The Blog

Daisy Whitney: Publishers Push MultiMedia Books

2009-07-10T21:22:56Z

As the book business struggles to adjust to the digital age, some publishers are testing multimedia books and Web sites for popular authors.

St. Martin's just released the multimedia book "Personal Effects: Dark Art" by JC Hutchins and a multimedia site for Alyson Noel's hit young adult series "The Immortals." Penguin and Simon & Schuster are also testing new media efforts. You also have a chance to win Daisy's copy of "Personal Effects."

Daisy Whitney

Editor's Note: The video on this page is Daisy's weekly episode of the New Media Minute. It is published and sponsored separately from Beet.TV where Daisy is a regular contributor and video producer. Andy Plesser

Bob Franken: Fill In the Blank Stories

2009-07-10T21:09:52Z

It's easy to get jaundiced covering politics and government after awhile. So much of what happens in Washngtonworld is so predictable it's like the old joke about old jokes. They're so familiar someone assigns numbers to them.

Even after the historic election of Barack Obama, the collapse of the economy, and the sweeping agenda he's proposing, the narrative is falling into the old joke patterns.

Just for laughs, let's compile a top 10 list for the comedians here in DC. They appear in no particular order.

1) (Country's name) erupts into angry ant-government demonstrations , followed by repression. (President's name) administration spokesmen say the best course for the US government is to not get too deeply involved for fear of scuttling vital, delicate negotiations. (Opposition party) critics bitterly complain on (Fox News) (MSNBC) that President (name) is failing to stand up for American principles.

2) (Name) Bank has paid back federal stimulus money much more quickly than economists felt would be economically prudent. Although the bank is still receiving (number) billions in federal aid Treasury Secretary (name) put out a statement saying the "pay back is another indication our economic turnaround plan is working". (Name) Bank officials deny the move has anything to do with executive compensation restrictions attached to government funds.

3) The (Congressional Budget Office) ( Independent Budget Monitor) released a study today that estimated the cost of President (Name)'s (Name) Initiative. The amount exceeded by (number) Billion dollars any earlier projections. (Party) opposition leaders immediately blasted on (Fox News) (MSNBC) the administration for "dangerous fiscal irresponsibility which will saddle our children and grandchildren with crippling debt". At the White House Press secretary called the report "sobering but added "This just demonstrates the urgency for reforming the broken (name) system.

4) The American Civil Liberties Union has criticized the (Name) national security legislation as a "dangerous threat to civil liberties". Government spokesmen who refused to be identified because they were not authorized to speak about top secret matters they knew nothing about because they were in no way connected to the proposed bill told the (media name) that the measure is necessary to continue the War Against (name war), and that safeguards are in place to protect the fundamental (name) rights of innocent Americans.

5) (Muslim name) who has filed a lawsuit claiming that his civil rights were violated when he was identified by a government (name the privacy intrusion) sweep, then kidnapped and sent to (classified) by the (CIA, FBI) where he was tortured, will be unable to proceed with his legal action after lawyers for the (President's name) Justice Department successfully argued the litigation would reveal "State Secrets"

6) US military officials in (war zone) acknowledged that (high number) of civilians had been killed in an attack run by US (name drone) (B-1) aircraft in which (number) ton bombs were dropped on a (school) (mosque). Originally, the Pentagon insisted (low number) had been killed and that all were enemy fighters. Survivors in the (country) village were bitter and said they would fight "the murderous Americans". Defense officials, meanwhile announced a new program aimed at "winning the hearts and minds" of the (country) population.

7) (President) administration lawyers cited concerns that releasing pictures that show American interrogators torturing captives would inflame anger against US forces.

8) Supreme Court nominee (name) issued a statement today announcing (he) (she) would resign from the (gender)-only (name) club after (opposition party) supporters had accused (him) (her) on (Fox News) (MSNBC) of (chauvinist) (reverse) sexism.

9) (Politician) has expressed outrage after (Commentator or Comedian) said that (his) (her) daughter had been ("pimped out) ("knocked up") (whatever). (Commentator) (Comedian) denied he was fanning the flames of the controversy to improve ratings.

10)(Newspaper) (Radio TV) organizations held still another meeting to try and figure out why fewer and fewer (readers) (viewers) were paying attention to these stories.

Dave Hackel: I Came Out of Rehab Because Sean Hannity's A Liar

2009-07-10T20:23:23Z

I've often posted here about the horrors of Fox News. Each time I do, friends ask me a very simple and valid question: "If Fox News upsets you so much, why do you continue to watch?"

I always give them the same answer -- "Fox News is the train wreck from which I am unable to avert my eyes."

But, let's face it, my friends have a good point. Do I enjoy the high blood pressure? Do I need it? No. Even though it does give my face a welcome bit of color, there's really no up side.

So I have been in Fox Detox. I've been voluntarily avoiding the network in hopes of improving my health. No Doocy, Kilmeade or Kelly. No Morris, Kristol or Krauthamer. No Wallace, Hannity, O'Reilly or Beck. No Ailes mis-infotainment of any kind. I've been going cold turkey. And, to be honest, I've been feeling better. Much better.

So I just stuck to reading The Huffington Post. I thought that would be safe.

I was wrong.

I've been like an alcoholic staring at all the delightfully tempting bottles of amber liquid behind the bar then forcing himself to order a glass of soda. It's healthier but without much buzz.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I fell off the wagon. I honestly didn't mean to. I didn't even think I was. After all, it was Huffington. They wouldn't hurt me, would they? Well, they didn't mean to, but they did.

I followed a link to Jason Linkins' recent post about the way Sean Hannity selectively edits film to make it tell whatever story he wants to tell instead of telling the truth. Jason's piece is upsetting, but wonderful.

He included film from Media Matters showing how Hannity sliced and diced an interview that Major Garrett did with President Obama. Garrett's questions elicited thoughtful responses. But apparently they were too thoughtful for Sean so he took the President's words out of context and gave his audience a totally different and dishonest accounting of what was said. He also played with Obama's words from various speeches so that he could portray the President as an un-American terrorist sympathizer.

Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address said of our fallen soldiers -- "The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here." Sean and his editor would have had Lincoln say that "The world will little note what they did here," then use the clip as proof of how little regard he had for our troops. That's because Hannity's a liar.

If you haven't seen Jason's post, I invite you to take a look.

Horrible, right? You bet. Taking someone's words and rearranging them to tell a completely different story is wrong. It's not journalism, reporting or even commentary. It's lying. It's Hannity, once again, proving himself to be a revolting manipulator of the facts. No surprise there.

