newyorker:

Attack Dog

McCarthy’s detailed résumé, posted on the Web site of his advertising company, omits his most notorious creation—the Willie Horton ad. Paid for by a political group officially acting separately from the campaign of George H. W. Bush, it was the political equivalent of an improvised explosive device, demolishing the electoral hopes of Dukakis, then the governor of Massachusetts. Its key image was a mug shot of Horton—a scowling black man with a dishevelled Afro. Horton, a convicted murderer, had escaped while on a weekend pass issued by a Massachusetts furlough program. A decade earlier, Dukakis had vetoed a bill that would have forbidden furloughs for murderers. After escaping, Horton raped a white woman and stabbed her fiancé. McCarthy knew that showing Horton’s menacing face would make voters feel viscerally that Dukakis was soft on crime. Critics said that the ad stoked racial fears, presenting a little-known black man as an icon of American violence.

- In this week’s issue, Jane Mayer writes about Larry McCarthy - master of the negative TV ad. McCarthy was the brains behind the ad above and now heads the pro-Romney Super PAC Restore Our Future: http://nyr.kr/x3O8Sb

“Money is not speech”

lessig:

I’m a critic of Citizens United. I’m a supporter of an amendment to reverse it (among other things). I’m even (sort of) a supporter of an amendment to declare “corporations are not persons.” But I am not a supporter of any amendment that purports to declare “Money is not speech.”

My former dean, Geof Stone, explains why in this piece in the Huffington Post. Stone’s work as a First Amendment scholar actually set the framework for the Court’s core First Amendment jurisprudence (not the Citizens United bit, but the content neutral/content based, etc. bit). 

I would urge all who care about this issue to think through his piece carefully. My view has been that we need to attack the problem, not with radical changes that would have loads of unintended consequences, but with targeted responses, that would actually address the problem the Court has created. 

So, e.g., with this issue: Imagine a city council passed a resolution that said no one could spend more than $100 on a race for City Council (aka, an incumbency protection resolution). If “money is not speech,” how is that successfully attacked? 

“Recently, Berinsky [YouGov’s Adam Berinsky] polled the question again, focusing on Republicans to see if their attitudes have changed in ten months since the president released his birth certificate. Far from getting better, Republicans have actually doubled-down on the belief that Obama is foreign born:”

The Birthers are Back in Town

“NBC fumbled and the NFL lied because a performer known as M.I.A. felt it necessary to flip off millions of families. It is unfortunate that a spectacular sporting event was overshadowed once again by broadcasting the selfish acts of a desperate performer.”

The Parents Television Council would like you to know that it does not approve of M.I.A. flipping them the bird last night. Also, nobody cares what the PTC says. (via shortformblog)

LOL.

(via michaelhayes)

(via michaelhayes)

High-res Antarctica’s 19-Mile Ice Crack Will Produce New York-Sized Iceberg | TPM Idea Lab The Big Apple is about to get some competition down south. A New York City-sized iceberg will eventually split off of Antarctica as a result of a 19-mile long crack on a glacier on the Western part of the world’s southernmost continent, according to NASA. The crack was first observed up-close on the Pine Island Glacier in mid-October 2011 by NASA scientists working on Antarctica, the agency explained. Later in November, NASA’s Terra AM satellite — the same one that reportedly suffered “interference” from the ground that was speculated to be the result of Chinese hackers — snapped a photo of the crack using its ASTER instrument, a high spatial resolution instrument that serves as an orbital “zoom” lens, which can close-up on land features with incredible detail.

Antarctica’s 19-Mile Ice Crack Will Produce New York-Sized Iceberg | TPM Idea Lab

The Big Apple is about to get some competition down south. A New York City-sized iceberg will eventually split off of Antarctica as a result of a 19-mile long crack on a glacier on the Western part of the world’s southernmost continent, according to NASA.

The crack was first observed up-close on the Pine Island Glacier in mid-October 2011 by NASA scientists working on Antarctica, the agency explained.

Later in November, NASA’s Terra AM satellite — the same one that reportedly suffered “interference” from the ground that was speculated to be the result of Chinese hackers — snapped a photo of the crack using its ASTER instrument, a high spatial resolution instrument that serves as an orbital “zoom” lens, which can close-up on land features with incredible detail.

Is it time for political journalists to change their behavior on Twitter?

muckrack:

A recent New York Times article revealed that politicians are using Twitter to monitor the press, raising the question should political journalists change their behavior on Twitter?

The article, written by Ashley Parker of The New York Times, describes how Republican Mitt Romney’s campaign staff uses Twitter to not only engage with constituents but also to monitor reporters. Michael Falcone of the ABC News summed up well with this tweet, “Romney camp treats Twitter as an “early warning signal” for bad press.”

Parker writes “Mr. Romney’s aides say they can get a sense of where a story is headed before it is published simply by reading reporters’ Twitter messages.” His aides collect tweets sent from the press corps and use them to prep Romney for possible questions at press conferences. The staff also engages with reporters directly, sending “Twitter-inspired lecture[s], ranging from a simple “not cool” to something angrier,” Parker writes.

This could be a game changer for reporters covering the debates and elections. If candidates’ aides are monitoring their movements on Twitter this closely (perhaps using Muck Rack Pro), reporters could be giving their hand away to campaign staffs without even knowing it. With many reporters just getting used to covering debates and political campaigns on Twitter, however, it could be hard for them to adopt even newer tweeting practices. 

What do you think? Should journalists be cognizant of the fact that campaign staffs are monitoring their tweets and alter their behavior or proceed as normal?