Maybe access makes a big difference in how the media "elite" in Washington approach people like Rice. I saw Andrea Mitchell on Hardball tonight and she was unconvincingly trying to explain away Rice's remark as innocent. It seemed like she was trying to stay on Rice's good side for future interviews. Maybe because the students don't care whether Rice gives them access in the future, they were more aggressive and willing to ask tough questions.

www.bottomupchange.com

The comparison is to process: Technology enables a public figure's statement in one context to be rebroadcast in another context for a much wider audience, without relying on the traditional media.

The fact that Rice "is not a candidate, not running for anything, and not on a ballot anywhere," does not reduce her relevance as a former government official and prominent political figure. If anything, as a person out of government, the public now has more direct access to her and more opportunities to use citizen media and technology to question and scrutinize her.

Just wanted to put those two words together...

Seriously, I think Ari is using "Macaca moment" to mean, a moment when a public figure is captured on video saying something that is revealing, and then the wheels of media/activism/politics/viral sharing start spinning and that captured moment gets amplified and rises to some degree of national attention. While Mike is right that originally it refers to an event where a candidate for office was caught using a racist term and pandering to his audience, in this context and with the addition of the word "substantive" Ari is arguing that Rice was captured saying things that now may well damn her, either in the court of public opinion or in a real court.

By the way, if Rice is being dinged for a "gaffe" (a la Reagan's bombing joke), why no apology or demurral from her about what she actually said in this video?

I think Ari's right to be bringing this incident to our attention because it's a valid illustration of how citizen journalists armed with handheld cameras and using YouTube can press public officials (and former Secretaries of State definitely fall in that category) on matters of great public interest. It's also interesting because it suggests that the professional media, which often treats such folks with much more courtesy, may find itself supplanted by citizens who simply want answers and don't care about future access, since they aren't making a living from having access to such folks.

Having worked in journalism before, I do believe that traditional interviewers are somewhat reserved in their questioning for the simple reason that if they get a reputation as an attack dog nobody will consent to be interviewed by them. So in that sense, yes, politicians and other public figures do use the media just as the media uses them.

Scalp Med

With eight years to quiz Dr. Rice, the popular media never laid a glove on her. She danced, obfuscated, pandered, and lied her way through with nary a raised eyebrow. Her statements were jotted down faithfully, repeated verbatim, and treated with just a shade less deference than the Curia treats papal bulls.

In seven minutes, three students who refused to be buffaloed turn Dr. Rice into rice pudding. I wonder if David Gregory, George Stephanopolous, Brian Williams, Katie Couric, Charles Gibson, Bob Schieffer, or any of the rest of the overpaid news readers posing as reporters infesting our airwaves and cable channels got an eyeful? Just to see how it's done?

Kind regards,
Andy Moquin
Engagement Rings Community of NY
New York, USA

“Try not to become a man of success but rather try to become a man of value.”
“Marriage is a three ring circus: engagement rings, wedding rings and sufferings.”