The Blog

Bob Woodruff: Families, Caregivers Bear the Biggest Burden

2009-11-11T03:53:00Z

This Veterans Day, as we honor those who defend our country, our thoughts are with the injured overseas and here, at Fort Hood. While the facts are still developing, this tragedy exposes the true toll of war's hidden injuries -- not only on our nation's service members, but on the families and caregivers who tend to them.

Today, most troops wounded in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan are surviving their injuries. They fought our country's battles. Now they fight their own. According to the RAND Center for Military Health Policy Research, 320,000 have sustained traumatic brain injuries, and nearly 20 percent will report symptoms of PTSD or major depression.

Exposed for prolonged periods to trauma and stress, many face intense cognitive and psychological issues. The financial cost of addressing these issues is worrisome. RAND estimates the one-year cost of moderate TBI at more than $250,000 per case and the total cost to society at more than $4 billion. Our nation's ability to treat these conditions is still inadequate. While the US Department of Veterans Affairs has taken significant steps under General Shinsecki to address stigma and remove barriers to care, there are still gaps. A recent study showed that 57 percent of those reporting a probable TBI had not been evaluated by a physician, and only half seeking treatment for PTSD or depression received minimally adequate care. The Fort Hood tragedy reveals the strains in our healthcare system, particularly the shortages and stigma associated with reporting and treating psychological wounds.

The larger costs our nation and its families will be forced to carry are also troubling. Like physical injuries, hidden ones can affect the economic livelihood, quality of life and family relationships of service members just as they are trying to regain their footing. Financial needs during recovery often exceed what the government currently can provide, forcing healthy family members to give up their jobs to serve as primary caregiver. Many are spouses who have no respite from these responsibilities, and no other means of income beyond their military benefits. Others are parents of military children, once empty nesters who are now primary caregivers not eligible for the same benefits. Economic conditions make efforts to assist military families even more urgent -- with the number of unemployed current veterans nearly equal to the entire US military strength serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even in a positive economic environment, military families -- especially the injured and those grappling with TBI or PTSD -- will need special opportunities to find jobs and establish economic security.

With the high cost of rehabilitation expenses and pressure on family income, a growing number of military families are severely rent burdened, 500,000 paying more than 50% of their income on rent. Financially strapped and emotionally fragile, those who suffer from trauma are at risk to experience psychological or behavioral issues or succumb to substance abuse. Others will join the ranks of our nation's homeless. According to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, one in three homeless have put on a uniform to defend our country. While thousands who served in Iraq already use the VA's homeless programs, many more will need supportive housing programs designed after The Jericho Project model to addresses the root causes of homelessness and the special needs of veterans.

America's service members, caregivers and families are hurting in other ways, too. The Fort Hood incident offers a glimpse into the special stresses of caregiving. While exceptional, this tragedy is shining a light in the dark corners -- where those who provide assistance to others who are traumatized can suffer silently, avoiding help because of shame or feelings of inadequacy. Even in ordinary circumstances, for our military families, the emotional weight of rehabilitation and transition make just staying together taxing. Spouses of those with hidden injuries often face their own grief and depression as they struggle to reunite their families after long separations. Children of parents with trauma have special needs for counseling, socialization and support that are not always easy for mainstream educators to address. More organizations like the Military Child Education Coalition, greater openness, and better training are needed for our counselors, community leaders and clergy to blanket military families with security and help them cope with these very real issues.

This isn't about politics, or about the war. It's about the warrior. The massacre at Fort Hood is a tragic reminder of the psychological wounds of war. It can also be a catalyst for change to help those who endure them. This Veterans Day, after we raise the flag, we must raise awareness about wars hidden injuries, and what's required for injured service members, families and caregivers to have safe and successful futures. The health and livelihood of our families, and our country, is at stake.

News anchor Bob Woodruff, the group's founder, was seriously injured by a roadside bomb while reporting in Iraq. He has returned to the air and covers a variety of issues from around the globe for ABC. A military family member, Rene Bardorf is Executive Director of The Bob Woodruff Foundation, which provides resources and support to injured service members, veterans and their families.

Andy Ostroy: You Are Not a "Great American," Sean Hannity

2009-11-11T00:20:10Z

I have a huge problem with Sean Hannity. And we all should. He is anything but the "great American" he and his brainwashed listeners delusionally call each other every five minutes. In fact, to the contrary, he's about as unpatriotic as they come. He roots for America to fail just so he can keep spewing his partisan venom at President Obama and Democrats. Shame on him.

