A long time ago, I read a book where the main character tries to persuade his dad that he should subscribe to some magazine. He explains to his dad that the magazine aims to educate their readership and to give them insight into blah-blah-blah. “Nonsense!” says his dad,

“The aim of the magazine is to sell more magazines. Same as all magazines.”

This was an epiphany for me. It explained all kinds of things that I had not previously understood.

Whenever you see the media doing something that seems counter-intuitive - something that is not in the customer’s best interest - ask yourself :

“Who is the real customer for this product?”

If the product is media-related, there is a good chance that the customer - the party who pays money for the product - is not the consumer, it’s the advertiser.

[Thanks to Jeff for this last insight]

In the old days, if the commentators of one game wanted to share the score of another they would say..

The score of the XvY game is about to appear on the screen. if you don’t want to know the result, please look away now.

Now you have to take counter-measures to avoid finding out who gets whacked in The Sopranos before the season even starts. The media has whole teams of people whose job it is to spoil your enjoyment of reality shows, sitcoms, movies and even American Idol by telling you the ending before the show is aired.

The NY Times says that Chief Executives should be outsourced. I don’t think we’ll really have a realistic debate about globalization until journalism and politics are outsourced too.

I have been reading through NormBlog’s criticism of the criticism of the Euston Manifesto. In platform one, he points out something that I noticed too. So many of the commentators have missed what seemed to me a central point :

The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the successful implementation of democratic change.

Many supporters of the manifesto explicitly point to the fact that it is a pro-war document as the reason for signing it. Many commentators on the right snearingly claim that a few leftists are finally starting to realize that it’s better to be pro-war than pro-terrorist as though those were the only two options.

For whatever reason, the MSM and the conservative establishment have found it convenient to pretend that the nonsense spouted by Galloway’s Respect, A.N.S.W.E.R. and other fringe organizations like the SWP represents the majority of anti-war opinion. Perhaps it’s easier to argue against shouting lunatics than to confront the quiet voice of reason and moderation? Perhaps it sells more newspapers ?

Anyway, for whatever reason, a lot of people have bought into this narrative. The Euston Manifesto is important because it provides an opportunity to make it clear that opposition to the war is not anti-american or pro-dictator or anti-democratic or pro-terrorist. It gives us a chance to say what we stand for not just what we oppose. That’s why I signed it.

Sign the Euston Manifesto here

Just watched Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner.

I would’ve made a fabulous press secretary. I have nothing but contempt for these people.

Incredible.