An Australian publishing resource
Home | News | Resources | Research | Leisure | About us | Jobs | Main index
|
Guidomedia.com An Australian publishing resource Home | News | Resources | Research | Leisure | About us | Jobs | Main index |
|
Postings on media issues from Benton.org (most recent at top) July 2006 31 July: INTERNET NEWS SUPPLEMENTS PAPERS, TV
[SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: Peter Johnson]
Mainstream media may be able to breathe a sigh of
relief, at least for now: A study finds that
although the Internet has grown significantly in
the past decade, it is supplementing traditional
outlets such as newspapers and television, not
replacing them. The biennial news consumption
survey of 3,204 adults, out today from the Pew
Research Center for the People & the Press, finds
that although a growing number of people go
online for headlines, most still also go to
newspapers and television for in-depth news. The
findings suggest that “for at least the
forseeable future, traditional media are going to
continue to co-exist with online news, and that
the online news experience is a partner to other
traditional news sources and not growing fast
enough to supplant traditional media,” Andrew
Kohut, Pew's president, said Sunday. The study
found that just a decade ago, one in 50 Americans
got their news from the Web. Today, one-third of
Americans go online for news -- mainly to get the
headlines. But as the Internet has become more
mainstream, its audience growth has slowed considerably since 2000.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/life/20060731/d_pew31.art.htm
NEWSPAPERS TO USE LINKS TO RIVALS ON WEB SITES [SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Bob Tedeschi] The Washington Post, The New York Sun and The Daily Oklahoman, in Oklahoma City, have contracted with an online news aggregator, Inform.com, to scan hundreds of news and blog sites and deliver content related to articles appearing on their Web sites, regardless of who published those articles. Links to those articles will appear in a box beside the site’s original article or within the text of the story. Newspaper Web sites, which commonly post articles from sister publications, wire services and even blogs, have typically stopped short of providing generous doses of news from competitors. The move made by these papers is not a result of cooperation across the industry as it is a counterattack by publishers against Google and Yahoo, which have stolen readers and advertisers from newspapers in recent years, both with their search engines and their own news aggregation services. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/technology/31ecom.html (requires registration) DIGITAL REPLICAS MAY CHANGE FACE OF FILMS [SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Nick Wingfield nick.wingfield@wsj.com] Steve Perlman, best known for selling a pioneering set-top box company called WebTV Networks Inc. to Microsoft Corp. almost a decade ago, has devised technology that he says can create digital reproductions of the human body that are as accurate as photographs. If it works as planned, Mr. Perlman's system could open up a host of creative possibilities. Game makers could use the system, called Contour, to create very realistic animated characters in videogames with fully controllable movements and facial expressions. Film makers could use the technology as a kind of digital makeup, changing an actor's looks or words or switch camera angles without costly retakes. The technology can even substitute one actor's face for another's and create exact replicas of long-dead historical figures. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115430654184321852.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace (requires subscription) 28 July: NEW MODEL FOR GETTING RICH ONLINE [SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Yuki Noguchi] A decade ago, the Internet dream was to score through venture-capital financing and by raising cash in public stock offerings. Now, people with creative ideas can get rich relatively quickly by permitting advertisers to piggyback on any Web site that attracts a lot of viewers. Technology can direct ads to more and more specific audiences, rewarding entrepreneurship on the smallest scale -- even Web pages filled with obscure and homemade content. Companies like Google, in turn, also find profit in such sites. In the second quarter, Google got $997 million, or 41 percent of its revenue, through the network of Web sites that host ads through the AdSense system. Its software, like Yahoo's, prices ads based on popularity. When users click the ads, the software keeps detailed records, including the number of page views and the amount of commission the site's host earns from the ad -- all of which Web site owners can keep track of by logging on to their accounts. Every month, Google pays publishers by check or direct deposit. Ad publishers must be approved through Google, to ensure that the ads don't subsidize pornography or gambling, or contain material that is racist, violent or related to illegal drugs. Among other things, Google says it watches to make sure people don't inflate their revenues by clicking on their own ads -- a practice known as "click fraud" that has plagued online marketing. The popularity of making money this way also has led to creation of "made-for-AdSense" Web pages that contain little content and lots of ads, which critics say clutter the Internet and divert online searches. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/27/AR2006072701622.html (requires registration) CHINA'S TIGHTENED WEB RULES MAY VEX FOREIGN OPERATORS [SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Jason Dean jason.dean@wsj.com] New rules issued by China's telecommunications regulator could create significant complications for foreign Internet companies operating in China as well as for Chinese Internet companies listed overseas, lawyers and analysts said. Just how much the measures, unveiled this week by the Ministry of Information Industry, will affect Internet companies in China could depend largely on the level of enforcement, experts said. The rules appear to target a complicated legal structure that has been widely used for years to enable foreign investment in the Chinese Internet industry. The measures are aimed at strengthening control over foreign investment in "value added telecom services," a category that includes search engines and other Web sites. The rules require that local providers of such services own the domain names and trademarks that they use in China -- key pieces of intellectual property that are often controlled by foreign affiliates or investors. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115402455406219387.html?mod=todays_us_page_one (requires subscription) 27 July: BROADBAND SUBSCRIBERS SOAR: FCC
[SOURCE: Reuters]
US high-speed Internet subscriptions soared 33
percent last year to 50.2 million lines,
according to the latest data released by the
Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday.
More consumers signed up for digital subscriber
line (DSL) service from telephone companies like
AT&T and Verizon than cable modem service from
companies like Comcast and Time Warner. DSL
subscriptions jumped 5.7 million lines versus
cable companies adding 4.2 million subscribers in
2005, according to the FCC. The cable industry's
market share dropped 3.5 percentage points to
57.5 percent while DSL gained 3.3 percentage
points to reach 40.5, the agency said. DSL is
typically less expensive than cable Internet
service but offers slower download speeds.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2006-07-26T180126Z_01_N26316850_RTRUKOC_0_US-BROADBAND.xml
KAZAA TO PAY MUSIC INDUSTRY $100 MILLION [SOURCE: Reuters] The music industry has reached a legal settlement with veteran antagonist Kazaa, one of the world's best known file-sharing networks and a longtime source of illicit music and movie downloads. Under the terms of the deal, Kazaa's owner Sharman Networks will pay the world's four major music companies -- Universal Music, Sony BMG, EMI and Warner Music -- more than $100 million and commit to immediately going legal, said the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-07-27T120142Z_01_L27523430_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-MUSIC-KAZAA.xml 26 July: TIVO IS WATCHING WHEN YOU DON'T WATCH, AND IT TATTLES
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Saul Hansell]
TiVo is starting a research division to sell data about how its 4.4
million users watch -- or don't watch -- commercials. The service is
based on an analysis of the second-by-second viewing patterns of a
nightly sample of 20,000 TiVo users, whose recorders report back to
TiVo on what was watched and when. On average, TiVo has found that
its users spend nearly half of their television time watching
programs recorded earlier. And viewers of those recorded shows skip
about 70 percent of the commercials. But TiVo says that at a more
detailed level there are wide variations in the numbers. The new
research service, which is intended mainly for advertisers, could
help them understand how to get more people to watch recorded
commercials, like changing the content of ads or running them during
certain kinds of programming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/26/technology/26adco.html
(requires registration) 25 July: VIDEOS ON WEB WIDEN THE LENS ON CONFLICT [SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Sara Kehaulani Goo] Here's how the Israel-Hezbollah conflict is playing out on the Internet's latest window into the human experience, YouTube.com: Videos of young girls driving around smoking and joking about Hezbollah, next to shaky footage of grieving men toting dead bodies through rubble. Internet video sites such as YouTube became a hit this year, as people shared their funny homemade movies with the world. Now the site serves as an unfiltered look at a wide spectrum of experience as rockets and bombs are falling on Israel and Lebanon. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/24/AR2006072401355.html (requires registration) STILL SEXY AT 60? [SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Kelly Greene kelly.greene@wsj.com] A growing number of new ventures are targeting aging baby boomers, their obsessions in the final third of their lives -- and their $2 trillion in annual spending power. Start-up magazines with titles like GeezerJock, Grand and What's Next are beckoning to boomers with advice on triathlons, grandchildren or new careers. Advertisers of everything from autos to electronics have traditionally preferred to link their brand images with younger consumers, and they reveled in baby boomers as children and teens in decades past. Now, with the oldest boomers turning 60 this year, the new ventures raise the inevitable question: Will marketers have any use for them when they're 64? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115379490208516195.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace (requires subscription) 24 July: TODAY'S CELL PHONE SYSTEM ARGUES FOR RETAINING NETWORK NEUTRALITY [SOURCE: NewsForge, AUTHOR: James Glass] [Commentary] For now, Internet service providers are prohibited from discriminating against connections to particular sites on the Internet: they are required to treat traffic to Google exactly the same as traffic to Yahoo! or MSN. This principle of equality is called "network neutrality." However, large telecommunication companies are lobbying congress to scrap the network neutrality rules that have been in place since the birth of the Internet. We don't have to look far to see why this is a bad idea. It turns out that we have a privately owned and controlled network all around us, one that closely mirrors the technical functionality of the Internet, but where there has never been a requirement for net neutrality: the US cellular phone network. Almost all cell phones sold in the developed world have the ability to send and receive SMS (short message service) text messages. SMS is gaining popularity in the US, but only as a way to send quick messages to friends. So why aren't there a wealth of amazing and interactive services available for mobile devices? Why is there no MySpace, Craigslist, Amazon, Flikr, or eBay accessible through this network? Why are cell phone payment systems and email systems nearly nonexistent? Why haven't charities raised money or awareness of their causes through this system? It's simple. Because the cell phone carriers control what services are allowed to use their networks. There is no net neutrality on the cell phone network. This sad state of affairs is what lies in wait if we let commercial interests take control of the Internet. Expect the same type of behavior from AT&T, Comcast, and the rest of the oligarchs. It doesn't take much imagination to imagine Verizon treating their Internet property just like their cell phone network -- short-sightedly milking it for all it's worth, at great expense to the public, and to the future. http://business.newsforge.com/business/06/07/19/206209.shtml?tid=138&tid=3 TELEVISION EVERYWHERE [SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Allison Romano] At a time when TV networks and advertisers alike are desperate to increase -- or at least maintain -- market share, reaching viewers in new places has never been more urgent. At home, audiences are distracted by the Internet, video-on-demand and DVRs, but in certain public spots -- airports, elevators, gas stations -- the audience is quite captive. Some of the last vestiges of TV-free space are vanishing as marketers recognize the value of the consumer’s inability to turn away or tune out. Technology has made it easier and more affordable to reach audiences on the go, with cheaper flat-panel TVs hitting the market and wireless networks enabling networks to update frequently and localize content down to a ZIP code. And, as viewers themselves become more accustomed to watching TV on portable devices, such offerings are accepted as welcome distractions from the monotony of food shopping or pumping gas. These “out-of-home networks,” or “place-based media,” work efficiently because of the absence of competing messages and the accessibility