I say this not as a Democrat who's upset with him, because I'm not. Truth is, I and most other Democrats couldn't care less what he has to say. We find him ignorant and insignificant and can't believe anyone actually chooses to listen to him on the merits. But what's most shameful about him is how he blatantly lies and deceives his own audience. People who put their trust and faith in him. And he pays them back by feeding them bullshit at every possible turn. If only they know just how full of crap he is. But their ignorance of the facts is exactly what he preys on. As ill-informed as heis on the issues, they make him appear smart. And that's not easy.

Hannity on Friday was predicting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lacked the votes needed to pass the health-care reform bill, or "Pelosi-Care" as he calls it. That the measure had hit a wall and that Democrats were abandoning ship. He smugly mocked Pelosi, complete with devilish Dick Dastardly cackle, because she had been predicting the bill's passage. Oh, how just a few hours can make someone look completely out of touch. As usual, wrong again Sean.

Hannity, like most disingenuous right-wing talking-heads, has been wetting himself over what he claims to be a "horrible week for Democrats." Give these guys a couple of gubernatorial victories and they predict the Rise and Fall of the Obama Empire. Truth is, on a national level, Democrats have won every single House and Senate special election over the past year, including two last Tuesday. Every one. If there's any referendum going on here it's on the Republican Party and its incumbents, not Obama. Voters are resoundingly rejecting conservatives from New York to California. Hannity and his fellow liars can yap all they want about the significance of Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell's gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia respectively, but these two statewide contests prove nothing on the national scale. They were fought and won primarily on local issues. Given all the victories the left's piled up in the House and Senate under Obama, I'd be worried if I were Michael Steele and his GOP. And as for last week? With the two House wins and the health-care bill's passage, I'd say it was a pretty good one for Democrats. Nice try, Sean.

Hannity also incessantly lies to his listeners about the economy. He simply cannot admit there's been significant improvement. He rails on that this is now "Obama's economy," yet deceptively shields his audience from the truth about how the president and his economic team have pulled the nation back from the brink of financial Armageddon this time last year. You won't hear him talk of GDP growth, huge declines in job losses or recovery in the banking, housing, retail and auto industries. You won't hear him discuss the Dow's rise from 6500 to 10,000. Don't hold your breath waiting for anything truthful such as, "While we still have a long way to go, we sure have come a long way and are seeing many signs of improvement." Of course not. That would make him honest and objective.

Sorry Sean, but this is definitely not Obama's economy. Obama's trying, and very deftly I might add, to fix the shitstorm Bush dumped in his lap. In office just 10 months, the worst economy since The Great Depression is no more Obama's than the 9-11 attacks were Bush's fault.

If Sean Hannity truly wants to be the "great American" he claims to be, he can start by being truthful to his listeners and by not rooting for his supposedly beloved America to fail.

Jane Isay: Remembering Ramparts

2009-11-10T23:29:07Z

If you used to read Ramparts, raise your hand. You probably would enjoy A Bomb in Every Issue, Peter Richardson's biography of Ramparts magazine. If you hated Ramparts, don't bother; this book will probably raise your blood pressure. If you never read Ramparts, read this book, because it tells the story of this crusading magazine and its writers, from its origins as a Catholic literary quarterly through its evolution into a powerful voice of the New Left. Ramparts published Che Guevara and Eldridge Cleaver, revealed the CIA's backing of the National Student Association during the Cold War, and broke the story of our use of Napalm on Vietnamese children that turned Martin Luther King, Jr. against the war.

Ramparts was reviled and attacked, adored and admired, and became "must reading" on both sides of the political spectrum. It gave birth to a generation of crusading writers and journalists (including Noam Chomsky, César Chávez, Seymour Hersh, Angela Davis, and Susan Sontag). Time magazine scoffed its articles, and the CIA spied on its staff. These were the heady 1960's and Ramparts writers were rock stars in some circles and villains in others.

Why does this matter? Because it reminds us that a group of brilliant and committed journalists sought out the truth, re-invented investigative journalism before Watergate, and published important government documents long before the Pentagon Papers. They had no Establishment backing and were hounded by their detractors, but they survived for nearly 15 years and changed the landscape of American journalism.

That kind of risk-taking hard-driving journalism is expensive and time-consuming, and it needs the backing of fearless owners and editors. Money and guts are not so easy to find into today's journalistic climate, so this book reminds us of the important role in our democracy that non-establishment news media can play. I think the Internet and the nonprofits that support investigative journalists may be of help. And if Congress passes the journalists shield law that includes protection for bloggers and free-lance writers, we could see a resurgence of independent gonzo journalism, created by a new generation in the new media. I think it's already beginning. Understanding the legacy of Ramparts might give such a movement a sense of its own roots.

Confession: The New Press published A Bomb in Every Issue. It's a not-for-profit publisher dedicated to publishing books in the public interest. I chair its Board of Directors, and I will from time to time write about books that might interest HuffPost readers.

