Wednesday, November 30, 2005
NEWSPAPERS: Slashdot columnist/editor tells newspapers how to survive on the web
Robin Miller has been the editor of Slashdot.com, the most-trafficked news
site for technologists on the web. In this post, he explains why he things
daily newspapers have missed the Internet opportunity badly, what they can
do to recover, and the promise of local online communities.
Posted by Roblimo on Wednesday November 30, @11:28AM
from the speaking-ex-cathedra-from-his-belly-button dept.
I've spent seven years working as a writer and editor for Slashdot's
parent company. During this time I've been to at least a dozen mainstream
journalists' and editors' conferences where the most-asked question was,
"How do we adapt to the Internet?" You'd think, with all the smart people
working for newspapers, that by now most of them would have figured out
how to use the Internet effectively enough that it would produce a
significant percentage of their profits. But they haven't. In this essay I
will tell you why they've failed to adapt, and what they must do if they
want to survive in a world where the Internet dominates the news business.
I'm going to use the Bradenton Herald as an example, not because it's a
bad newspaper but because I live in the middle of its circulation area.
The Herald is a typical Knight Ridder small-city newspaper in every way
except one: it serves Manatee County, an area with a fast-growing
population where most new residents are old enough that they grew up
reading newspapers every day. Despite these favorable factors, the
Herald's circulation has declined by 3.5% in the last year. Of course,
newspaper circulation declines are now normal rather than exceptional.
Other newspapers have done far worse, with the San Francisco Chronicle
recording a 16.4% drop in the last six months alone.
Readership vs. Circulation
Much of the Chron's circulation decrease was because it stopped giving
away free papers. The Boston Globe also stopped a giveaway program and
suffered a circulation decline as a result, although only about half as
big a loss as the Chron's, but the Globe's marketing people have said that
only half of the loss came from stopping the giveaways, and blamed the
rest of it on the usual suspects, notably TV and the Internet.
These figures only measure paper newspaper circulation. They don't include
Web readership, which generally seems to be trending (slowly) upwards on
newspaper Web sites. Circulation figures can also be misleading because
they only measure the total number of newspapers distributed, not the kind
of people who read them. And readership quality can often be more
important, in a business sense, than quantity. This is especially true for
those newspapers (namely, just about all of them) that rely on advertising
for the bulk of their income.
By definition, anyone who reads a newspaper online at home can afford a
computer and an Internet connection, which means they aren't at the very
bottom of the economic pile. Online readers are also likely to be more
open to new experiences, products, and services than those who don't feel
they need to use the Internet -- which by some estimates may be as many as
half of all households within the Herald's circulation area, which has a
higher percentage of retirees than all but a few other U.S. counties.
Journalism professor Douglas Fisher and media executive Alan Mutter have
both talked about intentional circulation losses on their blogs. In his
post, Fisher says, "The industry evolves to the point of small, expensive
print publications and most of the 'mass' news on the Web somehow. Then,
as we evolve toward paid content online will come issues such as whether a
certain amount of 'base' information should be free for every person --
sort of like a public utility of information (perhaps presented as a
social utility necessary in a functioning democratic society)."
Meanwhile, when newspapers talk about readership vs. circulation, they're
typically trying to estimate how many people read each copy of their print
product (pdf download) rather than come up with a total picture of their
publication's readership, including its online presence. This is a
mistake. Instead of treating their Web sites like unwelcome stepchildren,
newspapers should turn them into their primary method of news delivery --
and teach their reporters, editors, and ad sales people how to work
effectively with this new -- to them -- medium.
1. No matter how much I or any other reporter or editor may know about a
subject, some of the readers know more. What's more, if you give those
readers an easy way to contribute their knowledge to a story, they will.