What I don't understand is why this story isn't the lead on every newscast in the country. Why isn't it on the front page of every paper? Why isn't everyone being shown what a truth-bending biased psuedo-news organization Fox really is?

I fear I know the answer. We collectively don't care. We're numb. We don't think it matters.

It does. Believe me, it does.

Like Obama or hate Obama, that's your choice. But Fox is not telling the truth about who he is or, even more importantly, who we are.

Having recently traveled out of the country I was stunned to find that Fox is often the only television station one can receive. Why? Because in many places they do not charge for their services. Fox makes their satellite feed available for free. So in many places Fox is the only representative of American society and its political views. In many places around the world, people think that Fox fairly represents all of our opinions.

Of course, they do not.

Please, read Jason Linkins' post here at Huffington and watch the clip he included. Then... please... send it to as many people as you possibly can and ask them to do the same.

Andy Plesser: Amazing but True: Most Online Videos Found Via Blogs, Industry Report

2009-07-10T19:49:03Z

TubeMogul's David Burch says that an analysis of video discovery has found that blog are the biggest referrer of video views.

According to the study by TubeMogul, 45% of video views come from specific searches
for a video. Of the the 55% remaining, 81% are found through blogs.

If you didn't know you wanted to see it, you probably found it through a blog, David tells us.

TubeMogul allows video producers to syndicate content to as many as 24
different video sharing sites with one one upload to the TubeMogul site. The company provides various analytics. TubeMogul recently signed the White House as a customer.

Dailymotion is Good Outlet for Europe

Though U.S. clients usually upload to YouTube, Yahoo, MySpace, and DailyMotion. In Europe, the top player is Dailymotion: "It's bigger there in a lot of areas than YouTube is, so it's a great way to reach Europe."

I caught up with David at the Personal Technology Forum where he was a panelist.

This was originally posted on Beet.TV.

Chris Rodda: O'Reilly Needs To Get His Facts Straight About Flyover Denial

2009-07-10T19:37:01Z

Earlier this week, I wrote, on behalf of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), about the Air Force's decision to deny the request for a flyover at the Nampa, Idaho "God and County Festival." After two years of exposing the military's practice of providing support for blatantly sectarian events, MRFF saw the decision to deny this request as a signal that the military might finally be starting to follow its own existing regulations, and congratulated the Obama administration and the Air Force for making the right decision. Well, needless to say, FOX News didn't see this as the right decision, and, in typical FOX fashion, painted it as an egregious attack on religion by Obama.

First there was Gretchen Carlson's Fox and Friends segment with Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition lying through his teeth about the festival not being a promotion of Christianity (see video below).

Then came the use of the event by Bill O'Reilly in his little rant about Obama's secularism:

O'Reilly, who apparently did no more research than watching Gretchen Carlson's segment before shooting off his mouth, bloviated:

"...But to diminish spirituality by denying the folks in Idaho a flyover is simply stupid. There is no specific religion in play at that festival. ..."

No specific religion in play?!?!? Obviously, O'Reilly didn't bother to visit the event organizer's website and actually read the mission statement of the festival.

The Mission of the God and Country Festival

Our mission is primarily about spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ. We believe this Festival, started in 1967, is an incredible tool to share this Good News by strengthening the fabric of our society through our connection to family and country.

We want to encourage believers everywhere to get out in their communities, not just to strengthen each other, but to encourage family, friends, neighbors, and coworkers to learn more about who Jesus Christ is and what He's done for each and every one of us.

To borrow a phrase from Michael Boerner of Mission Media,

In order to witness to people, you have to do the following:

Bless people
Fellowship with them
Meet their needs
Present the Truth

This, in a nutshell, is what the Treasure Valley God and Country Festival attempts to do. The stated purpose of the Festival is to meet the following goals:

Develop a sense of community spirit in a relaxed, social atmosphere, making all citizens of the Treasure Valley feel welcome in friendship.
Present a safe, pleasing, and inspiring fireworks display to commemorate our country's independence.
Dedicate a significant portion of the program to emphasizee, particularly to young people, the precepts on which our country was founded: Individual rights, belief in God, a representative form of government guided by an assemblage of laws created by elected individuals, sanctity of human life, and all other rights outlined in the Constitution and its supporting documents.
Present the Good News of Jesus Christ in a clear and concise manner.
Avoid any pretense or appearance of a political rally.
Remind those who attend of their good fortune to live in a free society and also their responsibilities to maintain the freedoms which they enjoy.

We are attempting to meet steps one and two, to bless people and fellowship with them, through music, kids' activities, and teens' activities.

After we have done that, we attempt to accomplish step three, to meet their needs, by promoting community activities such as "Communities in Action," and other organizations whose goal is to meet peoples' needs with a Christian heart.

At the end of the evening, we move to step four, presenting the Truth. Each year, we ensure that the message of the Gospel is presented, and information is provided for those who have heard and want to know more about Jesus Christ.

Right, Mr. O'Reilly, an event whose mission statement begins with "Our mission is primarily about spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ" doesn't have any "specific religion in play."

Event director Patti Syme was also very clear in her statement to the Idaho Press-Tribune that this was a Christian event.

"Yes, it's about as Christian as you can get -- we believe in promoting Christianity," Syme said. "And we have no plans to change that."

Here's the Fox and Friends segment with Rev. Patrick Mahoney. (When Mahoney refers to the Daily Kos praising the Obama administration for the decision, he's talking about my post from earlier this week, linked to above, which was cross-posted at Kos and stayed on the rec list all day.)

Andy Plesser: Believe It: How a Little Video Blog Powered the Agenda for Election Reform

2009-07-10T19:32:33Z

A cheap camera, dogged determination, and a smart video blog strategy has created a national dialogue about election form in the United States.

At the Personal Democracy Forum in New York last week, I interviewed Jacob Soboff, who created the Why Tuesday advocacy campaign. The organization set out to change the national voting day from Tuesday to the weekend in an effort to build greater voter participation.

Without press credentials or special access, Jacob managed to tape segments with all of the 2008 presidential candidates and created tremendous attention for the election reform movement.

Although not much has happened in changing election day, the campaign has raised considerable attention for the subject which had been largely ignored. Let's hope the effort continues.

You can find this post on Beet.TV.

Andy Plesser, Executive Producer

Jeremy Abelson: Embrace For Impact: Alex Bogusky Discusses Social Media and Long Term Changes in the Media Landscape

2009-07-10T19:24:29Z

I sat down with Alex Bogusky, the Golden Boy of Advertising, to get a sense of what he plans to do with the media industry.

