Boonville Blog

Corporate Media

Mon, 8 Mar 2010 19:10:00 EST

I am reading The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo now (thanks, Rachel). What I'm about to write has some mild spoilers. The main character is a disgraced journalist/magazine owner whose business gets rescued by a wealthy Swedish industrialist. Upon announcing the partnership other media outlets raise questions about Millennium's (its name) independence given their financing. The protagonist's partner responds questioning other media outlets' independence as they too are owned by large companies.

Sooooo I thought to myself, "this relates to America because our media is certainly owned by large corporations and that's a problem." It's true, a lot of the news in this country is provided by subsidiaries of multinational billion dollar corporations. Fox News Channel is News Corp, a company with $30 billion in revenues. CNN is Time Warner, $26 billion. ABC is Walt Disney, $37 billion. MSNBC and NBC are both NBC Universal, which is now split between GE ($182 billion) and Comcast ($35 billion). MSNBC is also owned by Microsoft, $58 billion. CBS Corporation brings in $14 billion in revenues. The largest newspaper publisher in the nation is Gannet Company, which brings in $8 billion, then Tribue Company at $5 billion. The New York Times Company brings in about $3 billion. Clear Channel, the biggest radio broadcaster, brings in more than $6 billion.

All of these are very big and very powerful. GE certainly isn't letting NBC do exposes on their business. It's important to realize though that, other than GE at #14, none of these companies rank high on the list of companies with the largest revenue. Microsoft is the next on the list, more than a dozen places below the century mark. Now I could be wrong about what metric best describes how powerful a company is. Maybe assets or market capitalization are better. Still, while a company like Clear Channel is certainly powerful, it's nowhere near one of the most powerful companies in the world. They obviously exert control over news rooms. When the topic of bias comes up it's astonishing to me that this fact is never brought up. I do have to admit though that I went researching these facts so that I could point out how insanely big corporations have enormous control over the news media. I still think they do but the relative size of these corporations is much smaller than I had guessed.

First and Second

Sat, 6 Mar 2010 17:28:00 EST

I was listening to This American Life episode #81, "Guns", the other day and it got me thinking about the first and second amendments to the US Constitution. Which one is more important? For as long as I can remember the answer to that question was pretty clearly the first. Upon further review, it depends.

In a society such as ours - one that is fairly prosperous and has low levels of corruption - the first amendment is the most important. Many of the circumstances that would require a firearm are taken care of. The government, for the most part, isn't going to violently shake you down. You won't be arrested or killed based on your race or religion. The rate of crime is pretty low. The average middle class American is not going to lose much if they get their gun taken away. With a gun you go from middle class and pretty safe to middle class with a little more protection against an event that probably won't happen. Free speech allows you speak out in almost every aspect of life - school, work, legal system, politics, etc. - without fear of retribution. This helps you make money, make allies, get smarter, steer events in the direction you favor, etc. If you had to choose the first or the second amendment living in the better part of American society the first would easily benefit you more.

In a more corrupt and crime ridden society having a firearm is more important. Think of it like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. If the government is going to execute you for being a minority it doesn't matter if you could be making more money with stronger copyright protections. The marginal gain from owning a gun is very low in the free, fair, and safe society; it is very high in the corrupt and dangerous society.

This is also why I qualified everything in the pro-free speech paragraph with "middle class". In poorer and more dangerous American communities owning a gun comes closer to free speech in importance. It's necessary to defend yourself against crime and probably also to make a corrupt law enforcement officer think twice about shaking you down.

Charles Fort

Thu, 4 Mar 2010 20:21:00 EST

I was listening to a story, "A Hard Rain at the Fortean Cafe", on the Escape Pod podcast last month. The title is an homage to Charles Fort, a famous researcher of "anomalous phenomena". The timing of this was interesting given the recent "Climategate" incident. Charles Fort spent his life researching phenomena dismissed by mainstream science. While he believed in some of it (alien visitation for instance) what his research really meant to do was criticize the mainstream scientific community. Let's be clear here, Fort wasn't the anti-vaccine crank or the global warming denier. We're talking aliens, ghosts, and all types of craziness that would exasperate Dana Scully. Fort basically asked the scientific community "why this but not this". Why were anomalies dismissed and accepted theory not required to account for them? From what I've read he was taking on the sacrosanctness of the basic tenets of science - objectivity, experimentation, etc. - rather than specific claims.

