New York Top 10 Googles

So, back on December 16, I was quoted in a brief article on top Google searches in New York City for 2014. The results had just been released that day, but I got to see them a day early (woohoo!) so that I could provide some comments on the results. 

I then had a brief telephone conversation with reporter Ivan Pereira, who wrote the article that appeared the next day in am New York (or is it amNew York? Hard to be sure of spacing and punctuation these days, it's ambiguous as it appears in print and both are used in the Wikipedia entry on the paper, and there also is the alternative of amNY as it's abbreviated and in its URL form, also as amny.com. Oh, and note the pun here, between AM as in ante meridiem, or morning, the paper being put out for the morning rush and often gone by the afternoon, and am as in the verb to be, as if to say that the paper is New York, or a representation of New York, the sort of Aristotelian statement that Alfred Korzybski was opposed to, although I am certain he would have appreciated the word play, and made room in his general semantics for the ways in which such double entendres can actually raise our consciousness of abstracting).

However you list the name of the paper, and it is actually a paper, you know, printed with ink on actual pulp, it bills itself on the cover, right under its name, as "Manhattan's Highest Daily Circulation Newspaper" (a fact I have not myself verified). The paper is distributed for free every weekday, and its distribution is numbered in the hundreds of thousands. According to the paper's Wikipedia entry,

The paper is primarily distributed in enclosed newspaper holders ("honor boxes") located on sidewalks and street corners with high pedestrian traffic. Workers ("hawkers," sporting a red amNewYork vest) are sometimes paid to station themselves near NYC transportation points and offer the free paper to passersby. As a result, the paper has had much success with morning and evening commuters.

The entry also mentions that the paper is owned by Cablevision, who bought it from the Tribune Company, along with the major newspaper, Newsday, in 2008.

So, here's the cover of the December 16th, 2014 issue:

Now, before continuing on with the article, let me share with you the Top-10 Trending Searches in New York City, New York in 2014, courtesy of Google:

1. World Cup Schedule
2. Avonte Oquendo
3. Donald Sterling
4. Flappy Bird
5. 2048
6. Missing Plane
7. Oscars 2014
8. True Detective
9. Ebola Symptoms
10. Frozen

and here are the Top-10 How To… Questions for New York City, New York in 2014:

1. How to harmonize
2. How to focus
3. How to network
4. How to photoshop
5. How to reupholster
6. How to listen
7. How to samba
8. How to cosplay
9. How to declutter
10. How to wow

and the Top-10 What is… Questions for New York City, New York in 2014:

1. What is ebola?
2. What is tryptophan?
3. What is ISIS?
4. What is Alibaba?
5. What is bitcoin?
6. What is POC?
7. What is squally?
8. What is edamame?
9. What is gamification?
10. What is quantum?

and finally, the Top-10 News and Events for New York City, New York in 2014:

1. World Cup Schedule
2. Missing Plane
3. Oscars 2014
4. Ebola Symptoms
5. Ferguson Missouri
6. Brazil vs. Germany
7. Golden Globes 2014
8. Mayweather vs. Maidana
9. Wimbledon 2014
10. Unemployment Extension

And now, here is Ivan Pereira's article:

Top Google searches in NYC in 2014

New Yorkers put their own unique spin on Google searches in 2014.

The search giant revealed today the top searches made within the five boroughs in 2014, and the World Cup came in first.

Although the tournament ranked second nationally, Google trends expert LaToya Drake said the energy around the event was different in New York, propelling it to the top.

“It became this collective viewing experience,” Drake said. “Even if you weren’t a soccer fan, you were being left out if you didn’t know the matches.”

Lance A. Strate, professor of communication and media studies at Fordham University, credited the city’s diversity for making the World Cup a top trender. At the same time, he said the No. 2 search topic of 2014, Avonte Oquendo, stressed New York’s camaraderie.

Although the 14-year-old autistic Queens boy ran away from his Long Island City school in the fall of 2013, New Yorkers’ concerns persisted through when his remains were found in January.

“In New York, people are tightly packed together, so there is a sense of involvement that you don’t see in other areas,” he said.

The Google data, which didn’t include New York search trends for December, found that the top “What is” query from in the city was “What is Ebola?” The city had its own case at the end of October when Dr. Craig Spencer was hospitalized with the disease following a humanitarian trip to Africa.

“Once it came to the states, there was a lot of fear,” Drake said. “People were looking for answers.”

As I said, a very brief article, especially when it's reduced to text as it is here, or even over on their site where the article is followed by the top ten lists, and also includes this image:

This is not a search box...

