Majority Accountability Project to report on activities of House majority
The Majority Accountability Project (MAP), an independent, internet-based news and research service, will make its debut on April 23 at www.majorityap.com. Founded by two Capitol Hill veterans, MAP will be an on-line clearinghouse of information on the House Majority, and conduct its own investigative stories available to the public, a thriving on-line community and traditional media.
“Last year, and even now, dozens of organizations, blogs and internet-based groups were engaged in comprehensive research on the Republican House majority - poring over legislation, travel vouchers, FEC statements, and financial disclosures – quickly disseminating that information throughout the nation and, quite often, driving a great deal of the mainstream media coverage,” said Michael Brady, MAP President and co-founder. “We think this majority needs that same level of scrutiny.”
MAP will be the premiere information resource on the House Majority, and conduct its own investigative stories not being done by the mainstream media, or the liberal-dominated Internet news services. MAP will compile and maintain comprehensive reports on members of the Majority, such as house votes, campaign financing, district activities, policy positions and public statements.
“MAP will immediately fill a huge void in internet strategy and activism,” said Mike Giuliani, another MAP co-founder and its Secretary-Treasurer. “While the Democrats boast of a large number of blogs and on-line organizations already in existence, conservatives do not have an on-line news organization to match that impact. This Majority and its candidates made a lot of pledges and promises to get elected, and the public has a right to know whether they are being kept.”
Brady and Giuliani say their research is already paying off, and that MAPs first week will feature a host of stories not available anywhere.
“We want the public to know the types of things this majority is doing that aren’t being talked about,” they said, “and we want the mainstream media to see our research and information as a resource for them as well.”
Prior to founding MAP, Brady served as Director of Strategic Communications for the
National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), and was a longtime aide to U.S. Representative Tom Reynolds, holding positions as Chief of Staff and Communications Director. He spent a decade with the New York State Assembly, and was a longtime political analyst for WKBW-TV, the ABC affiliate in Buffalo, NY.
Giuliani most recently served as Chief of Staff to former U.S. Representative Sue Kelly. He has over fifteen years of experience in politics, campaigns, fundraising, and public policy that includes stints as Director of Major Donor Events for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and overseeing the committee’s events at the 1996 Republican National Convention.
The design, development, and overall online strategy of MajorityAP.com will be delivered through a limited partnership with the David All Group, LLC (DAG) and CaseySoftware, LLC. David All, president of DAG, is a veteran of both Capitol Hill and campaigns, and heads up the nation’s premiere conservative Web 2.0 consultancy. CaseySoftware - led by Keith Casey - is an Information Technology Services company thoroughly enmeshed in the Open Source community.
__________________________
<h1 style="display:none"><a href="http://www.librosgratisweb.com/libros/ines-del-alma-mia.html">Bajar Libros</a><h1>
Under the "Technologies" heading on its website, AAE goes out of its way to say good things about solar, wind, and geothermal energy and efficient use of energy -- if you only read that, you'd get the impression they were reaching out to liberals and environmentalists.
But in that "America is at War!" piece, they make it seem almost like those "liberal lawyers and environmental extremists" have launched an all-out military assault on the Naval Oil Shale Reserve. Given that, and the war-drums-banging tone of the rest of the site, why even bother with the nice words about wind and solar?
Goldacre has posted his article at his ''Bad Science'' blog http://www.badscience.net/?p=524#more-524 which has a series of comments appended. Comment 5 from SpiderJ - who worked in PR but not pharma PR - is worth a look (typos in original). He/she notes that "... out of all the publications we dealt with, only the New York Times had a very firm policy about not acceptiny any support - i.e. flights out to a press event, accomodation, etc. But, for many other press, we would pay for them to attend big events - including our most vociferous critics - and they very rarely cut us any slack. In a highly competitive industry, you can’t afford to ignore a high profile journalist or publiciation - if you do, usually they just end up writing something ill-informed as well as negative."