Science was his target but to me it's pretty obvious that at its most basic level Fort's research was meant to attack authority. It's hard for many people to see mainstream science as authoritative when it's constantly being attacked by probably the most powerful political party in the world. It's hard to take claims of a cabal of evildoing climate scientists seriously when these same scientists have been demonized for as long as I can remember as being out to destroy capitalism. You know what though, that doesn't mean the science community doesn't have power and that they're not an authority. There's an element of truth in even the most bad faith arguments and it's the basis of the attacks on science these days.

Every power structure operates on assumptions but scientific progress occurs when the status quo is questioned. My guess is that most scientists would gladly do that outside of the political arena. Sure, there are egos and infighting in the scientific community but our understanding of the world is always changing. The problem is that they've been thrust into the spotlight as the experts on a very important issue. In politics you can't really admit that there's a possibility that your position is wrong though. And so being an authority in a political debate flies in the face of good science. I still back the scientists in the climate debate. The skeptics come off as a broken clock, happening to look good when some research comes under fire. That doesn't mean the authorities on the matter shouldn't be subjected to honest critique. As an outsider that's what I'm counting on to bring me answers.

Media Technology

Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:03:00 EST

I've talked about how I think the internet more than anything is the driving force behind the upheaval in the newspaper industry. Planet Money Episode #134, "The Price of Bias is a great example of how technological innovation has influenced the early history of the media in America.

We may think of our independent press today as being the result of political awakening and noble efforts by those seeking truth, but that's not the whole story. University of Chicago economist, Matthew Gentzkow, says we've progressed not just because of good intentions, but because of basic economics. Gentzkow explains how advances in printing helped newspapers expand their audience beyond just one political party.

To summarize the episode: Back in the day newspapers had missions statements like "we're here to promote the views of this political party". No one debated a media outlet's bias because it was assumed they were very biased. Political parties funded them through government contracts. Around 1870, newspapers began trying to get more readers by becoming more independent. Getting more readers by trying to be less partisan meant losing income from political parties. Around that time though the cost of printing newspapers dropped as a result of new paper making technology. Paper derived from wood pulp overtook rag paper as a cheaper form of paper. By 1920 the price had dropped dramatically. Also, the telegraph increased the amount of information available. Increased literacy increased demand as well. So more supply, more demand, and cheaper product meant less need for the political parties.

Did the American people thirst for objective independent press? Sure. It wouldn't have happened without the technological innovation. There are a lot of things that people "want" but don't "want" enough to pay for. New technology makes it feasible. Technological change is a bigger influence on culture than people like to admit.

Who Are We

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 07:59:00 EST

I keep envisioning Jim Boeheim talking to his team in the locker room before games, in the huddle during a timeout, at halftime. He realizes that he is in the middle of something special. Over and over again he asks his team one question: "Who are we?" The games Cuse almost blew, those are the games I envision Boeheim badgering his team the most on the sidelines. "Who are we", he'd ask angrily. Are we fooling everyone who's ranking us in the top five? Are we a team that blows leads at home? Are we a team that turns the ball over 20 times in a game? Do we take bad shots. Every time a mistake is made Boeheim takes a player off the court to rip him while Mike Hopkins or Gerry McNamara remind the guys in a more subdued manner that they're on the cusp of something great. Maybe Boeheim even references previous years. I love Paul Harris and Eric Devendorf for their heart but they made some dumb plays in their time at Syracuse. Remember Pittsburgh. Remember UMass. Are we that team?

A while ago I saw Kris Joseph make an ill-advised behind the back pass prompting his immediate removal from the game. In past years after such a play Boeheim certainly wouldn't have hesitated to remove a non-starting sophomore so he could give him an earful on the sideline. This year I think he'd have extra ammunition. Bad passes. Dumb fouls. Lazy defense. Are we that team? Not only does a thoughtless play lose a possession or put the game in doubt. This year it jeopardizes greatness.

Since 2006 the program has been on the bubble several times near the end of the season. This year that won't be the case. Somehow though, with the team getting first place votes, there is more pressure. As a fan I'm more anxious. You could write off mistakes in previous years because you just wanted wins. You knew the team should be ranked somewhere between 20 and 30. Sometimes they'd sneak into the low teens. As long as they didn't drop to around 40 they could be assured of an NCAA bid. Maybe they'd even make a run in the Big East Tournament. A Sweet 16 appearance was never out of the question. This year though every mistake is amplified. A loss no longer ups the total from 6 to 7 but from 0 to 1 or 2 to 3. Teams that are 21-8 are good but they certainly make a lot of mistakes. Teams that are 26-2 make very few. If a bubble team makes fewer mistakes than good plays then you count it as a good game. You expect boneheaded plays. If a great team lays an egg you are disappointed.