Ok, I added the caption myself, couldn't help but make the allusion to the famous painting by René Magritte, entitled La Trahison des Images (The Treachery of Images), but better known by the caption that is part of the painting, Ceci n’est pas une pipe (This is not a pipe):

But speaking of images, I hope you don't consider it treacherous or a pipe dream if I also share how the article looked on page 4 of the issue, continuing on to page 5:

So, now, you can see that the article is not the article is not the article, which brings to mind Korzybski's general semantics principle of non-identity, and the related notion that the map is not the territory, which is what Magritte was trying to get across. And am New York is not amNew York or amNY, etc. Along the same lines, the top Google searches for New York do not necessarily represent what was most important, most valuable, or even most perplexing to New Yorkers. It only tells us what it tells us, that is, what New Yorkers used the search engine to search for most often. To give one example, love is very important to most people, and often very puzzling, but I doubt it was a search term that would ever come up in a top ten list.

Simply put, what remains unsaid is what exactly do these lists represent? What are they indicators of? What are they symptoms of? It's interesting that no one is every quite able to put their fingers on the answer, and perhaps somewhat sad to say that most people never even raise the question. So all it amounts to is a bit of trivia, a bit more of what Neil Postman called amusing ourselves to death, and what I punningly altered to amazing ourselves to death, and I think this applies because we are in many ways amazed by the searches and the fact that the results can be tabulated in this way (and we should also be a bit concerned, given the fact that big data of this sort can be used to influence and manipulate us in myriad ways).

The results are also an example of what Daniel Boorstin termed a pseudo-event, a news item that does not report on something that actually happened, or would have happened had there been no news medium to make the report. Sure the data exists, but the whole idea of doing a story on top ten lists of Google searches is a brilliant way to promote Google itself, and the idea of the Google search itself, great public relations, but what is the actual news value. As Boorstin noted more than half a century ago, pseudo-events are designed to fit the format of the news media, so they are easy to report on, and make for good news items, but they are ambiguous, and in fact part of their attraction is in the fact that they beg the question, what does it mean?

So, when we come down to it, the top Google searches represent exactly what they say they are, the top Google searches. They are nothing more than that, they are what they are. Like an image, like a photograph, like data, they may be used as evidence of something, but make no claim or argument of statement, in and of themselves. But in saying, they are what they are, we also have to say, Ce n'est pas ce que c'est, this is not what it is. Or as Korzybski liked to put it, whatever you say something is, it is not.

Non-identity is the first non-Aristotelian principle of general semantics, and non-allness is the second, and that certainly applies to my quote in the article. I spoke to Ivan Pereira for about fifteen minutes on the phone, and gave him way more commentary than he could possibly use. That's a given when reporters reach out in this way, so this is not a complaint, merely a point of reference. And it's good to have an outlet like Blog Time Passing where I can fill you in on some of what was not included in the article.

Now, if you follow my blog, you know I've done this before, and it is particularly easy to do when my comments are provided via email. In this case, though, they were delivered orally via a telephonic exchange, so I have no recorded record of them. So I'll just fill in what I can remember, which includes the point I already made about the meaning of these top Google search results. Raising that question was obviously more than could be dealt with in the article.

Beyond that, what particularly stands out for me is on the subject of Avonte Oquendo. Pereira used my general point about New Yorker camaraderie as a product of population density, and I can understand why, as it speaks to the distinctive character of New Yorkers and the New York lifestyle, and does so in a positive manner. What he didn't include were my comments about the New York Metropolitan Area also having a very high proportion of individuals with autism, which is what made the story resonate so much locally. Of course, in making this point, I noted that the metropolitan area includes the New Jersey suburbs, which has the highest incidence of childhood autism in the nation, and pointed out that a large number of individuals who reside in the North Jersey area commute to work in Manhattan, and would therefore be doing those Google searches from work. This would be in addition to the relatively high rate of incidence within New York City itself. Now, I think this is a much more relevant, important, and even insightful point. So why wasn't it included? It's possible that New Yorker prejudice against Jersey played a role, but I doubt it. I think the problem was more aong media ecological lines, in that the point was too complicated for a format that favored a short and simple comment.

I also noted that New York had a case of Ebola, a point included in the article, but without any comment that I made (I'm sure I wasn't the only one to bring it up). I also remarked that many of the items in these lists were probably high up in Google searches nationally, but what seems to speak specifically to New Yorker concerns, given the hectic, fast-paced lifestyle, the constant level of stimulation, so much so that when New Yorkers go out to the country, it is not unheard of for individuals to have trouble sleeping because it's too quiet for them, and again the density and tight spaces that New Yorkers occupy, are search items about how to harmonize, focus, listen, and declutter.

