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.

See How They Run: Democratic Candidates Won't Debate on Fox

Rumor has it that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (photo)are joining John Edwards in a boycott against Fox News in that network's upcoming debate, according to the Huffington Post. The candidates argue that Fox News is too biased and anti-Democrat and they don't want to legitimize its views by participating in the forum. I first learned about Edwards' decision about a week ago and was some what offended by the idea. However, the more I think about it, I have to respect all of these candidates for sticking to their convictions, regardless of how wrong those beliefs may be.

If conservative candidates had done the same thing to CNN many years ago, the media would not be nearly as polarized as it is today, in my opinion. Americans couldn't expect the Democrats to boycott that network 20 years ago, it was the Republicans who were getting abused. They obediently took their regular beatings rather than holding the network accountable. These leading Democrats are doing just that when it comes to Fox.

There is, however, a difference in my opinion. I honestly don't believe that Fox's treatment of the news is biased. The editorial departments clearly lean to the Right, but the news itself really is fair and balanced. A typical Fox story will point out truths that neither side wants to hear. In my memory Fox has also been fair in its treatment of candidates during debates, which weakens the arguments of these Democrats about whether they should participate.

With these leading Democrats firing this salvo, the question is, how should Fox respond? If I were in charge I would move full speed ahead towards having a debate among the Democrats willing to participate. This would do several things:

* It would likely cause one or two of these major candidates to blink. The thought of one of their opponents -- even a minor one -- getting that kind of uninterrupted exposure, would be more than they can handle.

* The majority of Fox viewers consider themselves independent, a more moderate Democrat could have an excellent opportunity to pick up some key votes. Hillary Clinton has heavily marketed herself as such a Democrat and would be the must likely to suffer from such a boycott.

* I believe this could possibly move the Democratic party towards the much neglected center. Candidates who are largely ignored by the media whose agenda is established by the Democratic party (most media, in my opinion) would have an opportunity to voice their views to an audience that hasn't heard such perspectives.

* It would put the power of the candidates at check. If Fox News doesn't budge, these candidates likely will. Those candidates who don't will likely regret it later.

There are checks and balances for every branch of government. Although I disagree with the Democrats about the network they want to boycott, I'm impressed that they are holding this "fourth branch" of government accountable.

Much Ado About Nothing... Yet We Have Real Concerns

While liberals continue to want to persecute Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (see photo) for non-existent crimes in his recent firings of US Attorneys, the world faces a serious problem with Iran. The fanatic regime has told the world it will not comply with international agencies when it comes to its nuclear programs and is holding British sailors hostage (our closest ally) without cause.

The Attorney General has done nothing wrong, but demonstrated poor manners in the way he fired several US Attorneys. Such attorneys have worked at the pleasure of Presidents since the posts were created. They are political jobs, so why are we surprised that they are being treated that way? Should the AG have said performance was the cause? Definitely not. Should he have done several firings so close together? Clearly not in good taste, unless he fired almost all of them at once like others have done in the past. But are any of these acts criminal, deserving hearings? No way.

The President has stated that we need to move on and we can't afford the time consumption or waste in resources pursuing this ridiculous non-case. That is why he is rightly resisting the effort of many in Congress to make this seem criminal. If the President doesn't draw a line here, he will spend the next two years of his Administration doing nothing but fighting battles of politics and not of statesmanship. We elected him and the Congress to govern. The President must be allowed to do that and the Congress needs to muster up the courage to do the same thing or the new Democratic majority there now will find themselves a minority again. They have been the minority since the early 1990s, so that may make them comfortable. The Democrats have got to know that being in the minority in politics is a relatively easy position. Your primary objective is to criticize. Once your side wins, you are expected to do so much more.

It is time for the Democrats to stop holding this government hostage through hearings and for them to rise up and do that for which they were elected, which is to govern.

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.

Have You Ever Seen Technorati's Blog Rankings?

My oldest son signed this blog up with Technorati and, from what I can tell, it is moving up its ranking fairly well. The lower the number, the higher the popularity, I went from being in the several millions a few months back to being around 380,000 (give or take a few) today (of over 65 million blogs). I became curious to find out about the top ten. What kind of sites are a part of the Tecnorati elite? I'm sure all of them had to register with Technorati to be noticed, but I can't say for sure. However, what I can say for sure, is that blogs still appear to be a part of geek heaven.

Here is the top ten list cited directly from Technorati's Popular page with my comments in bold/italics:

1. Engadget (see logo above)
By WeblogsInc · 3 hours ago
http://www.engadget.com/
27,336 blogs link here
All about technology and for serious students of such at that. Check out the number of blogs with link there. With my entry here, make that 27,337.

