You are what you watch. That's what the "Kill Your TV" people used to say. But if TV is mindless, where does that leave YouTube?

Apart from search engines, YouTube is now the second most popular website in America, drawing the average visitor for a solid sixteen minutes of video surfing--a web eternity. The site hosts a long tail of clips on every item imaginable, but the top videos actually track the vices of television: sex, celebrities and sensationalism. And as the web morphs from endless text to an increasingly video-focused platform, YouTube is ground zero for some of the dumbest crap online. Yet web videos don't have to be vapid, according to the entrepreneurs behind <a href="http://www.bigthink.com/">Big Think</a>, <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080414/melber">YouTube for the Harvard set</a>.

After working as producers for The Charlie Rose Show, Harvard grads Peter Hopkins and Victoria R.M. Brown saw an opening for thoughtful, short-form intellectual videos targeting online audiences. The idea was simple: take the brightest, most creative thinkers alive, plunk them down for a conversation straight to camera--reality-show style--elide the moderator and provide an intimate window into the "big ideas" of our time. The erudite site drew investments from heavy hitters like Peter Thiel, a PayPal co-founder and Facebook angel investor, and Larry Summers, the former Harvard president and treasury secretary.

Compared with the experts on serious television, let alone the pundit circuit, Big Think's interview subjects have remarkable depth, diversity and credentials. There are famous professors and renowned writers, award-winning scientists and prominent theologians, political activists and tech futurists. In other words, the site is full of intellectuals with ideas that can make for compelling video--but without the sound bites and sizzle that dominate TV and YouTube. (There are also interviews with traditional newsmakers like senators, governors, former government officials and celebrities.)

The prolific author and conservative Judge Richard Posner, for example, offers a <a href="http://www.bigthink.com/wisdom/1571">meandering but intriguing answer</a> to the open-ended question "What's your counsel?" After lamenting the cost of the Iraq War, he notes that only government can tackle existential problems like global warming and disaster prevention. "It's actually kind of heresy, but I think the American people are undertaxed," he says in a low-key confessional. It's the kind of policy-driven argument that would rarely make a cable news debate, let alone a viral hit. "We ask a range of questions that are open-ended, forward-looking and nonpartisan," explains Brown, who works out of one of the spare photo booths in Big Think's Manhattan office. The start-up does not have enough desk space for its five employees.

Big Think strains to transcend traditional media framing, self-consciously shunning categories like "news" and "opinion" for more trippy headings. A "physical" section lists videos on architecture and music, while a "meta" category covers concepts like identity, wisdom, death and inspiration. It's more nuanced than YouTube, but also more confusing. (Why is "justice" meta? Why is "media" physical?) Yet Big Think is not just striving to be a hipper PBS, blasting highbrow content at enlightened Millennials. The founders say they're aiming for a meaningful, interactive dialogue--the kind of audience participation that makes good blogs lively, social networking sites sticky and YouTube profitable...

<a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080414/melber">The rest of this piece is available at The Nation.</a>

Since the New York Times endorsed John McCain, the newspaper was obviously not biased in reporting on his conflicts of interest.

That's one view you won't hear much in the raging debate over the Times article about McCain. Media insiders don't say it, since they believe in a "wall" separating news and editorial staff. Most readers overlook it, instead focusing on the substance of the actual article. And in the bizzaro world of the paper's insatiable conservative critics, the endorsement is cited to demonstrate a media conspiracy against McCain. "The liberal Times had endorsed McCain as the best Republican in the presidential race. Were they just setting him up for the kill?" asks Cliff Kincaid, an operative at the right-wing pressure group Accuracy in Media.

It's enough to make you think that political endorsements, like politics, are in the eye of the beholder. But now some top journalists say that newspapers should just end endorsements altogether.

Writing in response to criticism of the McCain article, Times political editor Richard Stevenson estimated that "most" of the paper's political reporters oppose the editorial staff picking candidates. "Endorsements inevitably create the perception among some voters that The Times is backing a candidate on an institutional level, leaving those of us on the news side to explain over and over that our coverage is not influenced by what our colleagues on the editorial page write," he explained.

In this week's Time magazine, managing editor Rick Stengel makes a similar argument recommending papers stop issuing endorsements "at a time when the credibility and viability of the press are at all-time lows." Newspapers undermine impartiality by endorsing candidates, Stengel contends, and readers are "right" to doubt whether reporters can objectively cover a candidate after their employer endorses the opponent.

Yet most journalists insist those readers are wrong. And if readers incorrectly think that editorial positions make for biased reporters, that misconception is no reason to dump editorials about policies or candidates. What about the (more credible) perception that the media are affected by advertisers? Is that a reason to restrict ads?

