I’ve often opined on the state of what I call the “old media (i.e., print media).” And, to be both fair and honest, many in print media have been taking a long hard look at their industry as well. It’s hard not to do, given the fact that print media sales and readership have been steadily declining for some years now.

Michael Getler, the Washington Post’s ombudsman, recently caught my eye with something he wrote regarding the state of his medium:

The Web and the explosion of personal blogs, or Web logs and journals, have tapped into and greatly expanded that public reservoir of knowledge and understanding in important ways by challenging the accuracy of reporting and adding analysis.

On the other hand, nothing out there is going to supply you with the extraordinary daily content of The Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal or other fine newspapers.

I’m having some trouble with this statement. Yes, these papers do provide a huge variety of content, and they have some great writers, but they are also slanted, slow as compared with other media formats, and rigid in their internal heirarchies.

If they weren’t all those things, they would already have recognized and taken advantage of the fact that the advent of the Internet and the appearance of blogs was the single greatest boon to their industry EVER! Here is how “old media” could become new again:

KEY POINTS TO CONSIDER

• A couple of key points regarding the advent of a “Renewed Media” are that many journalists helped originally empower the Blogosphere and turn a passive readership into an active participant and, in many cases, voracious consumers of theirs and other media services. Until this time, talk radio had a clear advantage over print media because they could more quickly and easily respond to media events and even engage with their listeners by taking phone calls. The Renewed Media (RM) could do better by far.
• Print media should consider that perhaps overall circulation now matters less than overall influence (though, traditionally, the one more easily leads to the other). The fact is, an individual Blog can have very low circulation as compared to the MSM, but can be, at the same time, highly influential. How can that be? Because a Blog can extend it’s influence through the network of Blogs we call the Blogosphere. Other bloggers rebroadcast content in such a way as to magnify the influence of any one blogger immensely (for example, when a blogger “swarm” occurs.)
• This is why the Blogosphere is really a type of Open Source Media, as I’ve said in the past. The Open Source Media, is composed of enourmous numbers of independent contributors who are, at times, able to act in concert, and they have been an enourmous challenge to print media. But this Open Source Media also offers an enourmous opportunity.

THE ROADMAP TO A RENEWED MEDIA
Print media could potentially become THE dominant media if they are willing to take some risks, like giving up the centralized control that senior editors currently have over content, and finding ways to influence the OSM. Here are my ideas:

• A 24X7 newsdesk, with content updated by the minute, rather than by the hour or day. In that sense then, journalists will have greater content freedom, but MORE accountability. How so? Because they will have the entire Blogosphere fact-checking them by the minute.
• The old print-media houses should adopt a “realtime mobile media” approach. What I mean by this is, find a way to make their content mobile, so that articles can be quickly and easily ported to any other site or service available. In the software development world, the rage is “object oriented programming.” In the corporate education field, the rage is “object-level” learning design. Well, the media needs to get on the bandwagon and develop media objects. Pieces of content that can be used and reused all across the Internet and Blogosphere, thus tapping into the Blogosphere to reach a far larger audience and realize more ad revenues.

  Whenever an update is made to the original piece, those updates are pushed to every piece whereever it might be. The real key to success here, in my opinion, is the ability of a mobile media house to port advertisements along with their content. If advertisers know their content will follow a certain article, and that certain mobile media providers have their content ported widely, then they’ll pay a premium to advertise with a particular media company.

• More importantly, they’ll pay even to have their ads attached to content provided by certain journalists. So, in the renewed media world, journalistic talent will be rewarded by their ability to draw advertisers to their company, and also to their own personal content. Market forces will drive demand for certain content editors, not the media moguls.
• As stated above, mobile media (formerly print media) companies will give greater authority and control to their content providers, the journalists themselves, but, of course, will still retain the right to edit or delete any content they deem inappropriate. At the same time, the journalists are going to work and live much closer to their readers than ever before. Those readers will help determine the journalists’ success, so they’ll want constant feedback from readers quickly, which means maintaining either a bulletin board or some kind of live feed which delivers thoughts and feedback regarding the content they are providing on a moment-by-moment basis. Journalists are going to know their readers and vice versa, it should make for a much more honest media environment.

Using the “mobile media” model, print media could really harness the power of the blogosphere in a way that would make media companies wonder why they ever thought the Internet in general and the Blogosphere in particular were a bad thing.

