Weekend Tids and Bits

JACK FROST CAN NIP MORE THAN YOUR NOSE if you live in Alaska and decide to pose nude for the online Playgirl magazine, but 19-year-old Levi Johnston will probably have that base covered, if nothing else. Johnston is the father of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s grandchild. He entered the national spotlight when GOP presidential candidate John McCain announced then-Gov. Palin for the veep spot on his ticket and Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was pregnant by Johnston. McCain and Palin lost the election, Levi and Bristol lost interest in getting married, and now Playgirl readers will view Johnston losing his pants.

---

YES, BUT THEY’RE OUR EIGHTH-CENTURY WHACKOS seems to be the emerging line in the Obama administration, which is floating the idea that perhaps the Taliban might be part of some future Afghanistan government. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan eight years ago, ousting the extreme Islamist Taliban because they might be giving aid and comfort to Al Qaeda terrorists. Eight-hundred-plus American body bags later, the Taliban still control 80 percent of their country. The trial balloons from the Obama administration float the notion that the Taliban would oppress only themselves, so we should let them while we continue our fight against Al Qaeda.

---

YOU COULD BE AMERICA’S NEXT GREAT PUNDIT or you could have had one too many helpings of bean burritos, but the Washington Post is giving you a chance to find out in a contest that ends October 21. The deal is you write a pundit-like essay and a short pitch on why you should be chosen one. The entry form is here. Hint: Moderation in pursuit of audience is no virtue; extremism in pursuit of audience is no vice. And no, Rush Limbaugh didn’t say that – he and his fellow howlers just live it.

---

SOCIAL SECURITY COLA IS STARTING TO FIZZ since it looks like there won’t be a Cost Of Living Adjustment boost in Social Security checks for the first time in 35 years. That’s because a recession-battered Consumer Price Index hasn’t increased enough to trigger the raise. It has increased enough to trigger the outrage of elderly advocate group AARP which is urging its membership in e-mails to remind Congress that the 41 million Social Security seniors want to see that increase. Congress, of course, will ignore the political implications of ticking off 41 million voters with the highest turnout percentages. And they lived happily ever after.

---

Last Week’s Lessons:

· Give A Man A Fish and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime, the old saw goes. But the print journalism folks who make a living putting yesterday’s news on tomorrow’s fishwrappers have reason to be nervous about the calls for universal broadband internet access at http://larryblaskosaid.blogspot.com/2009/10/fish-or-fish-wrapping-universal.html

· The Doofus Directorate may be the Obama administration’s answer to the twin questions of what the Federal Trade Commission does and what to do with it at http://larryblaskosaid.blogspot.com/2009/10/doofi-maybe-doofus-directorate.html

· War of Aggression Against The Moon? Plans to bomb the moon have some worried that beings living on the far side may bomb back, while others wonder if the Obama administration doesn’t have enough wars already in Iraq and Afghanistan at http://larryblaskosaid.blogspot.com/2009/10/when-in-doubt-bomb-it-out-first.html

· Traditional Media Cash Crisis Solved! Instead of going broke trying to sell rights to publish stuff, the media should get wise and sell rights to have stuff not published at http://larryblaskosaid.blogspot.com/2009/10/media-crisis-solved-buy-buy-journalism.html

Have a great weekend!

###

Media Crisis Solved!

Buy Buy Journalism Solution

Traditional news outlets flopping about the beach gasping for revenue saw an idea that would save them this week, but it was presented backwards, so they’ll probably ignore it.

Tom Curley, president and CEO of The Associated Press, told an audience in Hong Kong that AP is considering selling time exclusives on news stories to online customers – maybe a half-hour, maybe less.

There might be some money in news media selling exclusive first-half-hour rights on some hot online stories. Think Dave Letterman’s Top Ten Employee Dating List, or a revelation that Sarah Palin secretly holds a doctorate in English.

That notion might help traditional media a little bit, but it’s a dim mirror image of one that could generate truly enormous revenue:

Never mind the chump change from selling exclusive rights to publish, the real dough is in selling rights not to publish.

Suppose your newspaper had discovered your United States Senator with more panky in his hanky than his marriage license allows. Someone might pay for the exclusive first-half-hour publication rights, but how much would the senator pay for never-ever-publication rights?

Even without the compost of MBAs and focus groups, the odds-on first-to-flower favorite in that garden has to be the senator.