The world of media is changing quickly--faster than many of us can comprehend. Most people have come to understand that how and where the public consumes (and now interacts with) media is changing, but few consider the long-term impact of the subsequent shift in dollars. The economy is an easy scapegoat; most people conveniently blame the recession and are simply awaiting the recovery out of laziness, fear, or a lack of other options.

For the first time in history, the most important entity in the media equation is the advertising agency.

Huh?

Advertising agencies have always controlled where ad dollars are spent. Prior to 18 months ago, that meant controlling what medium to use (TV, print, online, etc) and then with which specific outlet within that medium to place its ads (i.e., making the challenging decision to buy more impressions on Thrillist than on Urban Daddy). The client still set the media budget; the agency simply spent it. While media outlets created content to attract advertisers, they have always maintained control over their own product. Agency work, meanwhile, could be summed up as building a nice ad banner or 30-second spot, then deciding which media outlet to pay to serve that advertisement adjacent to their content.

Times have changed. A guy like Alex Bogusky, a creative director (probably the best in the business), is now playing with the future of the media institutions.

Media budgets now include social media. Agencies currently control how many media dollars are being spent in media as compared to social media, a completely different industry. In most cases, dollars spent within the social media space are dollars not spent with a traditional media outlet--TV networks, newspapers, or gawker-esque blogs. Many media dollars now go towards fees for labor. The media dollars used to pay an agency (whether a social media shop or an international giant) to create, manage, and grow a Twitter profile are media dollars that once funded a banner campaign. The money used to pay an agency to create a brand's own viral site content and then get that content bookmarked on the homepage of Digg once funded a TV campaign.

Marketers may not all completely understand what it is or how to do it, but they want social media, they want engagement with their consumers, they want conversation with their target market. They aren't getting these things on NBC. They aren't getting them on CNN. They aren't even getting them on NYTimes.com.

Alex postponed our first interview because he was at Cannes. Coincidentally, AdAge published an article entitled "Cannes Swept by PR, Integrated, Internet Winners," claiming that the "age of interruption is over." At Cannes this year, PR campaign won the most Grand Prix awards in history; AdAge states, "This is a [winners] list dominated by attempts to engage consumers and deeply involve them in brands."

This development is hugely significant for the world of media. For advertising agencies, it means they need to be creative and learn how to advertise within the social media world. The award is proof that smart marketers are doing a very good job of that. The media world however, can't change that fast--and the marketing executions (ad dollars) themselves are actually being removed from their airwaves, pulled from their pages, and nixed from their sites.

The "interruption" mentioned above refers to interrupting the consumption of traditional media with advertising. That interruption is over not because the media world is changing its branded executions, but because brands are moving on from standard media-based advertisements.

I'm not saying people don't love to turn on their television and watch Lost. I'm saying brands want more than the 30-second spot adjacent to that content. It's a dollars-and-cents issue.

Bogusky continually returns to the consumption of news. Breaking news went from the morning newspaper, to the seven o'clock news, to all-day breaking news with CNN, to breaking online publishing, to interactive personal publishing and the ability to engage with the people publishing the news. Each revolution dramatically shakes the foundation of the previous one. Consumers want more than just consumption; they want interactivity. Brands want more than adjacency; they want interaction as well.

Bogusky says "traditional media" outlets are "freaking out." He sees a significant shift in dollars to the social media space. He says he doesn't understand how television networks continue to increase their prices while delivering less and less. Bogusky controls how consumers interact and engage with brands. This includes controlling where consumers interact and engage with brands: the more it happens on Twitter, Facebook, and Digg, and in various forums and communities, the less it happens on NBC, in The Wall Street Journal, and on PerezHilton.com. Bogusky holds the fate of these media outlets and the production of this media in his hands.

Why is Alex Bogusky so good at what he does? He expects change, he embraces change, and he's prepared for change. He told me it's imperative that he be the one who destroys his own business model -- he won't wait to react and let a change in the industry dictate how he changes the way he works.

TRANSCRIPT:

Jeremy Abelson: So, Alex, you are a true captain of the industry, you're really a legend, and I appreciate the time and the insight.

Alex Bogusky: Now you're being silly.

Jeremy Abelson: So, what do you think are the biggest challenges facing advertising industries today?

Alex Bogusky: Facing agencies today. Oh man, there's a bunch of challenges. One of them that I think a lot of agencies seem to be scared of is the whole outsourcing thing. I've heard a lot of conversations about, you know: is this going to ruin the existing model and what is the new model? And is creativity a commodity? And you know, my attitude is that creativity might be a commodity, I really don't know.

Jeremy Abelson: Well I mean, it's still people doing it, it's just a matter if they're employed somewhere or not.

Alex Bogusky: I think that if it is a commodity, or if there are aspects of it that can be commoditized, then I think the idea is to figure out what can be commoditized and what can't be commoditized, and then to see if you can find the right mixture.

Jeremy Abelson: In your position you are controlling interactive dollars that two to three years ago all went towards ad banners etc, and now a good portion of them are going towards more engaging types of opportunities. Do you see the actual media publications or media outlets needing to change their formats to offer more engagement?

Alex Bogusky: Well this is something that I've just noticed very recently and talked to people about in the business. It seems like--I don't know what traditional media is exactly, but I think if you use the term we all kind of think of a certain thing that's fairly accurate--the traditional media seems to be, I would use the term freaking out.

There is inability to break a story with traditional means. Traditional media has gone into an almost 100% editorial mode. And the idea is that you won't get the story first from us, but we'll tell you what it means and why it's important.

Now I think its gone further than that--not only are they not able to necessarily bring you the news first, they're not even able to tell you what it means as well as other people can.

Jeremy Abelson: Let's look at the media world as a business, and we can even look at traditional media buys as strictly online media buys. What media always tried to do was to provide content and then work with advertising agencies that bought advertising adjacent to that content. There was complete separation of church and state. With the social media space, there is no separation. It's all about engaging and conversing with brands. How is that going to affect these traditional media outlets whether they're blogs or television statements or print publications etc?

Alex Bogusky: The church and state thing I think has existed to some degree, I'm not sure that that feels like something that's at risk.

Jeremy Abelson: I'll put it like this. You guys are controlling dollars, and three years ago you were buying ad banners adjacent to content. Now you guys are getting more creative and your clients want more engagement. The dollars that you once spent supporting these media institutions by buying media against their content are experiencing a tremendous shift to social media. So how are these media institutions going to adapt?