Imagine a newspaper with a space for comments below each story on its Web
site. This Slashdot story has comments directly attached to it, not tucked
away from public view the way the Bradenton Herald's site hides reader
comments on Bulletin Boards that aren't directly connected to any of the
paper's articles or editorials. To make matters worse, the Herald's
Bulletin Boards require a separate login to post. Even if you're a
logged-in reader you must put in your username and password again to use
As a result of these posting barriers, you hardly see any reader comments
on the Herald's site, and what few there are seem to come from a small
group that posts over and over. Even the Herald's single (hard to find)
blog, maintained by token hip-dude entertainment reporter Wade Tatangelo,
draws so few daily comments that you could count them on the fingers of
one hand -- and usually have four or five fingers left over.
By contrast, the Washington Post's Web site has two blogs, Achenblog and
The Debate, prominently displayed on the Opinions page that almost always
draw 100+ comments per post.
A truly Web-hip newspaper would not only allow but encourage reader
comments on all of its stories, not just on a blog or two. With thousands
of readers as fact-checkers, mistakes would rarely go uncorrected for
long, and if there was any perceived bias in a controversial article,
reader comments would make sure the other side got heard. Even better, a
reader who witnessed an event the paper covered would be able to add his
or her account of it to the reporter's, which would give other readers a
richer and deeper view of it.
2. Not all readers know what they're talking about.
While some readers know more about any given topic than a professional
journalist writing about it, most don't. Some, indeed, post anything about
anything, including misleading or false information. This is why Slashdot
has a moderation system, and why all newspaper Web sites need to have
moderation systems in place before they allow reader posts attached
directly to stories. Slashdot's, which is built into the code that runs
the whole site, is probably too complicated for most newspapers, but
everyone (including newspaper publishers) is free to download, use, and
modify it. For those who don't want to use the code behind Slashdot, there
are many other free (and proprietary) content management programs
available that have similar -- and often simpler and less geeky --
moderation features built into them.
3. No matter what you do, some readers will post malicious and/or obscene
Slashdot removes posts only in response to Cease and Desist orders or
legitimate copyright infringement complaints. We find that malicious or
obscene posts are usually moderated into oblivion almost immediately,
because our readers -- hundreds of whom have moderation power at any given
moment -- have a sharp eye for stupid stuff.
A mainstream newspaper might choose to remove blatantly disgusting posts,
which would take some staff time. There would also -- inevitably -- be
second-guessing and complaints, including whines from readers who believed
their posts were removed because they didn't follow the [fill in political
party here] line, not because they used offensive language.
Moderation never makes everyone happy. Someone will always feel the rules
are too loose, while someone else will believe they're too tight. And
moderates -- I mean moderators -- will always get flak from ____-wingers
who think they're biased. But these problems shouldn't stop grown-up
newspaper people from soliciting and publishing readers' posts. They
should already be accustomed to bias accusations.
4. What if readers post comments that advertisers don't like?
This is a problem, and one to which some newspapers are extremely
sensitive --not just over readers' comments but sometimes over their own
reporters' stories. A 1999 Washington Monthly article had some examples of
how newspapers sometimes cater to advertisers instead of their readers.
Allowing readers to comment on stories, and allowing them to post anything
they want (other than obscenities, blatant hate speech, and personal
attacks) increases readers' faith in the newspaper, which makes it a more
effective advertising medium in the long run because some of that trust
will rub off on advertisers that support it.
The Business Side of a Newspaper Web Site
Slashdot, like almost all other Web, broadcast, and print media outlets,
depends on ad revenue for most of its income. For the first few years of
its existence as a commercial entity, major advertisers were afraid to buy
ads on Slashdot or other free-wheeling, community-driven sites. They
worried that every time they touted a product, all the customers they'd
ever irritated would post bad things about them. It's impossible to run a
company of any scale without having at least a few dissatisfied customers,
no matter how good your products and services are, so this was not an
Luckily for Slashdot (and our parent company), many companies have learned
that they are going to get criticized online whether they like it or not,
so at the very worst, running ads on pages where they get slammed gives
them a chance to tell their side of the story.
Keyword-based ad placement helps them do this. Imagine making software
that's often knocked for its security vulnerabilities, while competing
software is available that costs little or nothing and doesn't share your
product's problems. You'd want to run a Get the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty,
and Doubt) campaign on every Web page where the competing product was
being discussed so that you could tell people who are (obviously)
interested in the competing product how awful it is, and why they should
buy yours instead.
