Sam Graham-Felsen

These American Lies

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:34:00 -0400

We now know that Mike Daisey’s This American Life segment about Apple’s factories was full of fabrications. I wrote a piece for GOOD about what it means to be told something is true, and then find out it’s not:

Nothing is more depoliticizing than being lied to, and a close second is being condescended to. An exaggeration, oversimplification, or lie is not a persuasion tool; it’s a form of coercion. It’s a way of treating adults like children—of taking away our power to make up our minds independently. When people feel forced, they don’t want to comply; they want to rebel.

Here’s a link to my chat with BBC World News about the topic.

The Absurdity of Online User Ratings

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:32:19 -0400

Is it time to kill the Five Star user review system? I explore the topic for New York Magazine:

When Yelp’s stock shot up 63 percent on March 2, its first full day of trading, commentators couldn’t resist pointing out that investors had given the user-generated ratings site “a five-star review.” The one-to-five scale is everywhere on the web, inviting surfers to become critics: Amazon, Netflix, and the iTunes app store also employ it. There’s just one problem: This democratization of reviewing tends to produce aggregate scores that reveal nothing much at all.

Review of John Jeremiah Sullivan's Pulphead

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:42:13 -0400

Here’s a different kind of piece - it’s a review of a book of essays and reporting that I really loved: John Jeremiah Sullivan’s Pulphead. An excerpt:

Reading John Jeremiah Sullivan’s Pulphead (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, $16.00) is like walking through pristine woods: just when you begin to get lost in the beauty, you hear a strange noise, and you turn around, startled, with a sped-up heart, and take stock of the fact that the woods, while beautiful, are full of terrifying mystery. You don’t forget where you are; you reconsider where you are and why you’re there.

Seriously, read this book.

Why Super PACs might be good for the grassroots

Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:01:25 -0500

My somewhat counterintuitive take in the Guardian on Obama’s campaign’s decision to cooperate with Super PACs:

The majority of Obama’s fundraising haul in 2008 came from online donations of $100 or less; without them, Obama would never be in the White House today. But this time around, why on earth would a hardworking mom from Ohio donate $25 of her paycheck to Obama, when a billionaire supporter like Jeffrey Katzenberg could easily cut a check for $25m to Priorities USA?

But soon, it hit me: ironically, thanks to Super Pacs, a small donation in 2012 is even more meaningful than it was in 2008.

Here’s why: with billionaires lining up to help Obama neutralize GOP Pacs in the war over the airwaves, Obama’s campaign can leave much of that dirty work to Priorities USA – and spend more of its small-donor cash on the far more wholesome ground war.

Predictions for 2012

Sun, 08 Jan 2012 12:59:44 -0500

TechPresident asked a bunch of journalists, activists, and thinkers to weigh in on whether they are optimistic or pessimistic about 2012. I am cautiously optimistic:

In 2011, I saw people of my generation rising up, across the world, in unprecedented numbers. And while I doubt the scale of networked, bottom-up rebellion will be replicated this year, I expect that young people in Egypt, Spain, Israel, the US, and elsewhere will continue press for change — and that we’ll see new movements cropping up in other countries as well. Of course, I also expect that after a year like 2011, governments, corporations, and other bodies of concentrated power will redouble their efforts to counteract mass movements. But ultimately, I’m optimistic. In 2011, the sleeping giant of the Millennial generation woke up — realizing its own power — and I don’t think it will be sleeping in 2012, or any time soon.

Here’s an extended interview I did about social media and...

Sun, 08 Jan 2012 12:53:31 -0500

Here’s an extended interview I did about social media and politics on Florida Public Television. This interview took place several months ago but was just posted on YouTube.

John Ford signed up for a revolution, but he’s running a clinic

Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:16:19 -0500

I worked harder on this than any article I’ve ever written. It’s a first-person account of the time I spent at Occupy Boston, including an overnight in the camp.

It’s true that the burden of maintaining Occupy Boston’s physical encampment has channeled its organizers’ energies into an improvised version of social work. But there is something deeply impressive about what these activists have accomplished on that front too. They’re spending day in and day out with the ninety-ninth of the 99 percent, the people the rest of us work so hard to forget about. They may be enabling substance abuse, but they’re providing a haven that’s far safer than a back alley; they’re serving a thousand meals a day, and the food is far better than it is in the shelters; they’re listening and talking to the people everyone else ignores. I think to myself: If any of these young leaders ever held elected office—the idea of which is anathema to everyone I spoke to—they’ll be so much more equipped to deal with our biggest problems, because they intimately know the poorest of the poor.

