The Obama campaign's cat meme mailer.

The Obama campaign is using a mailer modeled after online cat memes as part of their final get out the vote push in the crucial battleground state of Ohio. On the mailer, there is a picture of a cat peeking out from behind a laptop decorated with Ohio-themed Obama campaign stickers highlighting the push to get people to vote early.

"STOP LOOKING AT CATS ONLINE AND GO VOTE," text on the flyer says.

A user on the social news site Reddit with the handle MollyBloom11 posted a picture of the mailer on the site last night. They were clearly impressed with the campaign's understanding of internet culture.

"The Obama campaign sent me this today...They know their audience," MollyBloom11 wrote.

The Obama campaign confirmed the mailer was real and has been used in Ohio. They were not immediately sure whether similar imaging has been used for online ads or in other states.

A screengrab from the "October Surprise" site. (Photo: OctSurprise.com)

This week, a mysterious website counting down to an "October Surprise" document drop that would change the election sparked frenzied speculation. Yesterday, the site was taken down after Politicker and others identified some of the developers who were behind it and connected them to past internet activity including a massive 2007 hoax prank involving a site that promised the release of  a new Radiohead album and instead "Rickrolled" visitors by giving them a link to the video for Rick Astley's 1987 song "Never Gonna Give You Up." In a note posted on "October Surprise" last night, the site's creators admitted that, rather than releasing explosive documents, they were planning to Rickroll people yet again.

"Sorry folks. Did NOT expect this level of interest. Apologies! Jokes! Vote! Sorry for the most predictable rick roll ever," the note on the site said.

Prior to the big admission, one of the developers who worked on the site told us it had been visited by over 100,000 people. The "October Surprise" Twitter feed is still active and posted a series of messages about the prank.

"there are no documents. or surprises in store. at least from us," one of the tweets said.

A screengrab from the "October Surprise" site. (Photo: OctSurprise.com)

Earlier, a mysterious website popped up online promising to reveal an election "October Surprise" document drop showing that one of the "presidential candidates isn't being honest." The site is nothing but a countdown clock and accompanying Twitter account promising all will be revealed at 5:30 p.m. on October 22. On Twitter, the unknown people behind the site have claimed they're "not at liberty to say which campaign this affects, just yet" and that the site "has the propensity to turn this election from a nail-biter into the biggest electoral landslide." They have also posted tantalizing blurry photos of documents to back up their claims. Politicker was able to identify at least two people involved with this secretive "October Surprise," and we spoke with one of them earlier this afternoon.

Jeff Hopwood is a developer based in the Midwest. We connected him to the "October Surprise" through the BuzzFeed account used to post the blurred documents tweeted by the "Surprise" site. That account, WIOWSA, was previously used to post a link to another website, Partislator, that tracks other political tweets. That post has since been deleted. A Daily Kos contributor named "partislator" also promoted a site called WhatIsOccupyWallStreetAbout.com, which has since been deactivated but was registered with Mr. Hopwood's email address and phone number. When we called Mr. Hopwood today, he confirmed he was involved with the "October Surprise" site, Partislator and WhatIsOccupyWallStreetAbout.com, but he denied knowing anything about the coming document drop.

"I'm slightly involved," Mr. Hopwood said. "I work more on the tech end of things."

Mr. Hopwood said that, in spite of his past work on Occupy-related sites, the "October Surprise" site is not connected with Occupy Wall Street.

"It's nothing involved in Occupy. We ended up using a BuzzFeed account because of last minute type things, and that account had some other things on it," said Mr. Hopwood adding that the other activity has since been removed.

According to Mr. Hopwood, the "October Surprise" site was the work of "a group of developers that I'm friends with," one of whom had been contacted to create the site by a third party. Mr. Hopwood claimed not to know anything about the people who asked him and his friends to make the site. His only stipulation for them was that the documents that will be revealed cannot be hosted on his server along with the site, because he claims not to know their contents.