---------------------------

The first look at the Cuse I had was a good one, a win over nationally ranked Florida. Three out of conference wins over St. Francis, St. Bonaventure, and Oakland preceded a win in their conference opener versus Seton Hall. Syracuse was 13-0 with unranked Pittsburgh coming to town. I watched that disappointing game with a friend and we both decided that, while there weren't any glaring issues, our expectations would have to be tempered a little bit. A top ranked team wouldn't lose to an unranked team at home so maybe Syracuse was set for a solid finish in the Big East, just maybe not competing for the title. Say, fourth place. We'd take that.

They proceeded to slap around Memphis, South Florida, and Rutgers, confirming our suspicions that this was a good team that wasn't going to worry us with bubble talk. Then came the game at top 10 ranked West Virginia. An up and down game saw the Orange almost blow a ten point lead in the final two minutes. They held on though on the road against a good team showing that they would compete for the Big East regular season title. The out of conference record was not a fluke.

Were things different? They went in to Notre Dame and took care of business against a team that traditionally gives them fits. After that they held on against Marquette at home. Then came arch rival Georgetown in the Dome. After a convincing win over the Hoyas I texted my brother saying "we are legit, son" (I use commas in text messages). Despite the national rankings putting Nova ahead of Syracuse there was no doubt that the Orange were the best team in the conference.

Then Depaul happened. It was a win but it was not becoming of a top 5 team. Easy wins over Providence and Cincinnati followed. Wins were wins but the fanbase probably had a voice in their collective heads saying "you're not good enough".

Then came the confusing four game stretch that has lead up to today. They escaped at home against a down UConn team, lost on Valentine's Day to Louisville at home, finished the sweep against Georgetown on the road, and overcame defensive laxness in the first half in Providence. Both the Connecticutt and Georgetown games reminded everyone of epic collapses we witnessed in the past few years. Louisville was a ho-hum Big East regular season loss. It sucked because we know Syracuse is better than that. The first half of the Providence game reminded us of past years when Nova or Notre Dame dropped triple digits on an old man's 2-3 zone.

That leaves Syracuse first in the conference at 13-2 with second place Villanova coming up to the Dome in the biggest game of the year at a sold out Dome. It's clear that my friend and I were wrong about Syracuse after the Pittsburgh game. They've taken care of all of the bottom feeders and beaten every ranked team they faced. On the road they are undefeated. No Irish white guys beat them from behind the arc. The win at home against Georgetown saw them go down 14 points early only to come back and win by 17. On the other hand, their two losses were at games they probably should have won at home. Against one of the worst teams in the conference they failed to score 60 points and stole a victory after trailing the entire game. They almost blew leads in West Virginia and Georgetown and at home against Marquette and UConn. We won't be able to tell if Cuse is better than Kansas or Kentucky until tournament time. Today though, with all of the team's strengths and faults, a win removes all doubt about who is the best team in the best conference in the country.

Buy Party Sand

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:20:00 EST

I'm not saying it's stupid to get the other side involved in legislating. I'm saying it's stupid to think that bipartisanship in and of itself should be a goal. The only reason you get others involved is because you need them to pass something. Right now the Democrats have 59 votes in the Senate. In a majority system they shouldn't need to compromise. Heck they shouldn't have to compromise with 15% of their own caucus to get the bill passed.

Bipartisanship sounds like a nice thing but it can actually make a bill worse for the nation. Look at what happened with the stimulus bill. By all accounts it would have been a more effective bill had it been bigger with fewer tax cuts.

The CBO also looked at the stimulative effect of various parts of the stimulus package. It found that purchases of goods and services by the federal government--such as for public works--had the largest bang for the buck, raising GDP by $2.50 for each $1 spent. Transfer payments had a lesser impact, but were still significantly more stimulative than tax cuts. Moreover, tax cuts of the sort favored by Republicans have the least impact. According to the CBO, tax cuts for low-income individuals raise GDP by as much as $1.70 for every $1 of revenue loss, while those for the rich and for corporations raised GDP by at most 50 cents for every $1 of revenue loss.