In the old print media world, higher circulation meant higher influence. All that changed with the appearance of the Internet because relatively small websites can be very influential. If print media were to move towards the mobile media model I’ve suggested, circulation would again be a reflection of influence.

will older print media companies take such a risk? I have no idea, though I do believe the transition could be made without incurring too much risk. How could this be done? That I’ll leave for a future post.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

It was just last month, right in the middle of this married men’s Bible study I attend every other week that the conversation began. We were taking a look at the life of King Solomon, the man who asked for wisdom from God and was given both wisdom and incredible wealth and power.

As many know, towards the end of Solomon’s life and reign, he began to turn away from God’s laws. His first mistake, the Bible tells us, is marriage. Not the traditional “one man/one woman” marriage that you and I know, rather, the mass marriages that Solomon for some reason seemed to prefer.

King Solomon had 300 wives and 700 concubines! Yup, a wealth of women I guess you could say. Insanity is what I would say. I have one wife and two children, and that is more than enough.

But, off the cuff, a good friend of mine spoke up to say something along the lines of, “you know, this early on in the Bible, it really doesn’t say a whole lot about the traditional marriage that we know of today.” I looked at him with raised eyebrows and asked, you mean, beyond the statement that Adam and Eve were made for each other and the affirmation that, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh?

He acknowledged those passages, but the debate continued on at length. But, really, it was a lighthearted debated among men who all agreed upon, accepted, and acknowledged the Biblical mandate of “one man/one woman” in marriage.

Unfortunately, for some, this is not a lighthearted debate at all. And I’m not just referring to the debate over “gay marriage,” rather the argument that many, including myself, have made that allowing gay marriage will open the door to nearly every other type of marriage relationship. This argument, of course, has been pooh-poohed by many who support gay marriage, but it turns out that we were right and advocates for other kinds of marriage are not going to passively accept the new standard proposed by gay marriage activists.

The fact is, if gay marriage becomes normal, so will a host of other types of marriage. Still don’t believe me? You will.

Stanley Kurtz, a columnist and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution wrote an in-depth and spot on article in August of 2003 called, Beyond Gay Marriage, where he said this of the growing gay-marriage debate:

POLYGAMY, POLYAMORY, and the abolition of marriage are bad ideas. But what has that got to do with gay marriage? The reason these ideas are connected is that gay marriage is increasingly being treated as a civil rights issue. Once we say that gay couples have a right to have their commitments recognized by the state, it becomes next to impossible to deny that same right to polygamists, polyamorists, or even cohabiting relatives and friends. And once everyone’s relationship is recognized, marriage is gone, and only a system of flexible relationship contracts is left. The only way to stop gay marriage from launching a slide down this slope is if there is a compelling state interest in blocking polygamy or polyamory that does not also apply to gay marriage. Many would agree that the state has a compelling interest in preventing polygamy and polyamory from undermining the ethos of monogamy at the core of marriage. The trouble is, gay marriage itself threatens the ethos of monogamy.

Well, it appears that Kurtz’s article was prophetic. Today he published another article entitled, Rick Santorum Was Right: Meeting The Future of Marriage in America, where he states:

I have seen the future of American family law, and her name is Elizabeth F. Emens. A whiz kid with a Ph.D. in English from Cambridge University and a J.D. from Yale Law School, Emens, who teaches the University of Chicago Law School, has published a major legal and cultural defense of polyamory (group marriage)…

Emens’s 2004 article, which appears in the Volume 29, Number 2 of The New York University Review of Law and Social Change, is called, “Monogamy’s Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence.” Emens begins by suggesting that Senator Rick Santorum was right — or, at least, she seems to be trying to bring Santorum’s prophesy to fulfillment. The professor is unhappy that proponents of same-sex marriage agree with Santorum that were gay marriage to create a new openness to adultery, bigamy, and polygamy, that would be a bad thing. Emens’s preferred response to Rick Santorum’s parade of horribles is “So what?”

I have not yet had the chance to read Emen’s entire article, however, I have seen enough to know that Emen’s article is brilliant and does make excellent legal sense in light of the Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas ruling. Emens even takes a newer Christian approach to marriage, called, “Coventant Marriage” which is now on the books legally in Louisiana, and creates more stringent requirements around divorce. In Emen’s example, however, she proposes creating marriage options that allow people to choose monogamous or nonmonogamous marriages.

