I am a political moderate.

“Daily Show” anchor Jon Stewart discusses commentator Keith Olbermann’s return to MSNBC following a brief suspension for making unapproved political contributions.

There. I said it.

I could write paragraphs about how I sway a little left or a touch right, depending on the issue, but I would have to qualify each and every sentence with words like “usually” and “often,” and phrases such as “in my experience.” I have no loyalties to liberalism or conservatism, and so in the end, my stances on various topics come out sounding a bit wishy-washy.

It’s the plight of living in the aisle that so many politicians struggle to “reach across.”

Following last month’s “Rally to Restore Sanity” in Washington, D.C., some of my more liberal friends expressed great disdain at moderate “Daily Show” anchor Jon Stewart for acknowledging that left-wing commentators like MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann can be just as damaging to truth and public knowledge as his right-wing contemporaries: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and so forth.

Indeed, here’s a clip from a January episode in which Stewart calls Olbermann out for attacking Senator Scott Brown (R-Mass.) as an “irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.”

Olbermann says that Scott Brown supports violence against women because, shortly after a Brown supporter screamed at a political rally that someone should “shove a curling iron up [opponent Martha Coakley's] butt,” Brown smiled and said “we can do this.”

I admit the timing doesn’t exactly work in Brown’s favor (see the following video), but it’s a long stretch to say that the statement was in any way related to the Coakley comment. More likely, since Brown was about to leave the platform, his smile and “we can do this” words of encouragement were just his closing gestures to his audience.

That said, there is no way to misinterpret Olbermann’s own words, where he likens Michelle Malkin (also not one of my favorite talking heads) to a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.” Olbermann’s rant begins at 1:03.

To a moderate, Olbermann sometimes just goes to far, as does Malkin, as does Limbaugh, as do Bill O’Reilly and the whole crew. The most detestable talking heads on the left and right twist language to make opinions sound like facts. They make a living demonizing the opposition. But, as the late Democrat senator (New York) and United Nations ambassador to India, Pat Moynihan, once said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.”

This twisting of language is the root cause for why so many lefties can say that “at least Olbermann is telling the truth” while many righties, by the same token, say the exact same of Rush Limaugh. Point out any misleading, corrupted statements from either-or, and supporters will claim hyperbole or that their favorite talking head was “just being facetious” (I’ve heard that one before). Point out similar misleading, corrupted statements from the other side, and those same audiences will spout angrily about “lies” and “deception.”

Here’s the thing about moderates. We see both sides to every coin. We can’t help it.

There was a great piece in yesterday’s Washington Post from one of my favorite living journalists, Ted Koppel, in which he lamented about “Olbermann, O’Reilly and the death of real news.”

Koppel writes:

We live now in a cable news universe that celebrates the opinions of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly—individuals who hold up the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because their brand of analysis and commentary is highly profitable.

The commercial success of both Fox News and MSNBC is a source of nonpartisan sadness for me. While I can appreciate the financial logic of drowning television viewers in a flood of opinions designed to confirm their own biases, the trend is not good for the republic. It is, though, the natural outcome of a growing sense of national entitlement.

…

Beginning, perhaps, from the reasonable perspective that absolute objectivity is unattainable, Fox News and MSNBC no longer even attempt it. They show us the world not as it is, but as partisans (and loyal viewers) at either end of the political spectrum would like it to be. This is to journalism what Bernie Madoff was to investment: He told his customers what they wanted to hear, and by the time they learned the truth, their money was gone.

It is also part of a pervasive ethos that eschews facts in favor of an idealized reality. The fashion industry has apparently known this for years: Esquire magazine recently found that men’s jeans from a variety of name-brand manufacturers are cut large but labeled small. The actual waist sizes are anywhere from three to six inches roomier than their labels insist.

Perhaps it doesn’t matter that we are being flattered into believing what any full-length mirror can tell us is untrue. But when our accountants, bankers and lawyers, our doctors and our politicians tell us only what we want to hear, despite hard evidence to the contrary, we are headed for disaster. We need only look at our housing industry, our credit card debt, the cost of two wars subsidized by borrowed money, and the rising deficit to understand the dangers of entitlement run rampant. We celebrate truth as a virtue, but only in the abstract. What we really need in our search for truth is a commodity that used to be at the heart of good journalism: facts—along with a willingness to present those facts without fear or favor.