of viewers. CBS calls such placements the “outernet.” http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6355394.html?display=Feature MEDIA COVERAGE MAY BE WHAT HOLDS COMPANIES TO ACCOUNT [SOURCE: MarketWatch, AUTHOR: Thomas Kostigen] [Commentary] New research shows media coverage, more than policies or shareholder activism, forces companies to behave. "The media seems to exert pressure on corporate managers and regulators, forcing companies to behave more in the interest of shareholders," says Luigi Zingales, professor of entrepreneurship and finance at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. In a research paper entitled "Candid Camera," he says press coverage of corporate violations even increases the probability such actions will be reversed. Zingales points to the case of Richard Grasso, the former chairman of the New York Stock Exchange who in 2003 lost his job when his lavish pay was exposed. "Although all directors of the NYSE had voted in favor of his compensation, once the information became public -- and even the most pro-business newspapers characterized Grasso's compensation in a very negative light -- many directors changed their position," he says. When the media reports a story, reputations are at stake. And this is what people respond to: the threat of being associated with something negative. Other research has shown that corporate managers are constrained in their behavior by the impact that their actions have on their reputation vis-à-vis their future employers or the capital market in general. But Zingales, in research conducted in conjunction with professors at the University of Toronto and Russia's Center for Economic and Financial Research, shows that reputation is an effective constraint only if the future employers or partners can learn about actions. http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid=google&guid=%7B170D9BE0-8CD2-4AE9-AF95-E744BE4380F4%7D&keyword= MEN, SIGNING OFF [SOURCE: Washington Post 7/23, AUTHOR: Paul Farhi] Their departure reflects the transformation of TV news from a "glamour" business to a low-wage, no-growth field with limited career potential, say Paul Farhi's sources. "With TV stations laboring under the same financial pressures as others in the mainstream media, men might be discouraged by television news and might be finding better opportunities elsewhere," he writes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/21/AR2006072100295.html?nav=rss_artsandliving/television (requires registration) 21 July: CONGRESS MUST ACT NOW TO PROTECT INTERNET FREEDOM AND INNOVATION [SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA)] [Commentary] An important task facing Congress as we assemble our to-do list for July is addressing the question of “network neutrality.” For good reasons, net neutrality has become a major focus in the debate on the legislation to grant national video licenses to telecommunications companies. Network neutrality refers to the principle underlying the development of the Internet, essentially ensuring that all data traveling across the network is treated in a nondiscriminatory manner. For businesses, civic organizations or alumni associations, that means selling a product, announcing an initiative or organizing an event is as easy as setting up a website that is accessible to anyone with an Internet connection. For the consumer, it means easy access to an ever-expanding array of services, products and information of their choosing. Network neutrality serves as the Internet’s nondiscrimination policy and is similar to policies that ensure large phone companies like Verizon and BellSouth have to connect calls from Sprint or T-Mobile with the same speed and accuracy that they would for their own calls. Since its inception, this powerful medium has flourished as an engine for economic growth and political activism under the rules of equal access to the Internet. Congress needs to address this issue before, not after, the phone and cable companies fundamentally change the nature of the Internet. We have all seen the dynamic change that it has brought to our country and, indeed, the world. Congress shouldn't just sit by and watch network neutrality and the vibrancy of the Internet slip away. http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/071906/ss_capps.html NET NEUTRALITY IS REALLY NET NOT-SO-NEUTRAL [SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)] [Commentary] The success of this relatively new medium is in no small part due to the hands-off approach government has taken when it comes to regulation and taxation. The Internet has proved once and for all that free markets work best. Like always though, some see a free market and experience an urge to impose government regulation. Today there is a push on Capitol Hill to have government take a bigger role in the Internet’s basic functioning. That ought to concern all of us. Any effort to impose new regulations on the Internet should be cause for a serious study of the potential ramifications. We all know that when it comes to regulations government has repeatedly failed to follow the old maxim that says, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it.” Once enacted, regulations almost always have unintended consequences and are virtually impossible to repeal. That’s why the concept of net neutrality has prompted such debate over the past weeks. The stakes are enormous when you begin tinkering with a resource millions upon millions of Americans depend on every day. It would be irresponsible for Congress to regulate blindly, but that appears to be what some are asking us to do with net neutrality. Sometimes it’s more responsible not to act. Congress ought to continue exercising its oversight authority, and the Commerce Committee should monitor the functioning of the Internet, but we must resist interfering as much as possible. Over the past months we've worked to address the serious online sexual-predator problem that presents a discernible threat to the Internet and American families. It should be clear that we have enough real challenges ahead without Congress leaping to create solutions for problems that may not actually exist. http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/071906/ss_blackburn.html TOP-SECRET WORLD LOSES BLOGGER [SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Dana Priest] Christine Axsmith, a software contractor for the CIA, considered her blog a success within the select circle of people who could actually access it. Only people with top-secret security clearances could read her musings, which were posted on Intelink, the intelligence community's classified intranet. Writing as Covert Communications, CC for short, she opined in her online journal on such national security conundrums as stagflation, the war of ideas in the Middle East and -- in her most popular post -- bad food in the CIA cafeteria. But the hundreds of blog readers who responded to her irreverent entries with titles such as "Morale Equals Food" won't be joining her ever again. On July 13, after she posted her views on torture and the Geneva Conventions, her blog was taken down and her security badge was revoked. On Monday, Axsmith was terminated by her employer, BAE Systems, which was helping the CIA test software. As a traveler in the classified blogosphere, Axsmith was not alone. Hundreds of blog posts appear on Intelink. The CIA says blogs and other electronic tools are used by people working on the same issue to exchange information and ideas. CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano declined to comment on Axsmith's case but said the policy on blogs is that "postings should relate directly to the official business of the author and readers of the site, and that managers should be informed of online projects that use government resources. CIA expects contractors to do the work they are paid to do." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/20/AR2006072001816.html (requires registration) A SECRET THE MEDIA KEPT [SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Michael J. Berlin, Boston University] [Commentary] Today, as news media have revealed secret programs of the Bush administration, the questions are being asked: Can journalists keep a secret? Should they? Are news media capable of drawing the line between revelations that would be too damaging to national security interests and those necessary to safeguard American democracy and constitutionally protected rights? Toward the end of 1979, hundreds of American and Canadian journalists and news organizations got hold of a dynamite news story that would have made personal reputations and careers and sent circulation or broadcast ratings soaring. The facts were confirmed, unassailably. Any one of these reporters could have had the scoop of a lifetime. And yet not one reporter, newspaper, network or newsletter ran with the story until given permission to do so (all at once) by the governments involved. No court or governmental threat of retribution forced them to do so. It was all voluntary. Islamic militants stormed and occupied the U.S. Embassy compound in Tehran and took hostage the more than 70 Americans there. But six American officials happened to be outside the compound, elsewhere in the Iranian capital, at the time of the takeover. The militants never realized that some Americans were missing; they were being sheltered by Canadian diplomats in Tehran, who were risking their own safety to protect them. The Canada-hostage story proves that reporters and news organizations can be trusted, en masse, to make the right call on security information they uncover. And neither Iranian officials nor Iranian news media got wind of it. Do I think that a thousand reporters could be trusted today to make the same call that we did in 1979? I wonder. Even back then, there was the fear that some rogue reporter would ignore the pleas and go with the story. In today's journalism world, I fear that some blogger or counterculture ideologue using journalism as a political tool rather than as a mechanism for dispensing straight information, would make the wrong call. I hope I'm wrong about that. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/20/AR2006072001632.html (requires registration) NBC BETS ITS VIEWERS PAY ATTENTION [SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Brian Steinberg brian.steinberg@wsj.com] NBC is out to show its programming is more than just video wallpaper. The General Electric-owned network has struck a deal with Toyota Motor that requires the network to demonstrate that its viewers have paid attention and are able to recall particular details about a TV show, such as its storyline. NBC is making the commitment in addition to giving Toyota a standard minimum-audience guarantee that relies on Nielsen Media Research TV ratings for proof. To demonstrate viewer attention -- or audience "engagement" -- both NBC and Toyota will use data from IAG Research, a New York firm that measures viewers' response to TV programs, ads and product placements. Should certain agreed-upon parts of NBC's program schedule not meet the guarantees, the TV network would give Toyota additional "make-good" advertising time, or put more Toyota ads in shows that are garnering better attentiveness from audiences, says Marianne Gambelli, executive vice president, sales and marketing, for NBC Universal. Networks routinely offer "make-goods" when shows fail to meet guaranteed audience levels. The deal highlights how TV outlets are taking steps to retain ad dollars in the face of increasing competition from other media such as the Internet. It also shows how advertisers are looking for new ways to measure the value of TV advertising, conscious that consumer response to certain types of Web advertising is easier to track. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115344810209713289.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace (requires subscription) 20 August: PRESS FREEDOM THREATENED IN VENEZUELA, GROUP SAYS [SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Chris Kraul] Blaming a "deliberate, strategic" campaign of harassment by the Venezuelan government against the nation's news media, the Inter-American Press Assn. said Wednesday that the climate of press freedom and free speech has "deteriorated sharply" in recent years. The statement came after a delegation headed by IAPA President Diana Daniels of the Washington Post visited the offices of the Correo del Caroni, a newspaper in Ciudad Guayana. Two months ago, the state assembly passed a resolution asking the city's mayor to demolish the paper's building and revoke its business license. Neither step has yet been taken. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-venmedia20jul20,1,7055244.story?coll=la-news-a_section (requires registration) AP REVEALS ISRAELI CENSORSHIP, SAYS IT WILL ABIDE BY RULES [SOURCE: Associated Press] Israel believes that as a small country in a near constant state of conflict, having a say over what information gets out to the world is vital to its security. Critics say the policy is a slippery slope not fit for a democracy. The range of issues subject to censorship in the latest conflict with Lebanese guerrillas are all related to the goal of preventing Hezbollah from using the media to help it better aim rockets at Israel. The Associated Press has agreed, like other organizations, to abide by the rules of the censor, which is a condition for receiving permission to operate as a media organization in Israel. Reporters are expected to censor themselves and not report any of the forbidden material. This story was not submitted to a censor. When in doubt, they can submit a story to the censor who will hand it back, possibly with deletions. The AP will note in a story if any deletions have been made. If a reporter violates the rules, he or she suffers the consequences. The rules include no real-time reports giving the exact locations of guerrilla missile hits; no reports of missile hits -- or misses -- on strategic targets; and no reports telling when citizens are allowed to leave their bunkers for supplies. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002876486 EB SITES IMPROVE SERVICE FOR BLIND PEOPLE
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Jessica E.
