Alert Blog Reviews

“You gotta be freakin’ kidding me!” That was my reaction to a Reuters article that I came across. I am still a little taken aback, as they say, about the even the threat of the US government looking into ways to bailout the struggling newspaper / old school media industry. Right now it’s more talk than anything else but if someone said it in a public forum then you know there are greater rumblings going through Washington with a similar stink on them. I guess you can guess where I stand on this one, huh? The Reuters article starts off A top Democratic lawmaker predicted on Wednesday that the government will be involved in shaping the future for struggling U.S. media organizations. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, saying quality journalism was essential to U.S. democracy, said eventually government would have to help resolve the problems caused by a failing business model. Waxman, other U.S. lawmakers and regulators are looking into various options to help a newspaper industry hurt by the shift in advertising revenues to online platforms. Can you see me shaking my head now? Did the government bailout the horse and buggy industry when the automobile was invented? Did the government bailout the radio industry when TV came along? Did anyone bailout the transcribers of the world when the Gutenberg press started producing the printed word? If journalism is essential to the US democracy then let the free market system that has built this democracy into one of the greatest powers of the modern age (at least until recently that is) take care of how this plays out! The last thing we need is the government handing tax benefits and even worse, more deficit funded handouts to the likes of the Washington Post, New York Times and anything that Rupert Murdoch is whining about these days. So who will profit from this concept more: our democracy or the likes of Rupert Murdoch? Hey let’s just go out and figure out which failing business model victim looks the most like AIG, Bank of America or Government General Motors and throw money at their executives business and see just how much better it gets. WTF! This is not a government issue for goodness sake. This is a paradigm shift issue. The world is changing and not everything survives change. Why are we so obsessed with keeping something alive that may not have a place in the new world media order? And if it does have a place let the free market principles that allowed it to thrive for so long determine what piece or pieces will move forward as we boldly go further in the digital age. Of course there is some press constituency that thinks this a great idea. Wonder who pays their bills? Free Press, a public interest group, said the search for solutions to the crisis in journalism should be premised on the idea that news-gathering is a public service, not a commodity. Waxman’s “indication that government has a role to play is both bold and soberly sensible,” said Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott on the sidelines of the FTC conference. I call BS on this one. Honestly, if the newspapers were truly a public service shouldn’t they have acted more responsibly to the change that very public is undergoing in how it consumes news? Business change is not always about failure; it’s usually more about progress and smarts or lack thereof. If the newspapers have ignored the myriad tell tale signs that have been written on the wall for years now why should MY TAX dollars save them from their own arrogance and stupidity? What have they done for me and my business? Geesh, just the rumor of this happening really ticks me off! Hey, Senator Waxman and anyone else who thinks this is a good idea! Shut up and go read your Washington Post while it’s still here! Phew! That felt great because I am part of the new free press and I plan on being around in the digital age as long as I can identify what people really want. Will it last forever? Probably not but if I am not smart enough to get on board the next train that is heading for the future don’t bail me out. That’ll be my problem not yours.

Excerpt from:
News Bailout Next?

The single biggest PITA for Yahoo has decided to leave his board position. If you’re not aware of just how disruptive the self-labeled "activist investor" Carl Icahn has been, a quick review of our archives should bring you up to speed. It appears that Carl Icahn isn’t happy unless he’s getting his way, and for all intents and purposes, he’s had his way with Yahoo. After criticizing the company for not selling to Microsoft, forcing his way onto the board of directors, then dumping a bunch of shares, our prediction that he was about to bail, has come true. In a parting statement, Icahn appears to offer legitimate praise for Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz: "Carol is doing a great job and I believe the Microsoft transaction will provide great long term benefits, the potential of which many still do not understand." Translation: Now that Yahoo has given up on search, it will start fading away–making it much easier for Microsoft to mount another takeover bid. Roy Bostock, Chairman of Yahoo, was equal in returning praise for Icahn: "Carl has been an important member of our board and has helped us through some significant transitions. We are all grateful for his active role shaping the future of Yahoo." Translation: Security! I didn’t spot a statement from Bartz herself, so we’ll remind you of what she had to say about Icahn, not so long ago: “Icahn is just another shareholder. What’s he going to do, fire me?” Translation: [see above]

Read the original:
Champagne Pops at Yahoo as Carl Icahn Resigns Board Position

As the new proposals for rules and regulations start to show up regarding net neutrality moving forward it is apparent that politics and political wrangling will rule this one. A very real possible result of this could be that common sense is shelved. Why do I say this? Go ahead and read the article from Macworld discussing this very subject and see if you come to another conclusion. According to the article the government (read: Democrats) say: The rules are necessary to protect innovation on the Internet and preserve the openness that has allowed the Internet to blossom, said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. “The problem is not merely that we’ve seen some significant situations where broadband providers have degraded the data streams of popular lawful services and blocked consumer access to lawful applications,” he said. “The heart of the problem is that … we face the dangerous combination of an uncertain legal framework with ongoing as well as emerging challenges to a free and open Internet. “Given the potentially huge consequences of having the open Internet diminished through inaction, the time is now to move forward with consideration of fair and reasonable rules of the road,” he added. While the other side (read: Republicans) say But Commissioner Robert McDowell suggested the Internet has seen massive growth because of a lack of regulations. The proposed rules regulate network providers, but not Web applications vendors, while supporters assume new innovation will come from applications and not networks, he said. “The Internet is perhaps the greatest deregulatory success story of all time,” said McDowell, a Republican. “No government has ever succeeded in mandating innovation and investment.” New rules could inadvertently hurt the growth of the Internet and give a precedent to other nations that want to create all kinds of new Internet regulations, McDowell added. So all this is saying is that to get through this process there will be more politics than good decision making. If it looks like I don’t believe that good decisions are usually born out of political posturing then you have read that correctly. When it comes to the Internet, which is, for the most part, one of the remaining areas that has created a lot of discussion but little legislation and regulation this could be troubling. It is not my intention to create a political issue here at Marketing Pilgrim. To be fair then I will say that I have not been impressed with much government activity from either side of the aisle (meaning Democrat or Republican) over my lifetime. I don’t care if you bleed blue from a blue state or red from a red state we have plenty of evidence that the more control the government exercises the less logic and common sense presides. Having said that the likelihood of government regulation regarding the Internet is a bit scary. This argument will be politicized to the nth degree with free market proponents saying that government regulations will crush the innovation needed to create jobs. The government folk, who claim protection of the little guy and his ability to function while big business ruins his life (while actually providing all the products and services ever needed but that’s another point for another day) want to make sure that no one is left behind. While there are merits to both sides of this argument I can’t see how government regulation is going to help this. I also can’t see letting providers charge more for greater bandwidth requirements etc. So where is the middle and does anyone really play there? So how will this play out? Slowly and painfully over time. Just yesterday it was announced that Sen. John McCain has introduced a bill to block net neutrality rules . So let the games begin. Since it is likely that we will just have to sit on the sidelines with no real say in the end, let’s at least hear your opinions in the comments section here at Marketing Pilgrim. Please keep it civil since we know politics in this day and age is more about name calling than actually doing anything. We’d like to think we’re better than that here.

The rest is here:
Net Neutrality: Business or Politics?