Dr. Susan Corso: A Challenge to Magazine Publishers -- Especially Jon Meacham

2009-11-10T22:48:51Z

This past week's Newsweek with Al Gore on the cover was illuminating. Consider this: 20% of CO2 is attributable to deforestation--more than all of the world's cars and trucks combined.

If this is true, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, why aren't all magazine publishers rushing to eliminate blow-in inserts in their publications? You know what I mean, right? Those pesky little cards that fall out and are so irksome.

Think of the deforestation it could prevent! Newsweek has already risen to this challenge, and for that, I commend Jon Meacham and his team. There are no longer blow-in inserts in Newsweek.

Of course, I don't read every magazine that's published, but I happen to know that Vanity Fair and Guideposts--two more different publications don't exist--are egregious offenders. Why? The naive answer is that blow-in inserts must work to grow their subscription bases. To that I ask, so?

With all the lamentation over how the Internet is changing print publishing, why aren't more publishers tearing to update their old systems? Old habits die hard? Sure, but again, so? It's time to do something different.

How about these ideas?

Give subscribers the option to renew electronically. (Some of us like our hard copies.)

Let subscribers choose the lengths of their renewals up to five years at a time. (Guideposts, bless them, is already doing this.)

Ban blow-in inserts completely.

If all the print publications in the U.S. alone were to eliminate inserts, how much could that 20% be reduced? The truth is I have no idea how to figure that out.

The industry association says that more than 10,000 magazines are published in the U.S. every year, and that only 2,000 have "significant" circulation. Even if only those 2,000 were to ban inserts, I suspect that the numbers of trees that could be saved would be significant.

The only way out of our climate problem at any reasonable pace is through corporations and government taking bold, strong measures. Here's one that would change the deforestation statistic immediately.

C'mon, Mr. Meacham, talk to your pals. Let's save the trees, have less to recycle, and let those blessed trees do what they're meant to do here on Earth.

For spiritual nourishment, go to www.susancorso.com.

John L. Esposito: Rush to Judgment: Media Reporting or Making the News?

2009-11-10T21:55:11Z

In the immediate aftermath of the breaking-news of the massacre at Ft. Hood, a shocked nation and media scurried to find out who did it, how many were killed and injured and why? As is true in all such tragedies, in the initial chaos surrounding such events, facts are hard to corroborate and reports are often incomplete and contradictory.

While many in the major media were careful and tentative, focused on whatever information they could garner, others jumped the gun, with speculations that created rather than reported the news. Thus, in the midst of so many unanswered questions, why would a major reputable newspaper like the Washington Post run a story this morning, titled "Suspect, devout Muslim from Va. Wanted Army discharge...," wanted Army discharge that was illustrated with a picture of an Islamic center and this caption: "The Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring where Maj. Nidal M. Hasan used to pray. 'He was a very quiet and private person,' said Arshad Qureshi, chairman of the board of trustees at the mosque" and whose lead sentence is: "He prayed every day at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, a devout Muslim ..." Why immediately rush to brushstroke Islam, Hasan's religion, by linking it to this tragedy?

It apparently wasn't challenging enough to figure out an already complex puzzle: (1) why had this American born psychiatrist, a serious, quiet, and reserved military officer, who joined the Army over his parents' initial objections in order to serve his country, made substantial efforts to get out of the military in recent years?; (2) what was the connection between reports that Hasan had been deeply affected by his work with veterans from the Iraq war and his refusal to accept the fact that he was to be deployed to Iraq?; (3) how serious and substantial were reports that post 9/11 harassment by colleagues over Hasan's Muslim name had contributed to his growing disaffection with and desire to get out of the military? Did all of these factors push him over the edge psychologically or was his horrific act of mass murder more calculated? Instead, reports that Hasan was a practicing Muslim were seen as an immediate reason to focus on the "religious angle."

Lost in the rush to speculate was any attempt to place this story within a broader context. What about the many Muslims who have served and now the 20,000 who currently serve in the armed forces, those that fought and died in Afghanistan and Iraq? Are they influenced by their religion in their willingness to serve, fight and die for their country? Courageous Muslims like Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, praised by Colin Powell in his endorsement speech of Barack Obama, gave his life for his country, and was posthumously awarded the Purple Heart, Bronze Star and the honor of being buried in Arlington cemetery.

Why this common tendency and double standard towards Islam and Muslims post 9/11? We judge the religion and majority of mainstream Muslims by the acts of an individual or an aberrant minority of extremists. Yet, when Jewish fundamentalists kill a prime minister or innocent Palestinians, or Christian extremists blow up abortion clinics or assassinate their physicians, somehow the media is capable of sticking to all the facts and distinguishing between the use and abuse of a religion.

