My Q&A with Bob Cesca

Bob Cesca, one of the top bloggers at the Huffington Post graciously agreed to do an e-mail interview with me. He had some very interesting things to say about blogging. Here is the transcript:

ME: How did you get interested in and begin blogging?

BC: I've always been a student of politics, so during the 2004 election season I opened up a political discussion forum on my animation studio's website where I posted daily news blurbs and a ton of commentary. It was around that same time when I began reading a few of the earliest political blogs like DailyKos, Bill Scher's Liberal Oasis and, of course, Atrios.

ME: How did you end up working with the Huffington Post?

BC: Oddly enough, a colleague in animation mentioned me to Roy Sekoff, the founding editor at Huffington Post. During the first couple of months after Huffington launched, they were thinking about doing some animated political cartoons, so that's how the initial connection was made. But when I first spoke with Roy, I mentioned that I've done more political writing than animation, and while we developed the animation for Huffington Post, maybe I could write some columns. So he hooked me up with a password and I began blogging right away. August of 2005. The animated thing never happened, though, which is fine with me. This has been a dream gig.

ME: How did you get your blog noticed? How did the Huffington Post help with this?

BC: I started my personal blog in November 2004 under the title "Reality Based Nation" but I abandoned it when I started blogging for Huffington. However, by the autumn of 2007, I had gained a lot of readers at Huffington, so I thought I should perhaps re-brand my personal blog as a way to maybe earn some beer money from my Huffington traffic. That's really how the traffic flow began. I also built a readership through my blogging about the Obama campaign and the primary feud with the Clintons.

ME: How do your political beliefs affect your blogging?

BC: My blogging is all about my political beliefs. I think sometimes I shock some readers with some of my views though, since I'm not really a typical liberal blogger/activist. For instance, as I mentioned, I endorsed Barack Obama while other bloggers were still supporting John Edwards or Hillary Clinton for the nomination. When I suggested that Obama is more in line with the views of the wider liberal/progressive blogosphere and that some of the top-shelf bloggers should endorse, I caught a lot of flack from some bloggers who I really admired. That wasn't fun. And recently, I didn't particularly like the idea of a reporter hurling a shoe at the president. While the record shows that I'm no fan of George W. Bush, I don't think it's smart to support anyone who physically accosts the president -- no matter who he or she is.

ME: What are your favorite blogs to read? And why?

BC: My favorites:

Huffington Post (of course)

Chez Pazienza's Deus Ex Malcontent

The Political Carnival

Crooks & Liars (I also occasionally blog there)

Talking Points Memo

Hullabaloo

BooMan Tribune

TBogg
Think Progress

There are so many.

ME: What can you accomplish through new media that hadn't been possible beforehand?

BC: Everyone with a computer now has a shot at publicly voicing their opinion. It's very close to being the First Amendment in its purest form. If computers and internet connections affordable for everyone, it would be a flawless representation of First Amendment ideals.

ME: How has your outside work as a screenwriter, director, talk radio host, and reporter influenced the way that you blog?

BC: I think these other aspects of my career have helped me to be a little more entertaining and concise. At least, I hope that's the case.

ME: How do you get the information for your pieces?

BC: My personal blog is the first draft for my Huffington Post columns, so I collect information there. But I find it through other blogs, the various news sites and, of course, the Google.

ME: How do you construct your articles?

BC: I usually spend half of my Wednesdays thinking about a topic that'll work on the Huffington Post. My first duty is to bring traffic to Huffington, so it has to be a topic that will resonate with readers. Then I usually hammer out something in roughly three hours, then post at around 6PM eastern time. Usually, everything I write is a first draft -- just to keep the spontaneity. I usually never re-write anything from scratch, though I've had plenty of false starts.

ME: How do you decide what to blog about?

BC: Again, it has to be something which will resonate with readers, but also something I'm passionate about. My worst columns were topics that either I was asked to write about, or topics that I didn't really have a strong opinion (or a half-developed opinion) about.

ME: Should there be a standard format for blogs? Why or Why not?

BC: I don't think so. It seems like formats are as unique as the blogger, and that's important. I wouldn't want to wear your clothes and vice versa.

ME:Where do you see the future of blogs going?

BC: It'll be a constant process of boiling. Some blogs will rise to the surface and remain there, while others will come and go. Other bloggers will become huge and then migrate to the establishment media (Ana Marie Cox, for instance, went from blogging to TIME magazine). And other blogs will become more news oriented, like Talking Points Memo. The sites that will remain on top are the sites that continue to evolve and grow.

ME: Do you think that blogs seem to be supplanting the old style of media? If so, do you think that this is a good thing?

BC: Maybe and probably not. Old media is important and I hope it doesn't become supplanted by the blogs. We need well-funded news agencies and journalists tracking down the stories and, at least, pretending to adhere to some sort of journalistic standards. Of course, there's always a chance that all of journalism will evolve into blogging, but I don't think that'll happen. However, blogs will become increasingly important in terms of shaping what gets covered. We've already seen evidence of this. The symbiotic relationship will tighten -- old media providing fodder for the blogs and the blogs, in turn, providing guidance for old media and on and on.