Or how about the obvious, larger dynamic at work here: The well-funded, famously effective, thirty-year campaign to attack all reporters for harboring a secret liberal bias? Should journalists change their work to rebut that "perception," even as they insist it's baseless?

Consider the Bush era. At times, the press has covered the Administration slavishly, repeating White House talking points after 9/11 and validating government misinformation before the Iraq War. Yet reporters have also courageously exposed massive government misconduct in the face of major political and legal pressure, breaking stories about the Administration's illegal torture, warrantless surveillance, secret black sites and intelligence abuse. During this period, there have been huge shifts in public opinion on the political parties, the President and Iraq--but not about the press. In the last seven years of Gallup polling, a steady 45 percent of Americans have said the media is "too liberal," with no change beyond the margin of error, while "too conservative" never broke 20 percent. That is a striking testament to the resilience of the manufactured "liberal media" narrative. Public opinion did not budge when the press went easy on Bush, nor when "bad news" piled up.

So cosmetic media reforms won't alter these hardened perceptions. Whether it's nixing endorsements or hiring Republican columnists who advocate the jailing of "liberal media traitors," the data show that appeasement fails, even on its own narrow terms.

The editors' motivation, however, is still understandable. In law and corporate governance, the "appearance of impropriety" is a standard measure for ethical breaches. The premise, popularized by former Senate Ethics Committee Counsel Robert Bennett, is that public institutions cannot maintain legitimacy if its conduct looks bad to the average person.

"If a reasonable, informed person--not the most jaundiced or partisan observer--sees impropriety, there probably is impropriety." That's how the Times explained the Bennett standard in 1990, when editorializing about the Keating Five. (In another twist for Washington's interdependent soap opera, Bennett moved on to represent McCain in his battle with the Times.) But what happens when almost half the population has been convinced that the media's inherent liberalism creates an appearance of improper bias?

That's a lot of reasonable people.

Even if excising editorial opinion did reduce public cynicism, however, it would not improve traditional journalism. If anything, more information about the views of ownership and management enhances journalistic transparency. The wild range of reaction to the McCain article demonstrates the limits of that tack, but most readers would rather know that a powerful arm of the Times backs McCain and Clinton - or that the Wall Street Journal leans right--than experience a patronizing blackout.

Finally, and most consequentially for the elections that sparked this debate, endorsements are constructive for democracy. Sure, many voters now ignore them--no damage done. Yet for voters who care, endorsements are a reasoned antidote to the superficial, gossipy cacophony of today's political discourse. Stengel criticizes them as an "anachronism." Exactly. This is one throwback we can really use. In many states, people look to editorial boards for concrete, local, policy-based suggestions on who to vote for up and down the ballot. That's why campaigns still fight so hard for endorsements from local papers. Editorial boards vet candidates, even the presidential contenders, in long policy discussions off-camera. It's a rare break from soundbite-driven debates and the sanitizing fear of stumbling into a "YouTube moment." Then, when the research is over and the interviews end, newspapers do something that does merit public respect. They take a stand.

This column is from The Nation

Great speeches don't matter if no one hears them. Barack Obama delivered a riveting speech about America's moral crisis this weekend, calling for a united movement to overcome the nation's moral deficit and mounting economic inequality. Political observers praised the address and reporters covered it -- 53 mentions in major papers -- yet it's been largely overshadowed by the escalating fight between Obama and The Clintons, which still dominates this week's media narrative. The candidates and reporters are focused on the fight, a defensible choice given both its impact and the undeniable news of a former U.S. President "spreading demonstrably false information," according to ABC News. But it turns out the public is focusing on Obama's speech anyway.

While cable news shows gorge on campaign sparring, Obama's uplifting speech is absolutely dominating YouTube. The 34-minute address from Ebenezer Baptist Church is currently the fourth most viewed video in the world on YouTube, trailing two Britney Spears clips. Not only is that unusual traffic for a long political address - people also like it. On Tuesday, viewers voted it the second most "favorited" video in the world. It also drew the second highest number of incoming links, a key indicator of web interest that drives Google page rankings. About 43 percent of viewers have come from links on Obama's social networking page, MyBO, which encourages supporters to share videos and information with their friends. Other viewers came from apolitical networks, both within YouTube and on other sites. At SomethingAwful, a popular general interest site that proclaims the "Internet makes you stupid," one user wrote that the speech was so good it was worth posting in a non-political forum, attaching the video and text. The single post drew more than 3,000 new viewers in a day.

