SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (10014)12/5/2002 10:37:36 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Publishing: Future's in your hands

Developments in technology may signal the end of mass communication and the rise of more personalised media. Guy Kewney on the impact for both users and moguls

The Independent
02 December 2002

We know quite a lot about the newspaper of the future – from a technology standpoint. Research tells us that some will read it on paper, others on their computers. Still others will receive it on hand-held devices that are neither phones nor pocket computers, but a hybrid of both. It will have rivals not only on the television screen, but also on pocket web bulletins received by wireless. And you may print it out, in full colour, at home.

What we don't know, and what a lot of media giants want to know, is: "Who will publish it?" It's not an academic question. The advertising industry depends on finding mass media through which to promote mass merchandise – cars, shampoos, headache remedies and mass media itself (advertising TV on posters, radio on TV, newspapers on radio) to the mass market.

But the future includes a new mass medium, the internet, which will turn the current structure upside down, destroy media empires, and build a new infrastructure for marketing. No media will die – no media ever does. Radio didn't destroy newspapers; TV didn't destroy radio; the internet won't destroy TV. But the idea of powerful media owners with powerful channels may be an idea whose time is over.

The concept of "a publication" may be obsolete in the ubiquitous information age. The current model assumes you pick your favourite newspaper, buy a small selection of regular magazines, tune in to a favourite station. But technology is going to make it easier to assemble your newspaper from multiple sources, or plan a video viewing sequence that is unpredictable. The mass market may soon be impossible to locate.

You can get a snapshot of the future of all media by studying what has happened to the specialist media that serves the IT industry, because it picks up on technology trends earlier. In a recession, the media feel the downturn first, as advertising is cut back by big spenders. Now, all media, not just IT media, are feeling the pinch; but IT has been hit hardest because IT professionals don't feel they need to read print media in the obsessive way they did five or 10 years ago.

Some titles have transferred their output to the internet, but the problem isn't "free editorial" provided by dot.com news sites. It's the availability of direct source material from the horse's mouth. You no longer need to wait six weeks for information about a new product in a monthly magazine; with a tip-off from a trusted source, it only takes up to 10 minutes to find the product data, price and reseller sources with Google. Instead of relying on the opinion of a time-pressed reporter, you can discuss the issues with your peers in live online forums such as Internet Relay Chat rooms. Weekly and monthly publications continue to have a market, and a readership; it's just a different market, and a smaller readership.

The same applies to those publications that lived on recruitment advertising. Why would an IT specialist look for a job in a publication that is a week out of date when it hits the street? You can find job ads online which are put up immediately, and "pulled" as soon as there are sufficient applicants.

The internet hasn't hit the mass media market in this way – not yet. IT professionals generally have high-speed internet access, while domestic consumers are still primarily e-mail users with dial-up modems running at one-tenth the speed. Moore's Law shows us that the power of computers, and the speed of communications, and the growth of technology, will change this.

By 2010, your home computer won't be a geek's corner upstairs in an attic room; it will be an invisible part of the home, acting not just as a spreadsheet and e-mail machine, but as a full entertainment control centre. Instead of an occasional 56kb-per-second internet connection, it will be permanently online at 10 or even 100mb per second, able to transmit two high-definition video signals simultaneously, plus other compressed information channels. Instead of being stuck in front of a heavy, flickering CRT display, you'll be able to control it from anywhere in the world using whatever keyboard, mouse, pen or other input tool is closest to hand, and view its output on your phone, pocket computer, car windscreen, or any nearby display.

And it will know you. A combination of today's search engine technology and the predictive heuristics of the Tivo personal video recorder (which "learns" what TV programmes you like by what you record) will mean that it will be possible to feed you entertainment – and information – which you didn't even know you were interested in.

The IT community is, meanwhile, evolving bellwether opinion formers – not journalists (though some of them are) but information-finders. In each chat community, there are people who have a knack of picking up "cool" new ideas, and whose lead is followed first by their immediate circle, and soon afterwards by an expanding shock-wave of secondary acquaintances.

So far, nobody is storing the demographics of who these people are. But the effects are cataclysmic. Website operators talk of the dangers of being "Slashdotted" or "rogistered" – when some item on your small-time, specialist pages gets noticed by one of these bellwethers, and finally gets to the attention of Slashdot (www.slashdot.org) or The Register (www.theregister.co.uk), two popular news sources. Suddenly, your servers are swamped by hundreds of thousands of visitors viewing your web page, and your ISP is calling to say you owe big fees for all that extra bandwidth your site's just used when the visitors dropped by.

If only you could sell advertising for all these visiting people, you could be rich overnight. But by the time you've realised you've got a "smart mob" on your site, it's too late to tell an advertiser that you've got an 80 per cent internet audience share; the crowd will have moved on to the next thing.

Inside a decade, however, advertising moguls will know who the bellwether viewers are. What will happen is that search engines will log when bellwether viewers visit a site (say, showing some film or story) that later peaks in popularity, how long they stay there, and who they notify. It will become possible to predict a surge in viewers.

At this point, advertising sales staff will contact big advertisers, and their technical staff will start negotiating for the rights to provide high bandwidth to the site or media in question – in return for inserting ads into the content. Money will change hands before anything has happened.

