Each of the panelists has been a newsmaker this year in his or her own right: Meghan McCain, blogger and daughter of John; musician and Haitian activist Wyclef Jean; Google Vice President Marissa Mayer; veteran political strategist Joe Trippi, who helped Jerry Brown defeat Meg Whitman; and Daisy Khan, the co-founder of Park51—a.k.a. the “Ground Zero Mosque.”

The panel kicked off when Time managing editor Richard Stengel asked each member of the group who, in his or her opinion, should be named Person of the Year. McCain went first, with a suggestion many Mediaite readers would probably support: “The Tea Party is definitely my big nominee,” she said. “This movement surpasses politics. It is cultural, on a very basic level.” McCain also took a jab at Christine O’Donnell, saying that though her candidacy is symbolic of the Tea Party’s power, the Senate hopeful was “in no way qualified to do anything.” McCain suggested that Glenn Beck might be a good choice as well.

Trippi also recommended a Person from the political realm: Nancy Pelosi. He said that she represents the Democratic Party establishment that Tea Partiers were fighting against, and that she also presided over the most productive Congress ever. “What it produced, though, created all kinds of reaction everywhere,” he said, “including the biggest loss of the House in Democrats of any party I think since 1942.” He cited Pelosi’s influence as crucial toward pushing health care legislation through Congress and called her “one of the most successful Speakers ever—and at the same time, look what it all wrought.”

Wyclef began with a joke: “I got a little beef with the Time, man,” he told Stengel. “I thought I was going to make the cover.” He said that though his daughter would choose Lady Gaga, he’d suggest Time citing the Haitian people as POTY. “What happens is, the billion dollars per year that is supposed to come in for reconstruction—if you don’t put Haiti on the cover, after this year, Haiti will fade from the face of the map,” he warned.

Mayer said that 2010 has been a year of innovation and optimism, at least in the world of technology. “There’s now a second wave that’s happening,” she said. Technological innovation—and dependency—is a worldwide phenomenon, not just a national one; Mayer recalled reading a study which said that in Japan, people are rarely more than three feet away from their phones at any given time. She would therefore argue, in part, for making the smart phone POTY. And if she had to pick an actual person, she’d go with Steve Jobs: “I think it’s unbelievable that he hasn’t gotten it already,” she said, considering the incredible impact Apple has had.

Daisy Khan, who also serves as Executive Director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, joked at first that she should be named POTY for making Americans aware of Islamophobia. Her real suggestion, though, was Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose speech in support of Park51 was a turning point in that project’s struggle. “I think he was very influential… When he did it, many other politicians came forward. And even the President had to follow suit,” she explained. She also suggested Jon Stewart, for “try[ing] to restore sanity.”

During a Q&A period, the assembled journalists made their own suggestions to the panel. One said that Congress as a whole might deserve to be Person of the Year, while another proposed “The Unemployed American;” a third brought up Rupert Murdoch.

Finally, someone asked the panelists who they would nominate as the “bad guy” of the year. Wyclef recommended Haitian president René Préval, “because I don’t understand a long reign over 80 percent of a population that can’t read or write.” McCain went for Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, “because I disagree with what he did. I think it’s un-American.” She added that he’s “scary” and “looks like a James Bond villain.”

Mayer said that if forced to choose, she’d pick a BP executive; Trippi agreed, citing Tony Hayward specifically. He also suggested Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Khan said that while there are “so many” people she’d like to pick, she would say someone like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, since, in her opinion, they respect neither immigrants nor religious freedom. “I don’t know how they call themselves American,” she said.

Time‘s final pick will be revealed on the Today Show the morning of December 15. In the meantime, readers can vote for themselves at Time.com; currently, Julian Assange is winning the poll.

Almost all of the results from yesterday’s midterm elections are in, and there is little question that the GOP has good reason to celebrate the returns. The U.S. House of Representatives has returned to Republican leadership and though it’s premature to definitively say as much, many have seen this as a referendum on the Obama administration.

Fox News’ key decision in their approach to covering the election last night was putting their heaviest hitters on the bench, choosing their up-and-comers Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier to serve as hosts of their coverage, an overt effort to have their news anchors cover the election results instead of their opinion hosts (as opposed to MSNBC.)

But not everyone saw it that way. Writing for the Washington Post, Dana Milbank was rather harsh in his critique, writing:

As Fox’s Megyn Kelly announced that one Democratic senator, expected to lose big, was in a race “too close to call,” she commented: “That’s, uh, an interesting update.” When Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass), said by Fox commentators to be endangered, cruised to an easy win, Kelly commented: “Alas.”

The victory party would have to focus on the 60-seat gain Fox projected for Republicans in the House – an enormous win, though not at the upper end of the forecasts. Fox commentator Karl Rove, pleading for “perspective,” said it still qualified as a “blowout evening.” To be fair and balanced, Fox brought in a nominal Democrat, pollster Doug Schoen. “This is a complete repudiation of the Democratic Party,” he proclaimed.

