Extreme Commercialism

Hi Class!

I just realized that my post from two days ago has an incorrect link to the article I intended to post. I apologize for any inconvenience.

Thank you for your time,
Sim

Here is the article:

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-problem-with-our-media-is-extreme-commercialism/

With its impoverished public broadcasting, the US media system stands out among democracies for its commercial excesses. Many sectors are dominated by corporate oligopolies, producing content with hardly any public interest protections. Is this the system Americans wanted?

This article from The Nation brings to light how the divide between journalism’s business and public serving missions is quick dissolving, especially following Trump’s ascendance. Diminishing revenues from hard news lead to a growing emphasis on sensationalism, further degrading journalism and misguiding the people. The author lists three approaches for uncoupling journalism from commercialism.

Prevent market concentration by breaking up media monopolies
Build and fund public media infrastructures
Closely regulate monopolies in sectors where competition is impractical.

The author hopes that these reforms provide the basis for an alternative media system dedicated to democracy instead of profit.

Here are some related quotes that I found interesting and worth pondering over:

“Our economy is based on spending billions to persuade people that happiness is buying things, and then insisting that the only way to have a viable economy is to make things for people to buy so they’ll have jobs and get enough money to buy things.”
― Philip Slater


“We're developing a new citizenry. One that will be very selective about cereals and automobiles, but won't be able to think.”
― Rod Serling


“The schedules are crammed with shows urging us to travel further, drive faster, build bigger, buy more, yet none of them are deemed to offend the rules, which really means that they don't offend the interests of business or the pampered sensibilities of the Aga class. The media, driven by fear and advertising, are hopelessly biased towards the consumer economy and against the biosphere.”
― George Monbiot


“I remember a time when a cabbage could sell itself by being a cabbage. Nowadays it’s no good being a cabbage – unless you have an agent and pay him a commission. Nothing is free anymore to sell itself or give itself away. These days, Countess, every cabbage has its pimp.”
― Jean Giraudoux, The Madwoman of Chaillot

Europe Combats a New Foe of Political Stability: Fake News

Hi Class,

The article below isn't posted to argue certain political policies but rather to bring the class' attention that Europe is having a similar issue/discussion with "fake news". I found the article interesting after our mock debate last week, when we spoke openly later in  class about how to possibly resolve the issue we have in the US (too far left/right news). 

In this article, East Stratcom looks to fight the problem "serves as Europe’s front line against this onslaught of fake news." With elections taking place this year in many countries across Europe, the similarities of what happened during the US Presidential election can not be ignored with most fingers pointing to Russian influence again but coming from any/all directions. 

"They attribute these efforts to the hacking group known as Fancy Bear, or APT 28, which American intelligence agencies linked to the hacking of the Democratic National Committee before the presidential election. Both American and German intelligence officials believe the group is operated by the G.R.U., the Russian military intelligence service.......Many people don’t trust institutions anymore. [We] see fake news coming from everywhere.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/world/europe/europe-combats-a-new-foe-of-political-stability-fake-news.html

TED Talk: Lara Setrakian: 3 ways to fix a broken news industry

Something is very wrong with the news industry. Trust in the media has hit an all-time low; we're inundated with sensationalist stories, and consistent, high-quality reporting is scarce, says journalist Lara Setrakian. She shares three ways we can fix the news to better inform all of us about the complex issues of our time.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lara_setrakian_3_ways_to_fix_a_broken_news_industry

Lara is uniquely motivated by her global and culturally diverse experience that is resonating with Americans following the U.S. presidential election and the rise of #fakenews.  While social media continues to gain influence in how people get their news, Lara argues that change needs to come from both government efforts, as well as professional journalists themselves.

• Idea number one: we need news that's built on deep-domain knowledge.

• Idea number two: we need a kind of Hippocratic oath for the news industry, a pledge to first do no harm.

• The third idea? We need to embrace complexity if we want to make sense of a complex world. Embrace complexity — not treat the world simplistically, because simple isn't accurate. 

Lara Setrakian is building innovative news platforms that stand ready to engage and explain the complexity of our world.