Thanks for taking the time to read it.

Occupy and Race

Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:13:17 -0500

The Occupy movement has changed the way we talk about class, and it may also be changing America’s racial dynamic. From my piece for New York Magazine:

Occupy Our Homes was one of the biggest coordinated actions the Occupy Wall Street movement has taken since the raid on Zuccotti, with the event in East New York only one of more than twenty cities staging coordinated demonstrations. It’s notable that the Occupiers are moving from a broad, demand-free ideology to a concrete, targeted campaign. Even more striking: There are a few hundred white people in East New York and many of them are having conversations with the black and Hispanic people who live here.

The White Whale of New Media

Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:53:00 -0500

Here’s a new piece I wrote for GOOD about so-called “viral videos” and whether they actually help political campaigns:

It’s nearly impossible to predict what will catch on—and even when something does hit the viral jackpot, it’s not clear that it will deliver much more than a temporary shift in the media narrative, and at best, a bump in the polls. More often than not, the viral videos that matter—the ones that don’t just shift the poll numbers, but the culture—don’t come from campaigns, but from volunteers.

Can the Geeks Save the Occupy Movement?

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:10:00 -0500

My latest piece for GOOD explores how the Occupy movement is dealing with its greatest test: surviving the winter. A group of scientists and architects from MIT, Harvard, and beyond, are experimenting with low-cost, low-tech methods to keep protesters warm:

Radachowsky fashioned his Tiny Tiny Home (an extreme iteration of the growing Tiny House movement) out of a TV cabinet that he found in the trash, plus plywood, Styrofoam, and three layers of clear polyethylene sheets—which create a transparent dome to let light in. The entire project cost just $100, making it replicable for other protesters. The structure is elevated, creating distance between the icy ground and Radachowsky’s body. And unlike the three-season tents most Occupiers use, the Tiny Tiny Home is insulated and has a sturdy roof that will resist being crushed under the weight of heavy snow. Most importantly, Radachowsky is able to skirt the ban on solid structures at the Occupy Site because he added bicycle wheels and a tow hitch. Technically, it’s not a “permanent structure,” so it’s allowed. Radachowsky says the General Assembly is weighing his proposal for a $1,000 allocation to build 10 more Tiny Tiny Homes for Occupiers, and he’s optimistic that it will be approved.

If you know of others who are innovating to help keep #ows alive, please shoot me an email at sam@samgf.com!

Occupy 2.0?

Sat, 05 Nov 2011 13:34:00 -0400

A few days ago in Oakland, a group of about 100 broke out into violence and vandalism, diverting media attention from what was otherwise a large, peaceful, and successful Occupy demonstration. Earlier, the New York Daily News reported on the rift between peaceful occupiers at Zuccotti Park and a growing community of lawless vagrants who have set up camp on the park’s west side.

Every protest movement I’ve witnessed has had its share of thuggish hanger-ons who smash windows seemingly for no other purpose than smashing windows. And in most protest movements, which have difficulty amassing serious numbers, these fringe types act as spoilers – sucking up media oxygen, turning off would-be protesters who bristle at violence and extremism, and effectively neutering the movement.

Thus far, the Occupy movement has been an unqualified success. Despite right-wing efforts to marginalize the movement as a bunch of Jew/America/Freedom-Hating Commies, opinion polls have shown that the public sympathizes with their cause. Their message is resonating with the political class as well; more and more members of Congress are expressing support, and even some of the Republican candidates are careful not to dismiss OWS as a mob.

And what’s remarkable is that the movement has continued to thrive in the absence of leadership and top-down structure.

But if we keep seeing stories about OWS-related violence and open-air drug dealing at Occupy sites, how long can the public sympathy last? There are already signs of slipping public support. Is it not patently clear that the leaderlessness of the movement – the come-one-come-all attitude of the General Assemblies, the notion that everyone (even people who block legendary civil rights icons from speaking) should have a say in the decision-making process – has become a huge part of the problem?

