Digital Destiny published

Tomorrow is the official publication date of my book, “Digital Destiny: New Media and the Future of Democracy” (The New Press). It’s designed to serve as a warning to those who believe that the “new media” will automatically provide the basis for a more democratic communications system in the U.S. At its core is an expose of the stealth mechanism promoting personal consumption that is at the foundation of our digital system. For the majority of us, wherever we go—online, in the street via mobile devices, and while viewing digital TV, we will be digitally tracked, profiled and targeted. Our privacy will be further eroded in the process. Unless we create safeguards and other measures, the most powerful media system ever created will primarily be a force for self-gratification and acquiring products (along with the selling of politicians and a spate of ideologies, no doubt). More on this point to follow.

Digital Destiny also chronicles the paid-for by industry nonprofit groups that help support an agenda designed to weaken the public interest. It covers the endless chain of academics, universities, revolving door officials, and think tanks that help prop up media industry power. In that sense, it “names name’s.”

It also covers the battles over media ownership, broadband access (network neutrality), and offers a modest agenda for the U.S. media future.

Time Magazine: You’ve Got Hypocrisy

Time’s person of the year issue named You– and everyone else—as its annual award recipient. Hailing what it called “Citizens of the New Digital Democracy,” the Time Warner flagship publication breathlessly published a series of exuberant articles about how the new media is dramatically changing our country and the world. “You control the Information age” claimed the magazine headline, complete with a mirror-like cover device so you could admire yourself. But the failure of Time to seriously address the key issues raised by Web 2.0 and broadband illustrates the many hurdles to overcome if we are to have any semblance of a digital democracy.

Perhaps the best example of Time’s failure to truly be honest with readers/users was its failure to address the elimination of network neutrality. Time magazine’s parent company is one of the corporate leaders opposed to an open and non-discriminatory Internet. Time Warner is part of the cable industry lobbying apparatus that has eliminated broadband non-discrimination in the U.S. If Time Warner–and its allies Comcast, Verizon and AT&T–have their way, a handful of cable and phone conglomerates will actually determine much of our digital destiny. These old media giants want to extend their monopolies into the digital era, ensuring that their content receives preferential treatment; that broadband becomes a pay as your surf and post toll-road; and that they become powerful barons of the digital domain.

Time magazine should have acknowledged that its parent company is opposed to limits on media consolidation. It wishes to own as much of cable as it can (so it could continue to swallow up cable systems, such as what it and Comcast recently did when they carved up giant Adelphia cable). The magazine should have acknowledged that its parent once before had predicted great things for the U.S. public with new media—when AOL and Time Warner merged in what was then the largest media merger in U.S. history. It should have acknowledged the numerous lies given by Time Warner executives to shareholders, consumers, and policymakers when it claimed to be a sound and public-minded deal.

The cover story should have acknowledged how the new media poses great threats to our privacy, as data is collected about our every move by AOL and many others. It should have discussed how Time Warner’s AOL made public our personal search data, and also turned over records about our searches to the Bush Administration. Instead of mindlessly claiming that to see the future of our media we should look at raw videos on YouTube, it should have said that the public should learn about how Time Warner’s interactive ad subsidiary—Advertising.com—targets us with personalized digital marketing.

As we discuss in our new book—out tomorrow—much of today’s new media “vision” is driven by a desire to create a stronger mechanism for personalized and targeted interactive marketing. Companies such as Time Warner, Google, and Yahoo want to combine the branding power of video with the data collecting and interactive capabilities of the Internet. It will be a digital democracy shaped by Madison Avenue. That was the vision originally developed for our new media future by AOL and Time Warner’s leaders Steve Case and Richard Parsons. Much of Web 2.0 is based on that vision: a system designed to promote the “brandwashing” of America.

Yes, we have endless possibilities with new media, including the Web 2.0 paradigm. But powerful political and economic forces will shape what ultimately develops. If Time Warner has its way, they will hold a key copyright over our digital democracy.

New York Times and Network Neutrality: Great position. But the paper needs to disclose its own conflicts on the issue

This week the New York Times editorial page weighed-in to support national legislation requiring network neutrality (“Protecting Internet Democracy,” January 3, 2007. Reg. may be required). We share those sentiments, of course. It’s time for a law that restores and extends Internet non-discrimination in the U.S. But we also believe that news organizations need to inform readers/viewers/users about how their own corporate relationships are affected by communications policy issues. The New York Times Co. is staking much of its future on digital media, including interactive advertising. For example, it acquired the About.com informational web service in 2005 for $410 million. The goal, said Times Co. officials, was to “increase the company’s revenue from the expanding online advertising business.” The Times Co. has historically been a leader in developing interactive marketing techniques, including so-called “surround sessions” which enable advertisers to digitally follow New York Times online users as they access the paper electronically. Indeed, as we cover in our new book, Digital Destiny, the Times Co.’s Martin Nisenholtz (who heads its digital operations) has been a key ad industry leader promoting the advance of interactive data collection and personalized targeted marketing. Few Times readers and users really understand what the Times Co. is doing with all this data in the service of its advertisers.

