The Fundamentalist Paradox

This whole "Ground Zero (sic) Mosque (sic)" thing isn't sitting well with me. I tried desperately to avoid writing about the most overplayed story of the year. At this point, after weeks of coverage, it seems there isn't anything left to say on the issue.

What's amazing is that it started as a political ploy. Rick Lazio, a candidate for governor of New York, brought the issue to the public to generate buzz for his campaign. He succeeded to a fault, as the proposed center grew out of his control into a national story.

Now, it's the latest sign that America hasn't lived up to the promise its founders made more than 230 years ago: "All men are created equal."

But it's really not that easy. On the one hand, I'd sort of like a little bit of transparency with the Islamic Center---just some reassurance that the financing is in no way connected with terrorism, lest the center become a symbol of their triumph. Let me be clear, when I say "their" I'm referring to terrorists, not Muslims. That's key. The September 11 attacks were not carried out by Muslims against New York City infidels; rather, they were carried out by terrorists against Americans. Muslims were killed in the attacks, too. So in a sense even asking for some transparency with regards to financing concedes legitimacy to the idea that Islam is inherently connected to terrorism.

(Which, by the way, it's not. Islam is not any more violent a religion than Judaism or Christianity. In fact, in some places--I haven't read the whole thing--the Qu'ran encourages acceptance of Judaism.)

So what does that say about me? After all, I wouldn't need transparency if it were a Jewish or Christian center. So much for my belief in religious equality.

See, it's kind of complicated in that way. It would be so much easier if, cognizant of the controversy, the Center's builders just said: "You know what, forget it. Let's just build this thing somewhere else." Then again, that would be even more of indicting of America's alleged religious liberties.


(Check out this great Jon Stewart clip on the Islamic Center)

Not so complicated is another Islamic controversy that's surfaced in recent weeks. Republicans claiming that not only is President Barack Obama a socialist (gasp!), but he's also a Muslim.

The fact that it's a ridiculous theory notwithstanding, who even cares? What if, somewhere in Obama's lineage, he has Muslim roots? What's the difference? America lawfully elected him president. End of story.

Right-wing leaders have latched on to this theory, not necessarily because they believe it to be true, let alone care, but because they knew it would resonate with American people. That's how leaders lead. They recognize hot topics, play up the importance of that topic, and take a stand that garners a widespread following. Considering many Americans associate Islam with terrorism, this jives perfectly with that leadership model.

And that's what's really at the heart of both of these issues. Americans have, incorrectly, come to link terrorism with Islam. I don't think it's baseless hate, as much as it is a naive, but real concern that Muslims are out to kill Americans. The intelligent among us know it's fundamentalists--who harbor power in impoverished countries, which happen to be disproportionately Muslim--that hate Americans. As we know, without poverty and illegitimate governments, fundamentalists and terrorism might not even exist. But rather than analyze the situation carefully, many Americans have become fundamentalists themselves. They've ignored conflicting evidence and have come to accept the most radical perspective: all Muslims, even those attempting to build a center for cultural acceptance, are connected to terrorism.

Unless, of course, they're the Palestinian Muslims trying to force the Jews out of Israel. As has been the case throughout history (see: Holocaust, the) even "terrorism" is preferable to those big-nosed, money-hungry capitalists.

Step 1: Abandon All Your Principles

Last week I sunk to levels I never thought I'd reach. I did something I quietly teased my buddy about for months. I actually used my Google Chat status to link to something I wrote. Yep, it's gotten to that point.

It won't be the last time I do it either. I once read somewhere that success is unattainable if you're unwilling to do the uncomfortable. Actually, I might have made that up. Regardless, it's something I've been thinking about a lot lately.

It's no secret I don't love social media. I've been off of Facebook for more than two years; though I've reluctantly acknowledged that Twitter does have some benefits I'll probably never have an account; I don't subscribe to LinkedIn, nor do I use any of the countless social media applications I read about every day on Business Insider.

Yet social media is crucial to the modern journalist. Sure, the better-known media types, likeTimes columnists, don't need one. But until you achieve that status, you do need to create a following, or else you'll never get to that level.