Alex Bogusky: The media institutions--I'm not sure whether they have to adapt. But What's happening is that both paths seem to be moving along at a pretty vigorous pace and if you take a 30 second commercial, I think at one point people talked about how at risk that form was. Now, that form seems to be having a bit of a comeback in that there are more delivery options. So Hulu is one of our accounts and Hulu is a space where you can deliver pretty traditional advertising alongside pretty traditional content, and the content is really good. It's difficult for the social media space to compete for that level of content and that level of viewer engagement.

In other cases, the brands are just going an creating their own content and figuring out how to broadcast that without going through the traditional media...More money will probably be moving into social media, but again, part of the democratization of this space is that it doesn't actually cost a lot of money to do. So how much money is moving? I'm not sure.

Jeremy Abelson: There's a lot of speculation that the economy is turning around. The S&P is up, the decline in lost jobs is starting to flatten, the DOW has had a couple good weeks and there's even been a lot of speculation about the real estate market. I think that the economic downturn has had a pretty significant effect on the advertising industry. I'm wondering what you think will be the permanent effect of this last recession.

Alex Bogusky: I think we'll see some smaller agencies become bigger agencies. We've seen that in the democratization of capabilities, and I'm sure in this revolution of social media, we'll see a lot of longstanding big agencies struggling. Depending on how you access crowd sourcing, potentially the agency can be really driven by that stuff yet keep a layer of editorial and expertise at the top that allows them to still deliver the same kind of work people expect from a larger firm.

Jeremy Abelson: The economy has obviously had a large impact on media spending across the board. What do you think the permanent impact will be?

Alex Bogusky: When we see a recession, and we've been through a few now, and when we see the industry pull back, we always think that's an opportunity, because there are a lot of people that just use that as an excuse to not work that hard. They say, "Ok, everything's bad, we've got nothing going on and we'll call it in for a while."

Jeremy Abelson: What do you think the impact on the media world will be?

Alex Bogusky: Well, I do wonder how television continues to become more and more expensive as it delivers less. You see the up-fronts every year, and I'm not a media person, I'm just a creative person, I don't really understand these things, they're very complex. But I have wondered why rates continue to go up for fewer folks. I think that's gonna break at some point, and that's where you'll see some of these dollars come from and you'll see them flow into other spaces.

Jeremy Abelson: The reason why I think this interview with you is so poignant is because most people when they're asking questions like this will go to a media expert or someone from the account side of an agency, but the fact of the matter is that right now it really is the creatives who are controlling where people are marketing, and I see this tremendous shift from any form of traditional marketing--everything we pitch is all about engagement.

Alex Bogusky: I think the other thing for me that is really part of this whole story is the transparency that comes with social media. So though a lot of creatives are very excited about moving into that space, a lot of clients are nervous about the level of transparency that occurs.

For me, as an advertising guy I'm well known, outside of advertising no one knows who I am, but in advertising, I'm well known enough that people know me who I don't know, and people comment on me and they say things that hurt your feelings, and you're like, "I don't want to be in social media anymore, take me out, I'm gonna live in a cave." And it takes a few months or years or whatever for the person to get used to that. But that open conversation is really powerful. We talk about transparency and we encourage our clients to go there.

Consumers, even when they like you, they play really rough. When we were kids we would be going to Taco Bell but we called it Taco Hell on the way there. Just because we were calling it Taco Hell doesn't mean we hated it; it just meant that we were playing a little rough. That's the way you play with your friends.

So you're talking about the media space and smaller companies replacing bigger, more traditional companies in media and advertising, and large companies have a great advantage, but if they can't learn to be transparent, they're gonna be swept away by more transparent companies which are smaller now but are going to grow very quickly because the ability to grow in this economy with social media is way beyond anything it's ever been.

Jeremy Abelson: Where does that leave traditional media then?

Alex Bogusky: What I'm seeing is that 30-second video unit is actually finding its way into spaces that it couldn't before. So one of the problems was that to buy what would be traditional commercials online, you'd buy the top ten websites. But now the technology is out there where people learn all sorts of recesses and odd spaces on the web. If you're into lawn mower racing you're going to wind up at a very different space than if you're into gardening, and you'll spend a lot of time there. But delivering to those units of one individual on a website--that model is actually starting to work and they're starting to figure out how to do that. So although in some ways I think it's gonna fracture, the modeling of the delivering of the units is going to consolidate, if that makes sense.

Jeremy Abelson: It does and it also proves my point as I'm not looking at the 30 second spot per say, I'm looking at the 30 second spot as it pertains to it being run adjacent to standard television.

Alex Bogusky: And I think we're agreeing. I'm saying that the long tail is going to be those odd spaces, but I still think that there's gonna be the Hulus and things like that, where there's a big enough audience and there's the ability to reach them in fairly traditional ways that advertising will support the content creation. But it's gonna long tail.

Jeremy Abelson: Will broadband ever replace broadcast?

Alex Bogusky: Oh I think it absolutely will.

Jeremy Abelson: Couple quick fun questions: with a company built on Apple products, how are you persuading people to buy Microsoft products?

Alex Bogusky: When we started working on this we swung everyone in the agency over to PC's, and really all of the senior people on the account are working on PCs, and we thought it was really important because we do a thing called method advertising, which is if you don't use it, you don't know how to talk about it. And I think in the past Microsoft's creative had a lot of swirly magical kind of stuff going on, and it might have been because their agencies weren't working on PCs. So once you start working on it and you understand you can do a better job on it, and I think we've done a really good job on it and, you know, one of the key factors is that we use them. I had never worked on a computer other than an Apple, and I thought, "Oh my god! Will I be able to do this?"

Jeremy Abelson: What do you prefer?

Alex Bogusky: Well I prefer the PC, but it's very similar. I have Vista Ultimate, and at a lot of things it's better, and what surprised me was that it was a little more seamless in terms of going from application to application. Anyway, it's good, it's a great machine.

Jeremy Abelson: How tired are you of talking about the subservient chicken?

Alex Bogusky: I haven't talked about it in a while.

Jeremy Abelson: I still see press about it all the time.

Alex Bogusky: I just saw a thing that I hadn't known, but I saw a link on our site because its pulling in all this social media and I saw that we have over a billion hits now on that site, which seemed pretty cool.

Jeremy Abelson: Do you have the suit in the office?

Alex Bogusky: No we don't, know.

Jeremy Abelson: You could eBay that bad boy.

Alex Bogusky: You absolutely could.

Jeremy Abelson: It would go for at least six figures. What's your favorite Crispin campaign to date?

Alex Bogusky: I have never been into favorites. My attitude is hopefully the things you're working on now are the one's you are most excited about and if you don't put anything under glass--if you come to our office, we don't have any work on the walls, we don't have the video display playing things, so we have no way to get stuck in thinking this is what we do or this is what we do best, and I think that's very good and healthy.