Milbank’s understandable critique of Fox News’ tone is diminished by his own lack of fairness in his reporting; it seems like he’d have the reader believe that Democratic pollster Doug Schoen was the lone left-of-center voice on the channel. The truth is, FNC offered a panoply of left-of-center voices, including Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, Joe Trippi , Geraldine Ferraro and Kirsten Powers among a handful of others. And, to be fair, there is significant criticism on the left that these pundits might not be the strongest voice for the progressive movement, but they are on the air, nonetheless.

But don’t just take our word for it, read what other media critics had to say. Writing for Time‘s Tuned In blog James Poniewozik seemed to agree that Fox News was fairer than the lot:

To be fair, NBC did join coverage earlier, after an all-new Biggest Loser.) Fox News, for all its image as the Republican-friendly network, actually seemed to have the most reserved coverage in tone of the three big cablers, going with a more reserved set and less flashy graphics (granted, by cable news standards) than its competitors. A whiteboard was even employed.

Credit where due, Fox also had a more, well, balanced panel much of the night than its competitor MSNBC. Holding forth from left of center for Fox were the recently-high-profile Juan Williams and Democratic political guru Joe Trippi. MSNBC’s main lineup, on the other hand, was basically its center-to-left lineup of nightly hosts: Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell.

Politico also drew a similar distinction between the coverage and analysis provided by MSNBC and Fox News:

Although Fox News took the most criticism during this campaign season for its alleged bias, it was MSNBC — whose new “Lean Forward” tagline inspired CNN’s promo — that wore its point of view most on its sleeve Tuesday night.

MSNBC’s election coverage was led by a panel comprised mostly of its opinionated prime-time hosts (Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell, along with frequent contributor Eugene Robinson), with nary a conservative voice in the mix. In contrast, Fox News’s was provided by two anchors from its straight-news dayside, Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier, along with a panel that included conservatives like Karl Rove as well as liberals like Juan Williams. Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity stopped by only briefly.

Missing from this conversation is CNN, who make very clear that they avoid the “opiniotainment” racket (and appear to suffer in ratings because of it.) Yes, CNN offered a very balanced slate of political analysts, but did so in the rather absurd visual of two long desks in studio, each packed with what seemed like a dozen pundits of many stripes. Was it a balanced approach? Yes, but someone at CNN needs to thin the herd of pundits, or just offer another studio solution to avoid future issues with the New York Fire Marsall regarding occupancy limits at the Time Warner center.

“Fair and Balanced” is a tag line for Fox News that often gets derided by its critics (and sometimes most deservedly.) But that does not mean that they don’t deserve credit when credit is due.

America could use more of this — an unfettered and public airing of political differences by our elected representatives. So we call on President Barack Obama and House Minority Leader John Boehner to hold these sessions regularly — and allow them to be broadcast and webcast live and without commercial interruption, sponsorship or intermediaries.

The group, whose steering committee is made up of Micah Sifry, David Corn, Mike Moffo, Mindy Finn, Jon Henke and Glenn Reynolds, is calling themselves “Demand Question Time” has already launched a website and collected 50 signatures. You can sign the petition here if you like. According to Politico the “original endorsers” include: Grover Norquist and Eli Pariser, Joe Trippi and Mark McKinnon, Markos Moulitsas and Ed Morrissey…Ari Melber, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Ana Marie Cox and Nate Silver.”

It will be interesting to see who they manage to attract: the Baltimore session was hailed from both sides of the aisle as a great success, so much so, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer called for the SOTU address to be returned to its original written form and replaced by just this sort of back and forth exchange. It will also be interesting to see whether the strong presence of well known online folks such as Ana Marie Cox (she has 1.5 million followers) can translate into actual names on a list. In the meantime, you can read the full call to action here.

There’s also business. We know who’s going to be on television and when, we click links and witness debate — all in 140 characters, of course. Disparate uses of the service are to be expected; new media must be tried, twisted and broken before its function is decided and opinions vary as much as usage. Maybe to you, Shaq‘s frequent inanities are hilarious or maybe they’re a waste of time. Maybe Ana Marie Cox‘s links are educational or maybe they’re boring. But to make that judgement, thousands — and in some cases millions! — are pressing “follow.”

Twitter followers are a whole new metric of popularity: communication sans middleman with as many people as you can get to click. The directness it affords and the loyalty it indicates are just two of the reasons Mediaite includes followers as a field in our Power Grid rankings of over 1,500 media players. Followers tends to be demonstrative not only of reach and influence, but of good will.

So we’ve tallied and ranked the top 25 media figures by approximate number of Twitter followers (they go up every few seconds!) and the results, if not surprising, are telling. America’s biggest stars — many of which have impersonal, almost robotic feeds likely ghostwritten by publicists — are interspersed with internet veterans who have massive online followings, even if they lack household names.