Why you should listen
Lara Setrakian  is the co-founder and CEO of News Deeply, a startup that creates news platforms and builds passionate communities centered on the most pressing issues of our time. Her team's inaugural site, Syria Deeply, launched in 2012 and won the 2013 Excellence in Online Journalism Award from the National Press Foundation. The team went on to launch Ebola Deeply, Water Deeply, Arctic Deeply, Refugees Deeply and the Women & Girls Hub; the model is expanding to cover new topics in environment, public health, geopolitics and social impact. Each site is staffed by beat reporters and editors with substantial experience of the subjects they cover and augmented by a network of contributors, commentators and area experts who share their perspectives. A hard-edged optimist, Lara believes in building innovative news platforms that are rooted in public service, that stand ready to engage and explain the complexity of our world. She also believes that there are successful media business models to be built -- ones that capturing the value of specialized information and the power of targeted reader communities. By fusing news and community, journalism and product design, she is developing a way to sustain in-depth and continuous coverage of vital issues. In light of that work Inc Magazine called her one of "8 Women Who Could Own the Future," while Fast Company named her one of the "Most Creative People in Business."

Commercialized Journalism

Hello Everyone!

Please read the article here:

The Problem With Our Media Is Extreme Commercialism

With its impoverished public broadcasting, the US media system stands out among democracies for its commercial excesses. Many sectors are dominated by corporate oligopolies, producing content with hardly any public interest protections. Is this the system Americans wanted?

This article from The Nation brings to light how the divide between journalism’s business and public serving missions is quick dissolving, especially following Trump’s ascendance. Diminishing revenues from hard news lead to a growing emphasis on sensationalism, further degrading journalism and misguiding the people. The author lists three approaches for uncoupling journalism from commercialism.

• Prevent market concentration by breaking up media monopolies
• Build and fund public media infrastructures
• Closely regulate monopolies in sectors where competition is impractical.

The author hopes that these reforms provide the basis for an alternative media system dedicated to democracy instead of profit.

Here are some related quotes that I found interesting and worth pondering over:

“Our economy is based on spending billions to persuade people that happiness is buying things, and then insisting that the only way to have a viable economy is to make things for people to buy so they’ll have jobs and get enough money to buy things.”
― Philip Slater


“We're developing a new citizenry. One that will be very selective about cereals and automobiles, but won't be able to think.”
― Rod Serling


“The schedules are crammed with shows urging us to travel further, drive faster, build bigger, buy more, yet none of them are deemed to offend the rules, which really means that they don't offend the interests of business or the pampered sensibilities of the Aga class. The media, driven by fear and advertising, are hopelessly biased towards the consumer economy and against the biosphere.”
― George Monbiot


“I remember a time when a cabbage could sell itself by being a cabbage. Nowadays it’s no good being a cabbage – unless you have an agent and pay him a commission. Nothing is free anymore to sell itself or give itself away. These days, Countess, every cabbage has its pimp.”
― Jean Giraudoux, The Madwoman of Chaillot

The US may demand passwords to refugees' social media accounts

Hi Class!

Below is the link to the article about the US Homeland Security is purposing have the right to go through refugees' social media accounts for safety issues. This proposal causes conflicts regarding human rights and privacy issues.
Personally, i think going through someone's social media presence is tolerable, and it's become common, even though very few of employers or any HR will be honest and tell you they will look up you on the internet.  However, asking for login credentials is forbidden among the employment laws and that US government is considered taking this step surprised me.
Plus, information gathering from social media accounts are usually not reliable sources, they could be fake, exaggerated or framed. those information need second evaluation before it turns valid.
Also, it raises the same issue wether or not the employer should go through candidate's social media presence when making hiring decision. since not all candidates are guaranteed to have social media accounts.

Below is the Link to the article from Business Insider:

http://www.businessinsider.com/refugees-social-media-account-passwords-immigration-2017-2

Wired Magazine Special Topic: "News in Crisis"

Wired has a number of great articles in their latest magazine under a special topic, "News in Crisis" (https://www.wired.com/tag/news-in-crisis), that focuses on how "old-school media" and emerging technology are evolving the current news landscape.  The fast-growing trend of consuming news online (via social media, mobile applications) is challenging existing players, while bringing both benefits and new problems. According to a recent Pew survey, Facebook was #3 among both Trump and Clinton voters as the main source of campaign news for Americans, which has elevated the problem of #fakenews.  

"How The New York Times Is Clawing Its Way Into The Future" is a great, long-form article on how the "Grey Lady" (or "the failing @nytimes" for Trump) is reinventing itself, using unlikely inspirations in Netflix, Spotify and HBO to "invest heavily in their core offering (which, for the Times, is journalism) while continuously adding new online services and features (from personalized fitness advice and interactive newsbots to virtual reality films) so that a subscription becomes indispensable to the lives of its existing subscribers and more attractive to future ones."

