See, Nancy Pelosi posted a weird video of cats in her House office, and "analysts say" (that is the hilariously vague formulation the Telegraph uses) Pelosi broke YouTube, or something.

Here is more wonderful journalism-talk, from the headline:

YouTube, the internet hosting site, is being flooded with cringe worthy video messages from US politicians, it has been claimed.

The Telegraph doesn't really understand how the internet works, it has been claimed.

But seriously, we agree with them 100%. Nancy Pelosi needs to get off the YouTubes right away, before her clowning around takes away any more server space and precious attention from important videos like this:

(Congressional YouTube videos are really the worst thing, but you know so is YouTube, basically, except for this.)

After all, the number of people willing to write for free is vast. In 2007, I was in charge of recruiting writers for the expansion of The Huffington Post. I calculated that I would need 75 unpaid blog submissions per day, Monday through Friday, in order to make the site work. That target seemed absurd at first. Yet within two months, hundreds of willing bloggers had signed up, the majority of them credentialed authors published by major publishing houses.

Thanks a lot, Francis!

In fact, if you mention ROD BLAGOJEVICH in your question, at all, even totally politely in a relevant way, your question will not only be voted down but "removed" (says the site) as "inappropriate," visible only through a specific search for ROD BLAGOJEVICH. Here are some of the questions Ben Smith discovered voted down to hell by Obama's angry Islamist mob:

• "Given the current corruption charges involving Blagojevich, will 'serious' campaign finance reform that takes money completely out of politics through publicly funded elections be a priority in the first term?" asked Metteyya of Santa Cruz, California.
• "In light of the recent corruption scandals (Blagojevich, Rangel, Jefferson, Stevens, etc) that have dominated the political scene,is there any ethics legislation being crafted to actually curb corruption and prevent another wave of nixonian cynicism?", a question from "lupercal," of Gainesville.'
• And: "Is Barack Obama aware of any communications in the last six weeks between Rod Blagojevich or anyone representing Rod Blagojevich and any of Obama's top aides?", a question from Phil from Pennsylvania.

Change.gov looked like it was going to be a nice, civil exception to the usual mob rule in Web comment sections. And maybe it would have been, with some conscientious Change.govers letting in some Blago questions. But now Drudge has linked the site, via this story, so a bunched of pissed off Obama conspiracists will jump into the game, resulting in an epic mod war and soon the whole thing will look like a YouTube screaming match.

(Change.gov is the new IRC.)

Like there isn't a single listicle, or celebrity nipple! Not one of the questions is about Battlestar Galactica! (Well, we only read like three questions. Maybe some of them are about Battlestar Galactica.)

Remember, thanks to the voting system, the top, like four questions will be hard to brush off entirely. So basically all of you clowns should agree on a ridiculous question and then coordinate an effort to get it on the front page, like Gawker does with its "funny videos" posts. Make sure it's "Diggable!" ("Diggable" means "stupid.")

It's not so much dark times now, as profane and loud. Satire you'll have, oh dear me, indeedy yes. "Vomitous" and "awash" are two words that come to mind. It used to be that everyone would be famous for 15 minutes. How antediluvian. Rather, everyone will now want a satirical YouTube film with 15 megabytes.

Satire we'll have. Rather, the real dearth in our world will be sweetness, comfort, thoughtfulness and civility. If I could do "Peanuts," that's what I'd be doing. Alas, I've tried. And oh, you get way, way richer.

And why is their level of discourse so much calmer and smarter than Western blog comments?

“Those overpowering Satan’s seduction are few, and we sacrifice those few since they may win us Paradise,” read a posting on both sites this summer on the subject of “vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices.” It continued: “Yet, keeping them alive is beneficial for us, since every one of them is tantamount to an entire people. So we must find a way to save those lives and harness that zeal.”

The post led to a vast and heated online discussion among extremists, illustrating the new complexity of the topic. As the jihadists on these sites move from discussing ideology to the practical aspects, it becomes clear that their biggest technological challenge will be moving on from the radio-wave technology that has proved highly successful in remotely setting off homemade bombs against military convoys in Iraq to the more delicate task of getting the explosive to its target and then detonating it without being exposed.

See, Western blog commenters would move from discussing ideology to discussing, like how other commenters are racist Rethuglicans and how much they love Tyra and how Ekhlaas sucks so much compared to Firdaws recently, don't you think? The new guy sucks, bring back Abu Abdullah al-Qurashi!

Sure, Al7orya doesn't sound as funny as 4Chan, and they're debating how best to blow people like us up, but why are they all so much more polite about it?

Living to Bomb Another Day [NYT]

Here are the two interpretations of The Huffington Post that Arianna and company would like you to forget: "left-wing Drudge Report" and "unedited celebrity Livejournal." The increasingly bloated HuffPo still is mostly an unhealthy mixture of those two things, of course, but their ambitions are higher. They have to be, to justify that ridiculous internal valuation. Hence HuffPo Chicago! And, more importantly, HuffPo Living, full of bullshit local-news quality health stories, "how to beat workplace stress" listicles (or often worse: links to those listicles posted elsewhere), alternative medicine quack-bloggers, and other "grab the apolitical old women" content. (To be fair, this shit does fit in well with Arianna's moony guru-filled California lifestyle, just as the media and political sections compliment her strident populism and personal hatred of the establishment press.)

And with entertainment and style sections, HuffPo now calls itself "The Internet Newspaper." Real newspapers across the nation spiral into bankruptcy, but HuffPo's overhead costs are much lower, what with not paying most of their contributors. And also what with not having any original reporting.