On a local newspaper Web site, a developer intent on replacing pristine
wilderness along a scenic river with ugly condominium towers in the face
of opposition from local citizens' groups could run a keyword-targeted
campaign explaining why their buildings would be better than a swampy,
mosquito-ridden riverfront. They could stress the fact that they would
reduce the population of turtles, spiders, alligators, shore birds, frogs,
and other annoying wildlife, and that runoff from their
chemically-fertilized landscaping would help keep local fish populations
down by contributing to red tide, thereby reducing the number of smelly
fishermen infesting the area.
Other, more sensible, businesses would use the same tactic -- keyword ad
placement -- to sponsor discussions in a positive way. An obvious example
here in Florida would be resort property owners linking ads to
tourism-related stories and the discussions attached to them. With
geotargeting becoming common on the Web, ads aimed at visitors could be
visible to all of a Florida newspaper's online readers, while ads for a
local business would only be shown to local residents -- unless the local
advertiser was canny enough to realize that Florida has many thousands of
seasonal residents, and that reaching these snowbirds through the local
newspaper's Web site before they come South is a great way to get a leg up
Some other ways to exploit the Web that newspapers don't seem to do well:
Print-them-yourself coupons. This is lots cheaper than putting coupons in
a print newspaper. Many newspapers boast that today's paper contains $___
worth of coupon savings. Why don't more papers make this boast about their
online editions? TV stations could do this on their sites, too. This would
be an entirely new source of revenue for them, since there is no way to
put a coupon in a TV spot.
Online ad circulars, similar to the paper ones that pack print newspapers
on Sundays and holidays. The print ones are expensive to produce and
deliver, especially in color. Online circulars would be far less costly.
Selling sponsorships for community calendars and other "public interest"
sections that should be on every newspaper's Web site -- but often aren't
or are produced in too scattered a manner to be useful for readers. C'mon,
newspaper (and local TV) people! A well-organized, database-driven events
calendar is easy to produce. If you don't have one (and sponsors for it),
Sponsored, "free to individuals and small businesses," local classifieds.
craigslist and eBay are busily taking the classified ad market away from
newspapers, with Google getting ready to help them with this effort. The
Poynter Institute's Steve Outing suggests that the best way to beat back
this threat is to "Turn newspaper classifieds into an active and
interactive community, instead of just static, dull listings. A
cold-hearted newspaper classifieds database could well be smothered by
Google classifieds. A local-focused interactive community may be less
The Local-Focused Interactive Community
I believe the future of not only classified ads but of local news
gathering and distribution is the "local-focused interactive community."
According to this article, craigslist founder Craig Newmark agrees with
me. So do plenty of other Web entrepreneurs and venture capitalists who
are busily building and financing "community" sites.
Local newspapers should have dominated all of this interactivity from the
beginning. They had the name recognition and -- through their print
editions -- the promotional muscle to make their Web sites into
unassailable community hubs. But they didn't, and now they're reduced to
If the Sarasota Herald-Tribune had followed through on its plans to
incorporate reader-written blogs into its site, Suncoastblog.com probably
wouldn't exist. This group blog is an admittedly lame effort, barely
begun, put together by several people in this area (including me) who
thought it would be nice to have a local site that might eventually cover
events and places that don't make their way into the local papers. We know
the Herald-Tribune, whose circulation area overlaps the Bradenton
Herald's, had thought about hosting reader blogs at one point, because
they asked readers to submit blog ideas several months ago. I submitted
one and never heard back.
I also submitted a local computer business column concept to the Herald. I
came up with it because the Herald has a Sunday business page it calls
"Digital Manatee," on which I have never seen anything other than
out-of-town wire service material even though there is more than enough
local computer and Internet business activity to fill a weekly column, and
enough local computer and computer service vendors to surround that column
with profitable advertising.