Unfortunately, as Koppel goes on to say: “The transition of news from a public service to a profitable commodity is irreversible.”

And there you have it. We as a nation, as a planet, have turned our one source of truth and information into something tailored just for us and our sensibilities—into some ridiculous venti, skinny, half-caf, caramel-mocha latte-on-ice version of news.

We don’t have to hear about how the people we support aren’t necessarily the “good guys” today because all of that air time is now taken up with filler, hyperbole, conjecture, and brutal verbal attacks on the opposition that aren’t quite as clever as we (the Maddows and the Malkins) seem to think they are.

The worst part is, there’s nothing left to stop us.

Last night, my husband and I had the pleasure of seeing one of our favorite comedians, Michael Ian Black (“The State,” “Reno 911!“), at a local club. Just before the show, I Tweeted from my iPhone:

Front row again at Zanies! I hope @michaelianblack talks to us during the show like Tracy Morgan did.

When we saw Tracy Morgan (“Saturday Night Live,” “30 Rock“) last month, he spent several minutes throughout his set flirting with the women at our table and making fun of the men. At the end of the night, he shook our hands and thanked us for coming to see him. It was great! The fan-celebrity interaction added immensely to our enjoyment of Morgan’s already phenomenal performance.

And so when Black came out last night, smart phone in hand, and read my Tweet to the audience, my heart began to race. He asked me to raise my hand so that he could find me, and when I did, he laid down on the stage and looked deeply into my eyes. Resting his chin on one hand, he spoke sweetly into the mic: “So whacha wanna talk about, hmm?”

I was both exhilarated and mortified.

My throat went dry, but I managed to reply, “I–I don’t know. I’m sorry!”

Black leaped up and exclaimed to the audience, “Oh, so she gets on Twitter and asks me to talk to her like Tracy Morgan did [emphasis his], but when I do she has nothing to say!”

The crowd swelled with laughter. It wasn’t so much what Black said that was funny, but more the idea that he’d broken down the fourth wall to bring a lowly fan up to his level as the show’s star.

The hilarity didn’t end there. Black called me up on stage twice during his performance, and at one point he actually left me there by myself while he went off to get me a bottled water.

So, I did what anyone in my position would do: I called the Bob Ross-looking guy at the table next to mine up to take my place.

When Black returned, he scowled at the bearded man and said, with a surprised whimper, “You’re not Rima. [Pause] You’re the ‘Joy of Painting‘ guy.” He then turned to me with mock disgust: “Did you think I wouldn’t notice?”

Amid more laughs from the audience, Black transitioned seamlessly into some incredibly funny prepared material for his final 20 minutes on stage. And at the end of the night, people seemed to want to talk to me almost as much as they wanted to talk to him.

What a rush.

Old Spice Goes Viral

Michael Ian Black isn’t the only celebrity taking advantage of social networking.

Last month, Isaiah Mustafa, better known as the “Old Spice Guy,” surprised fans by producing more than 150 short YouTube videos in under 24 hours. Each clip beautifully mimicked Mustafa’s popular Old Spice ads, with their lofty metaphors and hilariously grandiose monologues about power, strength and abdominal perfection.

Mustafa and a team of writers, marketing gurus and tech geeks selected their favorite fan questions via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other sites. They then quickly put together scripts and props for Mustafa’s responses and somehow managed to produce and publish quality videos almost as quickly as fans could watch them.

The Old Spice crew even helped a fan propose to his girlfriend, as you can see in the video at right. (She said yes.)

Bridging the Gap Between Celebrities and Their Fans

I spoke to blogging pioneer and author of Get Seen: Online Video Secrets to Building Your Business, Steve Garfield, earlier today about how social networking has brought celebrities and their fans closer together. Garfield, a jack of all trades when it comes to new-media tools, is by all accounts a regular guy who doesn’t regularly hobnob with A-list celebrities. But he is resourceful and, as his book title implies, he knows how to “Get Seen.” Garfield has gotten the attention of a lot of famous people, and at present keeps in regular contact with the likes of Saturday Night Live alumnus and late-night host Jimmy Fallon.

Here’s an excerpt from our conversation.