Or suppose a drug maker’s spectacularly profitable anti-impotence drug is mentioned in a study that says profits are the only thing it dependably inflates. A men’s health website might pay for a half-hour exclusive on that news, but the drug maker would certainly be interested in a permanent keep-it-zipped purchase.

Besides providing a much-needed revenue stream, the sale of non-publication rights could revive the investigative reporting teams many publications ditched when the economy tanked. Instead of looking at investigative reporters as an expensive group of advertiser-irritating prima donnas, cost-conscious publishers could now see them as serious revenue producers.

Implementing this Renaissance of The Fourth Estate would not be without minor problems. Narrow-mind do-gooders might sneer that this was really blackmail, but well-paid media lawyers could surely drape the warm cloak of the First Amendment over this practice as they have so many others. If the Constitution enshrines the right to publish something for a fee, does it not also hold sacred the right not to publish for a fee?

Although there are clear-cut examples as we have discussed, some other stories might result in competing bids between those who want to publish and those don’t. Ethics committee of the various professional journalistic organizations would have to work out rules for a fair and competitive bidding process, paying close attention to the obvious guidelines of transparency and cash or certified checks.

In spite of the obvious benefits to cash flow, don’t look for traditional media to jump on this bandwagon. After all, they were slow to recognize the internet as a threat, and slower still to respond to it, so their record of embracing innovation is spotty at best.

But even if they don’t drink, let the record show we led these horses to water.

###

When In Doubt, Bomb It Out!

First Afghanistan, Iraq

And Now The Moon?

Even Americans getting used to trading booming prosperity at home for diplomacy that goes boom abroad have been shocked to learn that the Obama administration has aggressive plans beyond Afghanistan and Iraq -- it’s going to bomb the moon.

The United States will bomb the moon on Friday, October 9, when a Centaur rocket from a NASA spacecraft will barrel into the moon at “twice the speed of a bullet,” according to a Scientific American website report.

Since the average bullet tools along at 2,200 feet per second when it leaves a gun barrel, figure that missile to be traveling at 1,500 miles per hour when it slams into the moon, followed shortly after by the launch vehicle on a sort of suicide photographic missions.

The Obama administration isn’t even bothering to cloak this surprise attack on the peaceful lunar surface with a semi-credible “weapons-of-mass-destruction” excuse. NASA contends the only purpose is to blast enough lunar soil high enough so scientists can see if there’s water in it.

Neutral observers were quick to label the administration’s claims as bogus, saying it was like attacking another nation’s warship fleet on the pretext that it was only to see if the ships would sink.

Earth-based groups who are convinced that there is extraterrestrial life on the moon called it a provocative action.

Although there is no accepted record of moon-launched projectiles hitting the Earth, some groups expect the moon to retaliate by launching impact debris far enough into space to strike Earth in a few orbits.

No sources were willing to call this possibility intelligent retaliation on the moon’s part, although several were willing to label it as a sort of celestial passive resistance. Others, who think there is an extraterrestrial base on the far side of the moon, worried that retaliation might take a much more directed approach as in “Okay, Earthies, you wanna play? Play with this!” (Similar viewpoints here.)

Constitutional experts were quick to point out that the Obama administration might be well within its rights as the Constitution gives Congress the power “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; “ and the planning moon bombing mission involves neither, unless water is actually discovered.

Other experts pooh-poohed the war and extraterrestrial aspects of the mission, saying an American flag has flown on the moon since 1969 and that the Obama administration is merely conducting ordinary weapons tests on American territory.

There was no word on whether the Obama administration was considering ground troops for the moon, although experts scoffed that the tremendous expense, hostile environment, unfamiliar terrain, lack of cooperative native population and no clearly defined goal would rule that out.

Others weren’t so sure, pointing out that the administration already had troops meeting those conditions in Afghanistan and was considering sending more.

###

Doofi, Maybe?

The Doofus Directorate

WASHINGTON – Obama administration officials neither confirmed nor denied talk of creating a Doofus Directorate to include whatever it is that the Federal Trade Commission does.

Washington insiders said the move may be bogged down in a struggle between those supporting a single “Doofus” in the name of the new agency and those insisting that if current staff is retained, there will be more than one Doofus on board, requiring the name Doofi Directorate.

