« The Elevator Diaries | Main | The coming Clinton »

Three things I don't know (and one I'm certain of)

Up until Sunday morning, routed from Austin to Chicago on my way to Lexington and an hour's drive home, up before the revelers had returned to their rooms, in part because the hotel wake-up call came 43 minutes early, I did not know the Wall Street Journal published a weekend edition.

But having crammed in the last row of a small plane, the seats so close together that one could lean neither forward nor backward to rest, well and truly fried from SXSW, and no little bit frightened by the Bear Stearns mess, I found six quarters in my pocket and invested in the WSJ's weekend newspaper.

And so, three mostly unrelated things:

(1) On the bottom of the back page of the first section was a headline "Craigslist Isn't Liable for Biased Postings." The story, by Mylene Mangalindan, begins: "The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said Internet-classifieds company Craigslist Inc. can't be held liable for discriminatory real-estate postings."

Now, Peter and I have both been startled by the ways in which online discourse is unconcerned with truth and accuracy, particularly since we, of late, have been on the receiving end of that habit.

This is an entirely different matter.

This says that you can post a "whites only" real estate ad on Craiglist. (I suppose they'll take it down. I suppose, when it's brought to their attention. But.)

You can't do that in a newspaper, because newspapers are mediated by editors and people whose job it is to keep the playing field honorable, more or less.

This is a huge tactical advantage for web businesses. And it's wrong. It's dead wrong. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that you can extend this logic in various dangerous ways. If we agree this kind of mediation is unavailable and unexpected on the web, then how do writers on the web gain First Amendment protections? And what if they don't? And, then, what kind of hate speech and discrimination and simply evil behavior is now legal (granting that it's long been possible) even on the most reputable websites?

At some point we HAVE to get past the presumption that placing content online immediately is the highest good. It's not. Getting it right is the highest good, and if that means Craigslist postings (and Ebay listings and whatever else) have to be vetted, well, fine.

The internet monetizes in odd ways. But one of the comparative advantages websites have is not hiring fact checkers and copy editors. This makes them less expensive to operate than the much-maligned mainstream media. But that doesn't make the practice right, nor prudent.

It does pave the way, I should think, for some very interesting lawsuits down the road.

(2) Back to the front page, where Bear Stearns reigned. I'd like to make a small bet (with myself) that when this full story is told it will be revealed that other actors in the marketplace knew of Bear Sterns' weakness and actively worked to push the company over the edge. JP Morgan ("Gong Show!") paid one-tenth of the company's value. And were positioned to do so. Heck, the Bear Stearns real estate portfolio will cover JP Morgan's exposure, best I can tell.

There's some nastiness afoot. There almost has to be when that many billions of dollars are at play.

(3) The third thing I don't know is what's next for this little magazine. We had a lot of meetings in Austin, and I think, for the moment, our way forward is clear. But it's a long process, and the answers change daily, and we really don't know. We do know, at least, some things we're not going to do, and that helps. But if we did know we couldn't say, and I need to ask y'all to respect that, even as I wish I could sit here and tell you what's going to happen next. I'm pretty well convinced that whatever is next will be substantially different from what we've been doing. But that, too, may just be crazy talk.

Finally, the one thing I'm certain of: I read Barack Obama's speech yesterday, and watched part of it on YouTube. Those who are irretrievably opposed to his candidacy will not be and cannot be moved. Fair enough. But he wrote all or most of that speech, I gather, and it was a superb job. As a writer, as a former speech nerd, as a reader...I am stunned and moved by the elegance with which he navigated complex and difficult terrain.

I am certain of this: I want him to be our next president. He has the magic. He has the wisdom. He can do the job. He alone can inspire us to be more than we are, even though it is absolutely guaranteed that he will inherit a war without end and an economy so tattered it will hamstring any change he wishes to make.

So be it. The man thinks well and strategically and, as the cliche goes, out of the box. And he's got nerve. And he's a leader.

And, in a few moments, he's getting a few of my dollars. Time to cover up the Kerry-Edwards sticker on the back of the old red pickup.

Posted by grant on March 19, 2008 11:47 AM | Permalink

TrackBack