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.

Did the FCC Really Censor a Dove Soap Ad? Beware the Slippery `Soap

If this is true, we find it highly inappropriate for the FCC to screen any content in advance. We also believe Dove and its ad agency should not have asked the FCC for comment. This is the proverbial “slippery soap” regarding content and the FCC. Read the following excerpt from Promo magazine and a story from “adland” [with pictures] via this link:

“The Federal Communications Commission would not allow Dove to run its latest television commercials because they feature “implied nudity” of women over 50, revealed Maureen Shirreff, group creative director of Ogilvy & Mather Chicago.

She noted that the spots are on the Dove Web site and are also being broadcast around the world. “They [the FCC] wanted to see some presence of clothing,” Shirreff said. “They were really nice, and we don’t fault anyone.” She added that O&M and Dove felt that it would be impossible for the spots to be edited, as was suggested by the FCC, to pass federal muster.”

aaya toofan mp3 aayamp3 crack abeeshepherd aberdeen wayne kenny mp3rottenberg mp3 abbiemp3 abdur raoofselamanya abadi mp3mp3 aayar paadiheliopolis aberfeldy mp3 Map

The Shameful Revolving FCC Door: Michael K. Powell Joins Cisco board

Just a few years after he oversaw key policy issues affecting Cisco, former FCC chair Michael Powell has joined its board of directors. Powell’s decisions while at the FCC often dovetailed with Cisco’s own agenda, including opposing a policy requiring broadband network non-discrimination. Powell adds Cisco to his growing list of profitable media and communications industry gigs, including his buying up media properties role as a senior advisor with Providence Equity Partners.

As we’ve mentioned, Powell is just one of former FCC officials working for or with the very companies and industries they only a short while ago were sworn to oversee on behalf of the public. Powell’s two Democratic predecessors, Reed Hundt and William Kennard, are also working with the industry.

The next time there is an opening for a chair or commissioner, advocates should press for someone not connected to the communications business. Nominees should also pledge they won’t seek work in the industry after their term. We need independent people at the FCC who always put the public interest first, and not think about their next private deal.÷š It’s time for a major project to force the White House and the Senate to select FCC commissioners who are not a part of the permanent media/telecom lobby.

ringtone pm a840ringtone aana aap kaach a930 ringtonefool act ringtoneringtone crows adelaideforum 8830 ringtone19 ringtone 3khz36 crazyfists ringtones Map

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

What

Microsoft has launched a blitz of op-ads promoting national privacy legislation. But absent from the self-serving copy is what Microsoft is and plans to do with all the data it collects. Microsoft is determined to make data collection for interactive advertising a more powerful presence on all its platforms. It has increased the budget for it’s R &D work in the area. As Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer told key marketers last year, “[W]e will invest as much in this online opportunity in R&D as any of the other major players. It is important for you to understand our deep commitment to absolutely providing you with the experiences that you need to bring audience and help give you platforms and tools to intersect with that audience.”

Nor did the op-ad explain the role of Microsoft’s new adLab facility in Beijing, whose mission is to “research and incubate advanced technologies for MSN’s adCenter, designed to provide advertisers with rich targeting capabilities based on audience intelligence information and give consumers a more relevant online experience.”

We suppose they will cover what they are really doing regarding data collection in a follow-up ad! We’re waiting.

doing sapphic moviesfree downloads movie adultmovie sex samplemovies nude uncensored movies of womenmovies blow jobmaker windows moviemovies sex lesbianmovie naked stars 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

Is the "Future" of "Brand-Safe" U.S. Broadband Content Based in India?

There is a new start-up called “YuMe Networks” that says it’s “the first dedicated advertising network created and optimized for broadband video.” Its technology helps create advertiser friendly channels of content. According to a report in ClickZ, “YuMe has software that looks at metadata, speech and other elements and then categorizes the content. The software, along with a team of 23 in India, cull through the videos to verify the content within them and make sure it is safe for advertising.”

What is deemed “safe for advertising”–as with much of television and radio content today–has a huge impact on what is produced. As we’ve said, the entire relationship between marketers and broadband content is a crucial area for the public interest. In addition to privacy and commercialization concerns, what kinds of content ultimately gets funded will have an impact on the range and diversity of news and other programming available in the digital sphere. [Perhaps, in the near future, all of program standards & practices will be outsourced to India and beyond!]

Video on the Net Alliance–Not So Fast!

A new coalition has asked the FCC to declare it will not “regulate” Internet video. They want us to rely on “self-governance and public-private partnerships to address social issues” related to any concerns about the role and operation of broadband Net content. It is way too premature, in our opinion, to say there is no role for the FCC with broadband video. Trends shaping the U.S. broadband environment suggest, at least for this blogger, that there will need to be rules. Big media business economics for both entertainment and political discourse will shape the broadband `triple-play’ delivery system. The wealthiest advertisers, phone & cable companies, and major communications companies (representing Hollywood, Silicon Valley, etc.) will be able to privilege their content in a variety of ways.

Rules are likely needed to ensure that political communications related to electoral campaigns are readily accessible. So too may be policies that truly promote a wide range of news and opinion. There will also need to be policies protecting us from abuses related to the data collection and privacy-threatening marketing which will be totally integrated into broadband “rich media” content. FCC rules protecting children from the inappropriate role marketing will play in broadband video content will also be required.

I know that FCC rules will be abused–they could likely favor those who wish to censor or, paradoxically, the interests of big media. But we don’t know how the broadband video “revolution” will turn out.  We need to have a serious informed national discussion of where broadband communications is headed in the U.S., and what must be done to promote the maximum democratic expression and public service. Leaving it to the “market” won’t be sufficient to provide us what we likely require.

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.