Jeremy Abelson: Last question: what attracted you to Daddy as an agency, and how attractive is Sweden as a creative market?

Alex Bogusky: It started in a weird way with Jeff Hicks, who's CEO and has been my partner for a long time, and I was thinking about Jeff and thought how he likes the summer in Sweden and wouldn't it be great if that's where we did our agency thing, and we never want to go where anyone else is which is why we're always in weird places, so it started in that weird area, and that's how we make decisions. We make emotional decisions and then we make rationalizations. And then as I continue to make rationalizations and look at Sweden and Hyper Island and all the digital work coming out of Daddy and the other shops, there's obviously something going on there.

Jeremy Abelson is the Co-Founder of Samson's Barber

You can find Jeremy Abelson on Twitter.

You can also find Jeremy Abelson on Facebook here.

Holly Cara Price: Michael Jackson: The Love We Save

2009-07-10T18:23:06Z

Here's an equation for you. Take one aging celebrity, mix in a hefty scoop of childhood abuse, add a few dozen helpings of bad publicity for pedophilia charges and just plain bizarre behavior, mix in a lethal cocktail of dangerous prescription drugs, plus the loss of billions of dollars due to years of mismanagement and an over the top lifestyle most of us could never even dream of. There's really only one way out of that mess, and it happened two weeks ago to 50 year old Michael Joseph Jackson: Death.

For most of his short, anguished time on earth he was larger than life, but in death MJ has eclipsed all other dead celebs (okay, except for, um, Jesus of Nazareth) for sheer marketability and money-making prowess. And talk about a TV ratings bonanza; holy mamasay-mamasah, the whole world stopped to make room for the breaking news of Jackson's death on June 25th. Iran? Forgotten. Mark Sanford? Luckiest guy in the world, apparently. Recession? Snore. New Iphone? Whatever. And the memorial service? Viewership numbers through the roof, all over the world. We'll get to that.

Perhaps you remember that for a few minutes, right before MJ was rushed to the hospital that Thursday, the world had been stunned and transfixed by the cellphone video of 26 year old Neda Soltani, killed in living color during a protest in Tehran. The video of her death made the situation in Iran immediate and present to us; it made it real. Such is the power of the internet, which transcends all media, making it immediate in every sense.

MJ needed no such boost to make his death relevant to the world. Love him, hate him, you can't help but acknowledge that he changed the world of music forever. But watching the carrion circling him now is plainly horrific. I worry about those three children, who have just inherited the biggest therapy bills known to humankind (although possibly, some day, also the biggest book deals of all time). Their lives up to now must have set new standards for weirdness; what's incredibly sad is that that was nothing compared to the future. Jermaine told NBC News, in tears, that he wishes it had been him who died instead of Michael (hmm...new reality show? I'm A Jackson, Get Me Out of Here!). And Debbie Rowe has done an about face and declared she suddenly wants the two kids she gave birth to, after saying just the opposite right after Jackson's death. Way to go, Deb. Break up a family that's just lost their father. She's obviously ripe for reality TV, maybe she can get signed on to the Octomom's TV deal or something equally tasteless.

It's now abundantly clear that Jackson's money-making abilities are even more pronounced after his death (it's the Kurt Cobain / Anna Nicole Smith / Elvis Presley / Heath Ledger syndrome - times ten). This is clearly a cash cow of such magnitude that it makes my head hurt. Downloads of Jackson's music since his passing set a new standard for internet music sales. His album sales for the last week of June were more than the entire year of sales for the same records. News of his death nearly brought down the largest and most robust internet media sites. Over 31 million U.S. viewers watched the public memorial service on Tuesday on broadcast television. It's estimated that a number close to that watched it live on the web. And ... may I say ... his final sleep chamber, the gold coffin covered in flowers positioned center stage at the Staples Center - was that really necessary at a ceremony planned to celebrate his life?

This is only the first two weeks, people. Now that it's clear that MJ was, if anything, worth more dead than alive, we're so in for it. This news story will go on forever. There will always be someone else crawling out of the woodwork saying they sat next to him in fourth grade or waited on him in a supermarket at 2 a.m. or similar crazy stuff. Any unreleased audio and video material is going to be doled out to the public with big price tags, now that it's clear there is an insatiable thirst for anything related to MJ.

That AEG footage of his tour rehearsals? Certainly a ploy to whet our appetite for the rest of that material, of which there is said to be quite a bit. In fact, Time Magazine said today that plans are underway for a show in London on Aug. 29 - Jackson's 51st birthday - featuring footage from the rehearsals plus performances by Jackson family members. The only thing missing would be MJ himself. This makes me very queasy; I can now picture years of Jackson tours ahead - the brothers Jackson suddenly being marketable again after decades of living in MJ's shadow. Each show will be a tribute to Michael and a massive sales success. You see it too, don't you? It's inevitable. He may have died in debt, but in no time at all that debt will be erased - if it hasn't been already by the album sales. Eleven days later.

Unused tickets to the shows at O2 Arena will no doubt be worth their weight in gold in years to come. Who needs a refund when you have that sitting in your dresser drawer - the value will only go up. AEG has opened a web shop for the concert merch they were planning on selling at the shows. You can buy "Who's Bad" belt buckles, King of Pop wallets, wine glasses, tote bags, socks and other apparel (check out the Michael Jackson Decadent Berry Women's Shirt).

Oh yeah, and in case you haven't noticed, everyone suddenly has had to put in their two cents about Jackson, what he meant to the pop culture zeitgeist, and why he died. My favorite comment yet comes from Rush Limbaugh, who said on his radio show: "Michael Jackson's biggest successes took place in the 80's . . . he flourished under Reagan, he languished under Clinton/Bush, and died under Obama . . . I mean, facts are facts, a timeline's a timeline . . ."

Death. It's a whole new media strategy for success. The only problem is, you're not around to enjoy the spoils.

This column originally ran in a slightly different form on the blog The Critical Condition.

Michael Shaw: Reading the Pictures: Reuters Obama Booty Call

2009-07-10T17:00:10Z

Call it further signs of the media swoon....

Reuters distributes this shot which, from the way everyone is caught in the moment, seems to capture Obama ogling, or at least gamely distracted by this junior G-8 delegate (set up by the notorious Sarkozy seeming to also look on lecherously). Of course, the context is reinforced by the fact host Berlusconi has scandalized Italy, and the conference, with his exploitation of various Italian girls. (If you've seen a collection of conference photos, you'll also see how most of the female aides, photographed sprinkled among the attendees, look like fashion models. (1, 2.)