There are some interesting items relating to economics and careers, such as Unemployment Extension, what is bitcoin, and how to network, and I think that how to reupholster speaks to the thriftiness and old world sensibility of New Yorkers. Pereira used my comment on the diversity of New Yorkers, which includes the fact that so there are so many immigrants and expatriates in residence, that probably made the World Cup trend higher here that in most of the rest of the country.

All of this is an attempt to interpret the data, a kind of exercise in Talmudic hermeneutics, but again, following Postman, the problem is one of decontextualization, that like TV, these lists appear in the context of no context, to use Postman's phrase, so we really don't know what these results represent about us. What is the reason that people do a Google search for a particular term? Under what conditions do people search or don't search for any particular word, phrase, or topic? What makes particular search items more or less popular? Are we more likely to search for things we hear, see, or read about on the news? Are we more likely to search for things we watch on television? Are we more likely to search for things we encounter online? Have mobile devices changed the way that we search? These and many more questions are the kind of context analysis that's needed to really make sense out of these reports on top Google searches of the year. 

This also relates to the third non-Aristotelian principle of self-reflexiveness. Are the top Google search terms a map of a territory, and if so, what's the territory? Or are they a map of a map, or a map of a map of a map?

And of course, it follows that the terms we search for have much to do with the search results that are returned, which is after all a variation on what good old Marshall McLuhan said, the medium is the message. And we don't need Google to tell us that!

Time Metaphors

It seems only fitting here on Blog Time Passing that I take up the concept of time, at least from time to time. And time being an abstract and intangible phenomenon, we tend to relate to it through more concrete and familiar metaphors. And one of the most common, at least in western cultures, is the metaphor, time is money.

There is a significant discussion of this metaphor in the important book by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, which was required reading back in the good old days in Neil Postman's media ecology doctoral program.





I added for good measure Ray Gozzi's masterful meditation on the media ecology of metaphor, The Power of Metaphor in the Age of Electronic Media, one of the first books to be published in the media ecology book series I edited for Hampton Press. That series is no longer active, since Hampton no longer accepts new books for publication, but the future of media ecology book publishing is a topic for another post.

Getting back to the time is money metaphor, Lakoff and Johnson note that it, like many of our most important metaphors, is so deeply embedded in our language that we no longer recognize it as a metaphor. The fact that the metaphor is imperceptible is what gives it such enormous power over the way that we experience reality, or at least that portion of reality that the metaphor covers. In this case, that's time.

For example, without thinking much about it, we say that we can spend time, save time, lend time, spare time (brother, can you spare a time?), borrow time, invest time, budget time, and spend your time profitably, not to mention ask if it's worth your while or how much time will it cost you? More generally, you can give time, take time, waste time, use time, lose time, put aside time, run out of time, have time, have enough time, have time left, etc.

Lakoff and Johnson note that there are two basic metaphors that underline time is money: that time is a valuable commodity and that time is a limited resource. To this, I would add that there is a more basic metaphor at the root of this, that time is a thing, rather than, say, a process or event. 

This brings to mind Alfred Korzybski's critique against treating concepts as things, one of the key elements informing his discipline of general semantics. It also brings to mind Benjamin Lee Whorf's investigations into linguistic relativism, and his observation that while western languages are noun-oriented, which goes along with treating phenomena as things, Hopi and Navajo languages are verb-oriented, therefore providing a worldview in which phenomena tend to be experienced as events rather than than objects. Whorf makes the point that this view is more consistent with our understanding of reality following Einstein's paradigm shift in physics than is the western worldview. Of course, our mistaken view of reality has led us to try to capture and control reality, which is the basis of our science and technology.





Viewing time as a thing in turn leads to the idea that time can be measured, and this begins with calendars, a point that Harold Innis makes in passing in his discussion of the development of ancient civilizations. But what cements the notion of time as a quantity is the invention of the mechanical clock in 13th century Europe, which also sets us on a course towards increasing mechanization in general, leading to the printing press with movable type, and eventually the industrial revolution, as Lewis Mumford makes clear.





So, we can see the trajectory of western civilization has driven us towards the objectification of time, experiencing time as an object that can be measured, captured, and manipulated. And this leads to a very nervous, almost frantic relationship with time, as opposed to more traditional understandings, which include the sense that it will happen in time, in its own good time, a nicely environmental, dare I say media ecological metaphor, not to mention the realization that all things must pass, that to everything there is a season and a time to every purpose under heaven as Ecclesiastes states, and Henry David Thoreau's lovely quote, time is but the stream I go a'fishing in.