There can be no excuse, personal, political, or religious, to justify this senseless act of mass murder. There should also be no excuse for a rush to judgment that creates "facts on the ground," that once again negatively impact the American public's perception of Islam and the vast majority of our Muslim fellow citizens.

Cathy Whitlock: Support the Magazines

2009-11-10T21:26:15Z

It's a scene that is becoming all too familiar as yet another magazine closes and more space opens up on the newsstands. The formula is simple -- a bad economy means consumers aren't spending therefore no advertising which equates into fewer and fewer editorial pages and less money -- you get the picture.

Today's casualty is the twenty-six-year-old veteran publication Metropolitan Home, a unique magazine that boasted a more contemporary and architecturally interested consumer as its base.

We have watched numerous glossies go down in the shelter category (think home and garden) such as House and Garden, Domino, Home, Oprah's O at Home, Blueprint, Southern Accents, Country Home and Cottage Living. And in a related category, Gourmet's demise left many a bereft foodie behind.

It's gotten so bad that there is even a website dedicated to the situation -- "Magazine Death Pool -- Who Will be Next?" (www.magazinedeathpool.com) who wryly notes, "If you've got 'home' or 'garden' in your title, you've got one foot already on the banana peel."

It's hard for me to imagine we are reaching a time where everything will be read on the Internet. The beauty of the magazines -- particularly when the theme is food, fashion, art, lifestyle or design -- is being able to read (and more importantly save) articles at my leisure while lounging on the sofa, beach, airplane or in the bathtub -- somehow curling up with the laptop and facing electrocution amidst the bubbles doesn't have the same luxurious experience.

So who is left standing? Architectural Digest, Traditional Home, Elle Decor, Veranda, Dwell, Metropolis and House Beautiful just to name a precious few. And while I have "a dog in the hunt" as they say in the South, (I am a contributing writer for Traditional Home and have written for many of the shelter rags), I hate to think of even more institutions going down the drain.

Support your magazines. For the price of a nice lunch you can get a subscription and keep these publications going. Or the next time you are on the plane you can read the plastic safety instructions located in front of the airsick bag. It's your choice.

Daisy Whitney: "Crush It": Gary Vaynerchuk on How to Follow Your Passion Now (video)

2009-11-10T20:18:46Z

Executives and employees alike at digital startups, media agencies, and television networks should still build their personal brands.

That's the advice of Gary Vaynerchuk, the multi-million dollar businessman, uber-popular video star, and now New York Times bestselling author. In his latest book "Crush It," Gary evangelizes his philosophy on how to build your own brand equity. But how can you "crush it" when you work for a TV network, advertising agency or media firm?

I caught up with Gary at a recent book event and asked him that question for the New Media Minute. He shared his thoughts on how employees can get executive buy-in to the "crush it" philosophy.

This video was originally published on DaisyWhitney.com and on Beet.TV.

Eric Boehlert: The GOP's Looming (Media) Civil War

2009-11-10T19:18:48Z

We're entering a sort of Fox News Era where media outlets -- where alleged news organizations -- essentially co-sponsor political campaigns. We've moved well beyond the time when Fox News, for instance, leaned right and gave conservative candidates more air-time and tossed them lots of softball questions. We're now watching unfold a political reality where Fox News literally selects candidates and then markets them through Election Day.

There's a reason Dougg Hoffman (NY-23) described Glenn Beck as his "mentor" and pledged his "sacred honor" to uphold the "9 Principles and 12 Values" of Beck's 9/12 Project. There's a reason Sean Hannity wanted to "declare" Hoffman the election winner, and why Fox News' on-screen graphic read "Conservative Revolution?" when Hoffman was being interviewed (i.e. prematurely crowned) by Hannity on the eve of Election Day.

Hoffman's outsider bid, originally opposed by the Republican Party, was a media production, plain and simple, which means his loss was a media loss, as well.

Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich had it right when he told The Washington Times that Hoffman's rise as a third party candidate was the "result of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox News." Gingrich, who originally opposed Hoffman's candidacy, added: "This was not an isolated amateur; this is an entire movement."

Indeed, it's a media movement that's doing it's best to obliterate the line between journalism and politics. The looming problem for the GOP, though, is that the right-wing media can't pick winners and stands poised to rip the Republican Party apart.

Read the entire Media Matters column here.

Barry Levinson: The Delusions of Alessandra Stanley

2009-11-10T19:14:18Z

As I write this, I realize I am about to do something that, for the most part, is never done. I am going to criticize a critic. Filmmakers are never supposed to respond to a critic about their work. It's an unspoken rule of engagement. But in this case, I feel compelled.

I am going to criticize Alessandra Stanley, the TV critic for the New York Times. I am not going to criticize her on the basis of what she may not like about my recent film essay Poliwood, but I am going to take her to task for her blatant inaccuracies. For her inability to view the piece for what it was.