Vascellaro jessica.vascellaro@wsj.com]
There are roughly 10 million blind or visually
impaired Americans, according to the American
Foundation for the Blind, a New-York based
advocacy group. The group estimates that roughly
1.5 million people who have difficulty seeing
print even with glasses have access to the
Internet but only about 200,000 who cannot see
print at all have access. The numbers are
expected to grow as technology improves and
Internet companies offer new services. Major
Internet companies are moving to better meet the
needs of the hundreds of thousands of blind
people who regularly browse the Web. Blind
Internet users generally use software that reads
a description of a site's features aloud,
sometimes in conjunction with some hardware that
displays portions of the site in Braille. But
navigating increasingly feature-heavy Web sites,
whose messy and complex programming can be
difficult for the software to translate, poses
problems. Aiming to increase use of their popular
products even more widely, Internet companies are
now launching new -- and tidying up old --
services for easier use by the blind.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115335999151511973.html?mod=todays_us_personal_journal
(requires subscription)
19 August: YOU WON'T READ IT HEAR FIRST: INDIA CURTAILS ACCESS TO BLOGS
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Somini Sengupta]
As India’s financial capital, Mumbai, observed a
moment of silence on Tuesday to commemorate the
seven bombings of commuter trains seven days ago,
a blistering silence blanketed the Indian
blogosphere. For reasons yet to be articulated
by the authorities, the government has directed
local Internet service providers to block access
to a handful of Web sites that are hosts to
blogs, including the popular blogspot.com,
according to government officials and some of the
providers. The move has sown anger and confusion
among Indian bloggers, who accuse the government
of censorship and demand to know why their sites
have been jammed. Nilanjana Roy, a Delhi-based
writer who runs kitabkhana.blogspot.com, a
literary blog, called it “a dangerous precedent.
You have a right to know what is being banned,
and why it’s being banned,” she said. “I can
understand if it’s China or Iran or Saudi Arabia.
I'm truly appalled when it’s my country doing
this.” The ban, which has come into effect in
recent days, means that people living in India
are, in theory, kept from reading anything that
appears on the blocked platforms, whether Indian
blogs or otherwise. But the ban seems far from
effective. Some Internet providers have blocked
access. Others have not, and many more blog
aficionados have figured out how to continue reading their favorite sites.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/world/asia/19india.html
(requires registration)
STORYTELLING, NOT JOURNALISM, SPURS MOST BLOGS [SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Robert MacMillan] Many people see Web journals or "blogs" as alternatives to the mainstream media, but most Americans who run them do so as a hobby rather than a vocation, according to a report released on Wednesday. About 77 percent of blog authors, or "bloggers," said they post to express themselves creatively rather to get noticed or paid, according to the report, released by the Pew Internet & American Life Project. The report also found that 37 percent of bloggers cited their life and experiences as their primary topic, while politics and government came in second at 11 percent. Entertainment was the next most-popular blog topic, with 7 percent, followed by sports, at 6 percent and news at 5 percent. Religion or spirituality was the aim of 2 percent. About 8 percent of Internet users, or 12 million American adults, keep a blog, Pew estimated. Some 39 percent of U.S. Web users, or 57 million adults, read them, the researchers said. More than half, or 54 percent, of bloggers are under age 30. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2006-07-19T083506Z_01_N18122033_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-BLOGS-SURVEY.xml&archived=False A TEENAGE PROBLEM OF TOO MUCH INFORMATION [SOURCE: Financial Times, AUTHOR: Aline van Duyn and Rebecca Knight] [Commentary] The use of online social networks such as MySpace, Bebo, Friendster and Orkut is changing the way younger people in particular communicate and entertain themselves. “Children are now producers of content and dealing with that is more difficult than the previous Internet problems, which were about keeping children from accessing content that was inappropriate,” says Ann Lee Flynn, director of education technology at the US National School Boards Association. “Schools are shell-shocked by the explosive growth of this type of technology.” MySpace, with nearly 90m registered users worldwide and 250,000 signing up every week, allows each to create a profile, a web page accessible to other members and easily customized with photographs, videos, music and graphics. People write about their lives and can link their profiles to others, creating networks of “friends”. Along with this popularity come dangers -- not only sexual predators but also teens bullying others by putting up malicious information. Last month, the US National Center for Missing and Exploited Children hosted a day of discussions among law enforcers, parent and teacher organizations, policymakers and social networks to seek ways to make these sites more youth-safe. MySpace is intended for over-14s but has no way of checking users’ ages. Social networks are facing calls to introduce age-verification technology, but this is difficult in the absence of identity records for those too young to have, say, a driver’s licence. But attorneys-general may still press for measures, as the issue can resonate with voters. Law-enforcement officials are increasingly working with MySpace and others to track potential predators, for example by getting the sites to retain log-in records for longer. Sites are making it easier for users to report inappropriate content and to keep their own information private, to be revealed only to people they want to see it. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a2ec8cfc-15bd-11db-9950-0000779e2340.html (requires subscription) YOUTUBE SERVES UP TO 100 MILLION VIDEOS DAILY ONLINE [SOURCE: Reuters] YouTube, the leader in Internet video search, said on Sunday viewers have are now watching more than 100 million videos per day on its site. YouTube videos account for 60 percent of all videos watched online, the company said. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2006-07-17T094643Z_01_N16399348_RTRUKOC_0_US-YOUTUBE.xml (July 17) BBC PRESSES FOR FINANCING, AND ITS DETRACTORS CRY FOUL [SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Eric Pfanner] The BBC is under more than the usual degree of scrutiny because the license fee of $242 a year that every British television owner must pay to finance its operations is under review by the government. While the broadcaster’s royal charter has been renewed for another decade, the level of financing must still be determined. A majority of Britons, in a recent survey commissioned by the BBC, said they supported the license fee. But the review process and the corporation’s plans for spending the money have opened the door to all sorts of critics from outside the BBC and some from within. The BBC has asked the government to increase the license fee, which raises nearly $5.5 billion a year, by 2.3 percentage points more than the annual inflation rate over the next seven years. The BBC says the money is needed to pay for digital television and Internet services as it prepares for an uncertain future in which consumers will be able to choose from a proliferating array of media options. Mark Thompson, director general of the BBC, is expected to announce on Wednesday a reorganization aimed at meeting this challenge. “The BBC is going through huge change, moving from traditional linear broadcasting to the challenging and exciting world of interactive on-demand digital media,” Mr. Thompson said this month as the corporation published its annual report. “It means the BBC’s relationship with audiences is also constantly changing.” Signs of change include declining audiences for the BBC’s flagship conventional television channels as viewers turn to digital alternatives or log on to the Internet. Meanwhile, some of the BBC’s plans to move into new areas, particularly in its small but growing commercial activities, have upset some competitors in the private sector. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/17/business/media/17bbc.html (requires registration) CABLE RIPS NIELSEN'S AD RATINGS [SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Linda Moss] In part of a growing brouhaha, several top cable-research officials criticized Nielsen Media Research’s plans to start tallying national viewership for commercials this fall. Both Jack Wakshlag, Turner Broadcasting System’s chief research officer, and Tim Brooks, Lifetime Television’s executive vice president of research, voiced their concerns about various aspects of Nielsen’s plan to provide average national commercial-minute ratings, kicking off in November. Ad agency Magna Global USA also publicly blasted Nielsen’s announced commercial-rating initiative, which is being done at the request of the broadcast networks. Before it proceeds with these ratings, one of the issues Nielsen needs to address, according to Wakshlag and Brooks, is agreeing upon a definition of what constitutes a commercial minute. “Right now, a commercial minute is a minute that has at least one second of a commercial in it,” Wakshlag said. “I'm not sure if that’s fair or that’s the best way to go about doing it.” Any system Nielsen comes up with ultimately would need accreditation by the Media Rating Council, and it must be agreed upon by all of the ratings service’s clients, Brooks said. http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6353313.html?display=Breaking+News NEUTRALITY RULES WOULD CLOG THE PIPE [SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Tom Tauke, Verizon] [Commentary] Phone giant Verizon's chief lobbyist Tom Tauke makes his company's case, again, against Network Neutrality. "Net neutrality is perhaps the oddest Washington debate I have seen. It amounts to holding a Congressional vote on hypothetical business plans." He concludes, "If policymakers decide that network access cannot be created differently, we drag broadband back to the days where there was no incentive to innovate and very little competition. In a world of 30 or 50 or 100 Megabit networks -- more than enough capacity to meet the needs of everyone -- there are no network problems. In the midst of this healthy, emerging marketplace, imposing regulations isn't a policy approach government should be taking." http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6353464.html?display=Opinion SIXTY PERCENT OF WIRED HOMES NOW USE BROADBAND [SOURCE: AdAge, AUTHOR: Gavin O'Malley] Nearly 70% of all U.S. households now pay for an online connection, and 60% of those homes connect via broadband, according to new research from Leichtman Research Group. Cable and DSL providers added over 3 million subscribers in the first quarter of this year. Indicating a growing interest in broadband, 40% of current narrowband/dial-up subscribers said they are interested in getting broadband. Cable remains the most common source for residential broadband, driven by its strength among higher-income households. Thirty-seven percent of all households with annual incomes of more than $75,000 subscribe to cable broadband, while 27% subscribe to DSL. Among households earning between $30,000 and $75,000 per year, 21% subscribe to DSL and 18% to cable. The mean annual household income of cable-broadband subscribers is 12% higher than their DSL counterparts, according to the study. The mean income of broadband subscribers is 35% greater than narrowband/dial-up subscribers. "By the end of the year 2010, there will be over 105 million residential subscribers in the U.S., with over 80% subscribing to broadband," Bruce Leichtman, president and principal analyst at Leichtman Research Group, said in the report. http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=110500 NEWS ONLINE SEEMS TO HAVE LONG SHELF LIFE [SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Noam Cohen] A new research paper seeks to answer a riddle for publishers, editors and even readers: when does new news become old news? In the case of a news article on the Internet, the answer is surprisingly long: 36 hours on average, according to the paper, “The Dynamics of Information Access on the Web,” which appeared in the June issue of Physical Review E, the journal of the American Physical Society. More precisely, 36 hours is the amount of time it takes for half of the total readership of an article to have read it, the paper found. The physicist who led the research, Albert-László Barabási of the University of Notre Dame, said that the paper’s conclusion should give journalists hope, even in the era of instant news. Dr. Barabási said that traditional ideas about the way people use the Internet would have led researchers to expect a much shorter half-life, more like two to four hours. “You can spin it two ways,” said Dr. Barabási, a specialist on complex networks. “Gee, only 36 hours is the typical half-life of an article. Or gee, I would have expected it to be shorter.” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/17/business/media/17decay.html (requires registration) (July 13) AUSTRALIA TO RELAX RULES ON MEDIA OWNERSHIP [SOURCE: Financial Times, AUTHOR: Virginia Marsh] The Australian cabinet is to proceed with radical plans for the deregulation of the country’s media sector that could unleash a wave of consolidation and takeover activity. The changes, announced on Thursday, would scrap most restrictions on foreign investment in the sector as well as lift limits on cross-media ownership which at present prevent investors owning newspapers and television stations in the same city. This would enable Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, which has substantial local print media operations, to buy a television station for the first time, while James Packer’s Publishing & Broadcasting, which owns the broadcaster Nine, would be allowed to buy a newspaper group such as John Fairfax. However, while the cabinet has endorsed the plans, the center-right coalition still has the difficult task of guiding the package through the Senate where it has a majority of one. Barnaby Joyce, a renegade government senator, has not ruled out voting with opposition parties against some of the proposals. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/dc3d9f86-125d-11db-aecf-0000779e2340.html FCC COMBING AIR TAPES FOR DIRTY WORDS
[SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Brooks Boliek]
In its continuing crackdown on on-air profanity,
the FCC has requested numerous tapes from
broadcasters that might include vulgar remarks
from unruly spectators, coaches and athletes at
live sporting events, industry sources said.
Tapes requested by the commission include live
broadcasts of football games and NASCAR races
where the participants or the crowds let loose
with an expletive. While commission officials
refused to talk about its requests, one broadcast
company executive said the commission had asked
for 30 tapes of live sports and news programs.
"It looks like they want to end live broadcast
TV," said one executive, who spoke only on the
condition of anonymity. "We already know that
they aren't afraid to go after news." While live
programming always has been problematic for
broadcasters, it has become even more difficult
under tougher commission rules approved in 2004.
The new rules found that virtually any use of
certain expletives will be considered profane and
indecent, even if it is a slip of the tongue. In
a March decision, the FCC found that the CBS news
program "The Early Show" violated its indecency
rules because of a profane slip-up but did not
issue a fine because the incident occurred before
the new rules were instituted. Live sports --
amateur, college and professional -- have long
been a broadcast programming staple. Broadcasters
have spent enormous amounts of money and energy
to come up with ways to give audiences a better
feel for the action. As broadcasters vie for
viewers, technical advances that include such
things as on-field microphones and in-car cameras
have become as important as the announcers. "I
don't know how they are going to rule, but they
asked us for tapes with a specific emphasis on
crowd noise," said another TV executive, who also
requested anonymity. "If some bozo in the crowd
calls the ref an asshole, the commission is asking for a copy of the tape."
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=2006-07-12T053437Z_01_N12208196_RTRIDST_0_ENTERTAINMENT-MEDIA-INDECENCY-COL.XML&archived=False
AGNA RAISES RED FLAG OVER NIELSEN COMMERCIAL RATINGS
[SOURCE: TVWeek, AUTHOR: Jon Lafayette]
Media buying agency Magna Global said Wednesday
that the way Nielsen Media Research plans to
measure audiences for television commercials is
"not acceptable" as a currency for buying and
selling advertising time. Steve Sternberg,
executive VP for research at Magna Global, said
one problem with Nielsen's commercial ratings is
that they include spots viewed on digital video
recorders up to seven days after a program airs,
creating problems for advertisers whose messages
are time-sensitive. Mr. Sternberg also
questioned Nielsen's plan to count as commercial
minutes time slots that contain a majority of
program time and just a few seconds of
advertising. "These should really be called
minutes that contain both program and commercial
time," he said. Mr. Sternberg said it was "an
embarrassment" that VCR viewing is included in
the proposed commercial ratings plan. Surveys
have shown that about one-third of VCR recordings
are not played back and that more than two-thirds
of playbacks involve fast-forwarding through
commercials, he said. In order to "even be
considered for use as currency" to negotiate ad
deals, Nielsen's commercial ratings must be
calculated based on live viewers or live viewers
plus DVR audiences that tune in the same day a
program airs, Mr. Sternberg said. He also pressed
for removal of viewers who tape and watch shows
using VCRs. Mr. Sternberg insisted that to count
as a commercial minute, half that time must
contain advertising. The minute-by-minute ratings
Nielsen is offering are just a start, Mr.
Sternberg said, pressing the ratings company to
offer second-by-second ratings so that its
reported average commercial audience counts reflect actual viewing.
