Category: media criticism

Bill Keller of the NY Times Needs a Journalistic Reality Check

It’s hard to fathom why Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, would respond this way to their public editor about the paper’s failure to quickly follow-up on the Post’s investigation of the Walter Reed/veteran health care scandal: “Until we verify — or until the story begins to have consequences — it’s second-hand information,” he wrote in an email. There were other reasons Keller gave as well, including pulling off reporters working on some other enterprise story in order to play catch-up. Keller also said that “News organizations are habitually slow at responding to stories broken elsewhere… The easy explanation, and one that contains a good measure of truth, is pride…Reporters (and editors) don’t enjoy being beaten.”

But is Keller really saying that when a serious news organization or journalist from a competing outlet documents a story of critical importance, the reaction should be ignoring it (as the Times did for a number of days with the Post’s Walter Reed story)? Keller needs to re-examine how his paper responds to news reported elsewhere. The failure of the Times to adequately challenge the false Bush Administration assertions that led to this tragic war will always, sadly, be part of the paper’s journalistic legacy. Keller and executives at the Times need to acknowledge immediately other key stories from competing news organizations–and then advance the story even further. We need more vibrant journalistic analysis and reporting. Ignoring competing news stories is bad for the public interest and is a foolish journalistic practice.

Source: “Reporting the News Even When a Competitor Gets There First.” Byrone Calame. New York Times. March 11, 2007. Reg. may be required.

Bill Gates Fails to Address Real Threats to Privacy–from Microsoft and other Interactive Advertisers

Here’s a link to the speech Mr. Gates gave at the CDT “gala” the other night. Note that Mr. Gates failed to address data collection related to marketing and advertising. Why? Because interactive advertising is Microsoft’s new business model. Mr. Gates and much of the industry wish to narrowly frame the debate, permitting both big business and government to have access to our data. Microsoft and its allies basically want a system where the default is data collection and microtargeting. What’s really needed are strong protections requiring an informed opt-in (which would require, for example, for Microsoft, Google, AOL, MySpace, etc. to precisely explain what is being collected and how it’s being used. Then ask for periodic affirmative permission).

The Center for Democracy and Technology hosted a “gala dinner” last night featuring Bill Gates. Billed as a “night for networking,” the event was to (self) honor CDT. CDT has long raised tremendous amounts of money from the very industries it is supposed to serve as a watchdog for. How can the organization really press Microsoft on privacy when it uses Mr. Gates to help the group sell tables at $5,000 each! Having a host committee filled with folks opposing network neutrality and safeguards for online advertising doesn’t help either. For a list, see here. Verizon, the Network Advertisers Initiative, Comcast, Progress and Freedom Foundation are just a few listed. There are some public interest folks as well. How can groups such as CDT act as truly independent advocates for the public interest in digital communications when their hands are out for such donations. Ask yourself.

A Post-script. CDT is part of a corporate coalition pushing for a national privacy policy that would not truly protect the public. It would permit Microsoft and the others to continue their unprecedented collection and abuse of our personal information. Note the huge loopholes–and disingenuousness–in this key section from the CDT/Microsoft backed “Consumer Privacy Legislative Fourm:

Consumer Privacy Legislative Forum Statement of Support in Principle for Comprehensive Consumer Privacy Legislation

The time has come for a serious process to consider comprehensive harmonized federal privacy legislation to create a simplified, uniform but flexible legal framework. The legislation should provide protection for consumers from inappropriate collection and
misuse of their personal information and also enable legitimate businesses to use information to promote economic and social value. In principle, such legislation would address businesses collecting personal information from consumers in a transparent manner with appropriate notice; providing consumers with meaningful choice regarding the use and disclosure of that information; allowing consumers reasonable access to personal information they have provided; and protecting such information from misuse or
unauthorized access. Because a national standard would preempt state laws, a robust framework is warranted.

About the Consumer Privacy Legislative Forum: The Consumer Privacy Legislative Forum was organized in the winter of 2006 to support a process to consider comprehensive consumer privacy legislation in the United States. The Forum began with a Steering Committee of companies eBay, Hewlett-Packard, and Microsoft, the consumer group Center for Democracy and Technology, and Professor Peter Swire of the Ohio State University..

