Robert green USR Content Another green world productions 310-804-1812 cell 310-559-5725 usr office 323-446-7639 fax www.usrcontent.com
On Jul 8, 2010 9:45 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Robert-
Am working on those other materials by which to create several different
packages geared towards different audiences and will have those to you soon.
Have been delayed by a number of developments. Will be appearing on Russia
Today tomorrow evening, a Kremlin-backed outlet, and will probably be
causing a scene. Also have been talking with Andrew Sullivan, who is one of
the more intellectually honest commentators whose work I respect a great
deal.
Also, I've attached the manuscript of my upcoming book. Note that it's
currently filled with editing errors because the editor is a damned fool.
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
> Howdy-
>
> *Who’s this presentation aiming towards?*
> *
> *
> *This particular presentation is meant to serve as a more concise
> description than has existed thus far of the actual mechanics of Project
> PM's blogger network, and will be distributed to all interested parties as
> part of a larger package including some of the other materials you allude to
> below.*
>
> *Here’s why I ask: these kind of documents can be written for any number
> of constituencies. They may be client facing, consumer facing, venture
> facing, angel facing, something for family and friends, whatever one thinks
> is appropriate to the circumstance.*
> *
> *
> *Exactly, and we'll have additional materials prepared - in fact, have
> some already but which I intend to revise further over the coming days -
> with those constituencies in mind.*
>
> *So here’s the key to this whole thing—getting their buy-in. Now, you may
> get them based on the cleverness of the idea alone (and it is clever, for
> sure). And you may get some of them on an emotional pitch (though that’s
> missing right now I think—the “fuck you mainstream media” side of things.)
> you may get them by personal imprecation—you’re a persuasive guy and you’ve
> created a space for yourself on the media criticism side quickly and
> effectively.*
> *
> *
> *Again, exactly, and the fuck the mainstream media portion has already
> been put into play within some of my articles as well as my personal
> conversations with those we've recruited, such as Michael Hastings. I will
> be composing a final version of this emotional pitch (although it will
> couple emotion with a logical argument I consider to be unassailable) over
> the weekend, and this will be incorporated into our various constituent
> packages and presentations as we deem appropriate.*
>
> *My feeling is this needs to more ideas: one, how this will directly
> benefit the content creator—said benefits may come in many ways, some
> remunerative, some emotional, some thought-leader-y. Two, how will this
> benefit society, culture, the media. I really need number two to be
> something strong in order to see how to take this to the next level, and I
> suspect that you’ve been doing that verbally, though I’ve seen you do some
> serious work on this on your blogs as well.*
> *
> *
> *Indeed, and in fact Robinson and I just conducted a video conference the
> other evening in order to better compose that facet, the one in which we
> make the case that content creators have everything to gain in a variety of
> facets by working with us. We do have some documentation on this already,
> but again, I would like to revise and extend it further in order to produce
> something succinct and persuasive. As you say, I've expressed number two to
> some extent, and now it's time for me to package these arguments into a
> singe document/argument as well. I will begin this evening. *
>
> *Then there needs to at least be some discussion of revenue generation.