"I don't know the identity. I don't know anything, political affiliation or anything like that," he said. "Myself, like I said, I'm kind of limited involvement, and I'm trying to figure out what is going on myself, because it's on my servers."

There has been some speculation that the site may be part of a viral marketing campaign. Mr. Hopwood said he thinks this may be true because he and his friends were asked to put together the site fairly quickly, and he believes a political group would have been "more professional."

"I tend to think it might be some type of marketing thing because of the way they contacted us," said Mr. Hopwood, adding that he and the other developers put the site together in "like a half an hour."

Mr. Hopwood's hunch isn't the only indication that the "October Surprise" site may be connected to a viral marketing effort. According to his LinkedIn page, Mr. Hopwood is a "Creative/Technical Developer" at Discovery Communications, which runs the Discovery Channel and other associated TV networks. A reverse IP address check for the site shows it is connected to the IP address of another site called "Pausetime.com," which was registered by Anthony Maro, who is identified on LinkedIn as a "Senior UI Developer at Discovery Communications."

Discovery's Animal Planet channel is currently promoting a mock pet election, and others have already speculated the "October Surprise" may be connected to this campaign. When we identified Mr. Hopwood's employment and the site's connection to Mr. Maro, we called him back to ask if the "October Surprise" is tied to Animal Planet.

"Yeah, this definitely has nothing to do with that at all. This is my own--no, yeah, I mean, it's just a coincidence. That has nothing to do with Discovery at all, I promise you, " Mr. Hopwood said, adding that he thinks Mr. Maro "is just one of the other developers who use the server."

We reached out to Animal Planet spokesman Matthew Windsor to ask if the network is involved with the "October Surprise." He claimed not to be aware of the site and promised to get back to us with more information once he was able to "check with our digital team."

Discovery isn't the only connection between Mr. Hopwood and Mr. Maro. In an internet concert forum, the pair was identified as being behind a 2007 countdown hoax site that promised the release of a new Radiohead album but instead revealed a message containing the lyrics to Rick Astley's 1987 song "Never Gonna Give You Up," which is often sent to people who are expecting something else in a common internet prank known as "Rickrolling."

"THE MOST GIGANTIC LYING HOAX OF ALL TIME," the site said. "How to RICKROLL 21,232 people at once. REAL LP7 coming soon!"

The post naming Mr. Maro and Mr. Hopwood as responsible for the Radiohead hoax was deleted last night by a user identified as "Anthony Maro" in his profile.

In many ways, Mr. Maro and Mr. Hopwood's long digital trail reveals as many questions as it does answers about the roots of the "October Surprise" site. The pair has been involved in cable television sites, digital hoaxes and the creation of political sites. Only time will tell which category this "October Surprise" falls under. Whatever it is, the site certainly has generated quite a lot of attention.

"In the first two days, we had roughly 500 hits. Yesterday, we had something like 24,000 unique visits," Mr. Hopwood said. "Today, it's exploded. Wer'e somewhere around 100,000 now."

Update (10/19/12 12:36 p.m.): A few hours after they were outed, the people behind the "October Surprise" site published a note admitting they were indeed planning a Rickroll prank.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg wearing his Warby Parker glasses. (Photo: Facebook)

Last night, Mayor Michael Bloomberg appeared at the NYC Connects 2012 reception in Gracie Mansion wearing glasses designed by eyewear startup Warby Parker, which sells chunky hipster frames online. The brand, understandably excited to have Mr. Bloomberg don their "Waldo" glasses and shared a photo of the event on Facebook. Seeing the picture of Hizzoner in the trendy frames instantly reminded Politicker of the popular internet meme "Hipster Mermaid" and we decided to make a new version of the meme starring Mayor Bloomberg."Hipster Mermaid" involves a photo of Ariel, the protagonist from Disney's 1989 cartoon classic The Little Mermaid with a pair of hipster glasses superimposed on her face and captions featuring too-cool-for-school phrases that one might hear on the streets of northern Brooklyn or Portland.