The speech has now drawn over 268,000 views, after about 36 hours online. By contrast, a shorter, spicier clip of Clinton and Obama's debate clash currently has under 50,000 views, (after half a day), while a week's exposure gave Bill Clinton's Nevada complaints over half a million views on YouTube. But it's not only remarkable that so many viewers are choosing a long, serious speech over the political theatrics that dominate typical news. This kind of YouTube speech is also distinct because it enables voters to appraise a candidate directly, without any filters. News coverage is larded with polls and meta-analysis, while top bloggers increasingly talk strategy. Even the debates are often clogged with moderator framing and false premises. So despite our proliferating media, it's hard for most voters to hear directly from the candidates who would be president, unless you move to Iowa. (Or make C-SPAN your new appointment television.) But it looks like when the speech is available and the candidate is inspiring, people still want to listen.

This column is from The Nation.

Joe Trippi is one of the few political consultants who speaks frankly, even to the detriment of his clients, and loves democracy even more than he loves politics. On New Year's Eve in Iowa, I caught up with him for an hour-long conversation about his work for the John Edwards campaign, why Hillary Clinton might be the Howard Dean of 2008, and how the Iowa caucus is like the Internet. The interview was for my forthcoming article in The Nation about Internet organizing in the presidential race, but I thought part of it might be interesting to readers in general.

These interview excerpts from December 31, 2007 were edited for length and clarity.

The national media decided, for a while at least, to tell a story about a two-person race [without Edwards]. But Edwards is leading in the DailyKos polls, tremendously popular online, does that have any impact here in Iowa?

It tends to not have much impact as it does other places because Iowa is [different].... Dean had 650,000 [online supporters] identified nationwide, 2,100 were in Iowa. The state is much older. 50 percent of caucus attendees will be 65 or older. [Note: Trippi proved himself wrong here: it turned out that 22 percent of the 2008 Iowa caucus attendees were 65 and older, the youngest turnout in history.] That's 50 percent; median would be about 62. The state is one of the oldest states in the country.... It's one of the least wired of any state in the country.

How do you see Internet organizing working in other states? Just the fact that you have those extra people to touch from a field perspective, or the narrative?

On a big day like February 5, where you suddenly are in a bunch of states, there's no way for any campaign to compete with its own resources that day. It's got to decentralize. Count on lots of supporters. And frankly, there's not a whole lot that paid media can do on that day. Twenty states, you could blow all of whatever Obama's got in the bank on California all by itself and still not have a penny left for any other state....

At some point between New Hampshire and South Carolina, the campaign loses its ability to do it. At that point, there's no way a campaign can do what has to happen on February 5th. The traditional old style, top-down centralized campaign structure doesn't work. Twenty states and all you've got is the candidate on a tarmac and what you've built on the Net in terms of being able to decentralize and mobilize in all states.

So you think, by accident, this calendar makes the web even more important in a long race. So that helps you and Obama if there is a long race?

Yeah. And I think Clinton's at a disadvantage.

If the race narrows to a long race between two people, then you think the person that's not Clinton with web organizing is more likely to win.

Yes, because they can put up organizing kits. How else are you going to do this? When you look at Iowa, Iowa is easy. Its six Congressional districts, you know, you spend two years there.... then all of a sudden you've got one month and twenty states and no resources.... There's only one way: decentralized people taking responsibility, the campaign giving up power, using the tools....

One of the most effective things from Dean's Internet team--and the people writ large--were able to do was build very resilient counter-narratives that eventually competed with or overtook the MSM narrative. So the idea that what 300 people in Washington define as a bad appearance on Meet the Press didn't have to be a bad appearance.... Can you identify anything [like that] for Edwards this cycle?

No. First of all I don't think a lot of that is ever going to happen that way again.... I think a lot of the things that you saw worked for Dean are not likely to have that kind of critical mass until there's a nominee this time. Because essentially we were the nominee of that-- whatever that is--last time. There was a reason you could have that narrative happen because the whole thing worked almost like a monolithic thing. MyDD, DailyKos, all of them were in support of the one campaign that understood that they existed and pretty much couldn't stand the way all the other campaigns.... It was a creation.... I don't think in this campaign--a lot of people really like Edwards, a lot of people really like Obama, you just don't have that same critical mass concentrated in any one place to drive a counter-narrative yet. That doesn't mean that two days after Iowa it won't coalesce around somebody and that could start to happen....

The other thing that's different about this time is it's harder to coalesce something without anybody spotting it. Half the freaking reporters are--well, not half, 100 percent of the reporters are reading the blogs and trying to spot and jump in front of the story, the narrative, before it ever gets going because they're freaked out about being caught off guard by some narrative they didn't see. So it becomes part of the mainstream message before it even became a--uh...