Of course, this is dangerous territory for the visual media, this photo unavoidably repeating certain racist themes of the presidential contest -- in this case, the stereotype of Obama (1, 2) and the African-American man as hyper-sexual and instinctually drawn to the white woman. (In this case, the "pull" is heightened by a young black woman behind Obama, as well as "in between").

I can't tell how much it's the Berlusconi factor, the media's current "MJ-ization," and/or a new sense of entitlement to chip away at Obama now that he, and the enduring pain of the recession, are settling in, but if anyone is taking liberty here, it's the wire service.

(Update 10 am PST - A reader just called my attention to this video from ABC regarding the photo. The video gives a completely different impression, one that reinforces Obama's character as a class act ... while reinforcing Sarkozy as a lech. What the video shows is Obama in the process of looking back and offering the young black woman a hand stepping off the the steep riser. I believe they had just taken a group photograph. Sarkozy, on the other hand, is shown looking, then looking around Obama to ogle the girl in red.)

(For more visual politics, follow BAGnewsNotes on Twitter).

(image: Jason Reed/Reuters. caption: U.S. President Barack Obama (C) and France's President Nicolas Sarkozy (R) take their places with junior G8 delegates, including Brazil's Mayora Tavares (L), for a family photo at the G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy July 9, 2009. Leaders of the Group of Eight major industrial nations and the main developing economies are meeting in the central Italian city of L'Aquila until Friday to discuss issues ranging from global economic stimulus to climate change and oil prices.)

Michael Wolff: Could Murdoch's Love of Gossip Doom His Family?

2009-07-10T16:40:48Z

Gossip was one of the consistent themes in my conversations with Murdoch when I interviewed him over nine months last year. If I brought him gossip, he was much happier than when I did not. Sometimes I made the gossip up -- that kept him as happy. Gossip, for Murdoch, is partly business intelligence, but Murdoch also likes to know who is sleeping with whom. He especially likes to know what liberals are sleeping around (but he will take conservatives, too). It is a prurient interest, but it is also leverage. He refers to having pictures and reports and files -- though this may be as much what he imagines a powerful person like himself should have, whereas all he really has is some speculation from sycophantic reporters feeding him what he wants to hear.

The Guardian's report about the revelations of massive illegal tapping of government officials by private investigators in the employ of his tabloid newspapers in London has as much to do, I believe, with currying favor with Murdoch as it does with selling newspapers (no less uncovering the truth).

Did Murdoch know his daily gossip fix came from illegal wiretaps?

Continue reading on newser.com

Robert Siciliano: Sarah Palin Victim of Social Media Identity Theft, LaRussa Drops Suit

2009-07-10T16:26:32Z

Since the beginning of the presidential campaign, Sarah Palin has used Twitter and Facebook to communicate with the public. Impostors have taken every opportunity to jack her persona, even hacking into her personal email account.

Now, hackers and impostors are chiming in on Sarah Palin's resignation. The Twitter profile for ExGovSarahPalin snags and reuses graphics, photos and tweets from Sarah Palin's "Verified" Twitter acount, AKGovSarahPalin. This fake Palin account is still live as of this writing. In one tweet, a Palin impersonator invited followers to her home for a barbecue. Her security staff was reading these tweets and quickly dispatched security personnel to her home to intercept unwanted visitors.

Twitter has a "parody impersonation policy" that permits impersonation, as long as the parody is clear to readers. It's puzzling to me that they would allow this, particularly in the case of the fake Sarah Palin account, which is plastered with Governor's likeness.

Social media is not prepared for this type of use. And Twitter should rethink its policies.

Meanwhile, USA Today reports that St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony LaRussa, who has also fallen victim to social media identity theft and has sued Twitter, claiming damage resulting from "cybersquatting" and misappropriation of his name, has now dropped his lawsuit. One report mentions an out of court settlement that compensates LaRussa for his legal fees and includes a donation to his favorite charity. Twitter co-founder Biz Stone blogged a denial of such a settlement.

Financial identity theft is impossible to prevent 100% of the time, and so is social media identity theft. However, there are ways to lock down your name and protect yourself, or at least to mitigate the potential damage to your name and reputation.

As we spend more time online, meeting people, posting photos and offering glimpses into our personal lives, here are some action steps to keep Social Media Identity Theft at bay:

1. Register your full name and those of your spouse and kids on the most trafficked social media sites, blogs, domains or web based email accounts. If your name is already gone, include your middle initial, a period or a hyphen. It's up to you to decide whether or not to plug in your picture and basic bio, but consider leaving out your age or birthday.

2. Set up a free Google Alerts for your name and get an email every time your name pops up online. Go to iSearch.com by Intelius and search your name and any variations of your name in what would be a screen name.

3. Set up a free StepRep account for your name. StepRep is an online reputation manager that does a better job than Google Alerts does of fetching your name on the web.

4. Consider dropping a few bucks on Knowem.com and other sites like them. These online portals go out and register your name at what they consider the top social media sites. Their top is a great start. The user experience is relatively painless. There is still labor involved in setting things up with some of them. And no matter what you do, you will still find it difficult to complete the registration with all the sites. Some of the social media sites just aren't agreeable. This can save you lots of time, but is only one part of solving the social media identity theft problem.

5. Start doing things online to boost your online reputation. Blogging is best. You want Google to bring your given name to the top of search in its best light, so when anyone is searching for you they see good things. This is a combination of online reputation management and search engine optimization for your brand: YOU.

6. If you ever stumble upon someone using your likeness in the social media, be very persistent in contacting the site's administrators. They too have reputations to manage and if they see someone using your photo or likeness they would be smart to delete the stolen profile.

7. Despite all the work you may do to protect yourself, you still need the Intelius Identity Protect service I'm working with and recommend coupled with Internet security software.

Robert Siciliano, identity theft speaker, discusses scams.

Stephen Funk: Unmasking Your Power

2009-07-10T16:14:36Z

The efforts of New Organizing Institute's BootCamp participants - 60 young organizers chosen for a crash course in utilizing new media for progressive campaigning - will be tested today in an interactive online mock campaign.

We've spent all week receiving technological training and getting drilled by expert instructors in effective organizing. BootCamp would not be complete without sleep deprivation, and we've all stayed up late each night working on electing various superheroes into office. Not quite as intense as Marine Corps basic, but I must admit that I'm exhausted.

A fundamental element of our campaigns has been developing a compelling narrative: of our candidates, our campaigns, and of each person involved. Whatever drives a person to seek change in the world, either through political office or through community empowerment, it is our histories that communicate to others the values the decision were based upon.