"The Macedonian Teens Who Mastered Fake News" is a true story covering the international origins of one mastermind of fake news that I read as a cautionary warning against questionable sources on social media.  I found it incredibly interesting to read that this culprit of fake news during the recent U.S. presidential election was solely incentivized by financial gain and had no other interests, including political or cultural motivations.

How Norwegian Daily Aftenposten Doubled Digital Subscribers in a Year

Hi Class – This article discusses the strategy that Norwegian daily, Aftenposten, used to increase digital subscribers. When focusing on reach metrics, the company realized that it was not getting the results that it had hoped. No matter how many people an article had reached, paid subscription rates would not increase at desirable rates. “There’s been a shift in mentality from views, reach and page impressions to how many subscribers we have and how we can make them happy,” says Schibsted’s (parent company of Aftenposten) chief commercial officer Tor Jacobsen. “The culture change we have had has been very important: Daily editorial meetings used to be about which articles drew the most traffic, now it’s about which articles drew the most subscribers.” With so many available sources, paid or free, and so many ways to consume media, it’s important to offer a true differentiator. While Aftenposten continues to use a metered paywall, allowing non-subscribers to read six articles a week, the real value in an Aftenposten subscription is now in the exclusive, emotional stories that drive engagement and conversations. Some of these subscriber-only articles also give user insight on themes of personal interest or personal gain. It is no secret that we, media consumers, will go out of our way to locate free content. When we are exposed to so much free content, the idea of paying for nearly identical content seems foolish. I believe that providing content that is emotionally engaging or personally valuable is vital in attracting loyal, paying audiences. Additionally, Aftenposten has become more data driven in how it acquires new subscribers by targeting audience segments on Facebook with ads featuring specific articles matched with audience gender, age, and location. This shift in strategy has paid off – now 65 percent of Aftenposten’s print and digital revenue comes from subscribers. This article is a good example of the success that can come from flexible and innovative media models.

http://digiday.com/publishers/norwegian-daily-aftenposten-doubled-digital-subscribers-year/

How The Post-Mobile Age Will Affect Your Business

Hi class! I came across this article on Forbes and thought it would be interesting to share because it re-contextualizes the way we think about innovation and how it intersects with the smartphone industry. The author argues that the innovation of smartphones has reached its peak, hence, 'innovative' smartphones are not defined by the way they look or feel, rather, they're defined by their effects on other industries. We tend to talk about the ways smartphone devices change consumer technology, but this article extends that conversation by talking about the effects it has on payment structures, communication networks and content delivery models. For example, the rising popularity of augmented reality (with games like Pokemon Go), shows potential to increase business efficiency by communicating with customers and employees in an interactive, engaging and quicker way. Another example is the move towards 'wireless.' This directly affects public infrastructure by creating cities where wireless charging is built into public places. In addition, more efficient batteries means the rate at which data is transmitted is increased etc ...
This was an interesting article about the way media industries can directly affect innovation in the private and public sector.

Link to the article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/centurylink/2017/01/31/how-the-post-mobile-age-will-affect-your-business/#4c7b890b162e

Consumers Are Going to Love the End of Net Neutrality—at First

Hello Everyone!

This article from WSJ posted just a few hours ago caught my eye, and even though it is not my week to post, I would like to share it with the class. I found it interesting because it is closely related to our hot topic in class i.e. Net Neutrality. It is said to be a battle of the titans between major internet companies and big players from the telecommunications industry. As both the sides impatiently wait to hear what kind of Net Neutrality rules are being put together by Trump's FCC appointees, let's take a moment to reflect how many of us happily avail the so called "Zero-rate" services provided by our cellphone carriers. This kind of practice is prohibited under FCC's current rules, as it seriously hurts the prospects of startups in their seed stage. Chances are, there might have to be a middle ground and the authority to make the new rules might not be given entirely to FCC, but be shared by Congress.

Here is a link to the article:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/consumers-are-going-to-love-the-end-of-net-neutralityat-first-1486922483

If you don't have a subscription, here is the article text:

Consumers Are Going to Love the End of Net Neutrality—at First

The Trump administration looks likely to change a foundational principle of America’s tech ecosystem.

