AlwaysOn has an interesting entry from Mark Suster:
"Last night I co-hosted a dinner at Soho House in Los Angeles with some of the most senior people in the media industry with executives from Disney, Fox, Warner, media agencies and many promising tech and media startup CEOs. The topic was "the future of television and the digital living room." With all of the knowledge in the room the person who stole the night wasn't even on a panel. I had called on Chamillionaire from the audience and asked him to provide some views on how artists view social media, why they use it and where it's heading. He was riveting."
Really, his insights apply to anyone in new media.
Long-time Winds of Change readers will remember colleague/contributor Hossein Derakshan, the father of the Iranian blogosphere, who is noted in the column to your right.
It occurs to me that while I was away, you may not have been updated about this:
"Mr. Derakhshan, 35, is widely known by his online name "Hoder." He was born in Iran, but moved to Canada and became a Canadian citizen in early adulthood. He is a staunch advocate of free expression in Iran, and became known as the "blogfather" of Iran's on-line community for training pro-democracy advocates to blog and podcast in the late nineties. Later, he apologized for his dissenting views, and emerged as an unlikely supporter of the regime, at one point comparing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a modern-day Che Guevara.
So when the Iranian government invited him to travel to Iran in 2008, he accepted, thinking he would help his country reach out to the world, according to friends and family. Upon his arrival, however, another branch of the government arrested him.
On Tuesday, he was convicted of insulting Islamic thought and religious figures, managing obscene websites and co-operating with "enemy states" because he visited Israel five years ago...."
He has been sentenced to 19.5 years in prison.
Hoder's attempt to find a locus of collaboration with the Islamic regime dilutes his status as a prisoner of conscience, but does not erase it. Or touch the legacy he leaves. He remains in my thoughts - and I hope, in yours.
One thread of the argument I'm personally interested in, however, is Goldberg's apparent belief that it's somehow extremely difficult for a young conservative with orthodox views "to break-in at places like NR, the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal, etc." One could be snide and observe that the very fact that Jonah Goldberg (!) was able to break into those venues is indication enough that it's in fact quite easy, but to be fair to other National Review writers when you're talking about a case that extreme you actually do need a boost from nepotism....I'd say the absence of a self-reflective ability - at all (as shown in this piece) is the biggest gap (of many) in MY's intellectual armor.
As I told Ed (to no avail), I have blogged under a pseudonym largely for private and professional reasons. Professionally, I've heard that pre-tenure blogging (particularly on politics) can cause problems. And before that, I was a lawyer with real clients. I also believe that the classroom should be as nonpolitical as possible - and I don't want conservative students to feel uncomfortable before they take a single class based on my posts. So I don't tell them about this blog. Also, I write and research on telecom policy - and I consider blogging and academic research separate endeavors. This, frankly, is a hobby.He wrote under a pseudonym to shield himself from the consequences of his words. I think that's exactly backwards.
Privately, I don't write under my own name for family reasons. I'm from a conservative Southern family - and there are certain family members who I'd prefer not to know about this blog (thanks Ed). Also, I have family members who are well known in my home state who have had political jobs with Republicans, and I don't want my posts to jeopardize anything for them (thanks again).
I'm choosing not to identify myself ... right now ... for a variety of reasons. I'll start by standing on the time-honored tradition of anonymous pamphleteering, which I believe blogging fits neatly into. My significant other has a fairly political job (although she doesn't believe so). And finally, I'm trying to disassociate the value of what is set out here from any judgment you might make about me.I didn't believe it was as important to shield myself (and mine) from what I wrote as it was to have what I wrote stand on its own. I'm not insensitive - and I wasn't in 2002 - to the concern that what I wrote might have an impact on my living or on my life.
And yes - I criticized Whelan rather harshly. But that's what the blogosphere is about. Blogging is not for the thin-skinned. And you would think that someone who spends their days trying to destroy other people's reputations in dishonest and inflammatory ways wouldn't be so childish and thin-skinned.I'm sorry, but pitchers who throw at the head shouldn't be shocked when an occasional bat comes loose and soars out toward the mound. People who see the root of blogging as critcising people harshly and offending where they can do forfeit some of the claim to courtesy which is really what weak pseudonymity (it wouldn't be too hard to track down any of the pseudonymous political bloggers, really) is really all about.
Right wing bloggers at the top of the food chain don't have to worry about this dynamic, because they're well compensated through a variety of means -- and also conspicuously silent on the subject. It's the toadies on the bottom who churn right wing propaganda for free who are whining, and they clearly don't understand the financial structure that both traditional media outlets and liberal blogs are operating within.Hmmm, let's go to the record: