"Apparently lost upon the mostly college-aged protesters: for their false flag operation to work..."

"... they must blend in to the group, and then display signs that cast the tea party group at large as bigoted or racist."

Why is Pajamas Media assuming the people in the photographs are attempting to pass as protesters? They are making their counter-protest transparent and charmingly funny. Calling them stupid is... stupid.

"The video you have selected requires you to be a member of Pajamas TV."

To see a complete list of free videos click here.

For information on the full range of Pajamas TV offerings click here.

Sign in

I was going to check out Glenn Reynolds's video —

SO I COVERED THE KNOXVILLE TEA PARTY LIVE, with an experimental (I kludged it together myself!) wireless broadband camera rig consisting of a JVC pro DV camera firewired into my Macbook Pro, then connecting to PJTV studios over iChat using a Verizon broadband card. It worked pretty well — but, mostly, I was just relieved that it worked.

— and I encountered that screen full of crap.

How can anyone possibly think it will work to combine amateur-style video with a pay-to-view scheme? Even if some of the material is free, how can they think we'll fiddle with figuring anything out to get to it? If a blog says "go here" to see video, in this day of YouTube, the click better go straight to a simple, easy-to-play video.

Did you watch that Democratic debate, you know, the rich-folks-only debate?

Eric Scheie agrees to cover a debate for Pajamas Media only to discover that it's not going to be so easy to watch it:

Thinking I must be crazy or just stupid (for the Democrats would never hold a debate on a channel that wasn’t generally available to the public, would they?) I spent quite a bit of time fiddling with the controls looking for [HDNet]....

As it turns out, the only way to get this channel is to upgrade my monthly service to “HD TV,” (plus pay an extra charge for “special” channels like HDNet), but that even then my existing equipment (which I paid for and had installed) would not work. To actually receive the new signal, I would have to buy a new receiver, and on top of that I’d have to buy a new satellite dish, have old one yanked off the wall and the new one installed!

Ha ha. You know I have an HD TV, and I pay for cable plus extra for HD service, but I still don't get HDNet, because it's extra extra. So I was 2 steps closer than Eric to being able to watch it, but I still couldn't watch it.

So, the Democratic Party — the party of the working class — is broadcasting tonight’s debate from an elitist network run by billionaire Mark Cuban that requires expensive equipment and high monthly charges to access.

What’s up with that? Is this a signal that despite the egalitarian rhetoric, that they’re actually the party of the rich and famous? Imagine the outcry if the GOP broadcast its debate from fancy network that ordinary people couldn’t access. There’d be cries that the Republicans were in a “gated community.”

And, amusingly enough, it's where you have to go to watch Dan Rather.

Eric decides to "blind-blog" the debate:

I couldn’t watch it, and so I can’t tell you what the questions or the answers were. But here’s what I think probably happened.

Hillary won, hands down....

The unpajama'd Jarvis.

Jeff Jarvis is talking about Pajamas Media here and here. He's especially stirred up about their choice of Judith Miller as the keynote speaker at their new-name-unveiling event. But he also doesn't get their business model. And, like me, after blogging negatively about PM, he got a phone call from Roger L. Simon. Now, Joe Gandelman is picking up the Jarvis-Pajamas story. Joe, is that your phone ringing?

"Could it be these guys are winging it?"

Dennis the Peasant tells us what he really thinks about Pajamas Media.