2. Boing Boing: A Directory of Wonderful Things
Boing Boing is a weblog of cultural curiosities and interesting technologies. It's the most popular blog in the world, as ranked by Technorati.com, and won the Lifetime Achievement and Best Group Blog awards at the 2006 Bloggies ceremony.
By Mark Frauenfelder · 2 hours ago
http://www.boingboing.net/
20,327 blogs link here
Boing Boing hasn't read the writing on the Technorati wall, it is now number two by a rather large number. However, it has huge support and, again, a strong technology focus.

3. Creative Commons Deed
16 hours ago
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5
19,993 blogs link here
This is a hang out for scientists, researches, and others who have intellectual property to protect.

4. Gizmodo, The Gadget Guide
3 hours ago
http://www.gizmodo.com/
17,107 blogs link here
The name says it all. It is another technology haven.

5. Techcrunch
By Michael Arrington · 2 hours ago
http://www.techcrunch.com/
16,872 blogs link here
Ditto here. Five of the first five are largely made by geeks, for geeks.

6. The Huffington Post
By Arianna Huffington · 4 hours ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
14,572 blogs link here
Finally a blog for the rest of us! A blog people like myself can actually read! Unfortunately it is about politics and has a liberal axe to grind. I have to admit it though, I check it out fairly often. The stories are largely well written and the content vast. Admittedly, some of the stories are outrageous, but it is an attractive site none the less.

7. TodayLink.ir اخبار ایران و جهان
3 hours ago
http://www.todaylink.ir/
13,569 blogs link here
I'm sorry, I read English! Seriously, this Iranian news oriented blog is the most popular non-English blog on the web.

8. Lifehacker, the Productivity and Software Guide
4 hours ago
http://www.lifehacker.com/
13,021 blogs link here
Another geek guide.

9. Daily Kos: State of the Nation
4 hours ago
http://www.dailykos.com/
11,462 blogs link here
Another rare non-tech blog in the top ten. Like Huffington, it has a left wing political agenda.

10. PostSecret.
PostSecret is an ongoing community art project where people mail in their secrets anonymously on one side of a homemade postcard.
By frank warren · 19 hours ago
http://postsecret.blogspot.com/
10,949 blogs link here
This is unlike any blog in the top ten and unique among blogs in general. I've seen it on TV and am impressed how big of a crowd it attracts.

So what do I learn from this study of the leading blogs? Generally they must be fairly high tech or politically liberal. Oh well, tough luck. I'm none of the above. Other important traits is that they are highly focused as a rule (something mine needs some work on as well) and they actually have a great deal of traction (which requires time, something I am starting to get).

Over time I hope that blogs warm up to right wingers, who like to discuss a plethora of issues, and who feels fortunate just being able to turn on my computer. We will have to wait and see!

Bill Maher to America: "If Cheney Was Dead, More Americans Would Be Alive"

Bill Maher (photo to the left, possibly frightening himself) has been irresponsible when it comes to his approach to current affairs for years. He even lost his show on ABC called "Politically Incorrect" because of terribly insensitive comments about September 11th (essentially he argued that the terrorists were brave as they stayed in the planes as they hit the buildings, while the US were cowards as they lobbed missiles at their enemies.). Now Maher (on his HBO show Real Time) defends the radically liberal blog, the "Huffington Post," where it was suggested by many readers of that site that we would all be better off if Vice President Dick Cheney were dead (expressing disappointment over the failed assassination attempt against the VP this past week.). His only criticism of Huffington's propaganda tool is that the posts were removed following pressure by more responsible voices of the media.

Bill Maher has a cult following and I wouldn't be surprised of some maniac in this country become "inspired" by his comments and go after Mr. Cheney in a quest to "save lives." Many actually applauded his comments in the audience. There was a time in this nation's history where if individuals made such a comment, it would be interpreted as an actual threat against that elected official. I miss those good old days. Like the person who yells "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater, this goes beyond the boundaries of free speech.

I don't believe HBO should bother to ask for an insincere apology (the only kind Maher is capable of giving). Instead it should demand that Maher leave immediately and simply suggest that he don't let the door hit himself as he leaves the building. People who have HBO should cancel and sign up for one of the many other movie channels that are out there until the network takes just such a stand to that type of behavior. I'm shocked by the collective yawn being demonstrated by most Americans over this behavior. Freedom is a two sided coin, the other side is stamped firmly with responsibility. It is time for us to hold Maher and HBO responsible for its quest for freedom through the abandonment of common decency. Let's hold them responsible. If you agree, contact HBO today.