It may be true that I am overly sensitive to her critical writings ever since reading a review she wrote some time ago about a Walter Cronkite documentary that was part of PBS's American Masters series. I had nothing to do with that project other than to see it and to read her review, which began, "There will never be an anchorman like Walter Cronkite. And thank heaven for that." It was a shocking opening line -- an assessment that I would certainly disagree with -- but nevertheless, she is allowed to express her own opinion. However, the line that really caught my ire for its blatant inaccuracy was what she said about Cronkite informing the nation about the assassination of President John Kennedy: "He informed and consoled the nation with stoic grace. But it's hard to imagine that anyone in that chair at that moment, wouldn't have been just as memorable, simply because he was there."

Anyone in that chair! Anyone? The impression you get from Ms. Stanley is that there was only one network and one person reporting this event back then. Is she suggesting that Walter Cronkite was the only reporter informing us about this assassination? The reality is there were three networks and they were all reporting the event, and Walter Cronkite is the only one we remember. Why do we remember Cronkite as he took off his glasses on that tragic day and reported that the young president had just been assassinated? According to Ms. Stanley, it had nothing to do with Cronkite's unique ability as a newsman or his special ability to connect with an audience. It was because he was the only one there, reporting. To defend her thesis she had to carefully eliminate two networks from history -- and two chairs. Yet this is what Ms. Stanley does: she alters reality to fit her thesis. It is blatantly inaccurate and deceitful. It is a bogus sentence, illogical, and fraudulent. That is not valid criticism, and should have no place in such a respected paper as the New York Times. But it was written, and it was printed.

Now I come back to Poliwood.

Ms. Stanley states, "In politics, the only thing worse than no access, is too much access." She goes on to say, "At its core the film is a screed about everything that was wrong with politics and media during the 2004 election, carried over and misapplied to the 2008 campaign."

For the record, the film essay has nothing to do with the 2008 campaign. That's why there is no footage of the candidates leading up to the conventions, and no footage of them campaigning on the road, leading up to the election. There is also no footage of the candidates stating political positions. No footage of strategy sessions. No discussions with the political operatives of either side. No footage of the fears or anxieties, the second-guessing, and the tiresome campaign trail. I only cover the two conventions and the inauguration merely as the backdrop for the intersection of politics, media, and entertainment as the cameras followed the journey of the Creative Coalition through these events.

It was not a case of too much access, as Ms. Stanley suggests. I had no access to either campaign. I never asked for, nor was refused any such request for the one simple reason: I wasn't filming a campaign. It was not the point of the piece. I don't wish to cherry-pick a critical line of hers from within her overall review, but it is the opening sentence.

At another point, Ms. Stanley goes on to state that my observations about the media were incorrect because the media did not determine the outcome of the 2008 election. Like her previous comment, the fact that Obama won was not the point of the piece. That's for other filmmakers to make. But, Poliwood does address the importance of telegenic (TV friendly) political figures, of which Obama is one of them. Is Ms. Stanley suggesting that Obama's attractive appearance, his ability as a great speaker, his youth and vibrancy, and his story of rising from poverty as shown on television had absolutely no effect on him becoming President of United States? The film is much more of a sociological look at the cause and effects of television, the good and the bad and the sometimes ugly as it applies to the political dialogue. Not the 2008 election. But Ms. Stanley writes, "Poliwood gets on the bus with a group of politically minded movie stars, and forgets to get off and on to the campaign." We didn't forget. It was not the point of the film essay. There can only be two reasons for her fraudulent statement: one is that her arrogance is only exceeded by her ignorance, or two, since she was also reviewing By The People, a documentary that did follow the campaign, she needed to blend the two pieces to fit her own critical agenda.

Ms. Stanley can be as critical as she wants of Poliwood, but I find it very disconcerting to be criticized for what wasn't presented so she can fuel her own false premises.

To reiterate, criticism is a part of a filmmaker's journey. Any time you attempt to tackle a subject that is complicated, one is open to criticism. It comes with the territory. A WARNING: to any thin-skinned filmmaker, get out of this line of work quickly or you'll die a hemophiliac. But when one's work is used as fodder for a critic such as Ms. Stanley, then I feel I must speak up... and throw caution to the wind. I know the old adage, "Never get into a battle with someone who orders ink by the gallon," but I can't help myself.

The New York Times is known throughout the world as one of the leading newspapers in this country. It has excellent film criticism and book reviews. And a very strong op-ed page. Where Ms. Stanley fits into this strong lineup is questionable at best.