> Something. Anything. Or there needs to be an explanation of why
> there shouldn’t be revenue generated.*
> *
> *
> *Before you got in touch, we had been planning on proceeding with no
> revenue generation whatsoever, as part of our larger goal was to demonstrate
> what is now capable without capital simply through good ideas and proper use
> of the internet. The only costs we had in mind involved (1) paying a
> programmer to produce the widget and (2) printing pamphlets for distribution
> in African villages as per our Africa Development Sub-Program, which I don't
> believe I'm mentioned to you but was among our few original ventures to be
> conducted by the Project PM governing network (which I have referenced in
> some of our previous articles but which I must also elucidate further for
> you as well as potential investors). I had planned to pay for both of these
> with money I've been making from Vanity Fair and other such things, as well
> as the remainder of my book advance. Having said that, Robinson and our
> hedge fund fellow Scott Mintz had been looking into the possibility of
> obtaining grants on the order of $3,000 or so in order to pay for any
> incorporation costs and also to provide me with some money in order to allow
> me to concentrate more on PM and less on writing for things like Vanity Fair
> and NY Press.*
>
> *Now, of course, you have upped the ante by providing us with the
> potential opportunity to raise a great deal of money. This would allow us to
> perhaps provide compensation to our bloggers, or at least those whom we deem
> most valuable, in order to help free them from the necessity of doing what
> we've all had to do for survival in terms of writing for amoral outlets
> simply to feed ourselves. It would further provide us with the chance to
> fund the governing network and thereby provide them with wider berth in
> their experiments in the realm of improved charitable work. Basically, I
> myself have been living on less than $1,000 a month for the bulk of my adult
> life (and grew up largely in poverty, having shared a bed with my mom for a
> portion of my childhood, though I was able to go to private schools on full
> scholarship), spent much of the last year living on friend's couches in NYC
> while turning down advertising headhunters, and thus I have a lot of
> thinking to do now as to how money can best be implemented for our agenda,
> as I'm simply not used to having access to any. The advantage to all of this
> is that my mentality is forged in terms of stretching financial resources as
> best possible, as well as implementing things in such a way as to require no
> money at all. *
>
> So, for now, let us say that Project PM does not necessarily need money to
> operate; not a dime has been spent in recruiting our 100-plus participants.
> Money could certainly be useful, I imagine, but I will have to give some
> additional thought as to how we might use it. Thus far I had explained to
> our bloggers that joining us is to their benefit by requiring no extra work
> on their part while also providing them with the opportunity to gain
> additional readership, to be linked to by other, more prominent bloggers who
> could champion their work, and, of course, by being a part of something that
> is wholly necessary for the survival of our republic, which is just as much
> theirs as anyone else's. Helping them to obtain a living wage would
> certainly be an additional arrow in our quiver.
>
> Having said all that, the money we'd raise would, as is my understanding,
> largely intended to take the next step towards building the cable news
> outlet, correct?
>
> *Those are my extremely preliminary thoughts. I have some other ideas as
> well: this is prolix and needs some tightening in areas in order to be more
> impactful, but that’s easy to do. The above is something that requires more
> thought.*
> *
> *
> Absolutely, and I will provide you with the next round of additional
> materials over the next few days, as will Clark Robinson. I also would like
> to speak to you more about the governing network, which I see as our most
> potentially effective weapon against the status quo. Feel free to give me a
> call at your convenience in the meantime. And again, thank you for taking
> the time to hear me out and to consider our ideas.
>
> **
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Robert Green <robertogreen@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> One question:
>>
>> Who’s this presentation aiming towards?
>>
>> Here’s why I ask: these kind of documents can be written for any number
>> of constituencies. They may be client facing, consumer facing, venture
>> facing, angel facing, something for family and friends, whatever one thinks
>> is appropriate to the circumstance.
>>
>> Given that there isn’t even the discussion of revenue here, I assume that
>> this is directed at least in part at potential partners, e.g. The
>> writers/bloggers/reporters who would become a part of the network.
>>
>> So here’s the key to this whole thing—getting their buy-in. Now, you may
>> get them based on the cleverness of the idea alone (and it is clever, for
>> sure). And you may get some of them on an emotional pitch (though that’s
>> missing right now I think—the “fuck you mainstream media” side of things.)
>> you may get them by personal imprecation—you’re a persuasive guy and you’ve
>> created a space for yourself on the media criticism side quickly and
>> effectively.
>>
>> That’s all good.
>>
>> My feeling is this needs to more ideas: one, how this will directly
>> benefit the content creator—said benefits may come in many ways, some
>> remunerative, some emotional, some thought-leader-y. Two, how will this
>> benefit society, culture, the media. I really need number two to be
>> something strong in order to see how to take this to the next level, and I
>> suspect that you’ve been doing that verbally, though I’ve seen you do some
>> serious work on this on your blogs as well.
>>
>> Then there needs to at least be *some* discussion of revenue generation.