The Times Co. requires network neutrality—otherwise it knows it will have to pay a digital version of the Mafioso-like vig to Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon and AT&T. The major phone and cable conglomerates want to charge everyone an assortment of fees for higher-speed Internet distribution, creating a de facto pay toll road for broadband. Given that everyone will be distributing video-centered multimedia to TV’s, cell phones and PC’s, having such “premium for a price” Internet access will be a necessity to prosper in the Web 2.0 and beyond era. Therefore, the Times Co must have network neutrality if its investments in About.com and other “new media” related strategies will return the profits to help support its journalism (which is a key reason why the country requires network neutrality. Without it, serious journalism will be in future jeopardy—as it is today).

Today, the Times reported that its parent company was selling off its television station group. It’s another indication that the Times Co. (wisely) understands its future lies with broadband. But the success of such a business model depends in part on an open Internet. We believe that the Times should have explained to its readers that when it supports network neutrality, it has its own financial future at stake. The paper, and the rest of the Times properties, should also begin to inform its users about the range of data collection and targeted electronic marketing its doing. Complete and full disclosure should be the rule—not an after-thought serving as fodder for bloggers.

The late Frank Stanton and the Blacklist

The passing of former CBS head Frank Stanton has generated eulogies, especially for his work protecting the interests of television journalists. For that, Mr. Stanton was roundly hailed as a champion of the First Amendment. But Mr. Stanton’s role in promoting the Blacklisting of writers and artists during the McCarthy era is a less known part of his legacy. We don’t have time to go into here, so this excerpt from a fine 1999 article by Jeff Kisseloff will have to do.

“In 1950, Mr. Stanton approved a companywide loyalty oath to reassure advertisers and self-proclaimed patriots of the political correctness of CBS employees. The next year, with Paley’s approval, Mr. Stanton took the network beyond Red Channels with the creation of a security office staffed by former F.B.I. agents to investigate the political leanings of its employees…In a recent interview, Mr. Stanton, 91, said blacklisting had been necessary to stave off pressure from advertisers and affiliates who were threatening to abandon CBS and possibly shut it down. He conceded, however, that the network’s response to the pressure may not have been the best one.”

Our point here. Media executives, with rare execptions such as Norman Lear, have always placed the interests of their company and the industry ahead of the public interest. Instead of standing up for more robust journalism and quality, they too often trod the path of what is safe. Although media execs like to generously praise each other as valiant protectors of the public, what often lies beneath is just another corporate lobbyist.
Source: “Another Award, Other Memories of McCarthyism.” Jeff Kisseloff. New York Times. May 30, 1999

movie scream mp3movies and clips shemalelittle movie the vampiremovie notebook quotes themovies underwater sexunited theater movie artistmovie studio vegaszemanova veronica download movie Map

FCC Chief Kevin Martin: Ignorant of Media History. Lesson # 1–Cable is a Community Communications System

Kevin Martin is the chair of one of the most powerful federal agencies–the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Martin’s first allegiance–as with most of the FCC’s chairs–is with the corporate media and telecommunications industries. Martin should be serving the public, working to ensure that the country’s electronic media system blossoms into a dynamic and diverse system of communications. But Martin’s worldview is shaped by the requirements of companies who will likely employ him in the future–and will need to be tapped for campaign contributions (like his predecessor Michael Powell, Martin is interested in elected office in the future).

Anyway, to the point. If Martin was aware of communications history in the U.S., he would have acknowledged that cable television is supposed to be a “community communications system.” That’s what cable’s promise was back in the 1960’s and 1970’s–and how cable policies evolved. (I won’t go into the details here, but do cover them in my book, out early Jan.). Martin helped further wreck cable’s potential to serve as a system designed to truly serve communities. He and his two GOP colleagues voted the other day to weaken the process protecting communities when they negotiate with electronic media giants. Now, phone companies–and soon cable–will be free to run its operations in communities without regard to the public interest.