The site is still another damn aggregator, curating and linking real work done by traditional newsgatherers. With insane raving commenters, of course. And "blogs" from Nora Ephron. [Three years later and they still call each "post" a "blog." This still drives us insane.] This is the point L.A. Times media writer James Rainey makes in his slightly bitter piece on Arianna and the site. "I confess I'm as charmed and amused by the beguiling Ms. H as anyone," he says, "but also slightly queasy about whether her Huffington Post will ever offer original content and reporting that lives up to the hype and pretty packaging." What, you're not happy with featured content like "One Millenial Speaks Out: Why I'm Enrolling in Culinary School"? [Ed. note: we wuz wrong.]

But, you know, they're still working on that whole original content that will make their site actually worth what they'd like to cash out thing!

Another infusion of capital, $10 million to $20 million, is in the works, Huffington said Tuesday, to hire more reporters and editors and upgrade the site's technology. She would like to beef up political and media coverage and put at least one reporter in each of two dozen cities by the end of 2009.

Yes of course.

Still. How does the "HuffPo, even if it's not worth $200 million, is still a hot commodity that you should buy for a lot of money" story keep afloat? How the hell did that $200 million number get traction in the first place? Ken Lerer, the quiet, New York-based co-founder and Chairman, certainly helps. He's got business acumen and influence, yes, but the guy also founded a PR firm once upon a time. Nina Monk's Fools Rush In, her history of AOL/Time Warner, illustrates Lerer's ability to work "with" the press:

Hah. That's the co-founder of that strident defender of media independence and transparency the Huffington Post reveling in how well he tricked the media into loving a white-collar criminal.

[Times]

Here's the thing: the gossip reported in Page Six, on Pagesix.com, on TMZ, in the Daily News' gossip columns, and in every celebrity weekly, has never been lamer or weaker than it is right now. Take it from me—I've spent the past year skimming those news outlets daily. And, okay, obviously I'm insanely burnt out, but I think that as celebrity-focused coverage has mushroomed and our standards for what constitutes "celebrity" have become incredibly broad—come on, we're supposed to care about Hulk Hogan's divorce?—whatever was once juicy or appealing about paying attention to "gossip" has, for many people, disappeared entirely.

One of the reasons gossip has become boring is that many self-styled stars are letting it all hang out just as much, if not more, than Jakob and Julia. You want "universal transparency," Ricky? Look no further than Britney Spears' underpants, or Amy Winehouse's shirt.

But then there's also the fact that "second hand information, information embargoes, secret sources, tips, etc." have never been as fundamental to the "gossip industry" as publicists, managers, deliberate leaks, strategic appearances, and press releases. And by controlling the dissemination of information about themselves 100%, Jakob and Julia played the game in the most old-fashioned way possible.

So Ricky's right: something to do with the kind of thing Jakob and Julia have done is eventually going to put "Page Six" and its ilk out of business. But Jakob and Julia haven't wrested the means of production out of the evil gossip overlords' hands. They've only hastened the demise of the whole enterprise by adding their own voices to an already out-of-control cacophony.

I don't think I'm the only one who's so overwhelmed by the whole shebang that I just can't bring myself to care about any of it anymore.

Sean has chronicled his search to find lasting satisfaction in temporary employment via—what else?—a blog! He still hasn't found what he's looking for, but he has inspired his fellow twentysomethings, says the author of a book about workplace trends. ""He sends the message 'job-hopping is O.K.,' 'moving around is O.K.'"

And, she says, it's a good thing someone is sending this message, because it's not like Sean and his contemporaries have a choice in the matter. "The reality is they might prefer one job that would last forever and end with retirement, but that kind of job doesn't exist anymore."

But you know what you can do? That's right, rise to Internet-fame and convince yourself that that's your metier!

"Talking to [Sean], and scrolling through his Web site, one can't help but conclude that he has in fact already found his job, one not available to his parents' generation, but which his will refine and perfect."

"Mr. Aiken's life work might well turn out to be the marketing of Sean Aiken."

Michael Wolff was talking to lefty media blogger Rory O'Connor at the bar.

We asked him if he'd been asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement for Newser.

He laughed. "Never! No NDAs, never," he said. "That's the rule of the road."

So there might very well be a tell-all in his future. Rory laughed and said, "It's inevitable!"

Wolff agreed: "Inevitable."

"It could be called, "I can't believe those idiots gave me money to do it all again!" Rory said.

We asked Wolff about the algorithm that is Newser's kind of main claim to fame. Users can move an indicator on a continuum that runs from hard to soft news. "I have no idea how it works," Wolff said. "The tech guys explained it to me but I zoned out halfway through. Go ask that guy," he said pointing into a web of white-haired bespectacled men. "The one with white hair and the glasses."

Later, Caroline Miller was lingering by the door, ready to escape. Man, why didn't she get an NDA out of Wolff? "Because I'm feckless!" she said. Nice.

"Michael doesn't even have a contract," she said. "This whole thing is all on a handshake."

So what exactly does Wolff do for Newser? Here's what he does not do: "He's not allowed to talk to anyone on the inside," Miller said. "He's not allowed to manage anybody. What he discovered a long time ago about himself is that he likes to fire people. He has the ideas but I make them happen."

So he has ideas. And did he bring the money? No. "It's all Pat's money anyway!" That would be Patrick Spain, the CEO of HighBeam and soon to be the main character of a really harsh book about how the internet sucks.