764 mp3 heromp3 7650 nokinone mp3 77mp3 9311 777mp3 2many djsalbums mp3 786innocent ringtones sorrow boys abingdon schoolcompanies uk fo loan payday addresses Map

female movies orgasm freefree rape movie clipsmovies free-handjobmovies hardchi hsu movieslist old movies oftheme movie mp3sex hilton movies paris Map

MySpace Keeping Tabs on You

Thanks to Peter Levinsohn of Fox Interactive for–once again–helping us make the case for a national privacy policy where opt-in and full-disclosure is required from all online sites. Here’s an excerpt of a news story in Broadcasting & Cable:

Levinsohn also talked about the wealth of data MySpace collects from its users. He said that 90% of users register, which includes “an enormous amount of information,” which he said includes “age, marriage status, likes, dislikes, where you live.” He said the site then “combines that data with data we extract from the profile pages…marry it with the enormous amount of inventory we have and then target our ads more effectively.” He said he saw it as a way to dramatically increase the CPMs (cost per thousand) across the overall network.”

Source: “Fox Interactive Claims 40 Billion Page Views in January.” John Eggerton. Broadcasting & Cable. 3/7/07

free bdsm moviefree beastiality moviebig free cock movies sexbigtit free moviesjob movies job free blow blowmovies free sister porn brothermovie gay free fullfree length movies full blowjob Map

Will Arianna Huffington tell Madison Ave. to first serve the Public Interest?

Ms. Huffington will be a keynote speaker at Advertising Age’s “360 degree Media” conference on March 21. The editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post will share the podium that day with Yahoo’s Terry Semel and other marketing executives. We hope Ms. Huffington will warn the online ad industry that its aggressive moves to track all of our digital behaviors– so they can create a variety of desired actions (“conversions”)– raise fundamental questions about privacy. Ms. Hufffington should boldy challenge their plans to manipulate consumers through the “always-on, always-being branded to” interactive media machine that has been developed. Lastly, Ms. Huffington should especially urge advertisers to rein-in messages and campaigns promoting consumption. It’s time advertisers owned up to their own role which contributes to global warming. Ms. Huffington’s Post has a real opportunity to be a model for responsible interactive advertising–where privacy, a “green” ethos,” and a pro-civic engagement commitment–shape the message and the marketing.

We always appreciate when media industry leaders, such as Viacom’s Philippe Dauman, reveal how the business really operates. From Broadcasting & Cable, reporting on today’s tony Bear Stearns media conference held in Palm Beach: “While Viacom’s U.S. margins are close to 50%, Dauman said he hoped to maintain them even having to invest in more original programming and getting its digital sales operation up to speed. To help in that effort, he has cut jobs and salaries and restructured, saying there were redundancies and people who were, frankly, overpaid.”

It’s also revealing when key executives explain their vision for the U.S. and global digital media future. It’s not plastics, as it was decades ago in “The Graduate.” It’s “immersive.” Here’s Mr. Dauman view, written by B&C: “In a fragmented world, he said, the ability to reach key demos in an immersive, branded way becomes more and more valuable…. “Our business is to reach consumers through our content everywhere they are, and sell to advertisers that consumer relationship.”

This is real life, Mr. Dauman, not the virtual branded broadband reality you are creating at Viacom. There are consequences to squeezing out such fat profit margins–including the cost to peoples lives as you lay them off. B&C has reported two rounds of cuts. Advocates should press Viacom to spend some of its cable monopoly gain on public interest programming.
Source:”Viacom’s Dauman: YouTube Wasn’t Best Environment for Content.” John Eggerton. B&C [sub may be required]

http casino 49erslots all http casinocasino aladdincasino ameristaraladdin casino vegasamerican guide casinocaliente agua casinoalabama casinos Map

Washington Post’s K Street Connections

We hope the Post fully discloses its own relationships with lobbyists as it unfolds its major “Citizen K Street” series [reg. required]. Right from the beginning, readers should learn that the Washington Post has had a long relationship with super-lobbyist Tony Podesta. All the various wheeling and dealing which Tony’s firm has and is doing for the company must be disclosed. The Post should also identify how it is supporting the lobbying agendas of the newspaper, broadcast, and cable industries. For example, through its Cable One subsidiary, the Washington Post plays a leading role aiding the National Cable & Telecommunications Association political agenda (such as opposition to broadband network neutrality). Via its Post-Newsweek TV group, the Post is on the board of directors of the National Association of Broadcasters (think opposition to media ownership rules). The Post is a member of the Newspaper Association of America; that trade group is fighting to eliminate the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership safeguard. Finally, the Post Co. has a representative on the board of the Interactive Advertising Bureau (opposed to online privacy rules, etc).