BCS: In Need of a Change

The current system in College Football needs a change. Currently, the system is that the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) rankings decide who goes to the top 5 bowl games at the end of the season. The rankings decide who plays for the championship and 4 other highly publicized games. However, it annually angers fans of the sport. The reason is because the system always leaves a team either out of the championship or out of the BCS bowl games that fans consider to be deserving of a spot.

This year was of course no exception. The BCS left out Texas from the finals by 0.0181 BCS ranking percentage points points. Now they are out of a shot to play for the title. They also left out Boise State, who had a perfect season from any BCS games. Boise St.'s spot was given to Ohio St. because Ohio St. is from a bigger conference, despite Ohio St. being down .06 BCS ranking percentage points to Boise St. Boise St. did went undefeated this year. What more could they have done? They deserve at least a shot at the title for their efforts. Whatever happened to the idea that anyone can win in sports, "on any given sunday" (or Saturday in college football)? Why was Texas left out of the title game despite being tied with in record (and beating head-to-head) Oklahoma. This system has angered fans for too long and needs to be changed. Here's what I suggest:

Why should the contenders for the National Championship be decided on by a computer average of polls? This is never true in any other sport. All other major sports have a tournament or a playoff of some kind, not just one game. There are rankings used in college basketball to decide who plays in the tournament, but not who plays in the finals. There should be a playoff system in college football.

Let us shorten the season to 10 games long. Eliminate some of the games that are non-conference and non-rivarly. After the 10 games, the top 24 ranked teams are chosen to play in the top tournament. The 9-24th ranked teams play eachother to decide the top 16. Then the top 16 play an elimination-style tournament to decide the winner. The next top 32 teams will be selected into an NIT type of tournament just as in college basketball to play an elimination-style tournament. This would garuntee undefeated teams a chance for the title and have the most deserving teams playing. It would also be quite croud pleasing. No longer would the BCS have nearly as much contreversy because the bottom teams would be much farther away from probable contention as Texas is today.

I was pleased to see a similar plan supported by our president-elect:

My feelings on a Chambliss win

Let me first say that I hate Saxby Chambliss. I found it disgusting what he did against Max Cleland and am sad that he will continue to have power. However, I am happy that the Democrats did not reach the 60-seat majority in the Senate.

A filibuster is Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they want and on any topic they choose, unless a supermajority of three-fifths of the Senate (60 Senators) brings debate to a close. If the democrarts got 60 seats in the senate this would be stopped. This would be very bad. We need our system of checks and balances. With Obama in the White House and a majority in the Senate, Democrats will definetely have the most say in what goes on policy wise. There needs to be some debate still. Both sides still need to have a say. Without debate, it is an unfair majority and democrats can also be blamed for 100% of what goes wrong in the country in future elections. Though I am not fond of Chambliss having any power, I am happy about other republicans still having a say in the Senate and not being silenced by a filibuster-proof majority.

Chambliss Wins Georgia Runoff

Last night Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss scored a key win for the Republicans in his senate race against democrat Jim Martin. The race ended a month late because of an odd Georgia law that says that on November 4th, a candidate must get at least 50% of the vote or else there is a runoff election. Chambliss received 49.8%, and therefore could not be declared the winner. There was a runoff election yesterday and Chambliss won by 15 points. Many strong opinions were formed of Chambliss after he ran very harsh attack ads such as this in his first campaign:



Of course the blogs had much to say about this. For all statistic related news I went to the best statistical blog I know of, Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com. Nate said in his blog that the reason that Chambliss won was due to the fact that turnout was significantly lower in african-americans and democrats as a whole. Chambliss had republican heavyweights such as Sarah Palin and John McCain out campaigning for him while Obama was too busy to help Martin. The get out the vote efforts which got Obama into office, similarly got Chambliss into the Senate as well, according to Nate. He says that Chambliss "showed other Republicans the way."

Matt Stower at Open Left felt that Chambliss discovered that it was easier to organize people than to raise money. He said that this was a major night for Republicans and that they needed, under the leadership on Palin and Huckabee, to become a populist party while democrats become the party of big business. He says that this is the way for the Republicans to win in 2010.

Daily Kos offered a different perspective on the Chambliss win. Kos said that the win was expected for Chambliss and that democrats do well with high turnout. Obviously, because this was not on election day, turnout was very low and the Republican base was fired up for Chambliss with McCain and Palin's campaigning.

Democratic Strategist stated lessons to be learned from this loss. They included that money and ground game help a lot, both of which Martin lacked in. They also said that Georgia was not yet a purple state. The get out the vote and higher money for Obama still did not win him Georgia. The blog told democrats not to worry about this loss, only to learn from it.

Real Clear Politics talked about how Chambliss won by not losing as many voters as Martin. Obviously turnout was decreased, but in key democratic counties, Martin failed to get out the vote. It also said that the democrats goal of a fillibuster-proof majority is now gone and this is huge for republicans still having a say.

Real Clear Politics was the only blog I read on the issue that did not cite Fivethirtyeight.com's article or quote at at some point. Chambliss officially was declared the victor and will continue to serve. What it means for the way future campaigns are run, we still don't know, but there are many opinions out there on what it will mean moving forward.