Q: How have sites like Twitter and Facebook influenced the ways celebrities and their fans interact?

A: Social networking has really made it easier for celebrities to communicate with their fans. In the past, celebs had to get a Web guru to create a stand-alone site and set up bulletin board systems, and things like that. It was a struggle. But now, third-party sites like Twitter allow fans to share ideas with and talk to these celebrities. And the celebrities have the opportunity to talk back without having to know the first thing about creating a Web site.

Q: Tell me about Jimmy Fallon. At first, you were just a fan of his, commenting online like other fans. Now you talk all the time, and Fallon is even a prominent interviewee in your book, Get Seen. How did that happen?

A: Jimmy Fallon is the perfect example of a celebrity who has embraced social networking. He started a video blog and I commented on it. Then he mentioned me in another video blog post. Jimmy asked for videos, and so I made a video. And then he mentioned it, and so forth. So, we got little relationship going and I met him at the Consumer Electronics Show. I got to interview him there, and the next thing you know, I had VIP tickets to see his TV show. He even invited me backstage. Now we regularly communicate back and forth over Twitter. It’s so easy to communicate this way, and I think celebrities find (or should find) these communications valuable.

In the book, I interview Jimmy Fallon and we talk about interacting with the fans. He wants to set up “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon” so that he can do just that. I also interviewed Gavin Purcell, Fallon’s producer, who talks about how they are working to make the audience experience more interactive.

Q: That’s fascinating. Have you found other celebrities who are open to interacting with fans online?

A: Definitely. I was just in the Bahamas and I saw the band Tears for Fears. They put on a great show. I shot some video of them, but I was really at a loss as to where to put it because of all these recent take-down notices from record companies asking fans to not put copyrighted materials on the Web.

So, I found the lead singer Curt Smith online and I Tweeted to him asking if I could put clips of his Bahamas show on YouTube. Within minutes he tweeted back at me sure, “the more the merrier“!

That would never happen without social media.

Q: So what advice do you have to fans who want to get in touch with their favorite stars, or who want to use the power?

A: The Internet and all these new-media and social-networking tools like Twitter have leveled the playing field and made celebrities more accessible. With celebrities having millions of followers or fans, it sets the expectation that a famous person might not see your comments, but there’s also the possibility that they will. Jimmy Fallon asks for responses and reads them. Recently he asked Late Night viewers to use a specific phrase in their Tweets, and then he shared his favorite responses on the air. That kind of interaction is fun.

People who want to get their favorite celebrity to notice them really only need to reach out. Celebs are just people like the rest of us, and they often check search results for their names on Google and Twitter, just to see what people are saying. If you have something interesting to say to them or ask them, do it because they might just respond back.

Steve Garfield’s video of Tears for Fears, live at the Oracle Club Excellence at the Atlantis (Bahamas) on July 30, 2010.	Curt Smith, lead singer of Tears for Fears, was pleased with the video and elected to share it with fans via Twitter.

Tell me, readers: Have you ever met or spoken with anyone famous thanks to the Internet? Share your stories below!

Newsflash!

According to rock star Prince: “The internet’s completely over.”

I guess it’s time for us Web journalists to pack up our netbooks, shut down our blogs, and go back to dead-tree news, just as God intended.

The 52-year-old rocker sat down this week with the Daily Mirror‘s Peter Willis for a rather bizarre, though not un-Prince-like interview, during which he proclaimed to the reporter:

The internet’s like MTV. At one time MTV was hip and suddenly it became outdated. Anyway, all these computers and digital gadgets are no good. They just fill your head with numbers and that can’t be good for you.

Let me write that down. Numbers…are…bad. Got it.

Still, I shouldn’t make too much fun of Prince.

All general weirdness aside, I learned a long time ago that even if someone is misguided in his opinions (understatement of the year here), he usually has a decent reason or two for feeling the way he does.

It should come as no surprise that Prince, like many artists who struck it famous before the Napster Age, is a big opponent of internet file-sharing. Although he regularly gives away innumerable free copies of his own CDs, the artist takes an ethical stance on blatant piracy. Basically, he’d rather give his fans a gift than have them pry it from his hands. That’s an opinion I can respect.