That's because the old model of print journalism--where you start with a localized beat, and work your way up the ladder towards wider coverage--has given way to a new model. Now, you start with a localized following (friends, family and so forth) and work your way towards establishing a wider audience. The biggest and best media sites want to hire writers who can already guarantee an audience. The upside for journalists is that we can essentially choose our subject matter, but that comes with competing with just about anyone willing to create a blogger account for that audience.

Image: Flickr User Jurvetson. Yep, that's going to be my audience one day.

That's why I linked to a story I had published in my G-Chat status. Unlike many of the features on the site--for example, "The 25 Best Tech Companies to Work For"--it wasn't an eye-catching item that readers could click through relatively mindlessly. It was a longer story whose payoff would only come to the reader who dedicated time to it.

It's also the kind of story I most enjoy writing. It's essentially a profile of an interesting person who lacks name recognition. I got to speak with the subject, Paul Block, at length and learn his story. However, it didn't do well on the site. Maybe the headline wasn't catchy enough, perhaps it wasn't featured at the most opportune time, and it definitely wasn't newsworthy enough to make it to the front page of the main site. But, I believe, it's a damn good story. So if I'm going to get Business Insider to allow me to do more of them, I have to publicize it as best I can. I have to recruit some dedicated readers among my social network, however small it may be, and hope that they return to the site for more of my material.

That's called personal branding and it's a necessity for any journalist today. Much to my dismay, it requires that I utilize social media. But, like the athlete willing to go to whatever length necessary to make the team, I'm committed enough to the cause that I'm willing to be uncomfortable to achieve success.

It's inspiration from that saying--made up or not.

Today's Sign of the Apocalypse

Thought this story was pretty interesting:

Court Orders Skyping as Part of Matrimonial Case


According to the comments--usually a dubious source of information, but this set appears pretty well-informed which is not unusual for LegalBlogWatch--this kind of stuff happens all the time. Although it's the first instance of "court ordered Skyping" in the NY legal system.

Interesting to see social media technology being adapted into legal decisions. For now, I like it. But check back after the first court mandated BBM session. I'll have stronger opinions then.

"Worldwide Leader" Proves Nickname Applies Outside of Just Sports

As a writer for Business Insider I occasionally contribute to their "Wire" vertical, which covers the media business. Most of their coverage comes from linking out--or adding analysis (value) to a story broken by another, larger outlet. And anything sports related, which almost always encompasses ESPN, is my responsibility.

I tend to poke fun at ESPN in that snarky tone that bloggers love, and the mainstream media loves to hate. It seems as though every time I mention ESPN I can't help but rip the worldwide leader for something: this summer, cross-promotion and the LeBron debacle have been the biggest culprits. Few will disagree that both those complaints are valid.

But anyone who knows me, knows I couldn't live without ESPN, and yesterday, after getting my ritual insult out of the way, I finally said something nice:

Those circulation numbers are pretty impressive and ESPN can thank the foresight of its executives for that success. ESPN has long charged for premium "Insider" content, and has linked that subscription with the magazine. Subscribers to either one get access to the other for free. Slowly, other media outlets are beginning to realize this is the way to go.

Look, it's clear that an online paywall is inevitable.


Flickr via kevindooley


Media outlets can't keep giving away content for free, not only because, well, they should charge, but also because free content is less valuable to advertisers. Advertisers want to know that people who visit the page they advertise on actually want to be there. That's why they pay significantly more for print advertisements.

By bundling ESPN Insider and ESPN the magazine, the Worldwide Leader now has two distinct outlets that garner a lot of traffic and are appealing to advertisers because of the paywall. Let's say a user only signed up for ESPN Insider and couldn't care less about the magazine. You're telling me that guy isn't going to open the magazine when it comes in the mail every other week? And once he does, advertisers already know that he loves sports, and enjoys ESPN's coverage so he's easily engaged. Conversely by mentioning ESPN Insider at the end of every magazine article, ESPN is getting as many people to activate their free accounts as possible. Again, once those users log on advertisers know what they're getting. See? There's a reason for all that annoying cross-promotion.