Before we get to the list, though, some interesting observations:

• Six of the top 10 spots are occupied by television hosts with international appeal. Their feeds tend to be general and highly promotional, but their fame is immeasurable.
• For the others who managed to sneak into the top 10, two are online behemoths, one was almost president and the last invented Twitter.
• Television hosts occupy a big chunk of the entire top 25, but seem almost entirely ghostwritten, while reporters and bloggers who handle their own feeds are more rare, but more invested in the service. They are also more likely to get personal.
• Only 7 women make the list, but they’re all in the top 15 and include the proto-mommy blogger and original Wonkette.
• Fixtures of the right are nearly absent, with only one notable Republican making the top 25. Someone get Coulter, McCain and Malkin on their Twitter games!

Check out the entire Top 25 media figures on Twitter!

]]> http://www.mediaite.com/online/follow-the-leaders-the-top-25-most-read-media-twitters/feed/ 0 http://www.mediaite.com/online/joe-trippi-punished-for-taking-daily-kos-seriously/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/joe-trippi-punished-for-taking-daily-kos-seriously/#comments Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:55:55 +0000 Tommy Christopher http://www.mediaite.com/?p=3866 Full disclosure: Joe Trippi is a guy with whom I am friendly. We’re not BFFs, but we talk from time to time about things not directly related to my role as a journalist and his as a source.

I disclose this because it appears that community blogs, like Daily Kos, expect a chapter-and-verse dossier on everyone who posts there before they’ll consider them non-slimeballs.

Political strategist Joe Trippi posted an apology at Kos yesterday, confessing to the crime of having over-eager interns, and for not disclosing something that should have been obvious. His thanks for holding himself to a ridiculous standard? The Kos kids are tearing him a new cyberhole.

There are two issues that they’re working him over about. The first is his admission that several new staffers and interns had created “sockpuppets,” Daily Kos user profiles for the purpose of echoing Trippi’s support for a Carolyn Maloney Senate bid (a more accurate term would be “astroturfing,” but sockpuppeting is the term being used).

Trippi mans up and takes responsibility for this, but I’m not sure what the crime is here. Even if he ordered his staffers to do this, so what? This is the Internet. The fact that Trippi is catching hell for this from someone named “Partially Impartial” should tell you all you need to know. These “sockpuppets” didn’t present themselves as journalists, nor did they lay claim to any identity other than the anonymous ones of their current detractors. In other words, if you set up a site where people get to blog anonymously, people will do that.

The fact that Trippi owns up to something this trivial, that he didn’t even know about, shows a respect for the online community that obviously runs deep.

The second issue was his failure to disclose, in this blog post, that he had been paid by Maloney’s congressional campaign to field calls about her possible Senate run. In that same post, however, he discloses his desire to work for Maloney’s Senate campaign, should one ever materialize.

The thing is, you would have to be an utter moron not to have known this. If Maloney’s congressional office had been referring all calls about the Senate bid to Joe Trippi for weeks, you would have to conclude that Trippi had been hired to handle those calls. When I ask a question at a press conference, I don’t begin by saying, “Let me first disclose that I am being paid by Mediaite to ask this question.” I’ll try that next time, should get a big laugh.

Of course, any reporter could make the obvious inference that Maloney’s hiring of Joe Trippi to take phone calls was not for the sole purpose of whistling Dixie. It’s the reporter’s job to point that out, not Trippi’s. His job was to say that she hasn’t decided to run yet.

The fact that he apologizes for this, again, shows that Trippi is far more respectful of community blogs than they are of him. This outrage, and the implication that Joe is out there scamming people into lining his pockets, is as fake as those sockpuppeted accounts.

Everyone knows what Joe Trippi does for a living (the same cannot be said of the majority of Kos diarists). When I see Joe write something, anything, I always make two assumptions. First, I assume that there’s a decent chance he’s pimping a cause or a candidate that he’s working for. Second, I assume that he believes deeply in whatever cause or candidate he’s working for. These are the things he is known for. The post for which he is being lambasted wasn’t some frothing diatribe, it was a mild commentary about a Quinnipiac poll.

If he was really a money-grubbing slime, wouldn’t he have been better served offering his progressive cred up to a well-funded, well-positioned candidate like Kirsten Gillibrand? Does anyone really think that Joe Trippi had to be bought off for relative peanuts in order to support a progressive candidate?

The irony is that the “progressives” at Daily Kos are now being used to hamstring a true progressive, in service to the Establishment Democratic Senator. Furthermore, the very people who are trying to destroy Trippi’s credibility are the ones who, themselves, destroyed the progressive blogosphere’s credibility when one of their posts about Sarah Palin was amplified by CNN, and turned out to be false. Now, they want to lecture Joe Trippi for not abiding by their make-believe rules, even after he apologized for it.

I talked to Joe this morning, and despite my admonitions to the contrary, he stands by his apology. In my view, he’s conceding a molehill of a point, and being repaid with a mountain of mud.