Lest one suspect the CBO of bias, private economists have also found that tax cuts are far less stimulative than spending under current economic conditions. Mark Zandi of Moody's ( MCO - news - people ) Economy.com, an advisor to John McCain last year, recently testified before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress that the Republicans' favorite tax proposals--making all the Bush tax cuts permanent and cutting the corporate tax rate--would raise GDP by at most 37 cents for each $1 of revenue loss. By contrast, increased outlays for infrastructure, aid to state and local governments and extended unemployment benefits increase GDP by between $1.41 and $1.57 for every $1 spent.

Indeed, one can argue that the failure of the stimulus to create or save more jobs occurred largely because Obama included too many non-stimulative tax cuts in the stimulus package. These tax cuts, such as the Making Work Pay Credit, accounted for more than 40% of the cost of the $787 billion stimulus package. Based on the CBO analysis, I don't think there is any question that the economy would be much worse off today if Republicans had gotten their wish and 100% of the stimulus had been in the form of tax cuts.

Another example, according to the CBO a robust public option would have saved money. The House bill (way back in October) had the strongest version.

The House bill, in other words, will cover more people at a more affordable cost to individuals. It can do this for a number of reasons, but the big one is that it saves a lot of money by including a strong public option and a real individual mandate. The combination of those two policies allows the government and individuals to pay a bit less while encouraging employers to pay a bit more. Its funding mechanism is a whole lot more popular than taxing health-care plans, but it will also do less to "bend the curve."

In some cases the middle ground is the best, in other cases it weakens good measures. I actually think that if health care reform can't withstand a few conservative ideas - ideas that improve or hurt the system - then it's not a good plan. All plans need to be able to stand variation and it will be the case that Republicans will take over one day and modify what the Democrats hopefully pass. In fact health care reform does have Republican ideas and Republican amendments in it. I'm hoping those ideas improve the bill that I hope gets passed. If they do then I'm glad they're in the bill. What I don't want is for them to get into the bill simply for the sake of stamping it with the "bipartisan" label.

Obama made crossing the divide a campaign theme and now it's tied around his neck and might just sink his health care reform ship. It's a political thing though. He and the Democratic Congress are trying to get Republican votes for political cover, not for a better bill. I'd love to think that our political system works with that level of good faith but I'm not that naive. The Republicans obviously aren't going to give that political cover no matter what concessions the Democrats give.

James Fallows on bipartisanship.

Medal Count

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:06:00 EST

The US is leading the medal count in Vancouver as we speak. The progression of the US winter Olympic team is impressive. In 2006 (Turin) they came in second in gold and total medals behind Germany. In 2002 as the host nation they came in third in gold and second total. In Nagano in 1998 they were fifth in gold and sixth total. In Lillehammer in 1994* they were fifth in both. Albertville in 1992 they came in fifth in gold and sixth total.

How has the US picked up so much ground? I think it's actually less impressive than I initially thought. In 1998 snowboarding, a sport invented in the United States, was added to the Olympic roster. Of the 42 snowboarding medals handed out before 2010 the US has won 14. Two in '98, five in '02 and seven in '06 makes a full one-third of all medals. The Winter Olympics are already a textbook case of selection bias towards certain countries. Obviously countries with temperate climates have the overwhelming upper hand in the winter games. On top of that most winter sports are gear towards richer nations. Skis, skates, bobsleds, and rifles** cost a lot more money than balls for soccer and, well, nothing for sprinting, long distance running, long jump, and swimming. Maintaining a track or a soccer field seems cheaper than a slope as well.

Another thought on medals: team sports should give out as many medals as players on the field. A gold medal in ice hockey should give a nation six medals towards its count. In the summer games basketball should count as 5. It's ridiculous that a nation should get the same amount of medals for one swimming event as it does for soccer. At the very least large team sports should get a set number of medals that is greater than one.

Finally, did I really just watch a hockey game on MSNBC, a network I don't even get in HD? First of all, why is NBC not putting every event on television. They own*** NBC, USA Network, Syfy, CNBC, MSNBC Bravo, Telemundo, and The Weather Channel, not to mention Hulu and NBC.com. There should be zero events that I cannot see. No way should I be watching a hockey game on any station other than NBC either.

* Wikipedia says Anchorage came in third in the bidding in 1994. I can't imagine that would have been a good choice. Are the Winter Olympics that much less interested in a "world class" city than the summer games are?

** Biathlon is clearly the oddest sport in the world and not just because it feels like it should be spelled "biathalon".