As a veteran and activist with Iraq Veterans Against the War I can attest to the strong bonds that are formed when people are united through intense and unique experiences. My organization definitely relies on our members to relay these experiences to increase support and it is important for our members to relate their stories with civilians. This empowers veterans to choose solidarity over isolation and allows our community a better understanding of war so that we can all heal.

Perhaps NOI planned all along to create such an intense and unique experience so that each participant could leave here armed with a story to tell.

You can participate in the online election today, Friday, July 10th, from 7am-6pm EST at
www.neworganizing.com/superherovote and in case you were wondering I'm on Team Spider-Man (visit - www.votespidey.com).

Daoud Kuttab: Jordanian Parliament is Back on Air... Indirectly

2009-07-10T16:06:57Z

The gavel-to-gavel broadcast of the Jordanian Parliament was back on the air on June 7. Radio Al Balad (formerly AmmanNet), an independent community radio, succeeded in providing the public with an unfiltered version of the House of Representatives meeting. The return of live broadcasting is, however, nothing but natural.

Arab parliaments are rarely ever broadcast live. The voice of the executive branch in Arab countries is much louder than that of the legislative branch.

I understood the domination of the executive branch over the legislative back in 1997. I was running a small educational TV station in Ramallah, out of Al Quds University, when Parliament began deliberating very close to our studios. We began broadcasting gavel-to-gavel sessions of the Palestinian Legislative Council only to be jammed by the state-run Palestinian TV. When we made a fuss about that, on May 22, 1997, I was arrested and held for seven days. The night before my arrest, our station had broadcast a session of the PLC discussing a parliamentary report about corruption with the Palestinian Authority.

Three years ago, and in a totally new setting, I tried to do the same thing in Jordan. The speaker of the Parliament agreed to a request from AmmanNet radio to allow live broadcast of the Parliament. AmmanNet, which years earlier had been broadcasting on the Internet, had just received an FM licence and the broadcast provided a badly needed public service that many members of Parliament welcomed. Until then, the official Jordanian media covered the Parliament by providing daily short pieces and weekly roundups, all reflecting the government's point of view.

One member of Parliament said that the official media would often broadcast or publish the parliamentary answer of the prime minister without ever mentioning what the question was and which MP asked it.

Live broadcasting of the House of Representatives was short lived. The rise of energy costs in the winter of 2007 produced a wave of public anger at parliamentarians for their routine approval of fuel price hikes. One of the comments on the station's website, later repeated on radio, criticised the parliamentarians' indifference towards the public in an offensive manner. The insult angered the Parliament speaker who, along with the Audio Visual Council, sued the radio station and its owner. The live broadcast which was not critical was also taken off the air. A public apology was made on the website and on radio, but it failed to appease the speaker who, along with the Audio Visual Council, insisted on going to court.

The trial against the radio station lasted more than a year with the court ruled against the station and its manager, fining each JD10,000. Upon appeal, the case was thrown out and the fines cancelled.

Appeals to the Parliament speaker failed to get the broadcast back on the air, despite promises by the speaker that he was willing to forgive and forget. During two meetings with the station's manager and chair, the speaker promised to reinstate the broadcast, but nothing happened.

Various appeals by members of the Parliament also failed to produce any change. Responses varied from claiming that the broadcast cannot be reinstated while the case is in session to attempts to politically criticise the station's manager. Even at the height of the conflict between the Parliament and the established media, the speaker refused to allow broadcasting while, at the same time, criticising the print media for reducing the space MPs get in print.

The conflict with the press included a temporary boycott of the Parliament by four dailies and public criticism by weeklies and news websites. Radio Al Balad and the AmmanNet website continued regular coverage of the Parliament.

Live broadcasts returned without the direct help of the Parliament. On July 6, 2009, two and a half years after being taken off the air, Radio Al Balad was able to broadcast live the afternoon session of Parliament. The radio broadcast came thanks to an initiative by the Parliament to broadcast the sessions on the Internet. Radio Al Balad was able to pick up the Internet signal and broadcast it on the air, giving the Jordanian public the chance to hear what their elected representatives had to say. A satellite television broadcast is also planned to happen soon.

The TV broadcasts have been subcontracted to ABS, a Jordanian television service provider who is renting the Parliament space on one of Nile Sat's frequencies. No mention has been made of the cost, although the deputy speaker of Parliament said that it will be over JD100,000 a year.

Without proper campaign it will be difficult to get Jordanians to tune in to a frequency that is unknown and that has no other programme. No mention has been made as to how the tender was made, and who will be paying for it. The first session broadcast on the air, however, was short lived. At 5:45pm Speaker Abdul Hadi Majali closed the session because quorum was lost 90 minutes after its start. The topic that was being discussed was a special law about Petra Governorate.

Joe Cirincione: Post's Krauthammer Pushes Dangerous Fantasy

2009-07-10T15:50:38Z

Washington Post senior columnist Charles Krauthammer wants Russia to build more nuclear weapons. Why? Because he thinks we can shoot them out of the sky like clay pigeons. This is simply not true. The Post's promotion of this fantasy could lead to global disaster.

Krauthammer supported the arms control treaty negotiated by conservative President George W. Bush, but now opposes the similar agreement crafted by progressive President Barack Obama. Instead, he says we should "invite the Russians to build as many warheads as they want."

It doesn't matter because, he claims, "We can reliably shoot down an intercontinental ballistic missile." This is demonstrably false. We cannot now reliably shoot down a real long-range missile. We have never been able to do this and there is no prospect that we will able to do this in the future. Claims that we can are not true. People who repeat these claims are not telling the truth.

These false claims are based on carefully staged demonstrations where interceptor rockets hit missile targets. The trick? The targets cooperate. They have known characteristics including size, velocity, radar signature, and are carefully directed into exact position for the "intercept." They even have little transponders guiding the interceptor with an electronic "here I am." Still, the successful hits are counted in single digits after 30 years of trying.

There is close to zero chance of intercepting a real long-range missile. Why? Because real missiles don't cooperate. They hide their warheads with decoys, jammers, chaff, spin, and radar-reflective coatings. If we can't see it, we can't hit it.

Our intelligence services concluded 10 years ago that any country capable of building a long-range missile (including North Korea) could build any or all of six basic "counter-measures" that could defeat any know defensive system. Russia, China and the U.S. have already done so.

Photo: Balloon decoy for US warheads, courtesy Union of Concerned Scientists.

Tests in the 1990s with realistic decoys (balloons with the same radar and infrared signature as the warhead) showed that our sensors could not pick out the real warhead from the fakes. Did we stop the missile defense program? No. We stopped using realistic decoys. We dumbed down the tests. Testers call this "testing for success." Most of us would call this "rigged."