The Herald's editor didn't respond to my proposal. I've written three
computer-oriented books, and thousands of articles that have run online
and in print all over the world, but I am apparently not worth even a
polite turndown from my local paper's editor. No problem. A week later I
was having lunch with a couple of local entrepreneur buddies. I told them
what had happened. They suggested an online computer business magazine
instead of a Herald column, and offered to finance it on the spot, out of
I don't have time to start a new publication. But I am in a position to
help someone else start one, and to write a story or two for it now and
then. Financing's in place. So is a domain name. So at some point the
Herald and Herald-Tribune may have (yet) another niche publication
competing with them. It won't be a big competitor, but its ad revenue will
come from lucrative business-to-business accounts you'd think a local
newspaper would be eager to lock up with a weekly (or more frequent)
column for local computer-using business people.
This doesn't mean the Herald has a bad editor or that another small paper
would have reacted differently. I use this anecdote only to point out that
it is now easier to start an online publication than for even a
highly-qualified outsider to get his or her work into a local paper. Is it
any wonder that local blogs and other online niche publications are
springing up like mad? And as a corollary, is it any wonder that newspaper
circulation and influence continues to decline?
Newspapers need to open up more to the communities around them. They need
to stop confining their interaction with readers to advisory board
meetings and questionnaires, and allow readers' stories, opinions, and
thoughts to become an integral part of the newspaper itself. They should
not allow readers to alter the newspaper's own words, as the Los Angeles
Times did back in June with their laughable wikitorial experiment.
Moderated comments are a much better way to give readers a voice. So are
journals that allow (logged-in) readers the same level of freedom they'd
have with their own blogs, but also give them the cachet of being
published on a "major brand" Web site.
'Local' is the Key Word
The Herald, Herald-Tribune, and many other (if not most) local newspapers
seem to think that they are still their readers' primary source of
national and international news, just as they were 20 years ago. So that's
what fills their front pages most of the time, with local and regional
news stuck in a "B" or "C" section.
Welcome to the Internet age, local newspaper (and TV) people. I can and do
get my national and international news from the New York Times, The
Washington Post, BBC, Al Jazeera, Fox News, CNN, and other online media
that cover faraway events better and faster than you ever will. I turn to
you for local news. You tell me more about last week's home invasion
robbery on 11th Street East than they ever will.
It's time for local newspapers to become truly local; to feature local
news on the front pages of both their Web sites and print editions, with
only a few out-of-the-area stories up front, augmented by an
above-the-fold story list that tells readers where to find national and
international news on their inside pages.
Add readers' stories and comments to the mix and you suddenly have a local
online community, not just a newspaper. This will not take work away from
professional reporters, photographers, and editors, who will still be the
foundation of local news-gathering. In fact, increased interaction with
local community members will probably give them more work than ever,
because they will find themselves inundated with news tips and story
suggestions they never would have found on their own. Some of these story
ideas will be dreck and some will be invaluable. It will be up to the
newspaper's editors to find the (rare) nuggets in the huge pile of dross
they will need to sort through every day, and up to the newspaper's
reporters to follow up on them.
One important thing a community-oriented, Web-based newspaper must do is
credit readers for their story leads unless they specifically request
anonymity. Another good idea is to pay readers who submit news stories
that are written well enough that they can run with only routine editing
and fact-checking. Those readers are, in effect, doing a reporter's work,
and they should get some sort of compensation for it. Some may even turn
into stringers capable of covering government meetings and other events
when staff reporters aren't available, and a few of those stringers
eventually ought to become staff members. After all, if a newspaper is
going to be about, by, and for its local community, shouldn't that
community be its primary recruiting ground?
Newspapers Will Not Die
Some newspapers (and newspaper chains) will probably not survive the shift
from news-as-monologue to news-as-dialog. Most will, although those that
wait too long to adjust will have much of their audience, influence, and
ad revenue taken away by more agile competitors.