As a filmmaker, all you can expect is for your work to be examined for what it is. I keep thinking of Walter Cronkite at the end of his life, reading Ms. Stanley's quote. "There will never be an anchor like Walter Cronkite. And thank heaven for that." And I wonder after reading that devastating comment, whether he thought to himself: 'Ms. Stanley, what exactly did I do that was so wrong?'

And just for clarification, Walter Cronkite did not say that. I just made it up. Clarity is important.

Poliwood airs on Showtime this month.

Jarvis Coffin: Rupert Murdoch's Serious Internet Strategy

2009-11-10T19:01:14Z

It's not all sour grapes that has Rupert Murdoch suggesting News Corp will eventually pull its content out of Google once it converts users to a paying basis. Listening to the interview with Sky News political editor, David Speers, in which Murdoch laid out his plan to withdraw News Corp content to within paying boundaries, Murdoch makes clear that it's all about getting serious online.

Murdoch observes that very few (actually, he says, "no web sites anywhere in the world") make serious money. Likewise, he observes that "search people" - i.e., visitors to News Corp content that arrive by search engine - are not loyal readers of content. Ergo, they are not serious.

Therein may lay the calculation Murdoch and News Corp are doing in connection with their strategy to get consumers to pay for content and, then, deny access to all the non-paying transient onlookers who come courtesy of Google. The strategy advocates a retreat to defensible, higher value positions. As everyone has freely (no pun) pointed out it means much smaller audiences. But Murdoch's comments suggest that News Corp has taken this into account and it doesn't care. What have big audiences and an over-abundance of inventory given to the world but ad networks and lower prices? It's time to get serious. It's time to get back to business.

The issue of "serious money" is an important one. It has confounded traditional media companies online since the beginning. Plenty of money flows through plenty of big web sites, but the end results in terms of profitability have been underwhelming, certainly in Murdoch's view. For many of the Internet's largest players it has been equally disheartening to ponder a future full of exertions to grow traffic by relying on competitive third-parties, while struggling to raise advertising prices in an ocean of inventory. As Murdoch asserts, there is not enough advertising to go around for any web site to make serious money.

There are two ways to chase after serious money as a publisher, however, and one of them is to be small. Having tried big, Murdoch may be coming to terms with the alternative.

The media world has been addicted to "big" for years. Big has meant serious money thanks to advertising. But, that hasn't translated online where smaller, independent publishers capable of generating $1 million per year in revenue out of a spare office thrive, while large publishers huffing and puffing to do 50x - 75x that amount feel unfulfilled.

Online there is, in fact, plenty of advertising to go around allowing many, many publishers to feel like they are making serious money. The Internet landscape is dominated by those publishers, and collectively they are changing the rules, agreeing to work for lower prices and agreeing to be positively delighted with sales results that wouldn't keep News Corp in corporate jet fuel for a week.

At the same time the advertising community is slowly, but surely, shedding its own dependence on big. Ad networks have left one positive impression, which is that it is possible to aggregate many sites online for less and see results that are equal to or better than what $30 CPMs on big sites may have delivered. The taste left by some ad network experiences was bitter, but the implications of a freer, more open, and more targeted market have broken-through.

Most publishers couldn't survive without Google and other search engines to direct people to their web sites; nor could most Internet users, which should assure the market of free and open access to search engines of one sort or another for many years to come. News Corp, however, has considerable resources of its own to drive traffic to it web properties. It may not be the sort of traffic that earns it a top 10 or even top 20 position among its peers, but perhaps they've stopped caring. Perhaps big isn't quite so important in their calculations anymore. Having experienced the tiresome affects of being big online perhaps Murdoch is getting serious about Internet strategy.

And he may be right. Seriously.

Chris Curtin and Bob Greenberg: Digital: Beyond Our Control, But Within Our Reach

2009-11-10T17:24:12Z

Consumers, advertisers, publishers and agencies are all hustling to keep up with the latest digital advancements. As advertisers, we've gone from controlled distribution via the Big Three television networks, radio and publishing to a world where the average consumer is exposed to nearly 3,000 commercial messages a day -- many through outlets that were not in existence five or 10 years ago. Yet, despite the increasing number of messages, people have become more skilled at tuning them out.

Though it's no revelation to say that old methods of marketing are losing effectiveness, many advertisers are still having a difficult time adjusting to this new world where emerging technologies are popping up faster than ever before in areas like social media, web and mobile applications, gaming, and cloud services. The model that seems to be working best is one where advertisers generate attention via engagement. Put simply: Advertising can stand out by inviting consumers in. Marketers should create campaigns and branded platforms that explain how to get more value out of products, and "why" someone should have them in the first place.

In other words, customers don't necessarily want to buy more. But they are demanding and expecting a lot more.

