Easy Living

As I was reading the long wrap-up to the protest in Egypt, I began to understand why reporters have jumped on the notion of a Twitter revolution so enthusiastically. It's easy.

The story goes on about a small group of plotters "combined the energy of soccer fans with the sophistication of surgeons." Now, that's taking aim at the Pulitzer prize, but what does it mean. We read in the first paragraph that the information passed back and forth between Tunisians and Egyptians was to put vinegar on your scarf to counter the tear gas. If I ever need a surgeon, I hope he is a little more knowledgeable.

I got the feeling early on that this long, long story was filled with nonsense. The clouds parted. "To promote it they set up a Facebook group ..." And the Times put a link so readers can see the original Facebook page with its 1,815 members, many obviously not Egyptian. It is called the April 6 movement and its goal was a big demonstration in -- you guessed it -- April. It sounds like events overtook these Facebookers just like it did the spies, the media, and the governments around the world. History is like that. It happens, and does not come in neat, logical packages, conveniently translated for English speaking audiences.

What? You say there's much more to that. Plotters can't just put their names on a Facebook group. I agree with that, but if that's what you think, why are you writing all this other stuff.

There are many weird turns in the story. Something about Mubarak's son trying to persuade his father to hang onto power. That got interesting but the authors dropped it. Another thing is a claim that a Serbian youth movement toppled Milosevic who were inspired by the ideas of Gene Sharp. Huh? I always thought that Milosevic's ouster had something to do with the NATO forces, which separated the homicidal gangs that tore apart the old Yugoslavia. And I'm admittedly not up on academia, but just who is Gene Sharp? (Tell me before you look him up.)

This is a Crockpot stew. Where's Wikileaks for the media?


Dual Uprisings Show Potent New Threats to Arab States

---

Chickens and take-out. That's the Times's turf.

Is it just me, or is the intense interest in fast food just not interesting?

Here's a guy Abdul Haye, who takes the name of Kennedy Fried Chicken, for his fast-food business. Isn't it a kind of rip-off of Kentucky Fried Chicken? Anyway, I don't much care, but Mr. Haye seems to have made a go of it and now he himself has imitators and he's pissed off.

Big deal.


A Chicken War in New York, Where Afghans Rule the Roost

---

There's a line in a story about the evils of the upstart Web purveyors of news that can command billions upon billions while the Times is foundering that I admire.

David Carr writes, "For those of us who make a living typing, it’s all very scary, of course." I imagine so. I applaud and appreciate tremendously when writers tell you where they stand. This ethic is one of the most important qualities about the Times and the other legitimate news organizations.

And his point, that the pirate news aggregators are stealing the news from places like the Times, is valid -- more valid than the strenuous efforts of the movie, music and publishing industries to wall themselves in against change.

The problem is that by Carr's account the HuffPost succeeded by using and abusing people who gave them content for free. I think there are a few much more important elements about the success of the HuffPost that cannot be denied.

When I look at the HuffPost, I see a mix of Page 6 of the Post and other gossip, a swirling, chaotic mass of shrill comments, and Google News-like links. Somewhere in there are pretty dull, serious volunteers who have stars in their eyes. The example Carr uses, a woman who scooped the rest of the campaign, is the exception.

It's important that journalists figure what's led to their decline. They don't have that much time to stay petulant.


The Media Equation: At Media Companies, a Nation of Serfs

---