This is one of those curious defences of PR's offering perks for journalists. This is:
a) paying for flights and accomodation "rarely" makes any difference to the content; (which if true, begs the question of why companies and their shareholders aren't asking questions about this expenditure; it also raises questions about the PR's measuring and evaluating the impact of what they do. It also begs the question of whether PR practitioners knowingly waste clients money on activities they consider won't yield any appreciable 'return on investment'); and
b) that is if don't subsidise "a high profile journalist or publiciation" they "usually" end up writing "something ill-informed as well as negative." Clearly, in the view of SpiderJ, journalists who go on the free trips are not so "ill-informed" which means the PR budget had some impact. And if journalists who weren't subsidised wrote articles that were "ill-informed" and "negative", then surely that would give the PR company and/or client the motive and opportunity to write letters to the editor etc so that the world could judge if their work was indeed "ill-informed". (It is worth noting that what PR's and their clients often consider to be "ill-informed" is simply good journalism that digs out information companies would prefer wasn't made public).
Please, please, please take 10 minutes to read this presentation by an IT bigwig about the "technological Singularity."
The "Singularity" is a '90s buzzword used to describe a sort of science-fiction version of the "Rapture." But with the advent of Virtual Worlds such as Google Earth, Second Life and Warcraft, it's being examined closely by some very substantial movers and shakers.
The point of the presentation is that these superhuman technologies must have the input of hundreds of millions of stakeholders not just the few hundreds who run IT.
My Catholic Bishop is interested in this. Take a look!
Under the "Technologies" heading on its website, AAE goes out of its way to say good things about solar, wind, and geothermal energy and efficient use of energy -- if you only read that, you'd get the impression they were reaching out to liberals and environmentalists.
But in that "America is at War!" piece, they make it seem almost like those "liberal lawyers and environmental extremists" have launched an all-out military assault on the Naval Oil Shale Reserve. Given that, and the war-drums-banging tone of the rest of the site, why even bother with the nice words about wind and solar?
Strange.
Goldacre has posted his article at his ''Bad Science'' blog http://www.badscience.net/?p=524#more-524 which has a series of comments appended. Comment 5 from SpiderJ - who worked in PR but not pharma PR - is worth a look (typos in original). He/she notes that "... out of all the publications we dealt with, only the New York Times had a very firm policy about not acceptiny any support - i.e. flights out to a press event, accomodation, etc. But, for many other press, we would pay for them to attend big events - including our most vociferous critics - and they very rarely cut us any slack. In a highly competitive industry, you can’t afford to ignore a high profile journalist or publiciation - if you do, usually they just end up writing something ill-informed as well as negative."
This is one of those curious defences of PR's offering perks for journalists. This is:
a) paying for flights and accomodation "rarely" makes any difference to the content; (which if true, begs the question of why companies and their shareholders aren't asking questions about this expenditure; it also raises questions about the PR's measuring and evaluating the impact of what they do. It also begs the question of whether PR practitioners knowingly waste clients money on activities they consider won't yield any appreciable 'return on investment'); and
b) that is if don't subsidise "a high profile journalist or publiciation" they "usually" end up writing "something ill-informed as well as negative." Clearly, in the view of SpiderJ, journalists who go on the free trips are not so "ill-informed" which means the PR budget had some impact. And if journalists who weren't subsidised wrote articles that were "ill-informed" and "negative", then surely that would give the PR company and/or client the motive and opportunity to write letters to the editor etc so that the world could judge if their work was indeed "ill-informed". (It is worth noting that what PR's and their clients often consider to be "ill-informed" is simply good journalism that digs out information companies would prefer wasn't made public).
Any good agency out there want to take this on?
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235
PRWatch is about the only progressive site on the Web not showing this item yet -- I couldn't let the omission go unremedied.
Please, please, please take 10 minutes to read this presentation by an IT bigwig about the "technological Singularity."
The "Singularity" is a '90s buzzword used to describe a sort of science-fiction version of the "Rapture." But with the advent of Virtual Worlds such as Google Earth, Second Life and Warcraft, it's being examined closely by some very substantial movers and shakers.
The point of the presentation is that these superhuman technologies must have the input of hundreds of millions of stakeholders not just the few hundreds who run IT.
My Catholic Bishop is interested in this. Take a look!
http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/frame.html?main=news_single.html?id%3D7236
Patrick Clifford
Pages