Printed copies of the incident will be available, but not in individual titles. Rather, readers will stop by the newsagent to pick up instantly printed, bound copies of colour glossies that feature only those news items and hobbies of interest to them. And, of course, the concept that everybody has to be in front of the telly at 6.30pm to see the event will be long-forgotten; it will be stored on the huge terabyte TV recorder Moore's Law tells us every home will have.

Forget the idea that the "owner" of the programme or site or media can control the advertising as today's TV studios and magazine publishers and radio stations do. There will be too many sources, and no way of knowing too far ahead which will get "smart-mobbed" at any moment.

Power will pass from the publishers to the advertising franchise brokers. They will be incumbent telecoms companies such as BT or Vodafone, or established, licence-based media empires such as the BBC, who are moving into the advertising business through their internet subsidiaries.

It's not the news that AOL/Time-Warner or News International want to be told; but unless they move out of media into advertising franchise control, they're doomed. Perhaps a few subscription-only sources can make an artisan's income. But the idea of mass media meaning studio owners, or printing-press moguls, is a historical one.

news.independent.co.uk



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (10014)12/5/2002 11:41:24 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Want a Cover-Up Expert? Kissinger's Your Man

History puts his credibility at zero in the 9/11 probe.

By Robert Scheer
Syndicated Columnist
The Los Angeles Times
December 3, 2002

The president clearly does not want to know the truth about Sept. 11. Otherwise he would not have appointed Henry Kissinger to head an inquiry into the origins of arguably the most successful terrorist attack in history. Long an unabashed advocate of concealing and distorting the truth in the name of national security, he is the last guy who has the right to ask someone in government, "What did you know and when did you know it?"

Kissinger, after all, was the member of the Nixon White House most bent on destroying Daniel Ellsberg for giving a copy of the Pentagon Papers, the government's secret history of the Vietnam War, to the New York Times. His obsession with preventing all government leaks, except those of his creation, is well documented in the Nixon tapes. And this is the man who publicly lied about everything from the bombing of Cambodia to the cover-up of the Watergate break-in of Democratic Party headquarters to the overthrow and death of the democratically elected leader of Chile.

But even if truth serum could be slipped into his morning espresso, Kissinger still would be an appalling choice to lead what should be the fearless, unbiased fact-finding investigation necessary to prevent future tragedies like the destruction of the World Trade Center towers.

He has been much too personally embroiled in the gamesmanship, greed and opportunism underlying politics in the Mideast; neither is he willing to disclose his long list of lucrative government and business contracts that pose potential conflicts of interest.

For example, Kissinger Associates, the former secretary of State's ultra-connected consulting firm, has had dealings in the past with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait -- the two nations most closely linked with the 9/11 hijackers -- and was the subject of a congressional investigation for its role in the $4-billion bankrolling of Saddam Hussein in the late 1980s by the Atlanta office of Italy's BNL bank. Kissinger Associates then included Brent Scowcroft, who became national security advisor for President George H.W. Bush, and Lawrence Eagleburger, secretary of State in that administration.

That those ties crisscross with other suspicious activities of close Bush family advisors -- including Poppy Bush's consulting role with the Carlyle Group that took him to Saudi Arabia to drum up business -- makes Kissinger's selection as understandable as it is dishonest.

The truth is, the administration doesn't want a commission looking into what went wrong on Sept. 11 because its focus might turn too close to home. The incoming Bush administration in 2001 ignored dire warnings from Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger that Al Qaeda was the major security threat facing the U.S. Instead, the new administration focused on the war on drugs and even funneled "humanitarian" aid to Taliban-run Afghanistan as a reward for the fundamentalists' eradication of an opium crop.

The truth about Sept. 11 might dampen Bush's exploitation of tragedy to draw attention from a sagging economy, a down stock market and stunning financial scandals that began with the downfall of Bush's close buddies at Enron. How convenient to divert the public's attention from other problems with the notion that the whole world must be turned upside down to combat terrorism, when marginal and avoidable mistakes by our government allowed the dreams of madmen to be fulfilled in blood.

Would the monstrous new homeland security bureaucracy really have protected us from a few box-cutter-wielding nuts? How difficult, after all, is it to prevent people already on a terrorist wanted list from entering the country to attend U.S. flight schools? How hard is it for the president of the United States to get the FBI and the CIA to talk to each other? And why are we apparently going to war with Iraq, which had nothing to do with Sept. 11, instead of with Saudi Arabia, which did?

The Bush administration was floundering before Sept. 11, and it still seems to have difficulty dealing with the nation's domestic problems. Instead of facing that harsh reality, Bush wants us to welcome the shredding of constitutional protections, allegedly for our own protection, and be excited at the prospect of a sideshow war with Hussein.

Best to not look too hard at any of this. The Bush administration resisted convening a 9/11 commission for more than a year and, when forced by overwhelming public pressure to do so, picked an infamous man with the legendary chops to quash any search for truth.

*

Robert Scheer is a syndicated columnist.

latimes.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (10014)12/5/2002 1:58:36 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
What the World Thinks in 2002

How Global Publics View: Their Lives, Their Countries, The World, America

people-press.org



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (10014)12/5/2002 3:25:08 PM
From: surfbaron  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
RepoAss: great read. heard news blurb earlier this week CAR SALES WERE WAY OFF LAST MONTH. How prescient you are.