There is something beautiful about the horizontal, consensus-based structure of the movement. It is a symbolically potent contrast: our broken, money-soaked “democratic” system versus a truly participatory process where everyone, especially the traditionally marginalized, has a voice. But it seems like the Occupy movement needs to decide: do they care more about pushing for a purer form of democracy (which is a noble, but extremely long-term goal) or winning something now for the 99%? The purity of the leaderless model may threaten both goals.

I wonder if it’s time for an Occupy Occupy Wall Street movement. It seems that the OWS could benefit from leadership by Alinsky types – folks who live by his Rules for Radicals – and who are hard-nosed realists about what it takes to win. People who understand Frederick Douglass’s great dictum – “Power concedes nothing without a demand” – and who will finally start making demands. People who are willing to sacrifice some purity for victory; people who care much more about breaking up the concentrated power of moneyed elites than they care about including every voice. People who understand that politics is war – and that if you’re not better equipped than your opponent, you’re going to lose that war. In a word (ok, two): community organizers.

Of course, this is an oversimplification. I’m sure lots of people in the Occupy protests have read Rules for Radicals and consider themselves to be community organizers. Obviously the movement has been supported by organized labor from very early on – and nobody knows these tactics like organized labor. And yet, the radical purists who push the General Assembly model are still the de facto leaders of this theoretically leaderless movement. They’re imposing their vision on the 99%. And while that vision has worked out brilliantly so far, the seams are beginning to burst. If the status quo continues, fewer and fewer sane people are going to want to stick around (who wants to sleep somewhere where there’s been reports of sexual assualt?). And without physical occupiers, the movement will lose is central symbol and be all the more likely to fade from the public eye.

So, what if the radical realists – the community organizers – used the General Assemblies to organize on behalf of moving beyond the General Assemblies? What if they created a new system that gave a little less power to the most extreme, fringe voices and finally made concrete demands, such as calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United? It would only work if they organized enough radical realists to outnumber the radical purists – but hey, they’re community organizers; that’s their job!

Douglass Rushkoff has compared OWS to the Internet: “As the product of the decentralized networked-era culture, it is less about victory than sustainability. It is not about one-pointedness, but inclusion and groping toward consensus. It is not like a book; it is like the Internet.” The comparison is apt – yet it feels very Web 1.0, like yesterday’s Internet. The Internet has evolved from a chaotic decentralized mess of information to a more ordered, useful, and empowering ecosystem. Isn’t it time for Occupy 2.0, too?

Sure, Occupy Occupy Wall Street could totally flop. It’s possible any imposition of a more top-down, organized structure could be an authenticity-draining buzz-kill that deflates the movement. But the alternative, it seems, is to stand by and watch this beautiful leaderlessness wilt into a chaotic morass. And if that happens, the 1% will, as usual, get the last laugh.

UPDATE: My feelings on the questions about leadership and demands at #ows have changed a fair amount in the past week or so. Stay tuned for a piece exploring this stuff further.

The Tumblr Revolution

Sat, 05 Nov 2011 13:32:01 -0400

Forgive the cheesy headline. I hate the idea of labeling a movement a “Facebook/Twitter/YouTube Revolution” just as much as anyone.

But something really amazing has been happening with the We Are the 99 Percent Tumblr, and I wrote about it for GOOD:

Tumblr has humanized the movement. Tumblr is a powerful storytelling medium, and this movement is about stories—about how the nation’s economic policies have priced us out of school, swallowed us in debt, permanently postponed retirements, and torn apart families. We Are the 99 Percent is the closest thing we’ve had to the work of Farm Security Administration—which paid photojournalists to document the plight of farmers during the Great Depression—and it may well go down as the definitive social history of this recession.

Occupy Wall Street, Steve Jobs, and the Crazy Ones

Fri, 07 Oct 2011 09:15:17 -0400

On Wednesday, I went to the Occupy Wall Street rally to see things first-hand. When I got home, I heard that Steve Jobs died, and I immediately went on YouTube and watched this:

I wrote a piece about my experience for Mother Jones:

I thought about the drugged-out dude with the banjo: one of the crazy ones. And the dude with the upside down flag and the one with the severed head and the anti-fracking obsessive and the people jonesing for a confrontation with the cops: all crazy ones. Crazy ones who sparked the first mass outpouring of left-wing activism in years, who have finally provided a visible counter to the free market fanaticism of the Tea Party. Crazy ones who have reignited a conversation about class in America.

Would love to hear your impressions, whether you’ve been to an #OWS rally or just observed from afar.

Remember those pocket TVs from the 90s?