So it comes as no surprise that a couple of years ago two University of Toronto scholars concluded that the time is money metaphor is not the key to living a more satisfying life. In a news brief entitled, Time=Money=Less Happiness, Rotman study finds, subtitled "Putting a monetary value on your time isn't the route to happiness," we are informed of the following conclusion:

A new study shows people who put a price on their time are more likely to feel impatient when they're not using it to earn money. And that hurts their ability to derive happiness during leisure activities.

Treating time as money can actually undermine your well-being," said Sanford DeVoe, one of two researchers at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management who carried out the study.

Now, it is significant that this comes from a management school, aka a business school. Much of what management is about is making money. More importantly, the study of management may be said to begin with Frederick Winslow Taylor, and the development of scientific management in the late 19th century. Scientific management is all about the quantification of time in the pursuit of ever greater efficiencies. Indeed, scientific management is the beginning of what came to be known as efficiency experts. No wonder that Neil Postman identified Taylor and Taylorism as the turning point in transforming American culture from a technocracy to a technopoly. This of course builds on Jacques Ellul's pioneering analysis of technique in modern societies.





Not that the contemporary field of management studies is all about scientific management and efficiency, as there has come to be increasing emphasis on human relations, systems approaches to organizations, leadership, and much more, a good deal of it pioneered by Peter Drucker, who is considered the true founder of management scholarship, and a media ecologist to boot!





Anyway, here's a little more from the University of Toronto press release:

Professor DeVoe and PhD student Julian House based their conclusions on three experiments. In each, a sub-group of participants was primed, through survey questions, to think about their time in terms of money. This group subsequently showed greater impatience and lower satisfaction during leisure activities introduced during the experiments. However, they also reported more enjoyment and less impatience when they were paid during one of those activities, which was listening to music.

The experiments' results demonstrate that thinking about time in terms of money "changes the way you actually experience time," said DeVoe. "Two people may experience the same thing, over the same amount of time, yet react to it very differently."

With growth over the last several decades in jobs paid by the hour, it's important for people to be "mindful," of the impact this can have on their leisure enjoyment, he says, and allow themselves "to really smell the roses."

I can't argue with their conclusions. I can only wonder if the study was the best use of their own time? Or was it just another example of behavioral science research yielding trivial results that simply confirm what we already know? Feel free to let me know what you think, that is, if you have the time...

Purge the Merge! Part 2

So, in my previous Purge the Merge! post, I commented on the negative impact of the merger/takeover of TimeWarner Cable and Comcast, and as if that was not enough, then came the proposed acquisition of DirecTV by AT&T. And this time, the request for a comment came from the E-Commerce Times, and here was my response:

The proposed acquisition of DirectTV by AT&T comes on the heels of the proposed purchase of TimeWarner Cable by Comcast, and both moves represent a consolidation of the telecommunications industry that favors corporations, not consumers. While there might be some gains in efficiency of service from the mergers, they give the companies more power, more control over pricing and over the content they provide.

The loss of competition, even indirect competition, in any industry is bad news for consumers, and for citizens. It is true that the differences between cable, satellite, and phone service have all but dissolved, and because of the historic bias of these services, telephone companies have fallen behind cable companies in providing content, that is, television programming and other forms of entertainment. Acquiring the second largest Satellite TV company would help AT&T catch up as a content distributor, but at the cost of consumer choice regarding which services they might obtain.

The most troublesome issue in all this is the continued assault on net neutrality, and consolidation of the telecommunications industry can only the strengthen the hand of the corporations that are trying to undermine the founding principles of the internet as a public service, choke off services, channels, and sites that they do not have a financial agreement with or do not care for, and give special fast service to those that they favor, either economically or politically.

The FCC is the only government agency empowered to regulate the telecommunications industry, and during Reagan's presidency it was stripped of much of its powers, and has never quite recovered, but it still has the potential to slow down or maybe even stop these acquisitions. 

Now, let's take a look at the actual article that was published, entitled AT&T May Be Suiting Up to Battle Comcast, by Erika Morphy, dated May 13th. The article begins with this highlighted paragraph:

If AT&T were to acquire DirecTV, it would be bad news for consumers, said Entrevo Managing Director Topher Morrison, author of Collaboration Economy. "The advantages are almost all for AT&T, and very few for the customers. They will bill this as their ability to provide better service and wider selection, but that's just a fancy way of saying they will charge the consumer more."

It then begins in earnest with the following explanation:

AT&T has been negotiating to buy DirecTV for close to US$50 billion, based on reports that surfaced Monday. The deal, which has not been confirmed by the companies, could close within a few weeks.

The current option on the table, according to anonymous sources, would be largely a stock trade but it would include some cash, with AT&T offering in the low- to mid-$90s per share for DirecTV. That would be roughly a 20 percent premium over its current stock price, and it would value the company at close to $48 billion.