Once you’ve made a choice and chosen your marriage option, you are, at least for the length of that marriage, locked into that option. Sounds almost like we are trying to turn marriage into some kind of wireless or long-distance calling plan.

Here are a few unanswered questions in this whole debate:

• Do we have any clue whatsoever what the long-term impact of such arrangements might be on society?
• Might not these more liberal marriage options give Christian conservatives like myself a HUGE advantage in terms of population growth? Liberal marriage options are likely to produce less children, which ultimately means that conservatives who prefer traditional marriage will have larger families and, with each generation, exponentially more cultural leverage.

Let me offer a case in point; it’s what James Taranto in his Opinionjournal.com column, Best of The Web Today, calls “The Roe Effect of The First Century”:

In its cover story this week on early Christianity, Newsweek notes that “the sociologist Rodney Stark calculates that the number of Christians rose from roughly 1,000 (or .0017 percent of the Roman Empire) in A.D. 40 to nearly 34 million in 350 (or 56.5 percent of the total population).”

How’d they do it? Here’s one way: “By largely banning abortion and female infanticide, Christians increased the ranks of women who could in turn bear Christian children.”

We already know that pro-life families tend to have more children and that those same families are more conservative around marriage in general. Wouldn’t the liberalization of marriage have the effect of accelerating what Taranto calls “The Roe Effect” further? I think so.

So perhaps, in light of that knowledge, Christians should be gung ho regarding these attempts to liberalize marriage. The very liberals who complain that we Christians are trying to take over the culture and move back towards the dark ages, or some such silly nonsense, are going to help us do exactly that.

We don’t have to lift a finger. Instead, we’ll allow liberals to select their ideology for exctinction and we can just sit back and wait to inherit society.

Sounds like a plan.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Here is an official statement that I received just recently from “Mike” Simons and Lee Migliara of Playgirl Magazine. Posted in it’s entirety for your viewing without comment (for now):

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The following is a statement from PLAYGIRL Magazine regarding the dismissal of Michele Zipp, editor-in-chief:

New York, NY, March 21, 2005 - “For more than 30 years, the Playgirl name has been synonymous with freedom and empowerment.for women, by women, about women. Playgirl values all political affiliations and anyone on its staff is free to express those opinions.

In our decision to replace Ms. Zipp, the magazine is taking a new direction editorially and creatively. We wish only the best for Michele in her future endeavors.

Contact: “Mike” Simons/Lee Migliara

PLAYGIRL

Email: pr@playgirlmag.com

This is what I’m getting out of this statement:

1. Michele Zipp WAS fired - The statement confirms it beyond a doubt. The whole spiel regarding the magazine “taking a new direction editorially and creatively” is interesting, to say the least.
2. Even if this was just a normal decision related to a shift in “creative direction,” they are going to be in spin control mode for a while. The timing is just horrible!
3. I realize that the magazine was originally founded “for women, by women”, but I don’t think that is their only constituency. They should be more open about that.

What is the real answer here? I have no idea. I’m not unsympathetic to Playgirl Magazine’s situation. At the same time, as I mentioned, the timing is horrible.

Thanks,

David

I now know the truth about most liberals in the media. When they tell me they believe in diversity, they’re probably lying.

What they actually believe in is “selective diversity,” or “limited diversity;” meaning, diversity is only diversity if they tell you it’s diversity. And if this story as posted by Myway News and the Drudge Report is true, this is a perfect case in point.

I wonder if, perhaps, what some liberals believe is that there’s such a thing as good diversity and bad diversity. If this is true, then I’ll at least give these people credit for having their actions in-line with their beliefs.

But any media liberal, or any liberal at all, for that matter, who believes in the traditional definition of diversity, but approves of the firing of Playgirl Editor, Michele Zipp, who outed herself as a Republican earlier this month and now claims to have been fired for it, is either a liar or a hypocrite… Or both.

Today, Matt Drudge published an email message from Ms. Zipp claiming that she has been removed from her position as editor of Playgirl Magazine. Here is an excerpt of an email message to Drudge posted to Drudgereport.com:

I also received a phone call from a leading official from Playgirl magazine, in which he stated with a laugh, “I wouldn’t have hired you if I knew you were a Republican.”

Even if this turns out to not be true, I’m amazed at the lack of response over Ms Zipp’s claim. If this had been, for example, some conservative Wall Street guy calling a woman to say with a laugh, “I wouldn’t have hired you if I knew you were a Democrat,” what would our liberal media friends have done? Personally, I think the coverage would have made Abu Ghraib coverage, or the OJ Simpson trial coverage, pale in comparison.