Most recently, Prince gave the Daily Mirror copies of his forthcoming CD, “20TEN,” to insert into the paper this Thursday as a free gift to subscribers. Obviously, “20TEN” will be released in CD-format only, and will not be licensed to iTunes, Amazon MP3, or any other internet-media stores.

Unfortunately for Prince, however, just because he says the internet is a dead medium, that doesn’t make it in any way true.

He’s free to avoid iTunes–more power to him–but he must understand that as long as he produces listenable music, people will distribute it online.

Even the iTunes Store stopped using digital-rights protection technology in 2009, partly because Apple executives finally realized that DRM is virtually useless–there’s always a workaround.

If UK Daily Mirror readers get their hands on “20TEN” on July 8th, you have my word that someone, somewhere, will start distributing it by the 7th.

It’s the internet. On this playing field, smart, pimple-faced, pro-free-information teens have the advantage.

She’s never owned a cell phone, and Clinton was still president when her computer rolled off the assembly line. Yet Nicola Harper spends her days creating some of the coolest geek accessories I’ve ever seen.

GEEKWARE creator Nicola Harper turns obsolete electronic waste into popular fashion accessories (image courtesy of GEEKWARE)

A former waste-management engineer in Edmonton, Canada, Harper collects old electronics from landfills and recycling centers, cleans them, dissects them, and then reassembles them into “GEEKWARE,” her popular line of home/office products, gadgets, and jewelry. (Fellow tech nerds might recognize Harper’s circuit-board necklaces from the ThinkGeek superstore. They’ve ordered about 500 of them from her already.)

GEEKWARE is a one-woman endeavor and Harper’s day job. She left waste management in 2004 to focus on her products. She still works with trash all day (actually, let’s call it “e-waste”) but now she’s able to sell it back to the very people who might have thrown it away in the first place. How’s that for recycling?

I can’t wait for iPhones and all the current technologies to become ‘old’ so that I can take them apart and craft with them. – Nicola Harper

I had the pleasure of interviewing Harper earlier this week. Here’s an excerpt from our chat, followed by a slide-show featuring some of her products.

Q: You’ve spent your entire career working with waste in one way or another. I have to ask: What gets a girl excited about digging around in garbage?
A: I’ve always been curious about where our garbage goes to and what happens to it after it gets there. Whilst taking my undergrad degree in civil engineering [at Nottingham University in England], I realized I could actually be part of the solution and decided to study waste-management engineering in Canada.

It was a super exciting job! You get to design landfills and recycling plants to ensure that waste is disposed of efficiently and with the least damage to our environment.

Q: How did this lead to GEEKWARE?
A: I used to visit so many landfills in my old job and get really frustrated by the amount of waste piling up. I really wanted to do more–to get my hands on all of that waste and actually make something out of it rather than watch it get crushed for recycling.

I now run GEEKWARE full-time as a one-gal operation. I started out doing small local craft fairs, selling a few recycled artwork pieces made from wine corks and diskettes. Now I have a full line of products that I make out of my home-based studio and sell world-wide through the Web site. I’ve gone from selling a few items at a Christmas show 6 years ago, to making and packing up to 100 orders a month.

Q: You have quite the interest in geek culture for someone who doesn’t possess too many high-tech devices herself. Why is that?
A: It’s true that I’ve never owned a cell phone and my computer is 10 years old (though it still runs well enough for me to use it for 5 or more hours per day). I don’t wear a watch, either.

But, I’m really fascinated by technology in terms of culture, economics, and, well, waste. I marvel at the speed at which newer models of things come along and how fast the older ones become obsolete when there’s not really anything “wrong” with them. I like seeing how they are made, and taking the technology apart and seeing what’s inside. I also love working out how I can repurpose the pieces into something else, giving them a new usefulness.

I’m not really interested in what the technology itself can do. (That is to say, I don’t care about iPhone apps, etc.) Rather, I’m more fascinated by how the technology is made: How is it held together? What screws did they use to manufacture it? How many different types of plastic did they use? Is it recyclable? These kinds of things interest me.

Q: You make an array of cool products, from vintage film-reel clocks to floppy-disk notebooks. What other products can we expect to see in the future?
A: Look out for more customizable Mac products. I have some ideas in my head for monogrammed Macbook cuff links and earrings. I can’t wait for iPhones and all the current technologies to become “old” so that I can take them apart and craft with them!