The smartest newspapers will follow my survival recipe or come up with
their own way to become an integral part of their community instead of a
building full of people who have been sprinkled with Secret Journalism
Powder that makes them better and smarter than their readers. These
newspapers will not only survive, but prosper. They may even become the
prime outlets for bloggers in their communities, which will increase their
readership and ad revenue. Extreme ____-wing bloggers won't want their
words associated with the hated Mainstream Media, but most others will be
happy to have a widely-read, influential outlet for their work.
Eventually, I expect print newspapers to become "snapshots" of their Web
editions taken at 1 a.m. or another arbitrary time, poured into page
templates and massaged a little by layout people, then sent to the
printing presses, a pattern that has potential for significant production
cost reductions if handled adroitly. From that point on, their paper
editions will be distributed the same way newspapers are now.
Senior citizens and others who can't afford (or don't want) computers are
and will continue to be a viable market. So will commuters who use public
transportation. Then there are those -- a substantial part of the
population -- who simply prefer reading words and looking at pictures on
paper to seeing them on a screen. They will still want physical
newspapers, even if they are not as up-to-date or as complete as what
they'd get on the Web.
However it is delivered, text will not go away anytime soon. For a fast
reader, it is the most efficient way to take in large quantities of
information. Most people speak at a rate of between 130 and 200 words per
minute. Most college students, according to a Virginia Tech student guide,
can read non-technical material at 250 to 300 words per minute, and can
increase that reading speed significantly with a little thought and
practice. Listening to a city council meeting at 150 words per minute
takes much longer than reading a meeting transcript at two, three, four or
ten times that speed. Now have a skilled reporter -- whether a staff
member, paid contributor or volunteer -- write an intelligent summary of
that meeting, and even an average reader can learn what happened there in
a few minutes instead of slogging through a two hour audio or video
The Web version of that summary can be posted without waiting for the
printing presses and delivery trucks to roll, and can have audio or video
snippets embedded in it, but there is no reason not to make the text
portion of it available on paper for those who prefer it in that form,
unless the paper's editors decide so few people are interested in a city
council meeting that it doesn't deserve a spot in the print version -- and
tracking page readership on the Web version of the paper before the paper
edition goes to press should give those editors a good idea of what they
should and shouldn't put on paper.
Printed newspapers will have a significant following for many years to
come. They may or may not become "expensive," as Professor Fisher
predicts, but they will likely become smaller than they are now, and
subscription sales efforts will probably be targeted more closely at
groups unlikely to have Internet connections, especially senior citizens.
On the Web side, it's likely that newspapers will end up keeping most of
their content free, with specialty sections (and posting privileges)
reserved for logged-in users. Whether they'll be able to charge for some
or all of their Web content is questionable. I paid $50 for a year's
subscription to the NYT's Times Select program, and I don't think it's a
good enough value that I'll renew my subscription when it runs out. I
would be more likely to pay if I lived in New York and that subscription,
in addition to what it gives me now, offered access to additional features
like complete transcripts of government meetings. Indeed, I would happily
pay at least $30 per year to the Bradenton Herald for a well-organized Web
edition that gave me what I now get in the paper edition, plus government
meeting transcripts and other useful subscriber-only features.
But if I paid for an online subscription to the Herald, I'd probably drop
my subscription to the paper edition. I'd still be the same person, with
the same interests, earning power and spending habits. The only thing that
would change about me, from the newspaper's perspective, would be my news
The challenge for local newspapers that beef up their Web editions at the
expense of their paper versions won't be to keep (or add) readers, but to
teach advertisers that the Web, not paper, is the best way to reach their
most lucrative potential customers.
This may not be easy, but it will be a lot easier than explaining to
advertisers why they should keep spending money in a newspaper that has
fewer readers, and less influence, every year.
AUDIO: eDemocracy simplified, by Steven Clift
Steven Clift of eDemocracy Online in Minneapolis, Minn., has developed a 30-minute talk about building community life and democracy in the 21st century. "The Internet allows citizens to become everyday citzens anywhere, anytime, by deeply connecting them to things local, not just global," Clif says.