http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=10345
(requires free registration)
STUDY: WI-FI BEATS OUT HOME PHONE, IPOD [SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Caroline McCarthy] Despite the ubiquity of the iPod and its ongoing status as the gadget du jour, a new study hints that American adults are more attached to wireless access at home than they are to iPods and landlines. Eighty percent of respondents to a survey conducted by Kelton Research for the Wi-Fi Alliance said they would part with their iPods over their wireless networks, if they had to. About the same amount of respondents would choose their wireless networks over their home telephone lines, perhaps attesting to the growing use of voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP, as an often-cheaper alternative to traditional landlines. The survey focused on adults 18 to 64 who have experience with wireless networks. The study also found that home Wi-Fi networks are shaping the way Americans go about their jobs. Fifty-five percent of survey respondents said they work from home two to three days a week, but wireless connectivity now means that they don't need a designated "home office." Wi-Fi users, particularly those between the ages of 40 and 64, were likely to work in a living room, kitchen or even a local Starbucks. http://news.com.com/Study+Wi-Fi+beats+out+home+phone%2C+iPod/2100-7351_3-6093308.html?tag=nefd.top FEW US WORKERS WHO COULD TELECOMMUTE DO SO: STUDY [SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Ellen Wulfhorst] One-quarter of the U.S. work force could be doing their jobs from home if all those able to telecommute chose to do so, according to a study on Wednesday which said many still elect to work at the office. All those people working from home could translate into annual gasoline savings of $3.9 billion, according to the National Technology Readiness Survey. The study found that 2 percent of U.S. workers telecommute full-time and another 9 percent do so part-time. But another 14 percent of workers have the option of telecommuting, or have jobs conducive to the practice but choose not to, the study found. The numbers suggest that many people would rather work at the office even if their job allowed telecommuting, said Professor P.K. Kannan, of the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, which sponsored the study with Rockbridge Associates Inc., a Great Falls, Virginia research firm. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-07-12T181948Z_01_N11132947_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-WORK.xml&archived=False SPANISH DJs TAKE LEAD ROLE IN POLITICS [SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: Martin Kasindorf] A band of Spanish-language radio disc jockeys got much of the credit when 500,000 demonstrators rallied at City Hall on March 25 over immigration proposals in Congress. DJs “are a huge way of communicating to the masses,” says Mike Garcia, president of Service Employees International Union Local 877 here. “They have access to so many more people than we can get,” says Stephanie Kotin of the Los Angeles-based Central American Resource Center. “People came from Chicago, Arizona, all over California.” Best-known of the radio personalities who have taken a lead role in immigration politics is Renán Almendárez Coello, 51, who is syndicated in 13 cities from Los Angeles to Greenville, S.C. He calls himself El Cucuy, the Boogeyman. His frequent, on-air calls for listeners to jump into politics are echoed on rival stations by other disc jockeys, who have nicknames such as El Piolin (Tweetybird) and El Mandril (the Baboon). Almendárez Coello has built an influence akin to Oprah's on a Howard Stern-style format of racy jokes. His daily show, top-rated in the Hispanic market here, is the second-highest-rated of all programs. Almendárez Coello, born in Honduras, says he entered the USA illegally in 1984. “I was a mojado, a wetback,” he says. A radio station later arranged a work permit. He became a citizen in 1992 and has three U.S.-born daughters. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060713/1a_coverside13.art.htm (July 12) NET NEUTRALITY DEBATE STILL SIMMERS [SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Anne Broache] Thomas Tauke, Verizon Communications' top lobbyist, on Tuesday said the tussle over Net Neutrality laws may be the "oddest" Capitol Hill debate that he's ever experienced. The feud over whether to prohibit network operators from making deals to prioritize certain Internet content is puzzling because it "amounts to holding a congressional vote on hypothetical business plans," he said at a luncheon organized by the nonprofit Media Institute. "For consumers and the country, government regulation of this developing market is a lose-lose proposition," he said. http://news.com.com/Net+neutrality+debate+still+simmers/2100-1028_3-6092927.html?tag=html.alert NLINE VENTURE SEEKS TO ELEVATE THE DEBATE [SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Howard Kurtz] A group of political strategists who have spent years firing heavy artillery at each other came together at the Hay-Adams Hotel yesterday, put aside their weapons, decried the polarized state of debate in America and vowed a new approach to peaceful coexistence. Toward that end, they are launching a Web site that they hope will eventually reach 30 million opinion leaders, elevate public discussion on matters from politics to sports to culture and, in the process, make them some money. Mark McKinnon and Matthew Dowd, who were senior advisers in President Bush's last two campaigns, are joining forces with Joe Lockhart, who served as a spokesman for President Bill Clinton, and Carter Eskew, a top strategist in Al Gore's presidential campaign, in creating what they have dubbed HotSoup.com. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071101104.html (requires registration) WILL IT BE TV STATIONS OR NEWSPAPERS FOR TRIBUNE? [SOURCE: AdAge 7/10, AUTHOR: Ira Teinowitz] Consumer groups are aiming to do what the Chandler Trusts haven't successfully accomplished -- force the Tribune Co. to sell off some of its newspapers or TV stations. As the Federal Communications Commission launches its re-examination of media-ownership rules, Tribune Co. is already facing a breakup six years after its purchase of Times-Mirror and the cross-ownership violations it created in the New York; Los Angeles; and Hartford, Conn., markets. When Tribune Co. bought Times-Mirror, it did a bit of gambling. Though FCC rules banned newspapers and broadcasters from licensing new cross ownerships, Tribune bet the rules would change by the time the license of KTLA-TV in Los Angeles, WPIX-TV in New York and its Harford station, WTIC-TV, came up for renewal. (Tribune later acquired a second Hartford station, then-struggling WTXX-TV, which it operated under a management agreement via an FCC waiver.) The Times-Mirror purchase included newspapers in those markets, namely the Los Angeles Times, the Hartford Courant and Newsday. It has turned out that the cross-ownership issue isn't yet decided, and the Tribune's licenses for TV stations are now starting to come due. The first for Los Angeles station KTLA-TV has to be filed early next month and the current FCC rules say that license can't be granted while the Tribune still owns the L.A. Times. Tribune Co. will seek a waiver of the cross-ownership rules to allow it to keep both the Los Angeles newspaper and TV station. The company is expected to have the backing of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, who has been an outspoken critic of the cross-ownership rule. Consumer groups concerned about growing media concentration are gearing up for a fight that includes attempts to thwart the Tribune Co.'s efforts to seek a waiver. "The basis for which waivers are granted is financial hardship and difficulty of effectuating a sale," said Andy Schwartzman, director of the Media Access Project. "They've had five or six years to do something with the Los Angeles Times. It doesn't make any sense. No one is going to say that any of their properties are distressed, with the possible exception of one Hartford television station, and no one is going to say they don't have ready buyers. People are lining up to buy these properties." Mr. Schwartzman said consumer groups would likely sue to try to overturn any FCC wavier grant. Mark Cooper, research director for the Consumer Federation of America, also believes a lawsuit against any waiver that is granted is inevitable. "I am certain that many in the public interest community will oppose the waiver," he said. "No doubt someone will sue." http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=110446 MYSPACE GAINS TOP RANKING OF US WEB SITES [SOURCE: Reuters] Move over Yahoo and Google. Internet tracking firm Hitwise said on Tuesday that online teen hangout MySpace.com ranked as the No. 1 U.S. Web site, accounting for 4.46 percent of all US Internet visits for the week ending July 8. MySpace captured nearly 80 percent of visits to online social networking sites, up from 76 percent in April. A distant second was FaceBook at 7.6 percent. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp bought MySpace for $580 million one year ago. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-07-11T154250Z_01_N11382172_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-MYSPACE.xml (July 11) TANGLED NET [SOURCE: National Journal 7/8, AUTHOR: Drew Clark] A long piece on the Net Neutrality debate by one of the best reporters on the beat. Net neutrality is about the rules of the road for the information superhighway -- and whether, some day, traveling in the fast lane will require paying a toll. Because of the convergence of television and telephone service into digital transmissions, the outcome of the battle will affect all aspects of communications. Net-neutrality advocates -- Google, Microsoft, and the other tech companies -- say the telecom companies (the Bells) and the cable industry shouldn't be permitted to control the Internet through discriminatory pricing in which their business partners enjoy a huge competitive advantage by gaining access to the wires into homes and offices. The telecom and cable guys -- the neutrality critics -- counter that “net neutrality” is just a fancy way of saying that the government should regulate the Internet. They say, let the free market, not Washington, reign. Read more excerpts at http://www.drewclark.com/ NIELSEN PLANS TO TRACK VIEWERSHIP OF TV COMMERCIALS FOR FIRST TIME [SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Brian Steinberg brian.steinberg@wsj.com and Brooks Barnes] Nielsen Media Research, the firm that calculates national television ratings, plans to answer one of advertising's most pressing questions: How many people actually watch TV commercials? In November, Nielsen will begin for the first time to provide formal ratings for commercial breaks, a move with far-reaching implications for the fast-changing media world. Both TV networks and advertisers expect the new Nielsen ratings will show that viewership declines noticeably when a program breaks for commercials. A particularly big drop could fuel advertisers' push for changes in how ads are incorporated into shows, reinforcing demands for fewer or shorter ad breaks and lower ad rates. It could also accelerate the flow of advertising dollars out of television to the Internet and new digital media. Any softening of ad prices would be a big blow for the nation's TV networks and their parent companies. Media stocks overall have been depressed in recent years as technology has whipsawed the industry. Many big advertisers have already cut back on traditional TV spots. General Motors Corp., for example, says its spending on 30-second prime-time commercials declined by 50% in the five years between 2000 and 2005. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115258347955103007.html?mod=todays_us_page_one (requires subscription) POLLUTING THE BLOGOSHERE [SOURCE: BusinessWeek, AUTHOR: Jon Fine] [Commentary] Ted Murphy founded an interactive ad agency called MindComet, also runs a side business that pays bloggers to write nice things about corporate sponsors -- without unduly worrying about whether or not bloggers disclose these arrangements to readers. (A scan of relevant blog searches strongly suggests that, often, they don't.) He is launching PayPerPost.com, which will automate such hookups between advertisers and bloggers and thus codify a new frontier of product placement. Advertisers pay to post details about their "opportunity," specifying, among other things, how they want bloggers to write about, say, a new shoe, if they want photos to be included, and whether they'll pay only for positive mentions. Bloggers who abide by the rules get paid; heavily trafficked blogs may command premium rates. Those seeking to subvert PayPerPost from within can't: No pornographic or "illicit" content is accepted. Thanks in no small part to bloggers, this is an era of increased media transparency, and many shifty dealings between the business and editorial sides have been exposed. An undisclosed PayPerPost placement on a little-seen blog isn't the most egregious thing out there, but it's far from honest. Media may be more transparent, but the line between authentic editorial and paid placement is still often smeared, and defenders of disclosure can feel, like the proverbial buggy whip company, that they're terribly outmoded. Things being what they are, I should mention that no buggy whip association paid me to say that. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_28/b3992034.htm SIX-FIGURE FINES FOR FOUR-LETTER WORDS WORRY BROADCASTERS [SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Frank Ahrens] Last month's tenfold increase in broadcast indecency fines has sent radio and television stations and media giants scurrying to protect themselves, as the cost of uttering a dirty word over the air has turned a minor annoyance into a major business expense. The new law is a boon for companies that make time-delay machines for broadcasters, which are designed to catch offensive language before it hits the airwaves, and a potentially powerful reason for performers, directors and producers to take their talent to cable and satellite outlets, where federal decency standards do not apply. Other repercussions from the escalating crackdown on broadcast indecency: On-air personalities at one radio giant are contractually obligated to pay indecency fines if they say anything that causes their stations to be penalized. Lawyers at another radio company are advising superstar deejays on what material to avoid on air. Public television, still puzzling over a March fine for a Martin Scorsese-produced documentary, is sending periodic legal advice to its member stations. One stand-up comedian took out an indecency-liability policy on himself. Another said he was forced to sign a waiver before he went on the air at a radio station, promising to pay any indecency fine that might result from his appearance. Broadcast companies are taking further measures protect themselves by training their talent and cutting them loose at the first sign of trouble. Radio giants such as Clear Channel Communications have adopted "zero-tolerance" policies for on-air personalities, meaning that they can be fired for offensive language even before an FCC fine is levied. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/10/AR2006071001245.html (requires registration) HEN MEDIA AIMS FOR BALANCE, SOME VIEWS AND FACTS GET LOST [SOURCE: The Christian Science Monitor, AUTHOR: Dante Chinni, Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism] [Commentary] Balance is one of those issues that seems simple on the surface, but gets more complicated as you look at it more deeply. As a concept, it is often trumpeted by outlets that profess to be objective. The problem, of course, is that balance doesn't necessarily lead to getting the story right. In searching for an easy way to explain the news in a limited space, journalists too often reduce issues to their most rudimentary forms. This is true on debates ranging from gay marriage (a for-or-against argument with little talk of what rights gays should have) to when troops in Iraq should come home (stay or "cut and run" even though both sides are talking about when reductions should occur) and everything in between. The extreme points of view on those issues may be actual positions, but so are the many nuanced views that live between them and get less coverage. In other words, despite its prominent place in many media debates, "balance," as it is usually understood, is often not particularly useful in journalism. All opinions and points of view aren't equal when one digs into the facts and "both sides" leaves a lot of sides out. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0711/p09s01-codc.html BRAND IT LIKE BECKHAM [SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton] The NewsMarket, which supplies corporate video news releases and footage to media worldwide, says that more than 50 broadcast quality "news stories" from corporate suppliers including Coke, Adidas, BMW, were downloaded during the World Cup. NewsMarket said that more than 4,000 clips were requested by 180 media outlets. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6351021?display=Breaking+News AS STATES AIM TO REIN IN CONTENT, VIDEOGAME MAKERS FIGHT BACK [SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Andrew LaV allee andrew.lavallee@wsj.com ] The videogame industry is locked in a battle with state and local lawmakers around the country who want to rein in access to what they see as increasingly violent and sexually explicit games. At issue are the content ratings attached to videogames, and the steps retailers take (or don't take) to make sure some games -- like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which included hidden nude scenes -- aren't sold to young players. Critics of the industry say that even though major retailers like Wal-Mart and Best Buy have voluntarily adopted policies to restrict sales of such games, enforcement can be lax. Several states want to impose fines on underage sales. What's more, some argue the ratings system needs to be overhauled because ratings are determined by a group created and funded by the game industry itself. The videogame industry, meanwhile, is fighting back on two fronts. Last month, an industry trade group launched an initiative in cooperation with major retailers and three senators aimed at tightening sales policies for games. Less publicly, the group continues to aggressively challenge local legislative efforts in the courts, and has had success in getting some state laws overturned. The new initiative, dubbed "Commitment to Parents," was launched after a June hearing in Congress in which lawmakers slammed game makers for the bloody sequences and racy scenes in some of the most notorious (and popular) titles. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115100063777787743.html?mod=todays_us_personal_journal (requires subscription) (July 10) TV NETWORKS OPPOSE FCC INDECENCY MOVE
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
NBC, Fox and CBS all weighed in on Friday in a court case concerning
FCC indecency fines. Television stations have challenged the fines in
court and the FCC has asked the courts for a second try at settling
the cases. But the networks have written the court saying they oppose
the FCC proposal. ABC filed a court motion backing the FCC's request
to review four "fleeting profanity" indecency findings from its March
omnibus order. ABC says it will back the FCC move so long as the
court retains jurisdiction over the case and will expedite it once
the FCC has made its decision on review. The FCC could do anything
from decide to propose fines, to reverse one or all of the decisions,
to simply strengthen its argument. NBC told the federal appeals court
for the second circuit that the FCC is just trying to delay judicial
review of its "supposed" indecency guidance. NBC points to the fact
that the FCC has not ruled on two-year-old network petitions
challenging and asking to stay enforcement of its decision in 2004
that "f-ing brilliant" from Bono on NBC's Golden Globes was indecent.
Fox and its affiliates told the court not to let the FCC take another
look at four profanity findings it issued last March. Two were for
f-words and s-words on the Billboard Music Awards on Fox. Fox called
it a "transparent attempt by the FCC to shield its new indecency
enforcement regime from judicial review" and "prolong its
unconstitutional suppression of broadcasters' protected speech." CBS
is strongly opposed to letting the FCC take another look at four
"fleeting profanity" rulings, including against CBS's morning news
Early Show. CBS says the FCC has had plenty of time to get its act
together on profanity and that the FCC's request to delay the court
case is unnecessary. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6350383.html 'SANITIZERS' OF HOME VIDEO LOSE IN COURT [SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Roger Vincent] A federal judge has issued final cut to studios, ruling that companies that snip out potentially offending material from movies for home viewing violate copyright laws. Businesses that edit sex, profanity and violence out of DVD and VHS copies in an appeal to some viewers' tastes are "illegitimate," said Richard P. Matsch of U.S. District Court in Denver. Four companies that do so must stop and turn over their copies of expurgated films to Hollywood's major studios. "Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor," Directors Guild of America President Michael Apted said. The studios and several prominent directors -- including Steven Spielberg, Robert Altman and Steven Soderbergh -- have been fighting movie sanitizers in court since 2002, saying that retailers such as CleanFlicks had no right to copy and distribute their own versions. Retailers asserted that their cleaned-up copies made fair use of the movies under copyright law and that they bought one copy of the original for each modified version they rented or sold. That ensured more sales and exposure than such movies would have received had they not been edited to be more wholesome, the retailers argued. "We're disappointed," CleanFlicks Chief Executive Ray Lines said. "This is a typical case of David versus Goliath, but in this case, Hollywood rewrote the ending. We're going to continue to fight." http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-clean10jul10,1,7949730.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-business (requires registration) Internet providers urged to lock out file-sharers [SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Jeffrey Goldfarb] The British music industry stepped up its campaign against illegal file-sharing on Monday by demanding that two Internet service providers suspend 59 accounts it believes are being used to swap copyrighted songs. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-07-10T105752Z_01_L10698358_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-BPI-ISP.xml IN YOUTUBE CLIPS, A POLITICAL EDGE
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Howard Kurtz]
YouTube.com posts 60,000 new videos per day. The site that has
exploded in popularity over the past year. And while many of the most
widely viewed videos are merely intended to entertain or titillate --
rants, parodies, pet tricks, soccer brawls, singing, dancing and
booty shaking -- company executives say politics is on the rise.
While bloggers played a role in the last presidential election, most
advertising and message delivery still comes from campaigns,
political parties and interest groups with enough money to bankroll a
television blitz. But the YouTube revolution -- which includes dozens
of sites such as Google Video, Revver.com and Metacafe.com -- could
turn that on its head. If any teenager can put up a video for or
against a candidate, and persuade other people to watch that video,
the center of gravity could shift to masses of people with camcorders
and passable computer skills. And if people increasingly distrust the
mainstream media, they might be more receptive to messages created by
ordinary folks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/09/AR2006070900895.html
(requires registration) THE MARKETING MAZE
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Brian Steinberg]
A look at the spaghetti-on-the-wall approach that defines marketing
in the new-media world. Consumers have a lot more than a handful of
TV channels to watch, and are a lot less patient about sitting
through ads. So advertisers are trying to win back their attention
with a grab bag of new strategies. Companies are plowing money into
the Internet, and finding creative ways to take advantage of the
medium's strengths. For instance, they're targeting sales pitches to
particular audience segments with unprecedented precision, and
creating ads that don't look like ads, such as humorous Web sites
that people pass along to their friends. Advertisers are also
following their audience away from the TV screen and computer
monitor, creating public displays that seem to be part of the scenery
instead of an obtrusive sales pitch. They're even trying to grab
customers in the aisles, placing ads on the shelves of supermarkets.