The series should also examine the role Cassidy has played in weakening media ownership safeguards, including its work for NBC, Fox and CBS back in 2003. As Cassidy’s firm stated on its web site at the time, it had key connections to the then top GOP leaders, including “the Speaker, Majority Leader Conference Chair and seven other leadership offices.” [Source is my book, Digital Destiny, p. 5].

Backing Further U.S. Media Consolidation: State Pension Funds, Foundations and Universities Help Providence Equity Partners New $12b Shopping Spree

Compounding problems with media consolidation is the role that private equity firms are playing buying major media, telecom and advertising properties. We are not only ending up with fewer owners of key newspapers, stations, networks, channels, and digital portals—but these private firms are even more unaccountable to the public. That’s why its disturbing to learn that what has been described as one of the largest funds to buy up media properties—the new Providence Equity Partners VI fund–is financially backed in part by groups which should know better. Investors of the new media merger fund include state pension funds, university endowments and private foundations (in addition to contributions from other pension funds, “high-net-worth” individuals and “funds of funds”). These investors are partnering with Providence’s plan to see more media properties are swallowed up. But likely missing from such buy-outs is any commitment to the public interest, let alone serious support for journalism. Ironically, foundations, unions, and a few university leaders have been part of the “media reform” effort combating further consolidation of “old media” and also working to restore “network neutrality” for U.S. broadband.

Former FCC Chair Michael K. Powell is a senior advisor at Providence, another irony (especially if any of the pension or foundation investment comes from groups backing the public interest media effort). Providence, as we’ve noted previously, has sought to acquire Clear Channel and Tribune. Its new fund will enable it to acquire more cable and other holdings, likely making it a fierce opponent of the effort to ensure broadband cable and phone networks are required to operate in a non-discriminatory manner.

We hope that there will be some serious soul-searching in the foundation, union, and pension investment community. More is at stake than a good return on a dollar. It’s the future of free expression, democratic participation, and civil rights.

Should

We know that newspaper companies have to squeeze out all kinds of revenues, but we believe there should be a firm wall between reporting on the industry and helping to organize corporate events. Swisher and Mossberg’s “D: All Things Digital” conference is said to “put the industry’s top players to the test during informal but pointed conversations about the impact digital technology will have on our lives now and in the future.” The “hallmark” of the event, notes conference materials is “exclusive access to the most innovative and influential thought leaders.” Both Swisher and Mossberg are listed as the producers of the program. But the affair–called a Wall Street Journal Executive Conference–is promoted like a lovefest with famous people. There’s plenty of time for golf and wine-tasting too (with a $3995 “standard” admission pricetag). Perhaps the biggest problem are the corporate sponsors, which include Cisco, HP, and the NYSE. It’s one thing for them to advertise in the Journal or another Dow Jones property. It’s another to back a event run by two of the country’s preeminent technology journalists. Among the special guests showing up in 2007 (and presumably to be interviewed by Swisher and Mossberg) include Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Eric Schmidt and John Chambers (Cisco).

Reporters need to maintain their independence from key sources. It’s one thing to have access; certainly Swisher and Mossberg deserve it, given their journalism credentials. But hosting and helping organize a conference such as this, we believe, further tatters the nearly obliterated wall between marketing and editorial. The WSJ tech pair should let someone else organize and host–and then just show up as journalists. We need more reporters covering the tech and media beats to not only ask hard questions, but to probe and investigate. Leaders such as Gates, Schmidt and Chambers run companies–and engage in policy efforts–which require closer scrutiny and public debate. A cozy, high-priced, and good golfing-hyped event isn’t the best way to engage in journalism that really matters.