Our take on the meme pairs the image of Mayor Bloomberg rocking his Warby Parker frames with captions mixing hipsterisms and some of his favorite initiatives. Check out our best efforts below. If you'd like to make your own versions of "Hipster Bloomberg" share them with us in the comments below or on Twitter @Politicker.

CNBC Reporter Eamon Javers captured this picture of the Paul Ryan Gosling meme in flight. (Photo: Twitter)

Hey Girl.

A plane mocking Paul Ryan, with a pro-choice variation of the "Paul Ryan Gosling" meme flew overheard as Mitt Romney's running mate spoke at an event in Lakewood, Colorado this afternoon.

"HEY GIRL. CHOOSE ME LOSE CHOICE- P RYAN," a banner trailing behind the plane said. 

The quote toted by the plane is clearly based on "Paul Ryan Gosling," an internet meme that pokes fun at Mr. Ryan using an earlier meme that features pictures of actor Ryan Gosling along with quotes a perfect man might say preceded with the phrase “Hey Girl."

Once Mr. Ryan was selected as Mr. Romney's running mate, internet users began making a mashup of the vice presidential candidate and the Ryan Gosling meme with "Hey Girl" quotes spoofing Mr. Ryan's conservative positions. A @PaulRyanGosling Twitter account launched Saturday, the same day Mr. Ryan was announced as the number two man on the GOP ticket. @PaulRyanGosling has gone on to earn over thirty thousand followers.

"Hey girl, you don't need access to healthcare, my warm, soft kisses will make you well," reads one typical @PaulRyanGosling tweet.

This isn't the first time the Ryan Gosling meme has made it onto the campaign trail. Back in December, a former Democratic campaign operative named Nancy Leeds created a version of the meme featuring Mr. Gosling as a campaign staffer.

Alex Laska and Congressman Jim Himes (Photo: Facebook)

Alex Laska, a communications aide and staff assistant to Democratic Connecticut Congressman Jim Himes apparently takes bagels pretty seriously. After reading a listicle entitled "84 Things That Aren’t On An Everything Bagel" on the online meme-machine BuzzFeed.com, Mr. Laska posted a comment expressing his wish the writer of the list, Katie Notopoulos, would commit suicide.

"I want the next thing Katie Notopoulos posts on here to be her suicide note," Mr. Laska wrote via his personal Facebook page, which identified him as an employee of the House of Representatives.

BuzzFeed's community moderator responded by posting the exchange on Tumblr and criticizing Mr. Laska for "publicly embarrass[ing] himself by asking for one of our editors’ suicide note." The Politicker reached out to Mr. Laska to see whether he thought the comment was appropriate. Despite having posted there, Mr. Laska claimed to be unfamiliar with BuzzFeed.

"I'm sorry what was this website?" he asked when we described the situation.

We repeated that the comment was posted on BuzzFeed.

"Can you spell that please?" Mr. Laska asked.

We spelled out the name of the site and read the comment to Mr. Laska. He asked us to send him a link to it.

"Oh my gosh, yeah if you could send that to me right away that would be great," Mr. Laska said.

In the meantime, we asked Mr. Laska if he had any comment on the issue.

"No. I'm sorry, I'm a little unfamiliar with this," said Mr. Laska. "If you could send me the comment I'd appreciate that."

We sent Mr. Laska a link to the post about his comment and are awaiting a response. Since he received our call, the information about his work with the House has been removed from his Facebook page. We also reached out to BuzzFeed Editor-in-Chief (and Politicker alum) Ben Smith for his take on the situation.

"I don't have anything to say about it," Mr. Smith said.

"The demand to shut down this section on Backpage.com will simply drive such content to other Internet portals who will move their advertising websites into offshore entities and out of reach of US law enforcement -- and the ability to trace the traffickers and the children that they are trafficking for rescue and prosecution will be lost," Ms. McDougall said.

Ms. McDougall said Village Voice Media engages in "industry-leading site moderation" and "unparalleled cooperation with law enforcement" and argued the ads could move somewhere that doesn't take such stringent measures if Backpage's adult business is shut down.