And, of course, that conservative Wall Street guy would have “ties” to the Bush Administration (donated $10 to the Bush Campaign!!). It would be a scandal that would spawn dozens of headlines, news stories galore, and, ultimately, a made-for-tv movie regarding the life of our liberal heroine who was fired for making a political choice.

But now the shoe is on the other foot. Now the accusation is being made by a woman who might still be registered as a Democrat, but who had the audacity to declare that she voted for President Bush.

Which explains why the only thing I’m currently hearing related to this story is the sound of crickets chirping. And it’s all I’m likely to hear, other than, of course, the obligatory, “anything Drudge publishes is a lie,” comments. If this is your response, then let me just mention the fact that this is exactly what Bill Clinton used to say.

It has become quite apparent to me that are some of the unwritten “Laws of Liberalism.” These laws dictate their seemingly inconsistent behaviour on issues like this one.

Here are a few off the top of my head:

1. It’s okay to be a woman in power, as long as you are a liberal.
2. It’s okay to be a minority in power, as long as you are a liberal.
3. It’s okay for federal judges to mandate social change for all Americans, unless it’s to save someone’s life.

There are many other liberal laws out there, I’m sure. Feel free to add your own.

The fact of the matter is, the party that has long boasted of it’s support for diversity, really does not. And in the face of increasing electoral losses, this attitude of only tolerating “approved diversity,” which, of course, is not really a philosophy of diversity of all, has become increasingly apparent.

If Ms. Zipp’s email and, thus, her claim, proves to be true, then it won’t just be Playgirl Magazine that has some “splaining” to do. It will be all those who are willing to look the other way when “diversity” rears it’s head in a manner other than that which you approve.

Hmmm… I think THAT is one way to define diversity. Go figure!

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Did you know that “there has been a profound and negative change in the relationship of America’s media with the American people”? I didn’t know that until Senator John F Kerry illumined me via his speech to fellow Democrats on February 28, 2005 at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston.

It’s so disturbing to me to know that there is this counterculture which now exists, actively undermining our heroic “mainstream” media voice, turning the hearts and minds of Americans everywhere from the true path. Woe is me!

And what exactly is this satanic influence all about? Kerry, of course, goes on to tell us:

“We learned,” Kerry continued, “that the mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning [i.e., beating up on the President and giving Kerry himself a pass]. But there’s a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information [you mean, the mainstream media NEVER talks for entertainment purposes?]. And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country. And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that. The question is, what are we going to do about it?”

Yeah! What are we going to do about this?!

Well, I’m doing something right now… Using my “sub-media” connections to undermine the very voice of reason [John F Kerry], trying to expose me and my fellow sub-media-ators to light of day! And in light of this revelation, I want to add that, well, I knew we were good, but I never knew we were THAT good!

I’m the king of the wooooorrrrldd!!

Or maybe not…

Really, which makes more sense to you, that the “sub-media” aka, blogs, talk radio, the Internet, and conservative media in general, are out-performing the mainstream media, or that the mainstream media right now is performing poorly?

I do think that new media has been very effective in influencing Americans, but that is mainly because new media and Americans in general are in greater agreement on the issues. At the same time, the mainstream media, has been losing touch with Americans, increasingly pushing its own agenda.

In my opinion, there are two main reasons why the MSM is hurting right now:
1) MSM companies care more about what they think than what we think.
2) After decades of unchallenged market dominance, the MSM has grown sloppy and unprofessional.

The fact is, there’s plenty of “low hanging fruit,” as they say, when it comes to attacking the MSM. While not true in all cases, the MSM generally comes off as arrogant, self-serving, elitist, and out of touch.

In a way, you could say that the MSM has gone counter-culture. Their views just don’t reflect the views of most Americans, and some in the MSM, such as Dan Rather, are all too willing to allow their personal views and beliefs to influence the type and quality of news they report.

And so it’s easy for us low-life bloggers to beat up on them. They make it easy! They have their proverbial chin right where we can wind up and unload with everything we’ve got.

MSM incompetence and partisanship has, in a real way, magnified the power and the voice of alternate media, especially the blogosphere. So what does that mean?

I think if people like Senator Kerry REALLY wants to see the influence now wielded by the new media dented, then the mainstream media will have to clean up it’s act. It’s time for the Great Media Reformation, as Hugh Hewitt in his book, Blog, has correctly asserted.