It's a hyper co-optation.

Yes, They're always on it. Whereas before we could be saying that's right about Howard Dean, and [it] would spin up.... And then all of a sudden one day they woke up and were like "what the [hell] is this?!" So there was a counter-narrative to the mainstream media. Now, you can wake up tomorrow and Katie Couric is giving voice to something that you and I spotted on the blogs this morning. Why? Because some freaking producer was on MyDD, spotted something and did the story. Now all of a sudden the blogs are mimicking that....

Do you think--the trend you describe where folks are trying to jump and get ahead so much--does that mean that the political press is any more honest? Or do you think they're just as bad as they were before?

I think they're like ridiculously bad. This whole thing, the whole year was between Obama and Hillary. Why? Because they raised $80 million bucks? By the way, it's the same mistake they made with Dean. The big reason they kept saying Dean was so fricking amazing was because of the money.

In a sense what you're saying is Hillary Clinton can be the Howard Dean of 2008.

She could be.

In that she's getting all of this attention for things that [will not lead to her victory]?

Right. I think both her and Obama could be that.

It's hard to see why the [media] keeps doing it, because even if money matters, every cycle some people have a lot of money and only one person wins. So it's sort of weird to say well we're going to love the people who have a lot of money, when only one of them can win, and a Huckabee can come out of nowhere. So what are [they] even talking about?

Well, what's really interesting is how the [Inter]net falls for it too.... [Getting] drawn into the same old bag of trips. [Many bloggers say] "Who's got the most money, who's higher in the polls?"

Why are they doing that?

I think part of it is that, in a lot of ways, they haven't figured out where they're at yet. What I mean by that is, are we still the renegades trying to reform the Democratic Party? Or are we part of the Democratic Party trying to beat the Republicans?... 2004 was much more clearly trying to take out the establishment of the Democratic Party.

And in '06 putting so much effort into a intramural race in Connecticut, when we had bigger fish to fry, but it was also very important?

Could be maturing, could be a good sign....

But what should matter? Should it be ideology, should it be political strategy? What should be the difference?

I'd like to think there's still some place where principle matters. There's plenty of pragmatists out there. There's nothing wrong with standing on principle and not compromising your principles. Which I thought the Ned Lamont thing was totally [good for].... [But] the problem we're having is we make the same mistake that we make about the mainstream media... it's not one thing....

OK, but let's narrow that down. I think the qualitative difference with, say, the top five or six Democratic blogs is they are now read by a very important group of people. That was not true before, and critical mass is fine, but you're not going to have twenty-five blogs read by those people.... So those five or six bloggers, to every last one, they have avoided endorsing this time; they have largely not only accepted--but if anything reaffirmed--a set of top three candidates based on money. That's what you're saying.

Yes.

Is that wrong? Should they change?

Yes....

The entire interview is available at The Nation.

People are talking about Barack Obama making history tonight.

Yet in America's long struggle for racial equality, 2007 was a paradoxical year. Just as our political system seriously contemplated a black President for the very first time, the Supreme Court declared the end of racial integration policy, halting voluntary local remedies to desegregate public schools under Brown vs. Board of Education. Presented with the rise of Barack Obama and the fall of Brown, most people have focused on the good news.

Many Americans were captivated by the self-proclaimed "audacity" of Obama's January announcement that he was running for President. Obama made it clear he was not running to send a message or to register voters but literally to get elected. His campaign initially worked because the political elites accepted this unprecedented proposition. Reporters took Obama's candidacy seriously from its inception, and the donors did, too. Obama has already secured more than a footnote in history, shattering records for individual contributors to his campaign. Win or lose, he is arguably the first black American to be treated by the political and media establishment as a fully viable presidential contender. It is an achievement that cannot be claimed by any other racial minorities. (Jesse Jackson's campaigns did not attain such standing with the political establishment, despite their significance for many voters.) We should not gloss over this development. It is a meaningful step towards addressing a resilient, uncomfortable American fact: our national power structure has always been, and stubbornly remains, overwhelmingly white, from all forty-three Presidents across history to ninety-five of the one hundred senators serving today.

That segregated power structure was reinforced by the Supreme Court's sharply divided June decision to ban integration programs in public schools. Most educational policies that consider a student's race for the purposes of integration are now illegal. Like the original Brown opinion, this year's decision is not neatly confined to K-12 schools, either. Brown consecrated a new national ambition for racial equality in the public sphere, delegitimizing both explicit and implicit racism in government, and laying a foundation for remedial measures to equalize many other facets of our society. Many critics contend that this case, Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, augurs a disturbing slide backwards. It bans integration programs, sharply restricts race-based government remedies and sets the stage for future bans on other remedial programs, such as affirmative action, as Justice Stephen Breyer warned.