"Adult services advertising existed on the Internet before Backpage.com and will continue on the Internet regardless of Backpage.com," she said.

Village Voice Media, which owns the Village Voice in New York along with several other alt-weeklies around the country, has faced increasing calls to shut Backpage in recent months. The online classified site Craigslist closed a similar section of their site in September 2010 in response to a substantial push from the public and law enforcement officials leading to large growth of the business on Backpage. Councilwoman Mark-Viverito and Councilman Lander's statement announcing the resolution calling for the adult section of Backpage to be closed cited a petition created by Groundswell, "a multi-faith social action network housed at Auburn Seminary," that received over 91,000 signatures from people eager to see the site closed.

Read Ms. McDougall's full statement below:

The Auburn Seminary's initiative may be well-intentioned, but it is misguided. Shutting down the Backpage.com adult service section would be ineffective and a step backwards in the fight against child sex trafficking. Backpage.com operates industry-leading site moderation to assist in the prevention and rescue of victims of trafficking and in the identification and prosecution of traffickers, and provides unparalleled cooperation with law enforcement and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), including creation of an "expedited" line to NCMEC to report potential child victims. And Backpage.com has remained committed to working with NCMEC, government and other willing interest groups to continue to develop and implement tools and strategies to combat child sex trafficking. Adult services advertising existed on the Internet before Backpage.com and will continue on the Internet regardless of Backpage.com. The demand to shut down this section on Backpage.com will simply drive such content to other Internet portals who will move their advertising websites into offshore entities and out of reach of US law enforcement -- and the ability to trace the traffickers and the children that they are trafficking for rescue and prosecution will be lost. All forms of human trafficking are heinous. Child sex trafficking is especially abhorrent. Online and offline communities must collaborate to combat these social atrocities. But a campaign against one website, Backpage.com, is not the answer.

"Whereas, Backpage.com’s adult section is facilitating sex trafficking and should alter its current practice; now, therefore, be it resolved, That the Council of the City of New York calls on Village Voice Media to shut down the adult section of its online classified site, Backpage.com, because it serves as a platform to traffic minors for sex."

According to a statement announcing the resolution, a "vast majority" of the sex trafficking cases prosecuted by the Brooklyn District Attorney's office involved Backpage. Both Councilman Lander and Councilwoman Mark-Viverito said that, by continuing to operate the "adult" section of the site VVM, which owns the Village Voice in New York and several other alt-weekly papers around the country, is profiting off the exploitation of children.

"I’m outraged that Village Voice Media is willing to make money off the exploitation of trafficking victims through Backpage.com’s adult services advertising," Mr. Lander said in the statement

"Village Voice Media must ensure that children and teenagers are not being abused in the commercial sex industry with help from their website," Ms. Mark Viverito said. "This resolution sends the message that we will not stand silent while this company profits from exploitation."

Anti-sex trafficking advocates claim Backpage is the mainonline site for prostitution and trafficking.

"Backpage is now the leading online facilitator of sex trafficking, operating in that least 10 other countries, generating an estimated $2 million per month-- all earned through a reckless disregard for human rights," Norma Ramos, Executive Director of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women said in the statement.

The online classified site Craigslist closed its similar Adult Services section in September 2010 after substantial pressure from law enforcement officials and the public. In the absence of Craigslist, Backpage's market share for "adult" services has expanded.

In the fact of criticism over Backpage, Village Voice Media published an extensive series in their papers claiming anti-sex trafficking advocates exaggerate the extent of the sex trade in this country. As of this writing, Village Voice Media hasn't responded to a request for comment on this story.

Ms. Rothstein's post inspired a huge backlash including a Twitter campaign launched by this reporter to get male members of the media to switch to sexed up Twitter profile photos to express solidarity with our female colleagues who were subjected to this story that was, in my view, "a clear example of the objectification and double standards that have existed far too long surrounding women in the workforce." Ms. Rothstein fired back at some of her critics on Twitter including Gawker writer Maureen O'Connor who called her "a skank" leading Ms. Rothstein to reply in kind.

Since, I have already weighed in with my opinion on this story, I am presenting the conversation between myself and Ms. Rothstein as an interview edited only for length. Read on hear Ms. Rothstein explain why she felt the story was worthwhile, how the word "skank" is different from "sexpot," and why she won't address Ms. O'Connor in the future.

My conversation with Ms. Rothstein is below with my questions in bold and her responses in plain text.

Were you surprised by the firestorm that this sparked up?

Extremely, I never expected this in a million years. I really thought I was just doing--I wouldn't say like a regular post, I think any time you introduce the word 'sex' into an item or a story, it kind of adds a provocative angle that gets people looking at it. And so, I didn't necessarily think it would be ignored, but no I didn't think it would be the explosion that it was.

...

So, do you think this was an important and valid point to raise?

Well, I guess I'm sort of interested in the way that you phrased that, because you're saying 'valid point.' Well, for me, I was trying to raise an issue. That was the goal, to raise an issue that I think has not really been raised. I think there's a lot of unexplored territory with the internet, with Twitter especially, and how focused journalism is with Twitter right now. ... So, yeah, I was raising an issue and it sort of turned into this thing where I was 'making judgements,' I was 'scolding.' I mean, these were the accusations. You know this, you were part of it. You know, scolding, accusing, and for me, from where I sit and in my mind as I was writing it, I was presenting.

As you know, I definitely did have a reaction and opinion on this. My reaction was that I felt like these were fairly standard pictures and I know other people have pointed out that they were similar to a picture you yourself had used.

No, that wasn't a picture I had used in any work capacity.

I think it was coming from a post I did actually a year ago, which I didn't realize until the Vanity Fair story.

When you asked me for a picture, I gave it to you.

Someone had asked me where I had gotten it from and I honestly couldn't even remember.

No, that wasn't a Twitter avatar.

Update (2/27/12 4:08 pm): A copy of Ms. Rothstein's Twitter account cached by Google shows she did use the picture in question as her avatar on Twitter.

So, what was it that you think about these three pictures specifically that was so inappropriate?

Again, you're saying that I thought it was inappropriate. I don't think I was saying that. That's the distinction here. ... I don't know that I do think it's inappropriate. I think it's an interesting issue to look at, that's what I think. I think the pictures, I found them provocative, yes. I definitely stand by that. But now to take it a step further, was I scolding them? Do I think it's inappropriate? I don't know. I'd have to give that some thought, but that's not what first comes to mind for me. I don't think any less of these women because of their Twitter avatars, nor do I necessarily think that they should change them. That's not even my call, that would be up to their bosses. But I think the larger issue here that maybe I didn't get across in my piece effectively is there are no parameters at the moment with these issues, most organizations don't have policies on these things and aren't really thinking about them.

Well, you did single these pictures out as being to quote, 'sexy and provocative.' What made them that way in your mind?

Well, certainly the one where there was a lot of skin.

We're talking about Maeve Reston where her shoulder is visible?

Yeah, but again, like there's no judgement here. It's not like Maeve is bad because she has this picture and she's exposed her skin. I would like to be made clear, I am not painting these women as bad or even inappropriate. I'm raising the question, raising the issue. And what I think that's being lost here is why is it such a hot-button issue?

...

I know part of my reaction to it was that I feel like I've seen men with pictures that I would say are fairly similar and there were no men highlighted in that post. ... In all of these cases, these were people wearing attire that you could absolutely wear in the workplace and just looking at the camera.

It's different, you would not see a man in a dress like that. You would not see that.

I mean that's not attire that men typically wear.

Well, of course not, but I don't think you could compare it like that and say, this is similar. It's not similar.

So, you don't think it's holding these women up to a double standard or treating them differently than you would treat a male reporter?

I want to think about that before I answer it, could we move on just for a second?

We can go back to that. Another question I have that you were alluding to before was that you feel like you were mistreated in this, is that correct?

Right. There were a lot of accusations flying yesterday and I think that it got very heated. I think it rose to a level that was, I would say, pretty vicious. I mean, if you were the one that had a lot of people casting insults at you, you don't know how you're going to react or feel about it. For me, a lot of these people are strangers, so when that's the case, I don't really take it to heart. Was I being mistreated? I mean, look, I'm not a victim here. ... I know I write controversial things and I know that covering the media and writing controversial things, I'm going to be attacked. I know that and I'm not going to be like some wilting flower.

...

Do you think what I did was an insult?

What did you do?

The avatar switch.

Oh, I found it funny, I did. I still think it's funny.  I think you were being both serious and funny. My perception is that you were standing up for your friends and you were also being funny, because that kind of works quite well together.

I definitely was trying to make a point and also be funny at the same time. I will say, I don't know any of them personally apart from Maureen. But I sort of had the impression, and this gets back to what we were discussing before, that we're all colleagues in the same space and, you know, I did think they were being held to a double standard and that there was an obligation by those of us that are also in that space to stand up.

But, I guess, addressing that issue of the double standard, here's the thing, the problem here is that we're coming at this, I mean you and I, are coming at this from different thought processes. Like you, I think, still believe that I was judging them in some way, judging them as bad. ... For me, I was not, it's more observation and raising an issue. There's a huge difference right there. I can't get in your head and twist the screws and make you really believe that, in my heart, I was not trying to hurt these women, hold them back, hold them to some different standard, or insist that they dress in any certain way, like dress in a more, you know, what one would consider proper.

...

I think where we're getting hung up on is kind of semantic in that you were raising the issue that these photos were what you described as 'sexy and provocative.' I don't think you're necessarily putting judgement into that, but I guess the point I would be trying to make ... I feel like I've seen pictures of male journalists where, you know, they're headshots, and they're looking at the camera and I don't see it as that different from these pictures. Where I see the double standard is, I don't think you were identifying pictures of men as sexy and provocative. It was really just happening to women, even if we remove the question of judgement.

Oh, I see what you mean. Well, see, I don't know. I think that this story was this story. I don't think it was saying that this never happens to men, it wasn't addressing men in this story.

To get back to something you were saying before, obviously that photo, I don't think it was your Twitter avatar, but it was a photo especially in providing it to us, that you had used professionally. Do you think that picture of you was provocative?

I think people would probably perceive it as provocative, yeah I do.

Would you use a photo like that again?

Would I use it again? Well, at this point, I don't know.

...

What would you like to see come out of all of this? Do you think we should be having a discussion of professional attire in photos or what discussion do you think we should be having?

Well, I guess, in a larger sense, I think the discussion is about Twitter and the parameters of it ... about the branding and about what kind of image do you want to present professionally? ... People have different feelings about it, I mean, I think it's good to think about what kind of image that you want to portray and what it means.

...

I guess I would summarize what you're saying, and I'd like to hear from you whether you think this is accurate, I think you're saying that these pictures were provocative in a certain way and that might not be professional. Maybe you're saying that's not a judgement, but to me, to highlight something as unprofessional, that does seem judgmental.

I disagree that I'm saying they're unprofessional. Again, see, this is my problem, I feel like you're trying to put a judgement on what I'm telling you and I don't know that it's unprofessional of them, I don't.

You're just you're thinking that it's a discussion we need to start having basically?

Well, I mean, I wrote the post and it got this huge, explosive reaction. So does it need to be had? I mean, I think the discussion needs to happen to find out why this is such a hot-button issue. I mean, there's obviously something there, don't you think?

I've told you why I think it got a reaction, at least out of me, in that I think it basically is accusing these people of being unprofessional and men would not be accused of being unprofessional for having a headshot or something else in a photo.

Well, I don't know about that.

I think we can agrees to disagree on that.

Yeah, I think so, but I wouldn't want you to characterize this as me saying that I think they're unprofessional, because I don't think that.

...

My final question on this would be whether you have any regrets in terms of how the post was handled and also in the reaction, specifically to Maureen O'Connor.

I do regret that, in the aftermath, there couldn't be a civil discussion. I mean, it really degenerated very quickly into being called names like 'skank' and stuff like that. I mean, you know, Maureen did start that. You do realize that right?

Yes, but I think you know the same way that the writer who criticized you on Jezebel sort of used that language, I think both them and myself had sort of the impression that maybe you used the word 'sexpot' instead of 'skank,' but you were calling these women names. I think they would say that they responded in kind. ... I think that there was a lot of outrage in the fact people felt you had called these women 'sexpots' for using these photos.

Right, but you know, if you want to have a civil discussion, calling me 'a skank' is not the way to start that discussion. I don't see, necessarily, 'sexpot' as, I don't see it as calling a woman a 'skank.' I do not.

So, what was your goal with that? Do you think there was anything wrong in using that phrase?

Looking back, I think that I would have made the headline more of a question. Would I use the word again? I'm not sure.

Is there anything else? I really do want this to be your opportunity to respond. I genuinely have been eager to have a more nuanced discussion and allow you to get your side out on this.

Well, that's the thing. ... I just don't think that Twitter's the medium to do that, especially like when people are attacking you and calling you different names and stuff. I just don't see that. ... Even you today, you're waiting for an apology. I'm not going to apologize for raising an issue. No.

Well, I think exactly what my Tweet said, is that I was waiting for you to apologize or address this, and I think now you are.

And I don't apologize. I mean, do I have regrets and would I do things differently? Well, yeah. I think with every life experience that you have, you go through it and you experience it the way you do, and then you decide for next time, well, what would I want to be different? Well, next time I wouldn't engage with Maureen O'Connor. You know, it's simply not worth it. I mean, she writes about Arianna's poop. Is that holding women back? Maybe, and I hope you quote me on that. I think that's a really important point. Here is a woman who's getting on my case for what I wrote, but can we examine what she has written?

Is there anything else other than that that you would want to address now that you're being given the opportunity to address this more in depth?

I think that, looking back at the story, I wish that I had done it in a more in depth way. I think I just wanted to present a quicker look at it. If I could do it again, and I may look into this issue more, I would want to do it more in depth and I wouldn't have this big fight on Twitter. I wouldn't, it's not worth it.

Well, that's pretty much all the questions I have. I would say I really do appreciate you, given that I did obviously take a side on this, I appreciate you trusting me to be a venue for you to present your side of it.

Well, I think I trust you. We'll see what you do with it.

Full Disclosure: From 2008 until 2009 this reporter worked as a contributing editor at FishbowlDC’s sister site, FishbowlNY.

(Updated 11:15 pm to include disclosure and longer description of the exchange between Ms. O'Connor and Ms. Rothstein)

Rupert Murdoch (Photo: Twitter)

News Corporation media mogul Rupert Murdoch took to Twitter today to weigh in on Mayor Bloomberg's State of the City address. Mr. Murdoch praised Mayor Bloomberg's education proposals, encouraged the United Federation of Teacher's to drop their opposition to the initiatives and wondered how New York's "chicken" governor will respond.

"Bloomberg's bold teacher proposals today terrific. How will chicken Cuomo respond? If UFT refuses this money good teachers will scream," Mr. Murdoch wrote.

In his speech, Mayor Bloomberg proposed merit pay and teacher evaluation programs. Teacher's unions have generally fought similar programs. The UFT has already clashed with Mayor Bloomberg about his evaluation plans.

Mr. Murdoch joined Twitter to great fanfare on New Year's Eve. Though he's been on the site for less than two weeks, but he's already written several postings on the social media site expressing admiration for Mayor Bloomberg. His 16th Tweet dubbed Hizzoner "New York’s best mayor in memory." On January 4, he described Mayor Bloomberg as one of the "three greatest philanthropists" along with Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.

Full Disclosure: From June 2010 until November of last year, this reporter worked at The Daily, an iPad newspaper owned by Mr. Murdoch.