>> Something. Anything. Or there needs to be an explanation of why there
>> *shouldn’t* be revenue generated.
>>
>> Those are my extremely preliminary thoughts. I have some other ideas as
>> well: this is prolix and needs some tightening in areas in order to be more
>> impactful, but that’s easy to do. The above is something that requires more
>> thought.
>>
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Robert Green
>> Another Green World Productions
>> 310-804-1812 phone
>> 323-446-7639 fax
>> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1299657/
>> http://linkedin.com/in/robertogreen
>> http://twitter.com/robogreen
>> skype: monazu1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/3/10 11:47 AM, "Barrett Brown" <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Robert-
>> Apologies for the delay in getting back to you; had to finish up a couple
>> of articles, but am now deadline-free for a while.
>> My colleague Clark Robinson and I will be preparing further materials for
>> you over the weekend, but in the meantime, I’d like to provide you with a
>> written overview of Project PM to supplement what we went over in our
>> discussion the other evening.
>> Information flow is fundamental to the success of every manner of human
>> collaboration. Nonetheless, the processes by which information is gathered,
>> handled, transferred, and acted upon receive far less attention than is
>> warranted. The purpose of Project PM is to change this dynamic by developing
>> new techniques with which to more efficiently conduct information.
>> Because the great preponderance of information crucial to the success of a
>> representative government is transferred through the media, Project PM
>> focuses primarily on media reform. Our first and foremost effort has been to
>> establish a distributed media cartel made up of bloggers as well as
>> journalists who work at least in part through online media. Rather than
>> simply assembling this group of exceptional media professionals into an
>> online outlet similar to those currently in existence, we are instead
>> organizing our participants into a network which itself operates under a
>> unique schematic designed to take best advantage of the internet as a medium
>> while simultaneously avoiding the drawbacks common to even the best online
>> communities.
>> In order to seed the network, we have recruited around two dozen bloggers
>> and journalists whom we have identified as particularly competent and
>> intellectually honest. Each of these individuals is encouraged to bring
>> other bloggers into the network based on their own judgment; these new
>> participants are then connected to the blogger who has brought them in and
>> may likewise bring others into the network,and so on . As such, the network
>> grows perpetually while maintaining a high average quality in terms of its
>> participants, as is explained further below.
>> Upon the launch of our network, each of the initial bloggers will be
>> connected to each other via a widget which is embedded on their respective
>> blogs, as well as connected to those whom they’ve recruited. When a
>> particular individual composes a piece of work that he considers to be of
>> particular merit, the individual pushes a single button which causes the
>> article in question to be sent to all of the bloggers to whom he is
>> connected. Each of those bloggers in turn then decides whether or not they
>> agree that the article is worthy of greater attention; if so, they push the
>> button and thereby send it along to every blogger to whom they themselves
>> are connected. Thus it is that information deemed worthy of attention by
>> some great number of erudite and honest individuals from a variety of
>> backgrounds will tend to perpetuate through the system and gain a larger
>> audience than they might otherwise receive.
>> As the network expands by way of the process described above, it is
>> inevitable that there will be failures of judgement on the part of
>> participants when choosing additional bloggers to bring into the network.
>> Let us say that Blogger X, who is rather competent, brings in Blogger Y, who
>> is only moderately so, and who in turn brings in Blogger Z, who is a giant
>> douchebag. Blogger Z begins composing and pushing forward posts to the
>> effect that Barack Obama was born in Tehran or that ethanol subsidies are
>> awesome or some such thing – but these posts only initially go to Blogger Y
>> and whatever horrid bloggers Blogger Z has brought in himself, assuming he
>> has brough in any. Blogger Y may or may not be inclined to push forward
>> these nonsense posts, but Blogger X will almost certainly delete them
>> immediately and is quite likely to disolve his connection to Blogger Y for
>> displaying such poor judgement. Thus it is that the system is defended from
>> deterioration by the high competence of the initial round of bloggers and
>> consequently comparable competence of those brought in gradually afterwards,
>> coupled with the nature of the schematic itself. No supervision is necessary
>> for the network to expand while maintaining a high level of quality.