So, rather than seeking excuses and pointing fingers, I think Democratic leaders and some of those MSM moguls need to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask one simple question:

“What have I (not they) done or not done to lose public confidence?”

It’s not about what we, the bloggers, have done to confuse or deceive our fellow citizens; it’s about what they have done, or not done, to earn and maintain our support and loyalty. Sure, there are a lots of bloggers who, as Kerry asserts, do this for entertainment purposes, but we are entertained because we are competing in the marketplace of ideas. We are learning as we go, and sometimes — every now and again — actually making a difference.

In the end, what we are going to see is a stronger MSM, and a more robust global information network overall. And, in case you were wondering, this is a good thing!

Why? Because it’s exactly the opposite of Orwell’s “1984″ scenario. In that world, every scrap of information was tightly controlled. Information was scanned, filtered, selected, altered, reformatted, spun, and then, MAYBE, broadcast.

You can accuse bloggers of doing this, or anyone in the media for that matter, but at least no one person or organization controls it all. We know now, because of Rathergate, Easongate, Swiftvets, and other blog-driven events that when the MSM spins too hard, they get whacked over the head by the “sub-media.” If I spin too hard — as so many have accused me of doing — then I get whacked over the head too.

There are lots of fact-checkers, lots of critics, and TONS of information flowing freely to support all those fact-checkers and critics. In this imperfect world, that is a good thing.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

As bloggers, we do what we do because we love this mode of expression. I’m betting that many die-hard bloggers were, years ago, the same folks who were hitting the chat boards.

But the problem with chat boards is that you can’t really get into a topic the way you’d like. Unless you are a moderator, which takes tons of time, the conversation can wander in any direction, and the topic itself can be shut down at any time.

But blogging lets us set whatever tone we wish. And we can post topics at whatever pace works for us.

I’m willing to bet that most of us are hoping to get “discovered” as bloggers. That is, we’ll suddenly be noted by someone in the MSM, on talk radio, or by other blogs.

I’ll admit, I would love for that to happen. But what happened on February 14, when my latest post, “Bloglust?,” was noted by CNN, was NOT what I had hoped or imagined.

Why?

Because CNN did what I thought noone would ever do (more a lack of imagination than anything) to my posts… They took one particular sentence of the post, and used it to make it look as if I was condemning other conservative bloggers for engaging in a swarm over Eason Jordan’s idiotic comments regarding our troops in Iraq.

Granted, I wanted my post to be provocative. With that said, I didn’t want to slam my fellow conservatives either. Rather, I wanted to initiate a conversation on the issue of swarming in the blogosphere and call out what one day might become a problem with the desire to go after people, “just because we can.” I did not believe, and stated so in my original post, that the Easongate issue was an example of that, but I did use that issue to frame my point.

So, on one level, my post was appropriate. But I have regrets as well.

In the first place, the blogs who took on Eason Jordan were doing so because Jordan, as I mentioned above, slandered troops serving over in Iraq. He accused them of targeting the media, not because he had any proof, but because he is against the war in Iraq.

I would guess that, like so many liberals in the MSM, he was hoping that Iraq would become another Viet Nam. The fact that it has not, and will not, be another Viet Nam has them all in a tizzy.

If you look at what our troops have accomplished just in the past few years, you can’t help but be impressed. In late 2004 and early 2005 alone, two new democracies were born; one in Afghanistan, and one in Iraq. And the US military played midwife for the birth of both those new democracies.

I’ve said from the very beginning of the Iraq campaign, and I believe it now more than ever, that a free and democratic Iraq and Afghanistan is a knife-blow to the heart of international terrorism. More than that, we now see that Iraq and Afghanistan are already serving to push the status quo in the Middle East right out the window.

If you are a liberal, just think about this.

President George H.W. Bush has often been accused of propping up Saddam in the early 80’s. If you believe this too, then you should be thrilled with President George W. Bush.

After all, President Bush has turned our foreign policy on its ear. For decades, the US government has shown a willingness to support dictatorial governments if it seemed in our best interest as a nation to do so. But President Bush has said, in no uncertain terms, that this was the wrong thing to do, and he has determined that we will begin the move towards a policy that chooses democracy over stability.

In a sense, it was a very liberal thing to do, reject the status quo and embark upon something new, something that favors freedom over all else. And the President’s policy is already paying dividends in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, and even Saudi Arabia.