Need a pair of running shoes? Companies like Nike have created digital shopping experiences to help you select the right shoes based on your gender, your preferred running surface, the arch of your foot (Nike even explains how to measure your arch), and your running stride. At each step, Nike explains why the features of a particular shoe are best for you.

But even more importantly, Nike actively engages their customers in the sport of running and, subsequently, into the Nike brand. For instance, through the community-based platform, Nike+, runners are connected with other runners, have the ability to chart their running progress over time, and can create motivational music playlists.

Engaging your audiences through digital experiences that provide value or entertainment helps people connect with your brand willingly. A growing trend for marketers is the idea of co-creation, welcoming the input of customers to inform (and sometimes produce) products, services, and marketing campaigns. By influencing how a product is designed, engineered or launched, customers are given a personal stake in the brand and a reason to become advocates and share their stories. On the same hand, marketers benefit because they truly learn what customers want from the brand and why.

We know it works.

Take a traditional automaker like Fiat. In developing a new car from the ground up, Fiat is asking consumers to submit ideas for all aspects of the vehicle -- from the design to the marketing. The company is soliciting ideas from its Web site and the social media outlets Okrut, Facebook and Twitter.

The effort started in August, and almost 10,000 people have submitted close to 7,000 ideas. With that kind of consumer awareness and engagement, it's only fitting that the new car will be called Fiat Mio, or My Fiat.

In Japan, a band called "Sour" has shown how user-generated content can be effective without losing control of your brand image. The band sponsored a project in which fans created a music video via Webcam. The resulting music video, "Hibi no neiro," is a must-see -- even if you don't understand Japanese.

The band maintained control throughout, selecting the fans and writing the script. Yet it's an example of very cool user-generated creativity and digital engagement. The video has garnered more than 1.5 million YouTube views -- undoubtedly not all are Sour fans.

Today, at HP we are hard at work building a Web site - that is a less a destination and more of a digital experience, with a central nervous system that allows us to take our HP experience into the broader digital ecosystem.

And at the heart of the digital ecosystem are digital people. At HP, they are our focus. Digital people are all about personalization, making things a reflection of themselves. The new site allows them to do that. They like to share what they're up to and what they know. So, we're tapping the collective intelligence of our customers by hosting forums where they can help each other. It's been enormously successful. Instead of fielding calls, we're creating a community, providing better customer service and doing it more cost efficiently. This could work in virtually any environment.

Judging from what's out there-- and on the horizon--it looks like the advertising world finally realizes that while the digital space is beyond our control, it's certainly within our reach.

Michael Wolff: Rupert Murdoch: The Internet Does Not Exist

2009-11-10T16:58:55Z

Rupert continues his war with the Internet. Over the weekend, he told an interviewer (the interviewer, on Sky News Australia, works for him) that as part of his campaign to charge users for reading his content, what he plans to do is to block Google from indexing his newspapers.

As of a year ago, Murdoch had never used Google--never once, by himself, run an Internet search--and so it might be reasonable to assume he doesn't know what's involved here.

It is quite possible he doesn't realize--and can't fathom--that removing News Corp.'s newspapers from Google means that, in the largest part of the information market, they would cease to count, cease to be a factor, that their absence would not register as a hole.

Nor, it is possible, does he realize that as much as 90% of his traffic comes from Google and other search engines, that even if his goal is to sell content, there is really no other way to direct people to it than through search engines.

So his idea is something like wanting to sell newspapers but not wanting to let people see them on the newsstand where they might read the headlines for free.

Continue reading on newser.com

Jeff Danziger: MURDOCH BECK

2009-11-10T16:56:30Z

James Rucker: An Open Letter to Rupert Murdoch: What Exactly Do You Mean?

2009-11-10T15:17:36Z

Dear Mr. Murdoch:

On July 28th, Glenn Beck said that President Obama has a "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture," and went on to call him a "racist." These statements were indefensible, angering and offending not only Black Americans, but Americans of every color. They led more than 285,000 people to call on sponsors to pull their support from Beck's show. And more than 80 advertisers of conscience have done just that.

On Friday, November 6th, you endorsed Glenn Beck's statements, saying "if you actually assess what he was talking about, he was right." We would like you to explain yourself. Do you really think President Obama is a racist? What part of Beck's statements do you agree with, and why?

It has been an open question as to whether or not News Corporation or FOX News would rein in Glenn Beck. It seems that we may now have our answer. Since his attack on the president, Beck's pattern of race-baiting has continued unabated. Perhaps he feels so secure spouting this outrageous rhetoric, Mr. Murdoch, because you personally agree with his most inflammatory statements.

While Beck is the worst offender on the Fox News Channel, your network has a long, deep history of engaging in inflammatory racial rhetoric: attacking black leaders, black culture, and black institutions. And a number of your recent business decisions suggest that you're consciously building a media empire -- at Fox News and elsewhere -- that attracts viewers by appealing to racial fear and paranoia.