ESPN does two other things correctly here. First, they have a significant quantity of free content online so that they don't completely alienate non-payers. Second, they put out enough premium content that distinguishes itself enough from the free stuff to be worth paying for.

Other media outlets need to learn from this example. The New York Times should keep much of its international and domestic news free, along with most of its blogs, while putting a paywall behind columnists and its more unique content. Namely, its Arts and Style sections. Then they need to have different options at different pricepoints for bundling it with the print product.

Of course, the naysayers argue that it will never work. Too many people are too accustomed to free news to begin paying for it now, they say. Those people will just jump to whatever site keeps their news free.

But if many of the larger news organizations begin implementing a paywall, sources of free news will be scarce. Business Insider, for example, would have a lot less to write about if its posts linking out to other content were useless to all readers that don't subscribe to the publication being sourced. Obviously, there will also be more limits on syndicating paid content.

Eventually, just as we have for centuries, people will have to choose what media is most important to them, pony up, and pay for it. The free ride was fun while it lasted, but it's coming to an end. A new era is under way.

And the Worldwide Leader is leading the charge.

600 Makes History, 252 Creates a Legacy

The ball had barely cleared the center-field fence on Wednesday when the discussion that would dominate the next 48 hours of sports coverage began. Should Rodriguez, an admitted steroid user who just added a 600th home run to his staggering list of accomplishments, be allowed entry into Cooperstown?

It's the question that's plagued confirmed and alleged steroid users for the last decade and in many ways is the biggest sports story of the 21st century. And quite frankly, I'm sick of it. Having no desire to read, watch and hear the same personalities rehash the same arguments I decided to call it quits on sports for the night.

Until, just as I was about to switch the radio dial, Michael Kay, the Yankees TV play-by-play man and an ESPN radio personality, launched a better discussion about a more intriguing question. Why is A-Rod so disliked?

Flickr via happyskrappy

As anyone who listens to sports radio can tell you, throw out an open-ended question to an audience of rabid sports fans, and you're bound to get answers that range from ridiculous to hilarious. If you can survive the stupidity and listen long enough you'll notice a consensus. The consensus here had A-Rod so disliked because he "consistently seems disingenuous."

Calling a star athlete disingenuous is like calling a director a perfectionist. It comes with the territory. In today's 24-hour media cycle people are constantly starved for every and any piece of news about star athletes. And we forget that the "star athlete" is often just a young man, sheltered by formative years of commitment to their sport, with millions of dollars to throw around. The athlete must put on an act--and be disingenuous--if he hopes to avoid being victimized by that cycle. Even the most beloved players will be shredded to pieces if they don't learn to tip-toe the line between being personable and politically correct. Derek Jeter, for example, walks that line like a gymnast. That's how you know he's disingenuous. Rodriguez, never truly learned to do the same.

Worse, A-Rod invited more scrutiny. He signed the largest contract ever guaranteed in North American sports: $252 million over 10 years. Obviously, anyone would have signed that contract, thanked the organization, the good lord, capitalism, and America. But once you're the highest paid guy--and by a substantial margin--you play with a bullseye on your back. To me, that's the true reason A-Rod is disliked. There's no underdog story when you make $252 million. Only unrealistic expectations.

And so people looked past all the home runs, the MVP trophies and the gold gloves. They focused on what he couldn't do. He couldn't win a championship. Fans conveniently forgot that one player does not, by himself, constitute a championship squad; they clearly disregarded his blank criminal slate and focused on his strip club attendance; they didn't care that he was one of the few steroid users to admit to his transgression without letting the story take on a life of its own. He's done mostly good, but fans focus on the bad.

It could have been different, too. If he made, say, just $150 million, he would have been perceived completely differently. Perhaps fans would have shrugged off his nightlife and attributed it to his good looks and considerable wealth. Maybe they would have appreciated the unimaginable dedication he had towards becoming the best. They might even have appreciated his apology and fallen for the player who hit rock bottom and admitted his transgressions, only to win the elusive ring later that season. Oh, what could have been.

But there are 252 reasons it didn't turn out that way.