One of the most basic principles of the internet is, depending on whom you ask, either in mortal peril or undergoing a rapid evolution.

Advocates for “net neutrality”—the principle that all data transmitted through the internet should be treated equally—argue it is needed for America to cultivate innovative web-focused startups. Critics say that alternatives to net neutrality could lead to innovation and competition in the country’s communications infrastructure, where they are badly needed.

This is a battle of titans. Major internet companies—if not the hardware manufacturers that enable them—have vocally supported the prerogative of the Federal Communications Commission to enforce strict net neutrality, while most telecommunications companies have opposed regulation that preserves it. As President Donald Trump’s FCC appointees appear set to target current net neutrality rules, companies on both sides may be taking a wait-and-see approach.

Microsoft Corp. , Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Netflix Inc. , Verizon Communications Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. declined to comment. AT&T Inc. didn’t respond.

This debate is likely to persist, but in the near term it looks like advocates of net neutrality will be dealt a major blow. That’s because consumers are going to love the Trump administration’s potential first steps at dismantling net neutrality. It starts with an ever-widening array of services that are “zero-rated.”

Zero-rating involves internet service providers giving customers free data services, such as unlimited video streaming.

Big carriers including AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Comcast and Sprint already offer some forms of zero-rated services. T-Mobile’s Binge On program allows customers to stream Netflix, for instance, and AT&T lets subscribers stream its own DirecTV Now service, each without eating into their monthly data allowances.

The FCC appeared to be in the process of banning the practice in some instances, on the grounds that it could unfairly privilege carriers’ own services. The agency had flagged the zero-rated services from both AT&T and Verizon for further review, says Commissioner Mignon Clyburn. Then on Feb. 3, Trump-appointed FCC Chairman Ajit Pai closed the agency’s investigation of all zero-rating practices.

Critics of zero-rating say it presents consumers with a choice they can’t refuse. Who would say no to video they can stream free or for a flat fee when the alternative is video from competing services that may eat up all their expensive data? This is the reason zero-rating was banned in India, a country that viewed Facebook’s attempts to give free data to its users as tantamount to colonialism.

Zero-rating resembles “paid prioritization,” in which companies pay to have their data delivered first, a practice that is prohibited under the FCC’s current rules. Net-neutrality proponents also argue that carriers shouldn’t block any content or throttle its delivery speed. Whether they’re promoting one service or blocking another, all these moves potentially hurt competition by favoring services in which the carrier has an interest.

The real risk isn’t that deep-pocketed internet giants would be unable to pay for telecom play. Rather, it’s that any would-be next big thing will instead be smothered in the cradle.

In Snapchat creator Snap Inc.’s IPO filing, the company listed the end of net neutrality as a potential threat to its long term prospects. If a company potentially valued at $25 billion is worried about having to pay carriers to be competitive with other zero-rated peers, imagine what these changes might mean to a startup at the seed stage, with only a few million in investment.

Headlines and news conferences aside, even most opponents of net neutrality don’t believe we should do away with it completely.

Based on Mr. Pai’s public statements and recent actions, the FCC chairman appears to oppose the Obama-era FCC judgment that the commission has the power to regulate internet service providers the way it regulates telecoms more broadly. Mr. Pai’s office declined to make him available for comment.

Roslyn Layton, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who studied net-neutrality practices in other countries, was part of Mr. Trump’s transition team. She believes we need what she calls “soft net neutrality,” where multiple stakeholders, including both big internet companies and carriers come together and make the rules together. (Our current reality actually represents some of this compromise already.)

In Ms. Layton’s view, the rules should be set by Congress, not the FCC. This is a likely scenario. There are bills in the works from members of both the House and the Senate that would restore to the FCC some limited authority to regulate net neutrality, but would limit its powers.

Investors are proceeding with caution. “We’re assuming that net neutrality in its wired and wireless fashion is gone,” says Andy Weissman, a venture capitalist at Union Square Ventures who has been an outspoken defender of net neutrality. He’s investing in Tucows, an internet service provider that is beginning to roll out fiber in some areas. Tucows will be “pure pipes” he says, which means in the future, it could differentiate from incumbent carriers by committing to equal treatment for all data.

The consumer impact is much more difficult to predict. The pace at which the U.S. turns out new internet startups could slow. With new cash flow opportunities, competition among internet service providers could increase, lowering prices.