*** Wikipedia says they own the International Olympic Committee. That has to be a joke, right?

Indian (rice) in the Cupboard

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:47:00 EST

Here's what I found on the top shelf of my kitchen cabinet, with expiration dates:

Pastini, January 2010
Quinoa, July 2009
Lipton dip mix, December 2008
Instant rice, May 2008
Bisquick, February 2008
Basmati rice, November 2007
Rice-A-Roni, August 2006
Hamburger Helper, May 2006
Rice-A-Roni, February 2006
Cake mix, November 2005
Cake mix, October 2005
Shake and bake mix, August 2004

The shake and bake mix is the obvious winner because it made the move from our previous apartment having already passed its "best if used by" date.

Downtown Scott Brown

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:02:00 EST

Scott Brown has voted for the "jobs bill" going through Congress right now. It wouldn't be my top priority were I in Congress but it looks like it will at least create some jobs.

Brown's vote isn't all that interesting. It looks like he's trying to show some "bipartisanship" and this bill isn't much of an ideological pitfall. Like I said though, this type of bill isn't going to sway me either way on him in 2012. I called Brown's office the other day to show my support for health care reform. The woman who answered the phone made it sound like his staff was scrambling to get things set up. While I was talking I was looking over Brown's positions again. I was struck by how, how do I put it, clever they were. I'm not saying he doesn't believe everything he says but there is something adroit about his positions.

Brown supported health care reform in Massachusetts in 2006 yet he doesn't support federal health care reform. It's perfect because you can't attack him for denying the people of Massachusetts health care reform. He voted for reform in Massachusetts but doesn't care to do it for the rest of the country. You can slam him for that in 2012 but it's not going to resonate as much because he's vying for votes of people he's already secured reform for.

I was going to say the same thing about his stances on gay marriage and abortion but it doesn't look like he's dancing around them as much as I initially thought. He takes the dumb personal position of saying marriage is between a man and a woman yet doesn't advocate banning gay marriage. He also support civil unions. On abortion he supports a woman's right to choose in most cases but stays in the Republican sphere on the fringes (intact dilation and extraction, parental consent, Hyde Amendment). In these cases he claims the "settled law" position quite well.

Update: (2/23/2010 7:10:11 PM) Also, these are the type of positions I envision Southern Democrats having to take in order to win elections. Socially they have to claim to be conservatives but not act on anything.

Update: (2/24/2010 6:34:33 AM) And look, folks, the jury's still out on Scott Brown but if national Republicans expect him to get anywhere near this tea-party idiocy they're basically asking for a 1/3 term Senator. So stop freaking out. If you want a Republican Senator in Massachusetts you're going to have to compromise.

Places I Used to Go

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:20:00 EST

My Brother's Place, my go-to pizza shop in college, has closed. We were down in South Campus last weekend and decided to grab some pizza for lunch. In its place is Giga's Pizza. The results are not good. I love pizza but I'm not a connoisseur. It takes a pretty bad pizza to leave me unhappy. I could barely finish the two slices I bought and Carol didn't. There was something wrong with the sauce. My Brother's Place wasn't gourmet pizza but it was solid. Good cheese, never too greasy, not too much sauce, good consistency, not too thin. Its replacement at 27 Buswell isn't much good.

Right down the street on Beacon Chef Chang's House closed. I never really went there that much in college but I do have a funny memory of my first time there. It must have been the first month my freshman year at BU. I was living at Warren Towers. A bunch of my floormates decided to go for dinner. It's about a half mile walk. Knowing nothing about the city we took the BU East B-line stop in to Kenmore and transferred to the outbound C-line to take it one stop to St. Mary's. I blame the guy in our crew who grew up in Brookline but didn't know better.

Finally, it looks like The Kells is going to get shutdown. Good riddance. I went there a couple of times in college and I can say it is one of the more wretched bars in the Allston-Brighton college bar scene.

Update: (2/24/2010 5:54:45 PM) Um, my wife has informed me that I am recounting a story that I wasn't a part of. And you know what? She's right! I didn't go to Chef Chang's but I've heard the story probably a dozen times since then. This is exactly like act II of This American Life episode #226, "Reruns":

Many couples eventually encounter this problem: One person in the couple trots out the same story over and over, and the other person has to just listen. But what do the stories we tell in front of our significant others mean, and what do the significant others really think of them? Ira talks to three couples about the stories they've each told and heard countless times, and why. (16 minutes)

In this story Robert Krulwich of Radiolab tells a story where he thinks he was a part of story that he wasn't.