Shame on Kevin Martin for helping AT&T, Verizon and others further dominate what should be regulated as a public trust–the nation’s broadband media system. But let this sad epsiode serve as a lesson. Next time the Senate considers a nominee to the FCC, let’s fight anyone who will place private corporate interests ahead of citizens, communities and the nation as a whole.

Progressive 2.0–We Need to Build a "New" New Media System for U.S.

We are convinced that the only way to ensure a more democratic and diverse communications system in this era of “anytime/anywhere” media is to “build” it. Public policy will not be able to play a leading role to help us do that–certainly in the short term. What’s required is a strategic effort designed to harness the power (and challenges) of convergence by fostering large-scale collaboration and partnerships. The potential of Web 2.0 sites that foster community building is a critical area for progressive endeavors. As we have said, the Web 2.0 model offers the opportunity for communities and the nation to have diverse, public-interest-oriented and sustainable digital communications services. We should not cede media influence to services who are primarily interested in financial profit–they will dominate unless we can challenge the new media status quo.

We will need to tap into the expertise of new media business types who wish to harness the power of the media for social good. In that respect, we believe that the Huffington Post’s hire of a Time Warner executive familiar with online ad sales (and who will help it better connect with the growing revenue stream of Web 2.0 media) is something which should be replicated.

loan stock of issuing advantagesall 1 loan 888loans 106 mortgageapproval 100 loans garanteed6 rates month loans interestloans 1.25000 unsecured loanrate loan acquisition finance floating Map

bbw samples free moviebbw free samples moviemovie devil cry mayslut free moviesfree huge tits movieshorror trivia moviemovies amateur nudecry devil movie may Map

As Progressives Plan to Meet in Memphis, it’s Time to Look Beyond Policy

We are heartened by the upcoming conference on media reform coming up Jan. 12-14. But the focus of the conference should be to look beyond Washington for answers. The communications industry is already defining our emerging digital media reality through major investment and mergers. Washington—even under the Democrats—can’t really help in the short-term. Media industry leaders know this—that policy is largely irrelevant at the moment. Yes, we should fight for network neutrality, access for low-income Americans and oppose big mergers. But we must also address how the public interest can be best served in this broadband media “anywhere, anytime” era. It requires, in our opinion, a proactive effort to shape the marketplace. If we are going to have a media system which provides serious news, as well as promotes ideas which puts people first (think health care, employment, education and peace), we need to work together to help create it.

The theme for Memphis should be to both address policy and market activism. Otherwise, we won’t make the progress we so desperately require.

MSN’s Holiday Challenge: Using Sweepstakes to Collect Your Data for Uncle Bill. Not Santa

The new sweepstakes run by Microsoft’s MSN unit–Holiday Challenge [‘Win Up to $50,000]–is emblematic of one of the key ways online marketers collect your personal and related data. Hey, they say. `Wanna win some big bucks?’ Just fill out the form to play. They assume, natch, that you won’t be clued in to the data collection and branding game going on. They don’t make much of the lifeless link which takes you to its privacy “Highlights” page (you have to click again after that if you want to reach the full privacy policy pages). Once enrolled in the game, Microsoft will be able to learn about your behavior online at various MSN pages–all the while you have to endure rich media/search engine pitches for products.

Microsoft, we know, is now seeking to develop a business model for the always-on era. Selling software can no longer cut it as a steady and significant revenue source. But Microsoft should do this in a way that makes it the corporate leader fostering privacy online–as well as supporting content and culture that enriches democracy. Its new sweepstakes ploy reveals a cynical lack of both imagination and commitment to do something better.

Commercial Alert’s Work on Stealth Word-of-Mouth Marketing: Getting the FTC to Wake Up

Congratulations to the group Commercial Alert for pushing the Federal Trade Commission to act, even timidly, on one of the most egregious marketing ploys. “Word-of-mouth” marketing uses people–including kids–to push products to friends and others. Such product pushers receive all kinds of compensation, including feeling they are among an “in-crowd.” That’s what companies actually say to these kids. It was Commercial Alert’s petition that got the FTC to admit greater disclosure is required. Such marketing tactics are part of the emerging “360” degree field of “engagement” that advertisers and brands are building. Wherever we go, online and off, we will be the targets of marketing (including what is known as WOM). But at least now, as as a result of the Commercial Alert work, stealth product pushers better fess up. Perhaps we will even see some changes in how the companies engaged in such sorry practices, especially using kids/teens, operate. If not, these companies will find themselves on the wrong side of branding.
Gary Ruskin and his colleagues deserve our thanks.