Forbes Magazine Ranks Liberals

Forbes Magazine is one of the most free market and conservative (at least when it comes to business) publications in the country and it is one of the most authoritative when it comes to the economy. They are also noted for their love of "lists" and in light of its Right wing credentials, I was surprised to see its article on the most influential Liberals.

My surprise isn't because one can't tell that Liberals are effective, with some more effective than others, but usually Conservatives describe such while cursing and not as a compliment. I guess Forbes simply wants to keep its readers on their toes.

An obvious springboard to such a list is the fact that American politics is now dominated with Liberals, be it in the White House, Senate, or the US House. So, it does make sense to be aware of who the major players are. The following are some highlights of the list, read about the entire 25 at Forbes.com.

• Kevin Drum. Showing the continued influence of the new media, Drum is a blogger by profession at MotherJones.com, which is one of the nation's most influential liberal publications.


• Gerald Seib, Executive Washington Editor of the Wall Street Journal. In a newspaper that is noted for its Conservative pedigree, it is hard to find a prominent individual with such Liberal credentials. Don't be fooled though, Seib is not the paper's "token Liberal" but a leader in the publication's perspectives.


• Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com. Another blogger who shows up high for his influence on the media on a website that is noted for its strong, new media roots.


• Maureen Dowd of the New York Times is one of the few females on a list dominated by white males, which doesn't seem very Liberal or Progressive.


• Bill Moyers, Bill Moyers Journal. For many decades this laid back, but philosophically extreme, journalist has been one of the Left's more influential voices.


• Chris Matthews, Hardball on MSNBC. I believe that Matthews influence has become largely limited to the Left. He has been told by MSNBC that he cannot serve in an anchor role and he recently said in an interview that it was his job to make sure that the Obama Administration is very successful (see video above). This was an odd choice.


• Markos Moulitsas Zuniga , the Daily Kos. Another new media leader whose entire platform is online. I actually don't buy this choice. "Influential" means the ability to change the views of others. Zuniga merely preaches to the choir and it is an extreme one at that.


• Oprah Winfrey. I found the fact that Winfrey, who spent years above the political fray, is now recognized as a Liberal and she is probably the most influential one because she does influence people of various ideologies, without them knowing it.


• Jon Stewart, The Daily Show. I believe Stewart is effective. He is extremely smart, but not biting. Because he is likable, you want to believe him. He is very influential and most people don't realize they are being influenced.


• Thomas Friedman, New York Times. Friedman may be the intellectual Godfather of the modern Liberal movement. His cool style and bright analysis makes him difficult to debate.


• Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post. Huffington is another new media leader and she lands very high, at number two. She is extremely Liberal, but I think she is bright and makes the website reader do a little work before they realize its philosophy. She even has a few Conservatives on the site.

It is an interesting list and the vast majority on it are in the opinion making business. I think that culture (Jon Stewart and Oprah Winfrey), play a bigger role on Liberal influence. However, the great thing about lists is their capacity to begin debates. The debate on the influential Liberals begins at Forbes.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Huffington Post Expands to Chicago

My feelings towards the Huffington Post are more envy than awe. I am impressed by the professional images that they use and their "quick read" function that more blogs (and websites in general) should pursue, but I hate its liberal bias. The publication has an impressive reach and those behind it (principally Arriana Huffington) made an early commitment to make it successful, and by most measures they have achieved just that.

Now, the Huffington Post is expanding to Chicago and the biting commentary that is well known nationally will have a local appeal in the country's third largest city. The air in the windy city has just gotten a little hotter.

The Huffington Post is a liberal darling, getting articles from the Hollywood elite and major politicians. The questions is, what role will the Chicago version fill? Historically, major national newspapers have created their own place in the national media Real Estate. In Chicago, the Tribune and Sun Times are very will known for talking about national issues. Is the local Huffington Post going to defer to the national site or is it going to give a uniquely Chicago view on what is going on around the country and around the world?

Is the new Post only going to discuss new businesses in Chicago, local crime, and the people running for mayor? If so, it stands in serious danger of being very boring. The online version of a community newspaper -- unless you are actually in it, you are not going to be very interested. On the other hand, if it becomes the Chicago voice on national issues, I believe the national publication will become redundant in the eyes of most readers. Sure, the site will keep local features that readers can navigate to find out what is going in the city, but I think they will find the two front pages (national and Chicago) quite confusing due to their similarity.

I believe the logical thing for the Huffington Post to do for over coming this probable confusion, is to make the national site a New York, New York site. Like the New York Post, the New York Daily News, and (of course) The New York Times, the "new" New York Huffington Post would provide a local spin to national news. It is just a thought.

I am also curious about the economics of the new website. It is being described as a "franchise." Typically, that means someone pays a corporation a significant amount of money to be able to use the name and benefit from a marketing system created by the parent company. I don't know if that is literally the case here or if those involve do not have a better way to describe the relationship between the two sites, but it would be a very interesting model if they mean a traditional franchise.

The work to date on at the Huffington Post indicates that the model is working. It will be interesting to see if the changes going on with the site keeps it that way.

Would you like to get a periodical email of the best of Kevin Price's political and economic content? Subscribe to the Houston Business Review at Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

When It Comes to Blogs, Is It "Here Today, Gone Tomorrow"?

I'm always interested in trying to improve the quality of my blogging, so I often spend time researching blogs recognized by others as among the best on the Web. Recently I put "best political blogs" in my Google search engine and found a link to Forbes Magazine on the subject. I was attracted to Forbes because I largely agree with them ideologically.

I immediately jumped in to check out their choices and found the following reoccurring messages: "nothing new here," "no longer posting," and other posts indicating their demise either voluntarily or due to other causes. At first I found this alarming. Although all of them had high Google rankings, how could they go from the top list of publications to no longer in business? I looked a little closer and found that many of them that do have posts are months old. Finally, I looked at the link and found that this was a list from 2003.

This, of course, made me feel a little better because it provided explanation, but it made me wonder about the future of this blog. Sure, eventually, all things will pass, but three or four years doesn't seem that long to go from the pinnacle in their industry to a mere after thought.

All of these blogs were written by individuals and their survival depended on those people remaining interested or able to keep writing. It helped me to see the wisdom of a Huffington Post (see founder Arianna Huffington's photo, above), which is made up of the opinions of many rather than one. Any one of these writers can walk away, but the blog would continue. I might have to join or put together such a blog.