Pop open the bubbly! Think about the thousands of political blogs out there -- including ones on the right and left, ones that are general politics and niche political blogs (race, LGBT, etc.). Pam's House Blend lands at #40, according to Technorati. Here's how it determines ranking. (TechPresident):
Because most searches are looking for items less than a month old, we're going to narrow that window in a similar way. In the past, because the data window was so long, Authority and the Top 100 lists it powered were relatively static. With the new algorithm, the resulting Authority will better reflect the fast-changing nature of the blogosphere. Its new inherent volatility will also show which blogs are rising and falling in authority, rewarding authors on posting frequency, context and linking behavior, as well as other data inputs.
And here we go...
| 1. HuffingtonPost (1) 2. Boing Boing 3. Daily Kos (8) 4. CNN Political Ticker (3) 5. Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish (21) 6. The Caucus (New York Times) 7. Treehugger 8. Threat Level (39) 9. Think Progress (2) 10. 538 (10) 11. Talking Points Memo 12. Washington Wire (Wall Street Journal) 13. Michelle Malkin (14) 14. Ben Smith, Politico (22) 15. The Corner (National Review Online) 16. Pajamas Media 17. Hot Air 18. Political Radar (ABC News) 19. Crooks and Liars (13) 20. Newsbusters (5) 21. Glenn Greenwald (Salon) (4) 22. Marc Ambinder (The Atlantic) 23. Swampland (Time) 24. Powerline (9) 25. Redstate | 26. Americablog 27. Firedoglake (20) 28. Gateway Pundit (11) 29. Matthew Yglesias (40) 30. Hit & Run (Reason) 31. Feministing 32. TruthDig< ;br>33. Buzzmachine 34. CQ Politics 35. Open Left 36. Hullabaloo (28) 37. Talk Left 38. Taegan Goddard's Political Wire (33) 39. Mother Jones 40. Pam's House Blend 41. MyDD 42. Balloon Juice 43. Stop the ACLU (41) 44. The Next Right 45. The Moderate Voice (33) 46. Feministe 47. Real Clear Politics 48. Atrios 49. Little Green Footballs 50. Wizbang
|
Now, TechPresident also notes something I immediately saw about the list that makes the Blend's status even more impressive is this coffeehouse is an independent blog (i.e., written by unfunded politically-minded, coffee-stained, PJ-wearing baristas), competing on the list against corporatized, institutional,&nal, media-backed and think-tank blogs on that list. If you removed all of those funded political blogs like The Politico, CNN's Political Ticker, Think Progress, et. al., the Blend would be in the top 25 political blogs in the nation.
That's quite terrifying to me on some level to see the blog's reach and influence; after all, 1) it's not generated from inside the Beltway or a major media market; 2) it's a diverse roster of contributors; 3) it's run by a black lesbian with a lot of LGBT and race-focused content.
I wonder what has been the reason for this success? I really don't have a clue when you see the Blend stacked up against all those other influential blogs.
More below the fold.
The whole unfunded and outside-the-big-media market represents both a boon and a challenge -- being independent gives you full editorial freedom, but the flip side of that is the inability to regularly cover events in DC and other metro political centers because...
* Minimal funds to travel/reporting. If the Blend didn't run ads, we'd be SOL. Laptops, video and recording equipment comes out of ad revenue -- or our pockets. Ad revenue is down everywhere, and that goes for the Blend as well, so thank DOG I have a full-time job...but that leads to other problems like...
* Minimal time to travel. We get asked to attend a lot of conferences to do panels or to cover news events, but inevitably more are turned down than accepted because of that full-time job. Can't be two places at once. So in spite of that huge limitation, the Blend is still a success.
* Lots of multitasking with limited time. If you're covering a story in the field, you still have to produce content -- thank the heavens for a slate of baristas who are fantastic at churning out great reporting and commentary on a consistent basis. And even so, we can't cover every story or issue or answer all emails -- no editorial assistants or junior baristas to help out or deal with technical issues!
So, the above kind of scares me; PHB is an influential, successful blog relied upon by a ton of readers, and as I told the audience at Fire & Ink, it's a resource to the community that hangs by a thread if you think about it. There's no infrastructure to support it, and that's why you're going to see fewer and fewer independent bloggers on that Technorati list as time goes on. TechPresident's Micah Sifry concurs:
As we noted back in January, big media bloggers are steadily edging out their less-well-subsidized brethren in the U.S. political blogging arena. The first six additions to the list--The Plum Line, Glenn Thrush, etc.--are all backed by major media outlets. Not that this is news, but the days of the individual "pajama-clad" blogger hitting the big time are clearly over.
So there's some food for thought there. Other than handful of larger independent blogs that are self-sustaining through ads, like DKos, PHB is a dinosaur on that list --early adopter, slowly building an audience (of general readers, fellow bloggers, and influentials), but still unfunded (or not co-opted, depending on your POV). Ironically, many of the media-backed blogs are attempts to stay relevant as their print models are dragging them down the drain. You have to wonder what the point of convergence will be on both sides.
Oh, just so you know, I've never been approached by any media entity or institution to "buy out" or fully subsidize PHB, so I doubt you'll see that happening any time soon, despite the ranking. It sits in an odd niche, has a quirky collection of voices, and no one woue would want to see it radically change even if that meant stability and guarantee of sustainability. Of course that also means it could just go away at any time due to its current model of flying by the seat of your independent pants.