A month ago, you put Don Imus back on television on the Fox Business Network. Days later, the New York Post fired a Latina editor, Sandra Guzman, apparently as retaliation for her public criticism of the Post's notorious 'chimp' cartoon. And a few weeks ago, you personally fired Marc Lamont Hill -- one of Fox News' few black commentators -- in response to a racially charged smear campaign led by a News Corp shareholder.

It's becoming increasingly clear that Fox News and News Corp have a problem with race. It is also becoming clear that the problem starts at the top with you, Mr. Murdoch. Are we missing something, or do your words indeed speak for themselves?

James Rucker
Executive Director, ColorOfChange.org

---

Here's what Murdoch said to Sky News:

Marcel Pacatte: Judge Should Laugh Subpoena Request out of Courtroom

2009-11-10T15:03:44Z

SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE

Anita Alvarez is a menace to your freedom.

That's why you should care about Alvarez's bid to force my Medill colleague David Protess to open his grade book to prosecutors as they attempt to -- well, I still haven't figured out what Alvarez and her cohort are attempting to do, because it is baffling on almost every front.

The case in question is that of a man who has been in jail for more than 30 years, convicted of killing another man. Student journalists in Protess' investigative journalism course have said they have new evidence that exonerates Anthony McKinney. The judge scheduled a hearing on the matter; Alvarez has asked the judge to force Protess and the students to turn over their notes, their grades, the course syllabus and other items pertaining to the students' investigation, as a way, apparently, to poke holes in the effort to free McKinney.

As many, including Protess, have pointed out, you would think Alvarez would be fighting the case on its merits -- pointing out the solidity of the state's case that sent McKinney to prison to begin with -- rather than launching an ad hominem attack on the methods of the student journalists who say they have evidence that will set McKinney free.

What Alvarez is doing is dumb.

You may think it doesn't affect you: You're not a journalist, you're not a college student, you're not in jail for a murder you may or may not have committed.

You're wrong.

It matters urgently to you and to everyone because it's an attempt by prosecutors to perpetrate one of the starkest erosions of constitutional rights to due process.

Not to mention that the request for student grades violates federal privacy statutes -- we as teachers can't even talk about a student's grades among ourselves and are forbidden from telling a student's parent his or her academic record without the student's express consent.

But by even talking about privacy and grades, Alvarez is forcing us into parsing something so far afield as to be laughable.

At root, we're talking about a man who has been in prison for murder who may have been convicted in error.

Don't we owe him, at the very least, a hearing on the merit of the evidence? Even if the state's record was unblemished in cases such as this, I don't think bleeding hearts are alone on this one. Whenever society is going to accuse someone of a crime so grave as murder, it owes itself the assurance that the accused is guilty.

The speculation is that Alvarez hopes to show that performance in the class was tied to getting dirt that would free the subject of the investigation and that students may have been motivated less by truth and more by grade.

I spoke this week with a former student of mine, who had Protess' course about 10 years ago and worked on a different case. She is offended -- as offended as all of us at Medill are -- by Alvarez's presumptions. "No one in the class was there for the grades," she said. "We didn't pile into my car at 6 a.m. to drive more than an hour to the South Side to interview eyewitnesses, or spend hours in a law office conference room poring over documents, for our GPA. We were there as journalists, learning to be better journalists."

I have news for Alvarez -- and this is apparently something she has a troublingly dim understanding of -- we journalists are concerned about justice, not about poking a thumb in the eye of the system. It may be hard for her to discern the difference, but I would hope that the county's chief prosecutor would understand the meaning of justice and see that we are working for it, as she should be.

The reason there is a need for journalists at all is because the power of the state is too great. Unchecked, it is far too great. Journalists give each of us a way to be heard when power is arrayed against us.

It's simple. And it's sad that Alvarez doesn't get it.

It's sadder still that Cook County is saddled with this out-of-her-depth prosecutor for at least another three years.

UPDATE: Three twenties?

So now we see what has Anita Alvarez so vexed: Someone working to learn whether a man jailed for 31 years for a murder he may not have committed is guilty or innocent slipped a cabbie $60 to take a witness home after an interview, and there was no way, Alvarez contends, the ride could have cost that much.

So, y'know, that constitutes a payment to the witness for testimony, which, y'know, would then impugn the integrity of the witness.

Alvarez, with this revelation, descends into the pantheon of Chicago politicians who make us a laughingstock.

Let's hope the judge has little patience for this thin broth and gets on with the business of whether McKinney has paid 31 years of his life for a crime someone else committed.

It sounds to me as though the Cook County state's attorney's office could use an infusion of student prosecutors.