The Political Machine is Grinding Away to Shape Public Opinion

The political machines are ramping up their rhetoric in the midst of the economic turmoil playing the blame game for what's caused the country to go off track. Here are but two examples, one from the WSJ and the other from the NY Times in the last couple of days.

It's a long road to November 2012 and if these two examples are indicative of the type of storyline we can expect from the very far left and right, we have a tough and brutal slog ahead.


Meanwhile, the ball is in the hands of 12 Senators and Representatives (the Super-Committee, a Jedi Council?) to wrestle spending to ground while bombarded from both sides wit calls for far less and far more spending. How have we grown so far apart when the welfare of the country rests in the balance?

What Happened to Obama? Absolutely Nothing. 

(Norman Podhoretz, WSJ 8/13/11)

He is still the same anti-American leftist he was before becoming our president.

..."But I emphatically agree with Messrs. Limbaugh and Sowell about this president's attitude toward America as it exists and as the Founding Fathers intended it. That is why my own answer to the question, "What Happened to Obama?" is that nothing happened to him. He is still the same anti-American leftist he was before becoming our president, and it is this rather than inexperience or incompetence or weakness or stupidity that accounts for the richly deserved failure both at home and abroad of the policies stemming from that reprehensible cast of mind."

Genuflecting to the Tea Party

(Charles Blow, NYT  8/12/11)

..."What we are witnessing is an extension and acceleration of the G.O.P.’s obscene genuflection to Tea Party tenets: give no ground; take no prisoners; accept no deal."
..."David Axelrod, the Obama campaign strategist, said the candidates at the debate were “essentially pledging allegiance to the Tea Party, instead of resolving the problems of this country.”

The Way Forward for Traditional News Content Generators

Content generation and content search/distribution are severable, particularly in this Internet age, but this distinction has always been possible had content generators/publishers chose to make it so in their earlier business models. Now they under under the hammer of competition for the once lucrative advertising dollars.

Today and tomorrow, the game's best hand is held by the distributors or those who control the revenue streams associated with distribution and ease of consumption. I think the best hope for content generators is to cut deals with (or own) the distributors who create the channels and have the ability to bill and collect either micro or subscription payments.

I think device manufacturers' products will eventually commoditize so that a Kindle, an iPhone, a tablet or a Droid will be differentiated only by screen size and a few customer convenience features. The valuable distribution management and customer 'ownership' will reside with the electronic distribution and consumption channels, e.g., the wireline and wireless carriers and the cablecos. Content is necessarily king, yes, but managing its distribution and consumption will likely be the bigger revenue magnet.

U.S. Newspaper Circulation Falls More Than 10% - NYTimes.com

U.S. Newspaper Circulation Falls More Than 10% - NYTimes.com

It's a grim future for print media. It would be fascinating to correlate the home Internet penetration rates with the decline in subscriptions in the coverage areas of the non-national papers.

It's painfully clear that the traditional business model for daily print media is near the point of collapse. It's rate of decline is very similar to the loss of POTS landlines in the telecom industry.

I certainly don't have any magic bullets, but what the country cannot afford to lose is high quality news gathering and reporting. The media outlets need to find a business model that leverages the rapid development and deployment of electronic reading devices.

While print publications will have an audience that desires a tactile reading experience, that audience will die off and the reading (and advertising) experience of the future will be on portable devices. These must be very easy to use and have some built-in serendipity factors that emulates what print media offers as the eyes wander through the content.

Otherwise, the future is not healthy for traditional print newspapers and magazines.

NY Times Public Editor Speaks About Coverage of ACORN, etc.

Hoyt, the NY Times Public Editor rambles on about how and why the Times provided scant coverage to the ACORN story and the resignation of Van Jones, an Obama 'czar' that were rampant on the Internet. A couple of quotes below show that he may have some understanding why I and many millions of people believe the Times has become a 'flack' for TeamObama.

The Times is a liberal, biased newspaper, just as Fox News is a conservative biased cable network. To pretend this is not the case is ridiculous. If they believe they are 'fair and balanced' as Fox is wont to say, they are kidding themselves. Be not deceived!

"But for days, as more videos were posted and government authorities rushed to distance themselves from Acorn, The Times stood still. Its slow reflexes — closely following its slow response to a controversy that forced the resignation of Van Jones, a White House adviser — suggested that it has trouble dealing with stories arising from the polemical world of talk radio, cable television and partisan blogs. Some stories, lacking facts, never catch fire. But others do, and a newspaper like The Times needs to be alert to them or wind up looking clueless or, worse, partisan itself."

Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, agreed with me that the paper was “slow off the mark,” and blamed “insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.” She and Bill Keller, the executive editor, said last week that they would now assign an editor to monitor opinion media and brief them frequently on bubbling controversies. Keller declined to identify the editor, saying he wanted to spare that person “a bombardment of e-mails and excoriation in the blogosphere.”

Despite what the critics think, Abramson said the problem was not liberal bias.

How can she say this and believe it? Abramson is obviously in denial.

Here's a story in the Washington Post about ACORN's corruptness that just as well could have run in the New York Times were they not editorially a TeamObama mouthpiece.

NY Times a Shill for TeamObama

Editorial - Majority Rule on Health Care Reform - NYTimes.com

The New York Times has shown itself to be a public propaganda machine for the Democratic party in this editorial. They are agreeing with the Democrat proposal 100%. Very disappointing.

Health care desperately needs reform to control costs and a national solution is the right way to go, yet the Democrat proposals will not control costs, rather they will expand the deficit and debt dramatically as the Congressional Budget Office has stated. None of this seems to matter to the Times as they exert editorial clout to line up with TeamObama.

Why Folks Are Upset

Millions of people are upset with the hurry-up process that TeamObama has taken, not so much because they are against health care reform. They simply do not trust government to get this right when the Democrat strategy has been to move it fast without the understanding, let alone the buy-in, of average Americans who are being asked to pay more for it. This is a terribly flawed approach and has been correctly exposed as wrong, if not duplicitous. Exposing one more event that destroys trust, the Wall Street Journal opines about Sen. Dodd's 'secret' health care bill.

Extremely partisan Republicans are taking every opportunity to capitalize on the likely failure of TeamObama to pass his domestic agenda. That's also a lousy approach to needed reform. Why can't grown men and women in Congress do the right thing?

Incremental Change is a Better Solution

This grand plan of ObamaCare is not the right approach. I think significant changes in our health care system should be made incrementally. For example, adding 40+ million uninsured to insurance plans seems to me to presume they will also be expected to choose a primary care physician if preventive medicine is a goal of reform that is intended to lead to cost containment. If that's true, where will we find these physicians? Will ObamaCare redirect the medical careers of thousands of doctors to accommodate the influx?

Reform the Medical Malpractice Industry Immediately


A good place to make an important change would be reform of the "medical malpractice industry" to take lawyers out of the business of unnecessarily increasing the costs of insurance for doctors. There are other ways to protect patients' rights to compensation when mistakes are made. The free-for-all created by lawyers trying to extract massive jury awards for their own benefit should be curtailed immediately.

Publishers Nurture Rivals to Kindle - WSJ.com

Publishers Nurture Rivals to Kindle - WSJ.com:

This story about emerging competitors to Amazon's Kindle, including Sony and PlasticLogic, suggests that several trials by newspapers and periodicals will be underway soon. Yet, no matter how good a device may be, it does not have the familiar appeal of paper. This means the adoption period will be longer that many expect unless a newspaper takes the radical step to stop the presses.

Nevertheless, in this early phase, when the market for these devices is immature, standards have not yet appeared. The story has no discussion of standards. From a consumer perspective, what makes sense is different hardware choices that will enable various content, whether books, newspapers or magazines. That suggests a software platform(s) equally friendly to consumers and publishers.

I have no doubt that these devices are the future of newspapers. They simply cannot continue supporting the costs of hard copy printing and distribution in a digital world serving a generation raised on a digital diet.

"...Van Baker, consumer electronics analyst for research firm Gartner Inc., said e-readers likely will appeal to only small numbers of people because of their cost, and he wonders whether a slew of devices will confuse consumers. 'If the newspaper has one reader, and the book store has another reader and the magazine publisher has another reader, it just doesn't make any sense,' he said."

Coincidentally, the NY Times has a story on e-readers in today's paper.

Remembering America Online - Osnos

Osnos provides a concise history of the unfolding and folding of online and other technology titans. In the old days a DoJ monopoly lawsuit (ATT, IBM, MICROSOFT) was the leveler. Considering the outcomes and subsequent revamping, various M&A activity, etc., gave us better companies and far more innovation....all driven by technology's unrelenting pressure.

Today's print media and advertising industry is under similar siege, but not by government. "Do no evil" Google is the culprit du jour, painted gray, if not black, by newspapers and the news business for taking away their revenue. The last thing Eric Schmidt wants to wade through is an antitrust morass triggered by his growing dominance in search. No wonder he has played so nicely for a long time with now-President Obama.