But will the public really stand for this sweeping attack on Brown's legacy?

Yes. In most of the country, public opposition towards measures to remedy America's history of racial discrimination, from academic recruitment to professional affirmative action, has actually outpaced the conservative court. Even putting aside the South, generally liberal electorates--including California, Washington and Michigan--have passed state referenda completely banning affirmative action. Hostility towards affirmative action runs so deep, in fact, it is a staple of attacks against black political candidates. Senator Jesse Helms perfected coded campaign racism in 1990, with an infamous attack ad darkly juxtaposing his black opponent's face with the text "For RACIAL QUOTAS." Which brings us back to Barack Obama.

Some commentators have latched onto Obama's success as proof for the flawed claim that the United States has completely achieved equal opportunity for all, obviating remedial programs like affirmative action. "Obama embodies and preaches the true and vital message that in today's America, the opportunities available to black people are unlimited if they work hard, play by the rules, and get a good education," writes Stuart Taylor Jr., a columnist for The National Journal (emphasis added). Taylor presents one man's unusual political arc as a universal lesson for all "black children": "Obama's soaring success should tell black children everywhere that they, too, can succeed, and they do not need handouts or reparations." Obama's success is definitely inspirational, but is that because it is an average example or a remarkable exception?

As a politician, Obama is an accomplished black man who knows that some voters still see him, before all else, as "the black candidate." It seems as if commentators either fixate on how his blackness makes his candidacy historic--as I just did--or debate whether he is "black enough." Obama dutifully protests these lines of inquiry, assuring audiences that his qualifications, vision and personal experiences transcend race. This is not only true, it is a political necessity. Obama knows that he is unlikely to win as the "black candidate," let alone the "affirmative-action candidate."

Few other campaigns in recent memory have pressed meritocratic credentials as forcefully as Obama's aides. Today's candidates tend to downplay their Ivy League educations in favor of more humble qualifications. Yet it is rare to hear Obama's history discussed without a reference to Harvard, or his prestigious stint as editor-in-chief of its Law Review. Even when his campaign is not emphasizing it, reporters highlight Obama's education far more than any other candidate's. Take, for example, articles from the major newspapers about the leading Democratic candidates in the first ten months of this year's campaign. Obama's Harvard Law credentials turn up a whopping 178 times--six times the thirty Yale references for Hillary Clinton. John Edwards's law school was only mentioned once, in an article about how he met his wife.

This emphasis is vital to Obama's candidacy. He earned his past success and current prominence, in this narrative, as evidenced by his academic achievement and intelligence. The story line aims to banish the racist thought, lurking beneath our public discourse, that perhaps this candidate succeeded only because of his race. Sometimes it seeps out anyway. During a January appearance on Fox News, columnist John McWhorter offered the baseless claim that "the reason that [Obama is] considered such a big deal is simply because he's black." McWhorter implausibly continued, "If you took away the color of his skin, nobody right now would be paying him any attention."

Such baseless attacks obviously predate Barack Obama. Even the most extraordinarily successful minorities are either attacked for their achievements, or the meaning of their educational and professional advancement is contested. Like other talented, smart and successful black Americans who have broken barriers (including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice), Obama excelled in an institution that used affirmative action to propel qualified minority applicants. Having proven their mettle as leaders, it is clear each of these figures would excel without affirmative action. And no one knows how their careers would have developed in a society without remedial measures for discrimination. Yet their paths show how the United States has benefited from applying affirmative action in public institutions.

Rice has emphasized how affirmative action gave her an opportunity to prove herself in academia. "I myself am the beneficiary of a Stanford strategy that took affirmative action seriously," she told a Stanford faculty meeting in 1997, and her rise through academia and government embodies the policy's four original rationales: minority students can overcome adversity, excel academically, share their perspectives to enrich a diverse student body and benefit from the requisite training for leadership positions in society, eventually helping to redress the effects of hundreds of years of discrimination. In other words, by pursuing the values of adversity, diversity and redress on campus, universities can both improve their educational offering and advance equality across American society. Americans are decidedly mixed on "affirmative action"--both as a literal program and as a vessel for complex emotions about race--but few would openly challenge those values. Yet those values have not driven the debate for a long time.

I try to analyze why in the rest of this essay for The Nation. (This post is an excerpt of Part I.)