But I digress…

The fact is, accusing our troops of targeting the media is just stupid. Even worse, after Jordan realized how badly he looked, he tried to lamely backtrack and cover himself. He set himself up for the fall. Bloggers did not orchestrate a campaign against him, they just demanded accountability for his words.

I’m glad that Jordan resigned. He should have been fired, but if CNN had done that, Jordan might have decided to say too much about how things really work inside CNN. I would still love to see the tape of him making the comments, though.

Also, I was encouraged by the fact that those who were targeted by CNN, using my quote, were very gracious in their messages to me. We exchanged emails, they listened to my perspective, and that was that.

Were they, at the very least, disappointed in some of what I said? Yes they were; and I don’t blame them.

The fact is, we must always back our troops, especially during a time of war. But, some of what I put in my post, intended to provoke a debate, were used to defend a man who sees our troops much the way al Qaeda sees them. That thought thoroughly depresses me.

There’s no defense for Jordan, and certainly no excuse. The only way to describe the blogger swarm which forced Jordan to resign is “a job well done.”

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Increasingly I’m hearing of employees of various companies, such as the one who worked for Google (though, not very long) who were fired for blogging. Or were they?

Were they fired for blogging, or for a lack of intelligence?

The Google employee, only having been on the job a few days, almost immediately began posting material critical of his new company. SFGate.com has a good article explaining the issue that employers often have with employee-maintained blogs, namely that you should NEVER talk about work on them, even in the abstract.

Does anyone know what I do for a living? Other than the fact that I’m a Learning Consultant? If you do, then you’ve learned it from an online resume or something, because, I never discuss work on my blog.

My job and my blog have no relationship to one another, and that’s the way it will stay, even if were to ever leave my current company.

Why would I continue to keep my mouth shut about an employer even after I leave that company? Because my new employer might get nervous if they find out I’ve been badmouthing my previous employer.

Most companies don’t yet have policies related to blogging, but many companies have generic policies which could, if needed, cover blogging. Those of us who love blogging need to stay on our best behaviour rather than tempt our employers to shut down this avenue of expression entirely.

There are lots of reasons why blogging can be good for corporate America. I’ll talk more about that later.

Hasta!

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Here’s an interesting post by a good friend of Viewpoint Journal, Ferdinand T. Cat:

The Dimwit Zone - Blogger Outcry Topples Instapundit

Famed uber-blogger Glenn Reynolds today announced that he is resigning from public life and will no longer blog. Reynolds, the helmsman of the popular blog Instapundit as well as a law professor at University of Tennessee, has been the center of controversy ever since it was reported in the blog Bad Example that Professor Reynolds does not own pajamas. Although it is not known how the Bad Example crew came by this information, it was quickly confirmed by the Tennessee Animal Welfare Authority (TAWA), who had recently conducted a raid of Reynolds’ home in response to allegations he was using small dogs as a food source.

Want to read the rest? Go here.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

I’ve got to tell you, 10 years ago, when I was just starting with Clark Internet, I never saw this coming. In 1995, driving down that dirt road, hitting potholes and approaching the dairy barn that had been converted into ClarkNet’s first official office, I knew the Internet was going to change the world; but who knew we’d see THIS! But, regardless of my own personal lack of vision, it is here.

Behold, there exists now this thing called online country music karaoke.

I discovered this underground phenomenon quite by accident. A meeting online with someone whom I had just started chatting with.

I love doing that, by the way. Chatting with people all over the world; talking about their lives, their families, etc. It just so happens that I caught this friend while she was in her favorite chat room, Country Music: 20. She mentioned that she was in her room playing a song for a group of friends and so I thought, “hey, she’s having a party and I’m interrupting.”

But that wasn’t it. She probably chuckled when I asked if I was interrupting a party. Anyway, she took pity on me and sent me an invite to the country music chat room. She then told me to activate my “Voice” feature on the Messenger Chat window to hear people in the room.

And that’s when I heard it, country music karaoke!

At least, that’s what I call it. All of these chat rooms folks were taking turns, sharing the microphone and singing their favorite country tunes. Some of them even sang their own songs, playing along with their guitars. And some of them were really good.

And I was able to meet, not one, but two nice people tonight. Now if I could only find that Yahoo chat channel, “Obscure Progressive 80’s Tunes,” I’d be set.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com