>> A few other characteristics bear noting. Any participant may connect to
>> any other participant who agrees to the connection, no matter “where” each
>> participant resides in the network, and thus the network is likely to evolve
>> from the shape of a pyramid to that of a web, which is advantageous in terms
>> of ensuring that good information does not become overly “regionalized.” All
>> participants are equal regardless of the order in which they joined.
>> Participants are free to bring on as many other bloggers as they would like,
>> although they will find that it is to their own advantage to be selective in
>> this regard.
>> The system is capped off with another widget distinct from that used by
>> the bloggers – the reader widget, a downloadable application which displays
>> those posts which have been pushed forward a certain number of times (as set
>> by the individual reader). The end result should be the best system of news
>> and information filtration that has ever existed.
>> That is the elevator pitch, at any rate. I have also sending you a link to
>> a makeshift Google presentation that my lawyer and second-in-command Clark
>> Robinson has prepared for you. Having just moved in to a new apartment, I
>> only have sporadic internet access for the next few days, but Robinson is at
>> your disposal and may be reached at robinsonchicago@gmail.com. I may also
>> be reached via cell phone at all times. I will have Robinson share with you
>> some additional documents including an incomplete list of our participants
>> thus far.
>> Meanwhile, I have spoken to Michael Hastings and a few other of our best
>> journalists and commentators and all of them are more than willing to get
>> involved and will be quietly talking to various colleagues in the coming
>> days without providing any details. I have also asked a couple of our people
>> to begin thinking about ways in which a cable station could be most
>> effectively implemented, emphasizing that we would of course want to rewrite
>> all the rules of such things and take advantage of the internet as best we
>> can.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Robert Green <robertogreen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Great article about hastings, barrett.
>>
>> I’m interested in hearing/learning further about project PM.
>>
>> I’ve got my own nascent project that I’m working on. I come from a
>> background of production/development/finance in the feature/tv/web world.
>> I’ve produced a TON of stuff in all different media over the years (bona
>> fides in the signature below, check my imdb page). I also come from a
>> background of a dad on the board of The Nation, and your basic view of the
>> world that such will engender.
>>
>> Between these two worlds I’ve reached the following conclusion:
>>
>> The time is NOW to create/fund/finance a 21st century news media org that
>> takes what you/me/jay rosen/michael hastings/etc. Etc. etc. know—that
>> information isn’t “he said she said”, that information isn’t better with
>> “access”, that information isn’t better with “one consultant from x, and one
>> consultant from y”, that information IS better when transparent, that news
>> should be measured by one analytic and one only—how informed is your
>> audience after hearing/reading it.
>>
>> Here’s how to do it:
>>
>> Grab about 1 billion dollars approx (give or take) and create the new CNN.
>> That’s it. There’s no other way. You can’t hope to have any useful impact
>> around the margins. You can’t hope to do anything important at a Current TV
>> level, or blogging for a magazine as hopelessly addicted to horseshit
>> celebrity as VF, and really change things. You just can’t.
>>
>> I know some people with some real money. And their hearts are movable to
>> the right place. The thing is to aggregate all the people who are a)smart
>> b) doing it already c) energetic and put together the plan.
>>
>> Starting point, and yes, this is a tendentious one: just say to jon
>> stewart and colbert “what’s your buyout number”, and pay it. Make them the
>> figureheads. Figure that’s 50 million right there.
>>
>> I’m sure you have your own plan, and you don’t know me, so take all this
>> with a grain of salt. But if you ever do have time to spend 5 minutes
>> discussing this further, please don’t hesitate.
>>
>> In the meantime, keep up the great work.
>>
>> best
>>
>> Robert Green
>> Another Green World Productions
>> 310-804-1812 phone
>> 323-446-7639 fax
>> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1299657/
>> http://linkedin.com/in/robertogreen
>> http://twitter.com/robogreen
>> skype: monazu1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Barrett Brown
> Brooklyn, NY
> 512-560-2302
>