Update: Swisher and Mossberg, I have learned, have created their own WSJ-connected spin-off, called D:All Things Digital. According to paidcontent.org, it’s to be “a full-fledged ad-supported website with D co-founders Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg as executive editors.” Ms. Swisher will be leaving the WSJ, says paidcontent, and become an independent contractor. But Dow Jones will own the site and sell the ads. The pair have established their own start-up company, called Shut Up and Listen, LLC. We believe this further compounds the problem. Are they reporters or entrepreneurs? What is the revenue split, if any, between Mossberg/Swisher and Dow Jones. Will they cover the stories involving advertisers for the D site? What kind of disclosure will be required?

loan auto amortization schedule foramortizing mortgage calculator loanstafford loans amount of studentpersonal loan $4000loan payday no fax 1000loan advances day 1000 pay cash18 loan payday faxing canada 26loan 7 24 faxless Map

ladies movies elmovies cum farmfleshlight moviesmovies free 24 sex 7samples free movie adultanimal cumshot movies freeorgasm female movies freegirl masturbating movies free Map

Online Alcohol Promotion in Web 2.0: A-B+Blue Lithium

Stuart Elloitt of the New York Times reports today that “Anheuser-Busch is teaming up with Blue Lithium, an online marketing company in San Jose, Calif., to introduce a promotional program called Clink as part of its “Here’s to beer” campaign. The program, to be housed on MingleNow, a social-networkingWeb site, will let members upload and share photographs as well as video clips. Anheuser-Busch also plans to add a video-sharing feature to Bud.tv…”

But those concerned about inappropriate marketing of beer and alcohol products to underage youth—as well as online privacy—should know more about the deal between A-B and Blue Lithium. It illustrates how marketing is dramatically changing as a result of digital technologies. Data collection, one-to-one targeting via new broadband platforms, and better ways to meld the consumer’s psyche with the brand (such as encouraging user-generated content to promote “engagement”) are just a handful of the new techniques.

Blue Lithium is more than just an “online marketing company” described by the Times. It provides advertisers a broad range of digital tools to deliver precision advertising and marketing, via its “ad network” of online content providers (called publishers). Blue Lithium touts the power of its technology to drive change in consumers, something called “conversions.” Advertisers using Blue Lithium can count on it “identifying the right people, based on tracking user actions and interests, then bundles those individuals up into a highly-receptive audience for your messages.” [Many other companies engage in such behavioral techniques via ad networks].

As consumers are attracted to Blue Lithium connected websites to view consumer generated video content, they will be targeted with a variety of multimedia ads. AdRoll, explains Blue Lithium, permits advertisers to “[L]ayer with advanced targeting capabilities to refine the focus of your video campaigns, reaching those consumers with certain demographic profiles…” AdRoll’s network of publishers permits advertisers to engage in “behavioral retargeting,” which means that consumers will see a refined video pitch from the same advertisers as they travel to entirely different websites. Blue Lithium notes that such retargeting “has been show to improve click-through and conversion rates by [more than] 300%.

The A-B and Blue Lithium deal involve the latter’s “MingleNow,” called an “online/offline social network.” MingleNow, launched in December, “is dedicated to connecting users to their favorite clubs and bars and the people who go there.” It’s worth checking out the various functions of MingleNow’s approach to social networking and marketing. According to its press release (Google cached for now): “MingleNow is built along three fundamental dimensions: Profiles, Places and Events. Once users indicate which bars and clubs, they frequent, their photos show up on the Place page of that establishment and they become part of the community that goes there to share photos and video, trade comments, plan events and in person meetings. MingleNow has over 900,000 place pages representing the most popular drinking, clubbing and socializing establishments in the U.S. Event pages enable users to see what’s going on in their area or publicize their own event. Profile pages give users a place to share information about themselves, feature their favorite people and places, make plans, upload video and more. In order to create an open social network, MingleNow allows users to import feeds and data from other social networks, and export feeds from MingleNow to other networks.”

In another example of techniques to engage users, MingleNow lets you “earn VIP points” as you bring others in to join it. Such rewards can be used for free drinks. We don’t know whether MingleNow is using behaviorally targeting nor the extent of its deal with A-B. But we think both companies need to be candid about what is going on.