Category: media criticism

FCC Revolving Door for Well-Connected Media Biz “Super Lawyers”

Last Sunday,included with the New York Times, was the special ad supplement “Washington DC Super Lawyers 2007.” Listed were the “Top Attorneys in the Washington, D.C., metro area.” An ad supported homage to some of the key power brokers, the supplement included a listing of communications attorneys.

Not surprisingly, among the “top ten” of all the Capital’s Super Lawyers stood Richard E. Wiley of Wiley Rein. The former chair of the FCC (1974-77), his firm has represented practically every media and telecom company, including the NAB, Time Warner, Clear Channel, CBS and Verizon.

Here’s the “Communications” Super Lawyers, and, in many cases, their former roles in Congress or the FCC.

Kathleen Q. Abernathy, Akin Gump. Former FCC Commissioner, 2001-2005
Jonathan. D. Blake, Covington & Burling
Richard J. Bodorff, Wiley Rein. Former counsel at FCC (1974-77)
James L. Casserly, Wilkie Farr & Gallagher. Former senior legal advisor to a Commissioner (1994-99)
Gary M. Epstein, Latham & Watkins. Former FCC official, inc. chief of Common Carrier Bureau (1981-1983)
Charles D. Ferris. Partner, Mintz Levin et al. Former chair of FCC (1977-1981)
Patrick J. Grant. Arnold & Porter
Scott Blake Harris. Harris Wiltshire & Grannis. Former chief of FCC International Bureau (1994-96)
Frank R. Jazzo. Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth
Regina M. Keeney. Lawler Metzger Milkman & Keeney. Former chief of several FCC bureaus and senior counsel for communications at U.S. Senate Commerce Committee
William T. Lake. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr. Former U.S. State Department official
Andrew D. Lippman. Bingham McCutchen.
Francisco Montero. Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth. Former FCC official
John T. Nakahata. Harris Wiltshire & Grannis. Former chief of staff to FCC chair and Congressional aide
Lewis J. Paper. Dickstein Shapiro. Former FCC chief General Counsel
Henry M. Rivera. Wiley, Rein. Former FCC Commissioner (1981-1985)
Norman M. Sinel. Arnold & Porter.
Cheryl A. Tritt. Morrison & Foerster. Former chief of FCC Common Carrier bureau
Philip L. Verveer. Wilkie Farr & Gallagher. Former FCC, FTC, DOJ official.

Watch Out Doing a Search Dance With This Partner-Cha Cha

Jason Pontin has a interesting story today in the New Tork Times business section about the use and misuse of people to assist computers in such tasks as searches [“Artificial Intelligence, with Help From the Humans” reg. required]. He cites Cha Cha, a company that has received investment from Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com. Cha Cha, explains Pontin, is a “human-assisted search company.” There is another part of the Cha Cha story. We think of it more as a stealth-like online advertising vehicle disguised in `Google’ search garb. While users of Cha Cha await the help of “real” people to assist them with their information searches, here’s what is really happening, courtesy of Behavioral Insider:

“Traditional search interactions take only a matter of seconds – but interactive search with guides takes on average a few minutes. During that period, as searchers are working with guides to tailor their answers, display ads can be targeted by subject matter and user interest. So imagine that someone is interested in athletic shoes. Not only do you base targeting on their keyword search but, based on the kinds of questions they’ve asked in the past, you learn what kind of athletic shoes, whether they’re a middle-aged mom interested in taking up jogging or buying a gift for their teenage son. During the guided search session you can target short, video-rich media based on what their needs and interests are.”

Interview with co-founder of “next generation search firm” ChaCha. “Beyond Keywords: New Dimensions In Search Behavior.” Phil Leggiere. Behavioral Insider. March 14, 2007.

Columbia Pres. Lee Bollinger Should Not be on board of Washington Post Co.

We need more independent scholars and public intellectuals, especially in the communications and media fields. That’s why it is disheartening to learn that well-regarded First Amendment scholar and Columbia U. president Lee C. Bollinger has agreed to become a director at the Washington Post Co. Such an involvement raises a number of critical conflicts and problems.

First, Mr. Bollinger will be working to help a company that has substantial interests and investments that run counter to a truly open and diverse communications system in the U.S. Through the Post’s Cable One subsidiary, the company is working to maintain the cable industry’s control over both the multichannel television and broadband marketplace. The Post via Cable One is a member–and has served as a –of the lobby group National Cable Telecommunications Association. The NCTA’s record is strongly anti-First Amendment in terms of the rights of the public, especially its stance against network neutrality (non-discriminatory access).

The Post is also backing the elimination of the key federal safeguard promoting diversity of media ownership–the broadcast and newspaper cross-ownership rule. Through the Post Co’s membership in the lobbying trade group Newspaper Association of America, it is helping to promote consolidation and, more critically, the further erosion of journalistic quality. Finally, the Post is a member of the board of the Interactive Advertising Bureau–a group opposed to the kind of consumer safeguards that would protect our privacy online.