He's gone viral; Current TV's put together "a best of". Godalmighty, protect your keyboards...
Hat tip, The General.
Reading the transcript, what impressed me was Baldwin's mention of her partner Lauren by name. This is not an abstract arguct argument. 30,000 living, breathing federal employees and their spouses are being ripped off by the homophobic system now in place. Tammy Baldwin is one of them. Bravo, Congresswoman Baldwin for reminding your colleagues in Congress that this is a human story.
(continued below)Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin
Statement for Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Government Affairs
Hearing on S. 1102, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations ActThursday, October 15, 2009
Thank you Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, and members of the Committee for allowing me the opportunity to testify today at this historic hearing.
I am very pleased that the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S. 1102) is the subject of our hearing this morning. Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins, I'd like to extend my sincerest thanks to both of you for your leadership on this bill. I want to thank OPM Director John Berry for taking the time to testify in support of this legislation. I also wish to thank Dr. William Hendrix from Dow Chemical Company for his strong leadership on the issue.
As my colleagues on this Committee know, the federal government employs more than 1.8 million civilian employees, making it the nation's largest employer. Historically, the federal government was a leader in offering important benefits to its employees. But today we are lagging behind. This is particularly true regarding the extension of benefits to employees with same-sex partners. As it stands, some federal employees do not receive equal compensation and benefits for their equal contributions. And the federal government is not keeping pace with leading private-sector employers in recruiting and retaining top talent.Indeed, a large number of America's major corporations, as well as state and local governments and educational institutions, have extended employee benefit programs to cover their employees' committed domestic partners. For example, over half of Fortune 500 companies now offer health benefits to employees' domestic partners, up from just 25 percent in 2000. Overall, more than 8,000 private-sector companies make such benefits available to employees' domestic partners, as do several hundred state and local governments and colleges and universities.
These employers include top American corporations such as GE, Chevron, Boeing, Texas Instruments, Lockheed Martin, and Dow Chemical Company, whom you'll hear from later this morning.
Under the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, a federal employee and his or her same-sex domestic partner, who are not related by blood and are living together in a committed intimate relationship, would be eligible to participate in federal retirement benefits, life insurance, health benefits, workers' compensation, and Family and Medical Leave benefits to the same extent as married employees and their spouses. These employees and their domestic partners would likewise be subject to and would assume the same obligations as are applied to married employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements. &# xD;
I want to make very clear that the bill has strong anti-fraud provisions, requiring employees to file an affidavit of eligibility in order to extend benefits to their domestic partner (and this is significant, especially considering that we do not require married employees to show any documentary evidence of their marriages when claiming spousal benefits). The penalties for fraudulent claims for domestic partners would be the same as the current penalties for fraudulent claims of marriage. For example, intentional false statements on the Federal Employee Health Benefits form is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment up to 5 years - and the same would apply under this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I appear before you today both as the lead author of this legislation, but also as a lesbian federal employee who has been in a committed relationship with my partner, Lauren, for over 13 years.
Over the years, Lauren and I have examined the dthe differences between my benefits and my ability to provide for her compared to the benefits enjoyed by my straight, married colleagues in Congress.
Some quick number crunching would demonstrate that the difference between my health benefits and yours, with regard to that benefit alone over the course of my ten years in Congress is measured in five figures. Although the federal government offers its employees and their dependents more than 300 health insurance plans and subsidizes health insurance premiums, I am not eligible to cover Lauren under any plan like my straight married colleagues can. This is a significant inequality.
Although I can designate Lauren as a beneficiary for my life insurance, Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), and any unpaid compensation in the event of my death, if for some reason I hadn't completed this paperwork, the "order of precedence" would prevent Lauren from receiving my savings. And heaven forbid if anything happens to me, Lauren is not eligible to receive the survivor annuity from my pension, nor health insurance survivor benefits.
Unlike the spouses of my colleagues, Lauren is also not currently subject to any of the obligations related to my federal service. I find this disturbing. All Members of Congress file annual financial disclosures.
Married Members must file important information about their spouses' income, investments, debts, gifts, etc. Surely, the public interest requires that these obligations apply also to partners of gay and lesbian office holders.
In June, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination, which directs the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the State Department to extend certain benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees within the confines of existing federal law. Although the Memorandum is an important step in providing same-sex partners of federal employees with the benefits already available to spouses of heterosexual employees, it falls short of providing the full range of benefits. President Obama recognized and acknowledged that fact when he signed the Memorandum, calling it "just a start." He went on to say that, "As Americans, we are all affected when our promises of equality go unfulfilled." President Obama recognizes that the full extension of benefits will require an Act of Congress and proclaimed his strong support for the legislation that you are reviewing today.
Like our President, I strongly believe that we must address the significant inequality in compensation experienced by an estimated 30,000 employees at all levels of the federal government who currently cannot provide benefits to their same-sex domestic partners. The purpose of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act is to ensure that hard-working Americans can no longer be denied equal compensation for equal wequal work just because of who they love. There is certainly nothing more American than ensuring that people have equal job opportunities and are paid fairly for a day's work.
Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins, my thanks, again, to you for inviting me to testify.
No comments:
Post a Comment