What makes it so hard to calculate is that we’ve never really lived in a world without net neutrality. Even before the FCC’s 2015 rules on net neutrality, fear of those regulations kept internet service providers in check, says Michael Cheah, general counsel at video streaming company VHX and its parent company Vimeo. Video-intense businesses such as his are most threatened, since they tend to require more bandwidth than other kinds of internet-dependent firms.

Doing away with the FCC’s current power to enforce net neutrality is, he says, like lawmakers tossing away an umbrella just because it’s not raining outside, forgetting that big carriers have every incentive to make it rain—for themselves.

Write to Christopher Mims at christopher.mims@wsj.com

Trump's Tweets:

I like this article because it talks about the way people use social media to carry out their agenda, but I don't like how people get too opinionated about Trump and focus on the negative. At the expense of sounding hypocritical, I will throw in my two cents here by saying he's human and like everyone else, has his own reason for doing and saying what he says.  Yes, he is president, but if you publically post that his words have power because of his position I think that the person the writer dislikes gets even more power actually. It is the people who acknowledge him as powerful that give him the power. This article is kind of inspiring because it reminds us of the versatility of social media.  On another note, the "responsibility" is based simply on their perception of what a president is and what society thinks.

"Once maligned as low-ranking non-jobs invented for flighty but digitally nimble millennials, social media roles grew in prestige as companies recognized the importance of social media to their brands. Once President Trump made Twitter a key communication channel with the executive branch, however, social media jobs were imbued with new power—and responsibility. "


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-06/trump-has-made-the-social-media-manager-your-most-valuable-employee

Net Neutrality in the Trump Administration

Hi all - Over the course of the last few days I have been keeping an eye out for something relevant and interesting to bring fourth in this post. Well, this morning in my New York Times briefing email I was hit with a glaring article that I felt would work perfectly. As you can see (or will see) this article cuts the core of our recent class discussion on the topic of net neutrality.

Due to the recent transition of power in the White House, the Trump Administration has appointed Mr. Ajit Pai as the new Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Mr. Pai has already taken action in his new role by attempting to lessen the government's regulatory policy regarding internet access/speeds. By attacking the net neutrality policy that was established during the Obama Administration in 2015, which classifies broadband internet as a utility, Mr. Pai aims to help large internet providers increase profitability and power.

On the contrary to his beliefs are democrats in Congress as well as Mignon Clyburn, the sole sitting Democrat on the FCC. Ms. Clyburn is quoted in the article saying "Rather than working to close the digital divide, this action widens the gap."

Is Mr. Pai indeed widening the gap? and if so, is it ultimately for the betterment of the people and the country? 

Twitter is taking another crack at stamping out trolls and abusers

Hello, everyone! I found this article pretty interesting and I really want to share with you all. This article talks mainly about how Twitter takes strategies to prevent those trolls from creating new abusive accounts and thus to enhance the overall tweets quality. It also stated that Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce, had quitted his bid to invest in Twitter due to concerns about its reputation for handling online abuse.

It seemed pretty similar when compared Twitter with Weibo, which is a Chinese version of Twitter, with regard to this online abusive issue. In China, Weibo’s reputation is not that clear and pure like before because some users always publish or comment their thoughts with prejudices. In this situation, Weibo also deletes some abusive thoughts to keep a pure environment. However, some users in China think that Weibo is a social media platform that they can free to share their thoughts, so "free speech" should be the first priority of Weibo.

I want to discuss with you all that whether Twitter should implement this strategy or not?

Article link: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/07/twitter-safety-policy-updated-to-stop-trolls-harassment-abuse.html

Changes at The New York Times: Culture vs. Innovation

I found this article in the NYT to be particularly interesting being that I'm currently in the publishing industry. As technology progresses, businesses must take a hard look at current processes vs. innovation. In the NYT's case, the integrity of the content they publish is embedded in their current processes- layers of editors review content before its published in print. With a heavy shift in readership moving to digital, The NYT is now working to significantly change its editing system to center around digital publishing over print publishing. The changes are meant to expedite content to the web as quickly and efficiently as possible, while still working to maintain the quality of their content.
The new technology would be one of the largest overhauls to the NYT operations in years and will allow for a staffing reduction. 

I'm curious to see what people outside of the industry think about this- Should an organization like the NYT, a company known for high-quality, reliable content, "streamline" its editorial practices to keep up with the digital evolution?

Article Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/public-editor/a-hard-look-at-times-editing-in-the-digital-era.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FMedia&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection