Sarah Palin not knowing Africa was a continent - HOAX! or is it?

An audacious hoaxster has duped the News Media and has played a key role in the burying of Palin's credibility:

A Senior Fellow at the Institute of Nonexistence
It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.

Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

Whilst some might see this as the next "Rathergate" and proof of liberal bias. I would look at it from the prism of the "Surrealism of politics" - Politics as a conceptual art piece.

It's astonishing to think that Palin's credibility has been sunk by 3 (Count them: THREE) Constructs. Parodies. Art pieces.
1) The Tina Fey caricature
2) Canadian radio hosts prank-calling Sarah Palin
3) This manufactured McCain leaker, Martin Eisenstadt

The pranksters explain the thesis behind their latest stunt:

They say the blame lies not with them but with shoddiness in the traditional news media and especially the blogosphere.

"With the 24-hour news cycle they rush into anything they can find," said Mr. Mirvish, 40.

But most of Eisenstadt’s victims have been bloggers, a reflection of the sloppy speed at which any tidbit, no matter how specious, can bounce around the Internet. And they fell for the fake material despite ample warnings online about Eisenstadt

To make things even more confusing, reality eating itself once more. Who's to say that these pranksters aren't pranking us by claiming this is all just a prank:

A Senior Fellow at the Institute of Nonexistence
...there is William K. Wolfrum, a blogger who has played Javert to Eisenstadt’s Valjean, tracking the hoaxster across cyberspace and repeatedly debunking his claims...

"As if there isn’t enough misinformation on this election, it was shocking to see so much time wasted on things that didn’t exist," Mr. Wolfrum said in an interview.

And how can we know that Mr. Wolfrum is real and not part of the hoax?

Long pause. "Yeah, that’s a tough one."

- Go to Martin Eisenstadt, the "("Hoaxer's")" blog

Eric Alterman and Pundit Prestige

Eric Alterman recently spoke to Sam Seder about the credibility of the pundit class. The conversation stemmed from his current piece for 'The Nation'.

The Politics of Pundit Prestige...
When Fred Barnes famously pronounced on The McLaughlin Group, "I can speak to almost anything with a lot of authority," he was right, at least to the degree that he was really saying, "I can speak to almost anything without anyone pointing out how full of shit I usually am."

The advent of the Internet--particularly the blogosphere--has changed all that. Now, not only are the things pundits say and write preserved for posterity; there are legions of folks who track pundit pronouncements, fact-check their statements and compare them with previous utterances on the same and similar topics...

Listen to Sam and Eric's discussion.
Read the conservative discussion on Newsbusters here.

NewsBusters Vs DailyKos

To be precise its Mike Stark (contributor for Daily Kos and blogger behind Calling All Wingnuts) Versus Noel Sheppard (contributing editor of NewsBusters)

The issue they are debating over is that of little known blogger Spocko and his campaign to alert advertisers of a San Fransisco Radio station of the content their ads are being assosciated with. The Radio Station in question is KFSO, broadcaster of APF pundits Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin. In particular contention however were conservative personalities Melanie Morgan, Lee Rodgers, and Tom Benner of the drive-time “Morning Show". Spocko was writing complaint letters to KFSO advertisers with short transcripts and audio clips of contentious segments. It's been reported that KFSO have lost large sponsors such as Bank of America and MasterCard, though the anchors claim they’ve only lost one. One thing we know is that this is big news on the blogs.

The big news on this blog isn't KFSO, Melanie Morgan or the rise of a once little known blogger. Its the cross-over of pundits representing two of the biggest ideological blogs, Newsbusters (right) and DailyKos (left). Both have sanctioned a debate where they can ask and must answer 5 questions provided by their counterpart. WOW!!!!!

I can't reference an equivalent wrestling scenario that actually happened, but its straight out of the wrestling playbook. The closest I can come up with is when Shane McMahon, son of WWE owner Vince McMahon bought out competitor WCW to upstage his dad. This started an 'Invasion' angle where there was a cross over of wrestlers from both federations. Despite the fact its a laboured analogy, its deceiving because every discerning fan knew that WWE had bought out WCW beforehand. Rather than two dominant parties momentarily putting differences aside and joining forces, it was actually a powerful party devouring an ailing one. To be fair its an unlikely proposition due to the cut-throat rivalries that exist in wrestling.

A better analogy is the Marvel/DC crossover. A 1997 comic mini series by the two behemoths of the comic world DC and Marvel. Our favorite heroes did battle with hitherto unseen heroes from the rival universe. Winners were chosen through fan popularity - hey not unlike wrestling. Capcom Vs SNK is another analogy i can think of, this time in the Video gaming world.

Its encouraging to see that in politics, it is possible to break bread. I'm glad this is one case where Wrestling was unlike politics.

"Finally, we can do more of this – cross-pollination between blogs of differing ideology. As long as there are almost exclusively liberal and conservative blogs blaming all of the problems in the world on each other, we’ll never see a more civil political discourse." Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters.org

The debate as viewed through the Newsbusters universe
The debate as viewed through the DailyKos universe

The other OpinionMakers

The other day I heard an interesting discussion between APF pundit Sam Seder and Markos Moulitsas of the DailyKOs. They were talking about Opinion Makers and pundits but were not referring to anyone in the APF (nor anyone I would consider eligible for the federation). They spoke negatively of the Washington press and pundit class pointing out how wrong they've been, mentioning names like David Broder and Jim VandeHei.

I would often read in the blogosphere and listen to pundits like Rush Limbaugh bemoan and dismiss the 'elite media' for being wrong. I always wondered why there was a separation between the pundits, in my mind they were all the same. They were people providing opinions based on their expertise, though some did consider themselves more populist than others.

The feeling of populism comes from being a part of the New Media. Pundits who use outlets like talk Radio, blogs and Video journals are able to communicate directly to their audience. The 'elite' pundits would write columns for the National papers (think Washington Post and NY Times), they appear on the Sunday talk shows and nightly news.

However I wouldn't say those in the New Media were more accurate than the other pundits. The fluidness of daily talk radio and blogs just allows incremental shifts of opinion to suit new events. The audience's more intimate connection with the Opinion Maker also makes them more forgiving when their favourite pundit gets it wrong.

To beat a dead horse, I will be characterising the differences between pundits using the wrestling analogy. There are two types of wrestlers:

a) The 'respected' kind. Admired usually in their own circles and in their own minds. The type of wrestlers we see in Colleges and in the Olympics, the more modest and respectable outlets. They are more interested in the technical side of wrestling. They do not trade off their personality to win favour with the audience.
The respected pundits, usually referred to as the 'elites' will appear on respectable shows like 'Meet the Press' and 'Face the Nation'.

b)The 'Populist' kind. Usually dismissed by the elite because they are more focused on showmanship and personality and less on actual wrestling ability. They are still accomplished wrestlers nonetheless, referred to now as "Sports Entertainers". The reality is this type of wrestling reaches the larger audience, even those who don't usually pay attention to wrestling. Its the best way to make a name for yourself, to inject yourself into the mainstream and the population's psyche. It also gives you a better chance of earning a lot of money.
The populist pundits are known for their entertainment value coupled with informational analysis. Their appeal as entertainers allows them to access other more mainstream avenues outside of the political/news circuit (think Letterman, Dancing with the Stars, The View). It means that they can slide into other outlets such as books, radio and TV.

The same dynamic between technical wrestlers and professional wrestlers appears between technical pundits (old media) and populist pundits (new media). The Populist/New Media type pundit will be the kind you'll see representing the APF.

Listen to the discussion between Sam and Markos