The issue became public Monday, when the FTC, in its first revision of guidelines on endorsements and testimonials since 1980, said bloggers have to disclose any freebies connected with reviews of products or services. Well, they don’t have to exactly, since the FTC guidelines aren’t laws, just suggestions to avoid violating laws.

While ignoring the suggestions could invite a lawsuit, ignoring the FTC itself seems to have ample precedent, since the commission declares on several of its web pages that “As a consumer or business person, you may be more familiar with the work of the Federal Trade Commission than you think.”

Sidestepping the name issue, the proposed Doofus Directorate would continue several key FTC initiatives, including a measured approach to changes in the marketplace. FTC insiders, including many who could expect senior positions in the Doofus Directorate, point with pride to the 29 years it took the agency to update its guidelines.

“Others would have been rushed into hasty action,” said one senior official, “but we didn’t let the dawn of the personal computer age, the internet, cell phones, personal digital assistants, e-mail and the rest rattle our composure.”

Keeping its composure and whatever else the FTC does that the public may be more familiar with than it thinks isn’t free. In its Fiscal 2010 Budget Request, the FTC says it will take $287 million to run the joint, of which it will collect $129 million in fees, leaving taxpayers holding a $158 million bag.

Put another way, the core of the proposed Doofus Directorate will spend $158 to collect every $129 it gets, another source of pride for insiders.

“Why it’s as fine a piece of work as our Do Not Call efforts,” one said

The Do Not Call Registry now administered by the FTC, would be another key part of the Doofus Directorate. The registry allows consumers to avoid annoying telemarketing calls except annoying telemarketing calls from “political organizations, charities, and telephone surveyors,” or calls from “an existing business relationship” or calls you’ve agreed in writing to accept.

Since most of the annoying telemarketing calls are still permitted, critics have charged that the registry is similar to the FTC’s consumer complaint process. “Absolutely!” beamed one official clearly angling for a top job in the Doofus Directorate. “We collect consumer complaints and put them in a database, just as we put the names of those who don’t want annoying calls in a database.”

So then what happens? “Nothing,” the official smiled, “Absolutely nothing. As it says on our web site, ‘The FTC does not resolve individual consumer complaints.’”

###

Fish or Fish-Wrapping?

Universal Broadband,

R.I.P. Journalism?

Universal internet access to enhance journalism is being touted like universal love and has the same problems – sounds good until you try it.

A report surfaced in news outlets over the weekend from The Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy, which says we need to push broadband internet access for all Americans just as the Eisenhower administration pushed the interstate highway system.

Both may be examples of cheerleading for Going without a lot of thought about Getting There.

Eisenhower’s interstate highway system moves cars full of people and trucks full of goods all over the country. It also stymies passenger railroads, enables unpleasant relatives to visit and kills small town economies to feed regional ones.

Broadband internet services reach about two thirds of Americans, allowing them to pick and choose the information they want, when they want it – and also to turn the copyright and intellectual property laws into a chattering monkeyhouse. Artists and journalists who once said they did it only for love now get plenty of chances to prove it.

Most publishers do it just for money and would agree with the commission’s phrase that “we must find sustainable models that will support the kind of journalism that has informed Americans.” That was the kind of journalism that told Americans just enough to be sold in herds to advertisers who paid publishers by the head and handsomely.

It’s not the kind of journalism that dominates the internet in general and the broadband segment in particular, where the boast isn’t the bucks you make, but the audience you have. So bringing more and better broadband internet connections to all of America might not be a boost for either traditional journalists who worship at the dingy Altar of Truth or the lavish Altar of Profit.

In fact, it might be the last little nudge that pushes traditional journalism over the cliff.

See, all of journalism is based on the notion that you need a middleman between you and the events of the world. The middleman notices the events, interprets them and presents them to you – for a fee, please – and then presents you to advertisers, again for a fee.

Broadband internet access means you and advertisers both don’t necessarily need that middleman or his fee. Events that were once hard for individuals to observe, document, report and share widely aren’t any more. Just look at the number of “official” media articles referencing YouTube or Facebook. And if you doubt that advertisers no longer need the middleman, count the ads the next time you surf the net or read e-mail.

Universal broadband access might be a good thing, but it’s not necessarily one that will save the economic model of traditional journalism. It’s like the old saw that giving a man a fish will feed him for a day, but teaching him how to fish will feed him for a lifetime. Noble sentiments, unless you happen to make your living selling fish – or fish-wrapping.

###