke I had read the article in question and was immediately suspicious. I tracked down Williams-Thomas and asked him point blank in an email if he had created the fake profile on Facebook, and whether he had proof of doing so. This was his response:

Hi Simon

You are correct it is not Facebook- the article was ghosted by the Mail and my corrections were not made to the published article.

The Mail have since corrected this serious error.

The fact that it did not take place on Facebook then answers all your other questions.

All the best

Mark Williams-Thomas MA (Criminology)
WT Associates Ltd

So not only did the author not create a fake profile on Facebook, he didn’t even write the piece.

Follow me on Twitter

Not long ago, Quentin Kidd, a faculty adviser for the student government association at Christopher Newport University, located in Newport News, Virginia, spoke with two politically active students at the school. Nicolaus Usry and Shannon Rhoten, heads of campus Republican and Democrat organizations, had come to him disturbed by a recent letter sent to several schools by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. According to the Washington Post, the letter “urged the state’s public colleges and universities to rescind policies that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” arguing that “their boards of visitors had no legal authority to adopt such statements.”

Usry and Rhoten, along with hundreds of other students and faculty, strongly disagreed with this notion and wanted to quickly organize some kind of response.

“So Shannon created this Facebook page, as it was kind of a natural way to communicate,” Kidd told me in a recent phone conversation. “I didn’t actually realize that they would put me on as an administrator of the group, but they did. And I think their goal initially was to raise awareness, and they saw this as the most expedient way to do so.”

In less than 48 hours, the group has amassed over 600 members and is among several others that have sprouted up across the state, almost all of which are organized by students vehemently opposed to campuses rescinding policies relating to discrimination against gays.

Kidd said the students are already organizing an on-campus rally, and the Facebook group has acted as an effective way to disseminate news.

“I’m not even sure that they would bother with the traditional method of posting fliers around campus,” he explained. “In their minds I think it would be a Facebook-generated event; they’ve already got 600 people in 48 hours that have joined this group. They can create an event as part of that group and immediately speak to 600 people and then encourage those 600 people to speak to anyone who doesn’t already know about it. So in this way, virtual organizing is simply the only way they’re going to do it.”

My brother PJ is a junior at CNU and one of those who joined the Facebook group. “Everyone seems to be really upset, even some of my conservative friends,” he told me. “Several of my friends who are in the Young Republicans club are involved with the organizing of opposition. Students fought really hard a few years ago to get the discrimination wording added to CNU’s discrimination policy….. many of those students who fought for it are now seniors, and they are really upset.”

Kidd, who has been a faculty member for 13 years and taught at Texas Tech before that, said that social media has created a new form of campus activism that is reminiscent of the Vietnam protests that swept across American college campuses decades ago. “As I was going through college and graduate school, campus activism was sort of on the wane. I was probably at the heart of the post-Vietnam wane in campus activism, but it’s really picked up a lot in the past eight years.”

The faculty member stressed that this current example of social media activism isn’t directed toward campus administrators, but instead is targeted at Cuccinelli and, to a lesser extent, Virginia Governor McDonnell. To his knowledge, no campus faculty or administrators have given any indication that they plan to rescind the anti-discrimination rules.

“My sense is that there’s a level of frustration and anxiety demonstrated within the last two days — with 600 people joining in 48 hours — that’s just right under the surface,” he explained.

Facebook, therefore, is simply a way for this surface tension to break out into the open and, these organizers hope, send Cuccinelli a message, one that relays that his anti-gay rhetoric will not go unchallenged.

Follow me on Twitter