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:55:36 -0400

I expected to draw some heat for the piece I wrote about giving up my iPhone. But some people seem really heated. For those of you who excoriated me for my lack of self-control, you have a point. I don’t have great self-control when it comes to the Internet – but I look at giving up my iPhone as an act of self-control. I knew that if I had an iPhone, no matter how hard I tried to modulate my behavior, I would give in to its beautiful siren call. Instead of tying myself to a wooden post, as Ulysses did, I decided to give up my iPhone. And my life actually got better.

I’m not suggesting that everyone follow suit. I’m (mostly) kidding about starting a #DumbPhoneRevolution. If you have the self-control to not check your smart phone while you’re in the middle of a conversation with someone who matters to you, then, by all means, keep that incredibly fun and useful device!

But I have a feeling that some of the vitriol directed at me is coming from folks who, if they’re honest with themselves, are the kind of people who check their phones during dinner. And if you are one of those people – I don’t blame you at all! It seems like an almost superhuman act of self-control to not do it.

Remember those handheld Gameboy-sized TV’s from the early 1990s that never really caught on? Yes, I admit it, I had one. Can you imagine if everyone started walking around with a mini-TV, which was always on and blaring in the background, screaming out for your attention? Can you imagine how insane that would be? And yet, increasingly, we are all walking around with the entire Internet in our pockets – and if our devices aren’t blaring noise, they’re buzzing with push notifications.

If you’re not distracted by your smart phone – if it’s not degrading your conversations or ability to absorb what’s happening in front of you, in the real world – my hat goes off to you. Because even a hero like Ulysses wouldn’t have been able to resist checking his iPhone during dinner.

"Nobody tells this to people who are beginners, I wish someone told me. All of us who do creative..."

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 10:10:09 -0400

“Nobody tells this to people who are beginners, I wish someone told me. All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it’s just not that good. It’s trying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you. A lot of people never get past this phase, they quit. Most people I know who do interesting, creative work went through years of this. We know our work doesn’t have this special thing that we want it to have. We all go through this. And if you are just starting out or you are still in this phase, you gotta know its normal and the most important thing you can do is do a lot of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week you will finish one story. It is only by going through a volume of work that you will close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions. And I took longer to figure out how to do this than anyone I’ve ever met. It’s gonna take awhile. It’s normal to take awhile. You’ve just gotta fight your way through.”

- Ira Glass

Why I Dumped My iPhone

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:34:07 -0400

I’m hoping my latest piece for GOOD will cause, at the very least, some controversy…

On Black Friday in 2009, I said goodbye to my iPhone. And when Steve Jobs’ successor announces the newest version today, I’m going to ignore the whole spectacle. Or try to, anyway.

And at best, a #dumbphonerevolution!

I went on Bloomberg TV again to discuss new media and the 2012...

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:25:59 -0400

I went on Bloomberg TV again to discuss new media and the 2012 election. Topics included the importance of mobile in this cycle and Rick Perry’s glitzy YouTube video.

Why You've Been Getting So Many Emails from Obama...

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:24:28 -0400

I wrote a piece for GOOD about quarterly fundraising deadlines, and why they actually matter:

The truth about why campaigns wanted you to DONATE NOW has everything to do with the ubiquitous yet little-examined notion of momentum. A candidate’s momentum isn’t determined by statistics showing growing progress in polling or fundraising numbers over time. Instead, momentum happens when a handful of media elites declare—in the wake of “defining moments”—who is moving forward and who is moving backward in the race. Others in the media then follow along, and a narrative is born that can sink or catapult a campaign.

Obama's Twitter Town Hall

Wed, 06 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0400

I went on Bloomberg TV to discuss Obama’s Twitter Town Hall:

Egypt and the Role of Online Organizing

Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:42:00 -0500

My latest piece in The Nation, How Cyber-Pragmatism Brought Down Mubarak, is an attempt to cut through the black and white debate on the role that the Internet can play in bottom up organizing:

Oppressive social conditions do stoke a common hunger for change; however, a movement isn’t born until a core group of extraordinarily brave activists take that extra step, translating their outrage into public action. The reality is that social movements arise from a combination of conditions and courage.

What’s been missing in these arguments is a consideration of those early movers. How did they summon the courage to first step into Tahrir Square—and did the Internet embolden them?

Email me or tweet your questions/reactions to @samgf.