Clift, who has spoken in 25 nations -- including Mongolia, Iceland, Lebanon, and South Korea -- on eDemocracy concepts and practices, connects the best online realities in an optimistic recipe which he says will "counter the emerging virtual civil war among partisans online."
AUDIO LINK: http://dowire.org/media/everydaycitizens.mp3 (15MB)
MEDIA GIRAFFE PROFILE of Steven Clift:
Steven L. Clift - - - W: http://publicus.net
Minneapolis - - - - E: email@example.com
Minnesota - - - - - - T: +1.612.822.8667
USA - - - - Skype/MSN/Y!/AIM: netclift
Democracies Online Newswire - http://dowire.org
Monday, November 28, 2005
FILM NOTES: Part 2: Orwell Rolls in his Grave, shown Nov. 22, 2005
Why did GE buy NBC? To influence public policy, or to make a profit?
-- Insider trading and Harkin Energy -- was it really not covered?
-- Glossing over the coverage of George Bush's military record?
-- Chuck Lewis: "And that's where we are as a country -- it is very grim to
watch. It is really depressing."
-- Mark C. Miller -- Lockheed Martin all around.
-- What about somber music?
-- Joe at FX: If it happens but isn't covered, did it happen? Quotes Orwell
-- Mark C. Miller -- commercial free speech -- Mark Lloyd -- has first
amendment bee warped
-- End of Fairness Doctrine "partially responsible for the rise of right-wing
-- The Clear Channel effect
-- Does media not cover media issues in congress? threenetworks 19 minutes on
telcom act over nine months?
-- Narrator: "A few companies gain total control" over each new technology
eventually. .Will thishappen with the internet?
-- Is open access being replaced with closed access?
-- "An internet where anonymity is outlawed and every penny is accounted for
-- McChesney -- top of system crushing competition? New companies make it
harder for others to enter.
-- Chuck Lewis -- you don't do a story because it makes demographic sense
(NYTimes editor re starting demographic sections)
(get this clip)
-- FCC ownership rules changes in Feb. 2003 -- What happened next?
-- Dorgan -- FCC -- who do these changes benefit -- Eagle with TV newsroom?
Good or bad?
-- Miller: Did they mean free-speech rights for transnational corporations?
-- Miller: "If we don't have a media system for getting our word out, forget
it, we're completely screwed. We need antitrust activity."
QUESTION: Is competition from Craig's List, Google, Yahoo and the like making
anti-trust enforcement unnecessary. .
-- Chuck Lewis -- brief window before Internet is shut down. Threat to the
OPINION: Mainstream media not under corporate control, CBS news chief says
Here's a view about the extent to which mainstream media's news agenda is set by its so-called corporate owners. That's a view expressed repeatedly in the Robert Kane Pappas film documentary, "Orwell Rolls in His Grave."
The comments below are from Andrew Hayward, president of CBS News. He was on an Oct. 5, 2005, panel at the "We Media: Behold the Power of Us," conference at The Associated Press headquarters in New York City. The conference was organized by The Media Center, the think-tank arm of the newspaper publisher-sponsored American Press Institute. His comments were made generally; the Pappas film was not in any way a subject of the session.
Here is Hayward verbatim, as transcribed from the MP3 download of the the panel he was on:
"One of the misunderstands about these conglomerates, certainly maybe not in this room, which is a sophisticated audience, but among the public at large, is that the conglomerates are actively telling us what to cover and actively censoring or blocking stories based on what advertisers want. That is not true. There is still a very solid firewall in this country between news providers and sponsors, and to the degree it becomes permeable, I think there are going to be a lot of watchdogs who are going to sound the alarm.
"I think the real issues is what the vice president correctly said -- its the sins of omission that are more important to me than the sins of commission, because you can always ignore the Lacy Peterson or the runaway bride, but not having a vigorous debate about global warming or about what is going on in the classrooms -- that is something that we can tag the media with -- however we also have to look again at the marketplace and the audience . . . the fact is if there weren't the marketplace for the runaway bride it wouldn't be on as much as it is . . . I don't think we can wish away the influence of the marketplace on American media."