Curious by omission, Amazon is a huge content distribution player and will become even more important. I'm surprised the newspapers have not attempted to get in bed with them for distribution (Kindle, billing systems, customer base, etc.) Amazon and the newspapers together could mount a credible challenge to Google for advertising dollars.

Of interest, way back when I was at NYNEX in the InfoLook days, a local newspaper publisher was frightened to death that the telephone company was about to eat his newspapers' lunch. We had many vibrant discussions. He was so worried about this camel's nose in the 'information services' tent that he became active with Vermont regulators to restrict the fledgling experimental pre-internet InfoLook online service.

Now, 15 years later, Google, originating in a Stanford dorm room from bright students then in their early teens in InfoLook days, has become one of the most powerful arbiters of internet content activity nearly 100% funded from the advertising revenue that so worried our local publisher.

It's all about the metadata!

TheBurningPlatform.com » Economy » WASTING A GOOD CRISIS: RESULT - $200 OIL

This is a long story by James Quinn, a prolific blogger and writer. But READ IT! If you do and you believe the facts and scenarios that Quinn portrays, then we're headed to $200/bbl oil in very short order, within five years at most. That means $5.00-$6.00/gal. gasoline and heating oil very soon, even without any additional tax levies. The scenarios he lays out are the most plausible I've read.

I don't think Quinn claims any particular energy expertise, but has researched the available facts and drawn his own conclusions. We can all do the same.

Alternative energy wishful thinking will not stop this. In fact, alternative energy proponents are hoping for this as the impetus for a massive change in our energy mix. Fear not, it will happen because of rapid growth and modernization in developing countries with expanding populations.

But a shift to alternatives will require YEARS, perhaps a decade or two. Smart policies would include nuclear production of electricity, but 'TeamObama' seldom utters the word, except in a pejorative sense.

As oil supply is unable to meet worldwide demand, Quinn raises the specter of broad world war for oil and gas as a possible result. A friend, without tongue in cheek, has advised me to check my supply of guns and ammo.

 

TheBurningPlatform.com » Economy » WASTING A GOOD CRISIS: RESULT - $200 OIL

New Journalism's Content Cascade

Interesting ruminations about a journalism model focused around the notion of a 'content cascade.' At its heart are wiki-like active repositories which is the vibrant heart of content.

I have long believed that wikis are an extraordinarily powerful tool very much underutilized. But I have been disillusioned and frustrated by the reality that so many people still believe the Internet is email and therefore fail to embrace many of the advantages of the other powerful tools. The 'social networking' phenomena may change that. Perhaps it's mostly a generational thing and the twenty and thirty-somethings will easily embrace the content cascade.

In a journalism/news organization, this makes a great deal of sense. Out of frustration a couple of months ago I recommended the idea (online, of course) to the executive editor of our local daily newspaper. Background information on a topic could be continually built into a wiki and the online consumer of 'a story' or opinion piece could follow links to relevant supporting facts and background. Local examples: wind power in Vermont; Vermont Yankee nuclear plant license renewal; Vermont agriculture, et al. The story of the day could then focus on today's news and the background stuff could be linked.

This is no panacea for the troubled newspaper business, but seems worthy of serious consideration.

Monetization of the online distribution of content, certainly is THE issue and this fellow at Harvard skips gingerly over that.

"Obviously, the thorny and perennial question of “monetization” is absent from this discussion. But the advantage of the content cascade is its efficiency and its multiplying effect on page views: reporters don’t labor over 20-inch yarns when a 10-word blog update will do; content from all over the web can create page views on a local site; readers contribute content; each drop in the stream (OK, there’s a basic unit for you) can be repurposed almost indefinitely into new content niches. The resulting vibrancy of the news site draws maximum traffic; let the marketers monetize the value of that."

Information may 'want to be free,' but the people creating it for a living must somehow be paid.

Designing the Kindle 2 | Beyond Binary - CNET News

Designing the Kindle 2 | Beyond Binary - CNET News:

Smart, large distribution newspapers will find ways to artificially limit traditional printing and widespread distribution. Bankruptcy may be a driver. (Interesting question: Would the Constitution prevent a government bailout of the 'press?' ). The transition will be very hard, because it's well nigh impossible to suddenly stop printing and suddenly turn on electronic distribution for reading devices and websites; huge barriers exist.

The business model is difficult and the cultural barriers enormous, too, but the end game is clear...to me at least. The time will come sooner rather than later when news organizations will not print papers for distribution. Instead, our subscription will include only electronic delivery, whether downloaded to a device or read online at websites as millions do today.

It would seem that businesses like Reuters stand to gain immensely from this shift to reading devices because they may have the option of bypassing the traditional newspaper business.

"Newspapers and blogs are also important, though Freed wouldn't say whether he bought into the notion that some newspapers would be wise to stop home delivery and instead pass out Kindles to subscribers.

'I'll leave it to others to figure out what the economic model will be for newspapers,' he said. 'Our newspaper customers have been happy working with us. It's a new source of revenue for them.'

Amazon, he said, would certainly be happy to talk to newspapers interested in trying something more radical. 'We'd certainly be open to working with any newspapers.'"

Editorial - How to Pay for a 21st-Century Military - NYTimes.com

Editorial - How to Pay for a 21st-Century Military - NYTimes.com

The Times recommends detailed cuts in specific weapons systems and other options for the military. Unless they identify the expert sources for this editorial, I put little stock in the NEW YORK TIMES as a military advisor. They are not qualified in military matters to be taken seriously. Who do they think they're kidding passing themselves off as military experts?

The Public Editor - Separating the Terror and the Terrorists - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

The Public Editor - Separating the Terror and the Terrorists - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com:

Here is a thoughtful review of the NY Times' use of the words and terrorist and terrorism by its public editor. I think the Times is far too conservative (dare I use that word when referring to the Times?) in using the words. I agree with the public editor's conclusion below.

When such heinous and indiscriminate killing/maiming acts are done by a person, whether part of an organized group or not, it's terrorism and that person at that moment is a terrorist. When an 'organized' group uses these despicable acts as a tactic or strategy for social, political, or military ends, the group is a terrorist organization and they should be hunted and eradicated (or 'brought to justice' as President Bush puts it).

"My own broad guideline: If it looks as if it was intended to sow terror and it shocks the conscience, whether it is planes flying into the World Trade Center, gunmen shooting up Mumbai, or a political killer in a little girl’s bedroom, I’d call it terrorism — by terrorists."

Tough Choices Loom for Newspapers - WSJ.com

Tough Choices Loom for Newspapers - WSJ.com:

Newspapers as we have known them are a dying breed. Google and other online advertisers are inexorably eroding the print newspaper advertising revenues revenues. Most major newspapers have robust online versions of their papers, but most charge nothing for access. The Wall Street Journal is the exception. From the beginning they have charged for an online subscription.

Government bailouts for newspapers will not be possible because the separation of the state from the press is as stark as for religion. So their survival options are relatively limited.

As ad revenues continue to tumble, the news-gathering and reporting will be different in this country. Robust reporting as we have come to expect may dissipate to other organizations. The Associated Press, Reuters, etc., may take on greater roles as the 'newsgatherers of record.'

It's only a matter of time before print news gives way massively to electronic news. It's a generational thing. People brought up online or with a cell phone forever present do not and will not read daily newspapers. Perhaps Google will decide to be in the news business. Maybe they'll bail out a paper or two!

"...Assuming the recession deepens, bankruptcy filings in the industry are possible. More likely, lenders will agree to renegotiate loans. In some cases investors may take control in debt-for-equity swaps. Whatever happens, existing shareholders, including families with decades of history in the industry, could be largely wiped out.

Newspaper executives are starting to do more than simply cut staff and dividends. Some have, for instance, reduced the frequency with which they publish: Freedom plans to make its Arizona daily East Valley Tribune a four-day-a-week free paper.

Publishers need to accept that newspaper ad revenue -- print and online are down 15% in the first nine months, according to the Newspaper Association of America -- isn't going to bounce back fully from the recession. Average profit margins for publicly reporting companies have halved to 11% for the first nine months of this year from 22% in 2003, estimates analyst John Morton. Drastic action is needed to reduce costs.

There are a number of options: Most obviously, there is consolidation. The cash deals of recent years saddled many newspaper chains with too much debt, exacerbating today's"

"...Another measure that some publishers could embrace is online-only publishing. Printing and distribution costs -- about 40% of revenues, estimates Mr. Morton -- could be eliminated by abandoning the physical product. Of course, online-ad revenues currently don't generate anywhere near enough to offset the lost dollars. But at the present rate of decline, online-only could be viable for some.

Times to Stop Charging for Parts of Its Web Site - New York Times

"Information wants to be free."

-Stewart Brand 1984


I did not intend to renew my TimesSelect subscription anyway, primarily because I disagree with so much of the Times' editorial content. In recent years they have become a house organ for liberal Democrats and, IMHO, have suffered from that stance. They may think they provide "all the news that's fit to print," but with an editorial slant that is not good for America.

The shakeup in the news business continues and we will see many more changes ahead, particularly as the Times continues to decline financially.