I get such a kick out of people liking my creations. I’ve had couples order cufflinks for their entire wedding parties, and it makes me so happy to think of the joy I’m bringing to people’s lives.

Spreading like wildfire across my and my Indian friends’ social-networking pages is Tunku Varadarajan’s latest commentary in The Daily Beast, which delves into some negative stereotypes we’ve created for our own people. The piece, benignly titled “Why India Loves Facebook,” suggests with all the sensitivity of a rabid dog that we Indians are a bunch of nosy braggarts who believe it’s our gods-given right to examine and judge the actions of everyone we know–and to over-share our own lives’ most inappropriate details.

Varadarajan writes:

[S]hould we think of Facebook as yet another canvas on which the Indian etches himself into an entwined crowd? One can see this art of connection on display on many Indian Facebook pages, where seemingly private conversations are conducted in a wide-open space. “I sacked the maid,” an Indian “friend’s” recent status update said. “Anyone know how I can find another fast?” “Should I wax or thread?” another asked, provoking, like the first questioner, a torrent of responses that other cultures might regard as intrusive or presumptuous.

To be honest, I’m not really keen on the thesis here. I don’t mind the stereotypes (more on that later), but I do think it’s a bit of a stretch to use these stereotypes as an explanation for why any particular demographic enjoys connecting and communicating via the Web. Sure, Indian Facebook users love to tell people what they’re doing and to read about what everyone else is doing! Isn’t that the curry-eatin’, chai-drinkin’ point? It’s social networking; this is what Facebook, MySpace, and Orkut are for. (You remember, Orkut, right? If not, you might be living out the American stereotype of only caring about things that matter to America: Orkut is Google’s answer to Facebook, and while it thrives in places like India, the long-awaited service actually bombed in the States. But, I digress.)

There are about 1.2 billion people in India today. Of those, only 13 million use Orkut, while a scant 4 million use Facebook (Source: ComScore). Even if you count Indians worldwide and include those of us who live in the States, Varadarajan himself estimates that only 8 million of us are on Facebook. To give you some perspective, more than 275 million Indian citizens use mobile phones. Not all of our billion-plus people are Slumdogs hanging out at the Temple of Doom. (Talk about stereotypes!)

But back to why I don’t really mind Indian self-stereotyping: This might be an unpopular stance to take, but I believe that a lot of generalizations–particularly those that groups come up with for themselves–have at least some basis in truth. Why would we make this stuff up if we didn’t see these traits in our friends, our families, and even ourselves? I mean, most of the stereotypes that other groups have created for us have been pretty great: Everyone seems to think we’re all brilliant doctors and engineers who are genetically predisposed to academic success. We’re exotic, our food is fabulous, and above all else, we can dance.

So, I don’t disagree with Varadarajan’s assessment that social networking really jibes with Indians’ disdain for privacy and boundaries because when it comes to generalizations, you have to take the good with the bad. I do, however, disagree with his suggestion that this disdain is somehow unique to us. I seriously doubt Indians’ interest in social networking, which really is somewhat modest given the figures above, has anything more to do with cultural traits than with human ones.

Take a look at the frequently updated social-networking mockery sites, Failbooking and Lamebook. Maintainers of both sites seek out the most inappropriate, foolish, weirdest, creepiest content from the likes of Facebook and Twitter, and compile them for the rest of us to see so that we may join in them in pointing and laughing at the blurred out faces and scratched out names.

Here’s an example:

This mass ridicule is nothing new. Back in the days before social-networking sites, when more internet users socialized via chat rooms, sites like Bash.org sprang up to bring us comic gold like this:

Josh: QUESTION FOR EVERYONE....
SecureXeC: IT'S TO THE LEFT OF YOUR 'A' KEY.

All of these sites are based in The United States, one of the most racially and ethnically diverse nations in the world. All content is user-generated, and despite Failbooking’s halfhearted attempts at concealing names and faces, it’s quite apparent that this content comes from people from myriad walks of life.

The truth is, we’re all just a bunch of voyeurs with exhibitionist tendencies. If we weren’t, social networking would fail and Facebook, once run out of a dorm room, wouldn’t be worth the whopping $11 billion it is today.