Hayward's comments earlier about the future of media were interesting as well. Here's an excerpt:
"We're at the very early stages of development in the democracy that could go one of several ways. At its best, the disaggregation of content, the lowering of barriers of entry ot news, and inforramtion and opinion providers sare in fact a very good thing that could recreate the kind of feisty dialog that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the town meeting model for our democracy. At its worst . . . and the vice president even cited this case of the sudden upsurge in the number of emails urging that a particular professor be fired . . . at its worst you will have an atomized world in which people have, or chose, access only to the things that they are interested in and you will have a completely splintered society where even though the information is available, for those who are actively willing to seek it, to learn about public affairs, most people will live in a comfortable cocoon of their own self-reinforced opinions and its going to be even harder to reac!
h consensus on the issues of the day. And I think we have to grapple with those contradictions and discuss them rather than, recycling what to me are fairly familiar criticisms. It's not that they aren't valid. They're familiar because they've been around for a long time. But i think looking ahead is a lot trickier than looking in the rear-view mirror."
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Here is a self-profile by Tyler Resch, librarian at the Bennington Museum, and expert on one of the most important, and little know applicants of the 1798 Sedition Act. Anthony Haswell was a Bennington printer and publisher who was arrested, charged, tried, convicted, fined, and jailed by the United States government in 1799 and 1800 for publishing criticism of the government.
LINK TO ARTICLE: http://www.mediagiraffe.org/docs/haswell_resch_2003.doc
Background: I have a bachelor's degree in American Studies from Amherst
College, a master's in journalism from the Medill School at Northwestern. I
worked four years as a reporter-photographer for the Providence Journal, and
then went small-town, so to speak. I wanted to get my hands on the whole
paper, do layouts, write headlines and editorials, run a staff, etc. So I
came to Bennington after learning that Pete and Don Miller of the Berkshire
Eagle had just acquired it.
I really intended to move on after a while, of course. But I loved the
Vermont scene and the skiing, got married, bought a 200-year-old house
(which I still have, and work on assiduously), raised two kids, and became
immersed in the community. So I was editor of the Bennington Banner in two
phases, 1963-65, and then a full decade, 1968-78 . . . [when] I quit.
But the community still called. I "moved on" to be communications
director for Bennington College for six years (had five bosses in those six
years, indicating the administrative instability there). Not a bad
experience, challenging, different -- and it got me out of newspapers at a
time of growing chain acquisitions and monopoly tendencies. I would not have
been happy working for Gannett.
Somewhere in all this time I wrote or edited twelve books of regional
historical interest, starting with a pictorial history of Bennington County
(while still at the Banner, at Pete Miller's behest) titled The Shires of
Bennington. Researched and wrote a 400-page town history of Dorset (an
upscale town that now boasts about 70 single-family residences assessed at
more than $1 million). Edited and produced a history of Bennington College.
Was commissioned to write a history of Putnam Memorial Hospital, now
Southwestern Vermont Medical Center. Was commissioned by the Rutland Herald
to edit a 400-page anthology of the editorials of its publisher, Bob
Mitchell, who had just died. Mitchell was a rare example of a daily
newspaper's owner who also wrote its editorials, and they were amazingly
substantive. That led to a bicentennial history of the Rutland Herald
itself, one of the few non-chain dailies that remains in the hands of one
family. Wrote a book about the Bennington Battle Monument.
My historical interests prevailed, and so in semi-retirement I became
librarian of the Bennington Museum, part-time, which I enjoy a lot, dealing
with lots of people from all over, and digging into historical and
biographical issues and a lot of genealogy. With a crew of volunteers, we
answer e-mails by the hundreds, mostly from descendants of early Vermont
I have a couple of unpublished books on the back burner: a biography of
Hiland Hall, a 19th-century Vermont political figure and historian in his
own right (responsible for the Battle Monument and its "massive and lofty"
design); and a history of the high-elevation ghost town of Glastenbury, just
northeast of Bennington.