Too many academics have ended up working with media conglomerates, helping their consolidation agenda. We are at a crucial moment in the history of U.S.—and global—media. Much work needs to be done to protect the First Amendment rights of the public in the digital era; ensure the openness of the Internet; and help revitalize professional journalism. The country requires independent voices from outside institutions who can speak beyond the narrow self-interests commonly evoked by media companies. We need scholars who are not schmoozing with (such current Post directors) as Melinda Gates, Barry Diller, and Warren Buffet.

Lee Bollinger is a distinguised intellectual and author. But he should be on the outside of the media lobby, examining it critically on behalf of the public interest. Instead, he will likely be swallowed up by it.

Digital Ad Lobbyists Meet in DC: Media Powerbrokers Gather to Fight Online Privacy Rules

Yesterday, the new Interactive Advertising Bureau’s DC lobbying operation held its “inaugural” event near Capital Hill. Attendees were expected from the 40 members of the IAB “Public Policy Council,” including Google, Time Warner, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Disney, CBS, and News Corp/Fox.

The group was briefed by “two senior attorneys from the FTC Division of Advertising Practices,” according to ClickZ [Mamie Kresses and Richard Quaresima]. While the agenda included a broad range of issues, such as online taxes and network neutrality, there is no doubt that preventing any public interest policy that protects consumer privacy online is the key agenda item. Digital marketers fear that once the public learns how their privacy is threatened via the many techniques of online advertising, there will be a demand for federal safeguards. So the IAB has expanded its political operations to include the hiring of a lobbyist—former Chamber of Commerce official Mike Zaneis. They hope to keep the FTC and the Hill under their political influence—which is considerable.

The IAB is already boosting a success in having its policy chair speak at a recent Congressional hearing.

of accreditation engineersairzona credit fraud consolidationuniversity online program accreditedcredit commercial rich adams american servicescolorado accreditationcorrespondence accredited collegesaccreditation childcare centercard adhesive offers credit Map

News Corp. execs are hyping what its MySpace will do to the U.S. political process. As reported by TechNewsWorld, MySpace CEO Chris DeWolfe said that “As the country’s most trafficked Web site, MySpace will play a powerful role in the upcoming election. Our digital candidate banners will be the yard signs of the 21st Century and our political viral videos and vlogs are the campaign ads of the future.” In discussing its new electoral “Impact Channel,” DeWolfe said it would “empower politicians, nonprofits and civic organizations to connect with MySpace users around the world…”

Missing from such self-serving promotional proclamations is what MySpace intends to charge candidates and campaigns for access. We assume it will eventually impose the same rate charges that big advertisers have to pay for branded profiles. Absent too, is any information about what MySpace will do with all the data it collects from its “Impact Channel” and related political marketing traffic. Will News Corp. make the data available for sale to competing interests, or provide politically favored politicians with special insights about online behavior?

These and many other questions need to be raised and vetted now–by the candidates, MySpace/Fox Interactive/News Corp. and, especially, those who care about the future of U.S. political communications.

uk 100 loans mortgagecolorado 2nd mortgage loan401k loan home purchaseloan fl rate adjustableaffordable home loanused auto loan alaska0 student loan consolidation228 loan Map

The [Growing & Never-Ending] Privatization of Online Space

As online viewership concentrates on key platforms and “community” services, the role which marketing and big money is playing to shape the digital media experience should be a focal point of debate. YouTube, for example, notes this week’s Advertising Age, “is doing custom campaigns for major brands that cost about $750,000 a pop; housing dedicated channels for marketers and, yes, some content players that can run up to $500,000; and front-and-center home-page positioning with its four “director’s placement” spots, which cost about $50,000.” [sub required. “Did Google Flush $1.6 b Down the YouTube?” Matthew Creamer. March 18, 2007].
We think the prevailing ideology that online communications must be thoroughly “monetized” is troubling, and raises key public interest concerns. What will the spiraling costs for effacious YouTube access mean for non-profit groups, issue campaigns, and independent political candidates? Will we repeat the same business model for political communications in the U.S. with digital media that we have for television? Will big, special interest money be required to really attract attention. I believe that the changing nature of the digital medium will eventually make the notion that a stand-alone “viral” video can be a major agent of social change an endangered species.

Online Targeted Political Ads and the White House: Will the Candidates Protect our Privacy?

Yahoo!, Google, and even “adver-gaming” types are lining up to “connect candidates with potential voters,” notes a story today in the Washington Post [“Online Firms Boot Up for Political Campaigns.” reg. required]. Google and others sponsored an event organized by the George Washington University’s Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet.

We believe the evolution of political advertising to embrace the online mediums of broadband PC, mobile devices, and interactive television raises a series of fundamental concerns. First, candidates should not be given or collect the vast amounts of personal information about us that Yahoo!, Google, AOL and everyone else routinely collects. Candidates should not allow “cookies” to be placed on our computers which relate to their campaigns—without prior informed consent. There is a treasure trove of data that can help candidates target their messages. But we believe without informed and prior consent, the voting public is at risk in having personal and other data be used by candidates in a manipulative and unfair way.

Two, candidates require free access to all platforms. We run the risk of migrating the current “it takes big money to make a real impact” system we have with broadcasting to the digital realm. Gatekeepers—such as AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Google and Yahoo!—will be able to charge premium prices. We want new media to fix the problems we have with today’s system, where the requirements of having to raise vast sums of money ultimately empowers the permanent elite interest class.

The presidential campaign should be a litmus test on the candidates and personal privacy online. Reform advocates should also begin calling for “free time” to all the new online media distribution system. As the campaign progresses, this blog will not only follow the money, but the data sales as well.

5,000.00 loan credit badclc advantage loanstudent loans aibloan rehab 203k fhaacqusition loan203k massachusetts loansis loan a mircoabela loans Map

Will the Interactive Advertising Bureau `Mess-up’ Branding Online By Opposing Privacy Safeguards?

The IAB appears to have engaged in a Congressional game of deception today, warning Congress that legislation designed to protect privacy and digital marketing abuses would “curtail consumer choice and hinder the growth of advertising that is proving one of the Internet’s economic underpinnings.” The IAB lobbying group used the same, tired, old refrain as it sought to protect its special interests from having to act responsibly. If Congress protected consumers with online marketing safeguards, warned IAB, it would threaten the nature of the Internet itself. Dave Morgan, representing the IAB (and with the behavioral targeting company Tacoda) told a House subcommittee that “there is always a risk that legislation that governs complicated technology could result in limiting and/or stifling innovation. We want to ensure that the availability of free content online continues to grow and that consumers receive the richest, most relevant internet experience, without unduly burdening the advertising engine that makes these websites run.” The IAB’s new president Randall Rothenberg said that interactive advertising was the “primary means of support for cost-free, rich Internet content, as well as free access to unparalleled products and services. Such advertising has lowered barriers to market entry, enabling new businesses, both small and large, to thrive.”

The ad industry always plays the content card when it engages in self-protection. But the IAB’s leaders are doing a disservice to their industry. No one is saying that there can’t be interactive advertising. What is being said is that there have to be safeguards to ensure it’s done responsibly. There is going to be a growing movement to rein-in the abuses emerging. If the IAB was truly interested in the public, it would get in front of the issue. Instead, they are hiding behind the content the American public actually pays for (through higher prices to cover marketing, and now with unprecedented violations of personal privacy, data collection and more).

Unless the IAB, its members, and the ad industry as a whole begins to honestly address what is being put in place and support meaningful safeguards, marketing in the digital era will increasingly be distrusted. Where are the ad industry leaders who place the interests of the public before more narrow concerns about market share, brand engagement, and `closing’ the `conversion’ loop?

When I look up Orwell’s “doublespeak” on the Google search engine, I hope I receive Google.com near the top. Their new so-called privacy policy is a sham. They should be truly ashamed of themselves for engaging in such intellectual dishonesty. Google will now make its personalized data search information about us anonymous–but only after 18-24 months! Read Google’s annoucement here.

What this means is that Google will have access to all the current and relevant personal info about each of us, so they can target us while searching, on YouTube, Gmail, Google mobile, etc. The company knows very well that such search information is less relevant for precision targeting after 18 months. Besides, their data `cup’ on us will always be runneth over–or, more precisely, flowing into their servers and data mining centers. Google should have announced a policy where no collection and retention occurs for U.S. users–without explict and informed prior consent. As noted elsewhere, Google is using as an excuse the need to comply with EU-related policies on data retention.

ringtones walpapers 99cringtones 2100 hothobbits about ringtonemp3 ringtones bollywoodringtone fantasyringtone mosquitowap ringtones mp3nextel ringtones Map

Is Google Doing a Turn-about on Network Neutrality Law?

As reported by Drew Clark and others, high-ranking Google senior policy counsel Andrew McLaughlin told a Silion Valley crowd that “Net neutrality will ultimately be solved by competition in the long-run…Cutting the FCC out the picture would probably be a smart move. It is much better to think of this as an FTC or unfair competition type of problem.” It doesn’t appear at the moment that his view is official Google policy. But it underscores why we have never been confident that the corporate supporters of network neutrality, especially Microsoft, Yahoo!, IAC, and Google, could ultimately be counted upon to place the public interest before their own corporate futures. The Google’s and Yahoo!’s of the new media world are fearful of fostering public policies that would ultimately rein-in their efforts to collect huge amounts of personal data about each of us—so they can deliver ubiquitous interactive advertising and branded entertainment. As we’ve noted in the past, word from friendly policymakers is that Google and the coalition have done a terrible job lobbying for network neutrality rules. These developments underscore why those concerned about the future of the public interest and the digital era must quickly move beyond the policy realm. The real decisions about the quality and diversity of our digital media system in the short term will be primarily determined–sadly–in the marketplace.

We note that our friends at savetheinternet have written that Google still firmly supports network neutrality legislation, including the Dorgan/Snowe/Markey proposals. They have a quote from a Google spokesperson saying so. But we believe still that all the key work to promote net neutrality will have to be done by the folks outside the “gang of six.”

asian posr pornasian previews pornclips porn sex asianporn asian slideshowspreading porn asianstar asian porn listporn asian tia starporn asian stars bio Map