About this user
Some statements for the prominent media personality who contacted me for an interview and expected me to get in touch via a standard email account, thereby revealing my IP address and my identity:
1) That's never gonna happen.
2) I'm not upset about the shifts that occurred after the fact and rendered portions of my original video obsolete. I reported a rumor as a rumor. It turned out it was based in fact, and I think the public had a right to know about Bristol's pregnancy given Governor Palin's controversial views on everything related to women's reproductive rights, including as they apply to unwed mothers. This is what I mean by including the phrase "Where there's smoke there's fire" in my third video: the smoke was the garbled buzz about Bristol and Trig; the fire is Bristol's pregnancy.
3) I think the netroots community did the country a service by forcing this information into the light. I'm convinced the campaign meant to do this anyway -- Bristol will be eight months pregnant by November, and she repeatedly appeared holding baby Trig and if I'm not mistaken even wearing an engagement ring in the short days before the story broke. But forcing the information out in a rushed way that was not carefully stage-managed for maximum positive effect let the public absorb the idea with a minimum of political packaging, punditry or spin. It's a proud moment for the web, not a disgraceful one.
4) My first piece was the very first YouTube video about the rumors surrounding Bristol and Trig Palin, and I had a monopoly on the issue on the site for almost 24 hours, which is one of the reasons why it has received the most views of any video on the subject.
5) It was created and "published" to YouTube without any reference whatsoever to the Daily Kos, a site I never look at. Kos was working on this issue at the same time as me. We published virtually simultaneously, and I'm sure their blogs pushed a lot of traffic my way, because I was appended to their Sarah and Bristol Palin writings from early on by a steady stream of readers. While much of the writing I've seen there in the last few days has been very responsible, I'm not a fan of their heavily publicized "J'accuse" piece ("Sarah Palin I'm calling you a liar!" I believe it said, with idiot certainty). Mine reported the Bristol/Trig rumor as a rumor, and I clearly bracketed that in the video, both with text overlays and in my audio.
6) My first follow-up, where I say I'm convinced the rumor is unfounded and provide supporting pictures, was posted before Sarah Palin made her announcement that Bristol is pregnant, which is why that information is not dealt with. As my first video became almost frighteningly popular, I was feeling more and more obligated to keep rooting around for an answer. Fortunately, I feel (for now) I came to the right one. I reserve the right to further thought and decision on the matter.
7) An illegal bootleg version of my video was posted and received over 20,000 views in addition to the 75,000 and counting my original video has received. The poster posted my video in the "News" category (all my pieces are in the "Blogs" category, to earmark them as opinion). Information wants to be free and all, so I was willing to let him run it, but I warned him for two days that he either had to add my updates, clarifications and annotations to the bootleg or face censure from YouTube. He never responded. His channel is now gone from the site.
Don't mess with Amper's copyrights.
8) Contact me and I can direct you to an example of the kinds of threats I received for the first piece -- a man has transformed his channel page into a sort of shrine of his hatred for me, with four copies of the abusive and menacing threat he tried to append to my first post, and, weirdly, an embed of my video pasted to the top of his page. As extremist threats go, he is one of the mild ones. I can just imagine what YouTube is screening out with their filters. But I don't want to know. Peace out - Ampers