NETWORK NEUTRALITY: Washington Post story details lobbying effort by "pipe" owners to restrict content on Internet
PUBLISHED: Thursday, November 24, 2005; D01
Another good source:
The link is to http://www.fepproject.org/commentaries/grokster&brandx.html
By Marjorie Marjorie Heins / Brennan Center for Justice / Free Expression
Policy Project / 212 992-8847 / firstname.lastname@example.org / www.fepproject.org
BRIEF on subject: http://www.fepproject.org/courtbriefs/BrandX.pdf
Renewed Warning of Bandwidth Hoarding
By Jonathan Krim
The Washington Post
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
A couple of years ago, a group of big technology companies got together and issued a public alarm about the future of the Internet:
Those who own the wires that get us online, the companies said, should not be able to pick and choose what Web content and services we can see and
Just as electric companies can't cut deals with electronics makers to allow only some products to work, the Internet should have similar, guaranteed "network neutrality," argued tech firms such as Amazon.com Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc.
The telephone and cable companies that provide most Internet access dismissed the warning as a pro-regulatory, paranoid rant. It was a solution in search of a problem, they said, and they vowed they would never, ever do such a thing. And the issue receded.
But now it's back in a big way, and the question is: How will the tech industry respond?
On March 3, the Federal Communications Commission announced that it settled a case against a small North Carolina-based telephone company that was blocking the ability of its customers to use voice-over-Internet calling services instead of regular phone lines.
On Sept. 15, the first major draft of proposed changes in the nation's telecommunication's laws was circulated by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The draft said Internet service providers must not "block, impair, interfere with the offering of, access to, or the use of such content, applications or services."
On Nov. 2, another draft of the bill came out, with language specifically addressing the Internet video services that are proliferating as connection speeds increase and the phone companies get into the digital television business. In this draft, the prohibition on blocking or impeding content was gone.
If the bill passes as is, tech companies say, the Internet could be forever compromised.
"Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity," Vinton G. Cerf, a founding father of the Internet who now works for Google Inc., wrote in a letter to Congress.
The phone companies argue that with their new fiber-optic systems capable of handling huge amounts of bandwidth, they simply want the ability to set aside some of it for their own services, be it television, gaming or anything else.
Unfortunately for them, the head of phone giant SBC Communications Inc., Edward E. Whitacre Jr., was a little more plain-spoken in an interview in Business Week.
"Now what they [Google, Yahoo, MSN] would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it," Whitacre said. "So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using."
Like his predecessor, FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin favors network neutrality "principles," but not codifying them as rules.
The FCC did add them as conditions of planned mergers between SBC and AT&T Corp., and Verizon Communications Inc. and MCI Inc. But those conditions apply only for two years, and only to those companies, so Congress will have to wrestle with this beast.
A coalition of tech companies that includes Microsoft, Yahoo, Amazon, Google, Ebay Inc. and IAC/InterActive Corp., argues that the issue is bigger than straight-up discrimination. What if, they say, the Internet service providers decide to reserve 90 percent of their bandwidth for their own services, and leave 10 percent for the rest?
"Allowing broadband providers to segment their . . . offerings and reserve huge amounts of bandwidth for their own services will not give consumers the broadband Internet our country and economy need," Cerf wrote.
Another wrinkle: What if Internet service providers decide to provide lots of bandwidth to customers who buy their other services, such as cellular or voice-over-Internet telephony -- but less if the customer uses rival providers of those services? That would be similar to the kind of bundling that occurs now, under which, for example, cable Internet service is cheaper if a consumer also buys a cable-television package. That, they say, is the free market at work.
With tech firms and the Internet providers engaged in many joint business relationships, it is unclear how much artillery the technology group is willing to roll out on this issue.
If they hope to succeed against the powerful cable and telephone lobbies, it will require more than some letters and public testimony to Congress.
Jonathan Krim can be reached email@example.com.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
This article above is copyrighted material, the use of which may not have specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of political, economic, democracy, First Amendment, technology, journalism, community and justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' as provided by Section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Chapter 1, Section 107, the material above is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this blog for purposes beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.