Behind all this experimentation is a rapidly changing media
landscape. A world dominated by three TV networks is a relic of a
simpler age. Now, marketers have to contend with a vast array of
entertainment options, from hundreds of TV channels to
video-on-demand services, videogames and the Internet. Even when some
people watch TV, they often skip ads with the help of digital video
recorders. Complicating matters is that people have become inured to
hard-sell marketing after years of messages blasting out of the TV
screen. All of which makes life a lot more complicated for
advertisers. The good news is that these new media choices mean new
ways for companies to spread their message. Consider the
possibilities the Internet offers. Companies can place video ads
before online news clips, and viewers can't skip them as they do
regular commercials. Advertisers can also use the Internet to market
in a much more targeted way than in traditional media. Car companies,
for example, can have their ads appear on search engines when people
are hunting for information about buying autos. On the other hand,
the Web has made it easier for companies to create buzz about a
product without using traditional sales pitches. Companies can create
an attention-getting Web site and tell people about it by email --
relying on word of mouth to bring in more viewers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115221616550299854.html?mod=todays_us_the_journal_report
(requires subscription)
FBI PLANS NEW NET-TAPPING PUSH [SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Declan McCullagh] The FBI has drafted sweeping legislation that would require Internet service providers to create wiretapping hubs for police surveillance and force makers of networking gear to build in backdoors for eavesdropping. FBI Agent Barry Smith distributed the proposal at a private meeting last Friday with industry representatives and indicated it would be introduced by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH). The draft bill would place the FBI's Net-surveillance push on solid legal footing. At the moment, it's ensnared in a legal challenge from universities and some technology companies that claim the Federal Communications Commission's broadband surveillance directives exceed what Congress has authorized. http://news.com.com/FBI+plans+new+Net-tapping+push/2100-1028_3-6091942.html?tag=nefd.lede STRIKE SHUTS 25 EGYPTIAN NEWSPAPERS; LAW AT ISSUE [SOURCE: Associated Press] Workers went on strike Sunday at 25 Egyptian newspapers, which did not publish as the legislature in Cairo appeared ready to approve a law that leaves journalists vulnerable to fines and jail time for reports that criticize government officials. About 200 Egyptian journalists gathered in front of the parliament building to draw attention to the clampdown on opposition media, which they described as the government backsliding on reforms promised by President Hosni Mubarak. The president's ruling party appears to have the votes necessary to enact the bill. A vote is expected today. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/09/AR2006070900917.html (requires registration) (July 7) CHICAGO'S JAZZ RADIO GETS THE BLUES, BOWS TO iPOD
[SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Deborah Cohen]
WBEZ, Chicago's National Public Radio (NPR)
member station and among the oldest public radio
outlets in the United States, has decided to
scrap scheduled music programming -- the bulk of
which was nightly jazz -- and move to a 24-hour
news and public affairs format. The change --
which has sparked a backlash from loyal fans --
speaks volumes about the worries facing
independent radio stations. Downloadable music
and streaming Webcasts are competing for their
music listeners, and local news, threatened by
consolidation in the commercial media, is taking
on greater importance. In addition, WBEZ and many
other public radio stations say their programming
has not kept pace with a changing U.S.
population. "Local news has simply been abandoned
by the commercial broadcasters and sometimes even
the commercial newspapers," Ken Stern, executive
vice president of Washington-based National
Public Radio, said. "What you see as a trend is
stations like WBEZ investing heavily in local
news and information," Stern added. WBEZ and
NPR's other so-called member stations raise their
own operating funds -- much of them from
individual listeners -- and pay providers such as
NPR for syndicated shows such as the daily news
program "All Things Considered." Around the
United States, changes similar to WBEZ's are
taking place. Connecticut Public Radio's WNPR-FM
dropped most of its classical programming in
favor of news and information early in June.
WETA, another public FM station in Washington,
D.C., made the switch to all-talk more than a
year ago. Stations in New York, Boston and
elsewhere have made similar moves. Chicago Public
Radio's new strategy also calls for reaching a
more diverse audience -- putting mics in the
hands of listeners, for instance, to let them
produce their own shows, and adding satellite
bureaus in the inner city. The station aims to go
after untapped Hispanic, black and youth listeners, among others. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=industryNews&storyID=2006-07-06T130937Z_01_N30272704_RTRIDST_0_INDUSTRY-RADIO-DC.XML PBS KIDS GO! A NO GO [SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton] Citing financial constraints, PBS has pulled the plug on its much balyhooed October launch of a digital kids channel, PBS Kids Go!, saying it is rethinking the strategy of a linear channel targeted to elementary school kids. "An insufficient number of stations are in a position to financially sustain the service," PBS said in a brief statement. Other options for expansion into the elementary school area in the near future--the next several months--could be a VOD service or other new media delivery, though it also said a channel is not off the table at some future date. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6350111?display=Breaking+News THE GOVERNMENT'S CURRENT WAR WITH THE FREE PRESS
[SOURCE: The Christian Science Monitor, AUTHOR: Daniel Schorr, NPR]
[Commentary] The Bush Administration has
discovered what governments have discovered
before, that an undercurrent of hostility toward
the news media runs through the country and that
there could be political advantage in campaigning
against the press in general. You would not
expect that I, as a journalist, would exhibit
total neutrality in such a war. And so let me
quote Justice Potter Stewart in his opinion in
the Pentagon Papers case in 1971: "In the absence
of governmental checks and balances present in
other areas of our national life, the only
effective restraint upon executive policy and
power in the area of national defense and
international affairs may lie in an enlightened
citizenry.... Without an informed and free press,
there cannot be an enlightened people." That
remains true, even when Mr. Bush proclaims a state of war with the terrorists.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0707/p09s01-cods.html
RUSSIA'S SIGNAL TO STATIONS IS CLEAR: CUT US RADIO [SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Peter Finn] Russian regulators have forced more than 60 radio stations to stop broadcasting news reports produced by Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, according to radio managers and Russian officials. The regulators cited license violations and unauthorized changes in programming format. But senior executives at the U.S.-government-funded broadcast services and at the stations blame the Kremlin for the crackdown, which has knocked the reports off stations from St. Petersburg in western Russia to Vladivostok in the Far East. The two services' straight-up reporting, often by journalists on the ground in Russian communities, has at times challenged the political establishment here. In a country where the news media increasingly avoid controversial subjects, millions of Russians had made the broadcasts a listening staple. U.S. diplomats, managers at the two news services and their board of governors have held repeated discussions with Russian officials in recent months seeking a compromise, to no avail. "We've tried to be collegial, tried to work within the system, but this is a most unfortunate development," said Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, chairman of the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees both services. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/06/AR2006070601760.html (requires registration) (July 6) LET GLOBAL ONLINE FREEDOM RING? [SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Eric J. Sinrod] [Commentary] A commentary on the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006 (HR 4780), a bill "to promote freedom of expression on the Internet, to protect United States business from coercion to participate in repression by authoritarian foreign governments, and for other purposes." The bill provides the following statement of policy for the United States to: "Promote the ability of all to access and contribute information, ideas and knowledge via the Internet, and to advance the right to receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers as a fundamental component of United States foreign policy"; "Use all instruments of United States influence, including diplomacy, trade policy and export control, to support, promote and strengthen principles, practices and values that promote the free flow of information"; and "Prohibit any United States business from cooperating with officials of Internet-restricting countries in effecting political censorship of online content." The bill proposes a process whereby the president would designate certain foreign countries as "Internet-restricting" regions that are "directly or indirectly responsible for a systematic pattern of substantial restrictions on Internet freedom during the preceding one-year period." The bill then goes on to provide restrictions on United States businesses with respect to Internet-restricting countries. For example, under certain circumstances, U.S. businesses that host Internet search engines or maintain Internet content hosting services could not locate computer hardware in Internet-restricting countries. Is it realistic to think that Internet-restricting countries will change their restricting policies because U.S. businesses might be penalized because of the restrictions put in place in those countries? The restrictions are established at the government level, and are not directed or controlled by the U.S. businesses. There might be a better way to seek to achieve global online freedom, notwithstanding the lofty goals of H.R. 4780, Sinrod concludes. http://news.com.com/Let+global+online+freedom+ring/2010-1028_3-6090725.html?tag=html.alert PRESS DISCLOSURES HELP MORE THAN HURT [SOURCE: The Christian Science Monitor, AUTHOR: Pat M. Holt, former chief of staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee] [Commentary] Government officials have been highly critical of the media's publication of details about US intelligence activities in the war on terror. The two most recent examples are extensive wiretaps by the National Security Agency and US access to international financial transactions. President Bush called the disclosures "disgraceful." Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said The New York Times should be prosecuted for treason rather than be awarded a Pulitzer prize for the NSA story. Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) is asking that the Times's Congressional press credentials be suspended. All administrations tend to overclassify information, in terms of volume of documents and the level of classification. This proliferation increases the likelihood of leaks. Not many of these that become public can be demonstrated to harm national security. The stories that upset presidents most are those that expose the government doing something it should not be doing, and they are the ones that most need to be published. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p08s02-coop.html WEB PHONES POSE LITTLE THREAT TO TELCOS: MOODY'S [SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Marie-Louise Moller] The ratings outlook for incumbent European telecom companies is stable and new technology, like Internet-based telephone services, poses little threat to the sector, according to a Moody's Investors Service report released on Thursday.European telecom firms are seeing their traditional fixed-line telephone business shrink as more people switch to mobile phones. They are also under pressure from smaller rivals offering cheaper phone and Internet services. But Moody's said that while VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) would erode revenues, the effect would be small, and any losses would be offset by broadband Internet products and services and mobile telephony. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-07-06T082249Z_01_L05611010_RTRUKOC_0_US-TELECOMS-MOODYS-VOIP.xml&archived=False (July 5) TECH FACEOFF: NET NEUTRALITY, IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER [SOURCE: Washington Post 7/2, AUTHOR: Kim Hart and Sara Kehaulani Goo] From Capitol Hill to Silicon Valley, it's become one of the most controversial and confusing topics to hit the tech industry this year: network neutrality. The term is confusing, the ad campaigns have further clouded the issue, and it's no longer easy to tell who's for it and who's not. Whatever becomes of the concept could affect what you pay for connectivity, the sites you'll have access to and the types of services (think video, music and Internet phone offerings) you'll be able to use. Net neutrality is the push to prohibit a pay-for-speed Internet pricing structure that the cable and phone companies -- those that provide high-speed Internet connections -- have proposed. To better understand it all, go back to the old "information superhighway" analogy, where the phone and cable lines that connect your computer to the Web are the on-ramps to that highway. Should the companies who built those on-ramps -- Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp. in the Washington region -- be allowed to impose a toll system that charges Web companies such as Google Inc. a higher fee to reach your computer faster than its competitors, such as Yahoo Inc.? Is that the essence of a free-market system? Or is it one that creates inequality on a road that should have no tolls at all? The jury -- in this case, Congress -- is still out. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100138.html (requires registration) GOOGLE SAYS BILL COULD SPARK ANTITRUST FIGHT [SOURCE: Reuters 7/4] Google warned on Tuesday it will not hesitate to file antitrust complaints if high-speed Internet providers abuse the market power they could receive from Congress. The Senate Commerce Committee last week approved sweeping communications reform legislation that would make it easier for telephone companies like AT&T to offer subscription television to consumers. But it narrowly rejected attempts by some lawmakers to strengthen safeguards on Internet service, which had pitted high-speed Internet, or broadband, providers such as AT&T against Internet content companies like Google. The battle centered on whether broadband providers can charge more to carry unaffiliated content or to guarantee service quality, an issue called Net neutrality. "If the legislators...insist on neutrality, we will be happy. If they do not put it in, we will be less happy but then we will have to wait and see whether or not there actually is any abuse," Vint Cerf, a Google vice president and one of the pioneers of the Internet, said Tuesday. "If we are not successful in our arguments... then we will simply have to wait until something bad happens and then we will make known our case to the Department of Justice's anti-trust division," he added. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-07-04T172951Z_01_L04777905_RTRUKOC_0_US-GOOGLE-NETNEUTRALITY.xml HOUSE TO MEDIA: BACK OFF [SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable 6/30, AUTHOR: John Eggerton] Following a heated debate, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives sent a message to the media Thursday night: If somebody in the government discloses classified intelligence programs like the terrorist bank-records tracking program, don't report it. By a vote of 227 to 183, the House passed a resolution supporting the Bush administration terrorist-tracking effort and effectively condemning sources and the media outlets who publicized the secret program. Democrats had tried, but failed, to offer their own version that also supported anti-terrorism efforts but did not include what they suggested was a valentine to the administration in the form of unalloyed approval of the conduct of its anti-terrorism effort. The resolution reads: Resolved, That the House of Representatives... expects the cooperation of all news media organizations in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt, and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs such as the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6348788?display=Breaking+News KENTUCKY BANS BLOGS IN STATE OFFICES [SOURCE: The Christian Science Monitor, AUTHOR: Patrik Jonsson] Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R) has banned the reading of many blogs by 34,000 state employees. Bloggers claim the governor is violating their free speech rights. But others see a more subtle lesson in Kentucky's attempt to crack down on desktop dawdling, including how much bosses should do to restrict access to opinion sites - and what blocking access to blogs might mean for everything from esprit de corps to the bottom line. "Whether in [private or public] workplaces, are you going to create a culture of mutual trust or a Big Brother 'we're watching your every move' environment?" says Zachary Hummel, a workplace attorney at Bryan Cave LLP in New York. "We now have so much more ability to monitor what employees do, the question becomes: How much of that do we want to do?" Central to the constitutional case is the question of whether blogs enjoy the same First Amendment protections as newspapers, which can be read on state computers. Blogs, too, discuss local policy and politics, and bloggers and state employees say they are protected by the First Amendment. "Government should defend the right of conservatives and liberals to post opinions and what [the Fletcher administration] is doing, we believe, is using the government to hurt a political web site because of its political opinion," says Charles Wells, the head of the Kentucky state employees' union. "The only ones this information is offensive to is this administration," says Mr. Wells. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0705/p03s03-uspo.html ONCE-POWERFUL MALAYSIAN GRUMBLES TO PRESS HE CONTROLLED [SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Seth Mydans] Mahathir Mohamad, the man who dominated Malaysia as prime minister for two decades, now can't seem to get any ink when he criticizes the government. Ignored or pushed deep into the back pages like an inconvenient critic, he has turned to the alternative Internet sites that are the refuge of the powerless in Malaysia, sites he says he still despises. "Where is the press freedom?" he exclaimed recently, although he must know that it remains pretty much where he left it when he retired three years ago. "Broadcast what I have to say," he told a forum in remarks that were carried on the Internet. "What I say is not even accurately published in the press." His surprise comes as a surprise. For this master politician, retirement seems to have been a refresher course in elementary principles of government -- that the man and the office are not the same, that self-interest is the politician's compass and that yes men do not always mean it when they say yes. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/world/asia/05malaysia.html (requires registration) EFF DEFENDS LIBERTIES IN HIGH-TECH WORLD
[SOURCE: Associated Press, AUTHOR: Anick Jesdanun]
In March 1990, when few people had even heard of
the Internet, U.S. Secret Service agents raided
the Texas offices of a small board-game maker,
seizing computer equipment and reading customers'
e-mail stored on one machine. A group of online
pioneers already worried about how the nation's
laws were being applied to new technologies
became even more fearful and decided to
intervene. And thus the Electronic Frontier
Foundation was born -- 16 years ago this Monday
-- taking on the Secret Service as its first
case, one the EFF ultimately won when a judge
agreed that the government had no right to read
the e-mails or keep the equipment. Today, after
expanding into such areas as intellectual
property and moving its headquarters twice along
with its focus, the EFF is re-emphasizing its
roots of trying to limit government surveillance
of electronic communications, while keeping a
lookout for emerging threats even as the Internet
and digital technologies become mainstream. In
one of its highest-profile lawsuits to date, the
EFF has accused AT&T Inc. of illegally
cooperating with the National Security Agency to
make phone and Internet communications available
without warrants. "It's quite possibly the most
important privacy and free speech issue in the
21st century," said Kevin Bankston, an EFF staff
attorney formerly with the American Civil
Liberties Union. "We are trying to force the
government to follow the law. We are trying to
force the phone company to follow the law."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/14965616.htm
THE INTERNET KNOWS WHAT YOU'LL DO NEXT [SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: David Leonhardt] [Commentary] A few years back, a technology writer named John Battelle began talking about how the Internet had made it possible to predict the future. When people went to the home page of Google or Yahoo and entered a few words into a search engine, what they were really doing, he realized, was announcing their intentions. A few weeks ago, Google took a big step toward making the database of intentions visible to the world by creating a product called Google Trends. It allows you to check the relative popularity of any search term, to look at how it has changed over the last couple years and to see the cities where the term is most popular. And it's totally addictive. You can see, for example, that the volume of Google searches would have done an excellent job predicting this year's "American Idol," with Taylor Hicks (the champion) being searched more often than Katharine McPhee (second place), who in turn was searched more often than Elliot Yamin (third place). Then you can compare Hillary Clinton and Al Gore and discover that she was more popular than he for almost all of the last two years, until he surged past her in April and stayed there. It's the connection to marketing that turns the database of intentions from a curiosity into a real economic phenomenon. For now, Google Trends is still a blunt tool. It shows only graphs, not actual numbers, and its data is always about a month out of date. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/business/05leonhardt.html (requires registration) ANGRY CUSTOMERS USE WEB TO SHAME FIRMS [SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Kim Hart] As angry clients increasingly turn to the Internet to settle scores, companies, independent retailers and everyday wrongdoers are learning that consumers can have the last word -- and often the last laugh. The Web has turned into a place where shame and humiliation are sometimes the strongest weapons in fighting scams and unfairness. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070401119.html (requires registration) PARIS WANTS WIRELESS INTERNET ACCESS ACROSS CITY [SOURCE: Reuters 7/4] Paris wants blanket wireless Internet cover by the end of 2007, helping to make it the most connected capital city in the world, Mayor Bertrand Delanoe said on Tuesday. Under a new plan, the city hopes to set up 400 free WiFi access points next year and allow Internet service providers to install antennae on strategically-located public property. The plan also calls for slashing taxes on companies that lay down fiber optic cables in a drive to have 80 percent of all buildings within the city connected to so-called 'ultra-high speed' fiber optic networks by 2010. License fees for fiber optic cables already snaking through the city's sewer system would be cut by 25 percent, and the tax break would go up to 90 percent for the first 400 meters of new cables that branch out to connect buildings currently lacking the high-speed lines. The free wireless access points -- to be located in parks, squares, libraries, and public areas -- will be set up by private firms that win contracts to be awarded in early 2007. The project will also experiment with free WiFi access for an entire city quarter by the end of 2007. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2006-07-04T194550Z_01_B686624_RTRUKOC_0_US-FRANCE-PARIS-INTERNET.xml Click here for earler Benton files. (c)
Benton Foundation 2003. Redistribution of this email publication -- both internally
and externally -- is encouraged if it includes this message:
|
|
Guidomedia.com An Australian publishing resource Home | News | Resources | Research | Leisure | About us | Jobs | Main index |
Return
to top