This is not the first time the Washington Post has knowingly published false statements. Last week, in the only oped the Post ran before the Moscow summit, the former head of the missile defense program, retired General Trey Obering, also claimed the anti-missile system for Europe he was rushing to deploy in the last years of the Bush administration would provide "cost-effective protection." He trashed an independent joint assessment by US and Russian scientists that found the system would not work.

Two of the scientists, MIT's Ted Postol and nuclear-weapon designer Richard Garwin, wrote a detailed rebuttal, correcting Obering's factual misstatements. I have seen the oped they submitted. They objectively examine the flaws of the anti-missile interceptors and the fact that the radar cannot "discriminate between warheads and decoys."

A distinguished group of scientists wrote President Obama an open letter last week. Ten of the letter's 20 signatories have won a Nobel Prize, 15 are members of the National Academy of Sciences, and seven are members of the National Academy of Engineering. They said, in part:

We assess that the planned European missile defense system would have essentially no capability to defend against a real missile attack. ... This system has not been proven and does not merit deployment. It would offer little or no defensive capability, even in principle. At the same time, its deployment would result in large security, political, and monetary costs.

...

Congress has required that the Secretary of Defense certify that the interceptors have been shown to work "in an operationally effective manner" through "successful, operationally realistic flight testing" before they can be deployed in Europe. This has not occurred. Testing of the interceptors has not begun and will not be completed for several years.

The interceptors proposed for Europe would use the kill vehicle and a modified version of the interceptor booster being fielded as part of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system. This technology has not been adequately tested and has no demonstrated capability in a realistic attack scenario. None of the GMD tests have included realistic countermeasures or tumbling warheads. All flight intercept tests have been conducted under highly scripted conditions with the defense given advance information about the attack details.

For these reasons, the intercepts achieved in past tests of the GMD system say nothing about the effectiveness of these interceptors under real-world conditions. Until these systems are subjected to an honest technical assessment and a rigorous testing program, there will be no data on which to base an assessment of how effective they might be in an actual attack.

Claiming that this system is effective when it is not is dangerous and could contribute to unwise decisions by U.S. policy makers.

But President Obama should not wait for the Washington Post to re-discover its obligation to provide its readers with facts instead of spin. He should call these scientists to the White House so he can hear first-hand why he should stick to his guns and only deploy weapons that work. Starting a new arms race is bad enough. But deploying scarecrows while the other side deploys nuclear weapons is dereliction of duty.

Timothy Karr: Helping Iran Target Iranians

2009-07-10T15:13:26Z

What more can be said about the Internet's role in the popular uprising that has shaken the Iranian regime since its widely contested election?

The power of open social networks is undisputed. The Internet's three favorite offspring -- Twitter, Facebook and YouTube -- have been heralded by mainstream media as flag-bearers for a new era of citizen journalism and activism.

But the open Internet's power cuts both ways: The tools that connect, organize and empower people can also be used to target them. The companies that profit from sales of this technology need to be held to a higher standard.

Of particular concern is the use -- and easy abuse -- of Deep Packet Inspection. DPI is a content-filtering technology that allows network managers to inspect, track and target content from users of the Internet and mobile phones, as it passes through routers on the information superhighway.

'Lawful Intercepts' and Lawless Regimes

European and North American companies are selling DPI to enable their business customers "to see, manage and monetize individual flows to individual subscribers." But this "Internet-enhancing" technology has been sought out by regimes in Iran, China and Burma for more brutal purposes.

Basij forces target computers during a June 14 midnight raid on Tehran University

Nokia Siemens Network reportedly set up this technology in Iran for "lawful intercept," only to have Tehran allegedly use it to stifle free speech, pinpoint the location of online protesters and hunt them down.

Nokia Siemens' attempts to dodge responsibility for Iran's reported abuse of their technology is typical corporate hand-washing.

"If you sell networks, you also, intrinsically, sell the capability to intercept any communication that runs over them," a Nokia Siemens spokesman told the Wall Street Journal. He added that the company "does have a choice about whether to do business in any country."

A Growth Industry

Had Nokia Siemens chosen not to sell DPI services to Iran, another global competitor likely would have taken its place. This list includes Zeugma Systems (Canada), Camiant (USA), Openet (Ireland), Procera Networks (USA), Allot (Israel), Ixia (USA), AdvancedIO (Canada), Arbor Networks (USA) and Sandvine (Canada), among others.

These companies typically partner with Internet Service Providers to insert DPI along the main arteries of the Web. (Sandvine, for example, just announced a "global distribution agreement" with -- you guessed it -- Nokia Siemens Network.) All Net traffic in and out of Iran travels through one portal -- the Telecommunications Company of Iran -- easing the use of DPI.

Yankee Group analysts assert that U.S. ISPs are currently deploying advanced DPI equipment, although many do not disclose it publicly. Through these secret arrangements both in the United States and abroad, the DPI industry is experiencing remarkable growth.

The Nature of the Beast

"A company has a nature. Its nature is to produce economic values and wealth for its shareholders," Professor Larry Lessig often says in lectures about corporate ethics and government corruption. "A tiger has a nature, and that nature is not one you trust with your child."

And naturally, the public shouldn't expect corporations to look out for our best interests. Public policy is designed for that role -- to make it profitable for corporations to behave in ways that don't harm the rest of us.

Similarly, the tech and communications companies that are selling content-sniffing tools to governments can't be trusted to safeguard against the horrific state crimes we've witnessed in Iran.

When network operators use Deep Packet Inspection, the privacy of Internet users is compromised. But in government hands, invasion of privacy can lead to human rights violations.

Setting the Bar High for DPI

"Internet Censorship is a real challenge, and not one any particular industry -- much less any single company -- can tackle on its own, " Rep. Mary Bono Mack wrote on Wednesday in a letter to Rep. Henry Waxman, chair of the House Commerce Committee. "Efforts to promote freedom of expression and to limit the impact of censorship require both private and public sector engagement."

Rep. Bono Mack's letter echoes Free Press' call on June 22 for a congressional inquiry into the issue. But this is just a start.

Before DPI becomes more widely deployed around the world and at home, the U.S. government ought to establish legitimate criteria for authorizing the use such control and surveillance technologies.

The harm to privacy and the power to control the Internet are so disturbing that the threshold for using DPI must be very high.

The use of DPI for commercial purposes would need to meet this high bar. But it is not clear that there is any commercial purpose that outweighs the potential harm to consumers and democracy.