Some sources have put the reported offer at $100 per share, but also have noted that the amount of the offer and other terms related to the deal could well change.

The merger would be the largest in the telecom sector in years, and if it were to go through, it would significantly realign the players in the industry, placing AT&T in an optimal position to compete against Comcast, which currently is trying to get its own $42 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable past regulators.

Now, how about a colorful metaphor from a reputable academic source (but no, not me):

"Think of it as Gorgon upscaling to meet Godzilla, otherwise known as 'Comcast,'" said Rich Hanley, associate professor and director of the graduate journalism program at Quinnipiac University.

"The DirecTV acquisition would give AT&T a steady revenue stream and more customers to upsell other services to present a suite of entertainment and broadband offerings that can help in its battle with Comcast," he told the E-Commerce Times.

The regulator issues could take a while to work through, he added, "so don't expect anything new any time soon."

Not a very critical view, maybe even a little sympathetic to AT&T. Indeed, at this point a new heading appears, "A Regulatory Obstacle Course," and here we see a glimmer of hope for the situation:

AT&T certainly can expect just as rigorous an examination from the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission as Comcast is receiving.

Regulators will be seeking to ensure that an AT&T-DirecTV combination won't increase prices or lead to restricted options for consumers, Marc Price, CTO for the Americas at Openet, told the E-Commerce Times.

Some reasons regulators might be more likely to favorably view this merger include the emerging competition for video content from Amazon, Apple and Netflix, as well as the prospect of nationwide services from Comcast, he said. "Competition will ensure choice and competitive pricing."

In fact, one reason AT&T likely is pursuing this idea -- a reason that could become a talking point as it negotiates with regulators -- is that if it wants to be competitive, AT&T will need a nationwide video delivery service to complement U-Verse, Price pointed out.

"DirecTV's satellite service provides this capability," he said.

And now, on to the next section, "The Question of Net Neutrality," and an excerpt from the comments that I provided:

However, that analysis assumes that telecom providers would be unable to restrict consumers from viewing content from any source, including a competitor's.

Acquiring the second-largest satellite TV company would help AT&T catch up as a content distributor, but at the cost of consumer choice regarding available services, Lance Strate, professor of communications and media studies at Fordham, told the E-Commerce Times.

The consolidation of the telecommunications industry "can only strengthen the hand of the corporations that are trying to undermine the founding principles of the Internet as a public service, choke off services, channels and sites that they do not have a financial agreement with or do not care for, and give special fast service to those that they favor, either economically or politically," he said.

 And that's it for me, but there is one last section to the article, one that echoes my sentiments, "The Consumer Loses":

Even leaving the ongoing battle surrounding Net neutrality out of the equation, a DirecTV acquisition is bad news for consumers, according to Topher Morrison, author of the book Collaboration Economy, and managing director of Entrevo.

"The advantages are almost all for AT&T, and very few for the customers. They will bill this as their ability to provide better service and wider selection, but that's just a fancy way of saying they will charge the consumer more," he explained.

Consumers don't even need DirecTV anymore, he said, pointing to the very competitors that are likely motivating AT&T in this move.

"I can watch every show I want online through collaboration apps like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime," said Morrison. "AT&T needs to ask themselves how they can partner up with their customers—not their competitors."

And hats off to Morrison, really, I couldn't have said it better myself. Why not see your customers as partners and collaborators, rather than products and patsies? 

And of course, the point here is not in how much I get quoted, I just provide my raw comments so that they don't go to waste, and also to show how journalism works. But the important point here is the disservice being done to us as consumers, and more importantly to us as citizens, by all this merger-mania.

Newton Minow, where have you gone? The sharks in the water are circling all around us!

Purge the Merge!

So, back in February, I was asked to comment on the proposed merger between US cable television giants Comcast and TimeWarner Cable, essentially Comcast's acquisition of TWC, the latter an independent company with no ties to media giant TimeWarner since 2009. Comcast, on the other hand, is a major media corporation, not quite on the scale of TimeWarner proper, but the owner of NBCUniversal.

The request for a comment came from the St. Paul Pioneer Press in Minnesota, where Comcast is king. For my part, I live in TimeWarner Cable territory. But that's besides the point, because the question of the benefits and costs of mergers such as this one transcends localities. But for the record, here's the comment I gave on the deal:

Consumers generally do not have a choice of which cable company to use, the companies are granted monopolies within given territories, so the short-term impact will be negligible. The long term impact will be negative, however, in that in the absence of strong regulation, monopolies have a tendency to overprice their products and services. The merger also makes it harder than ever to protect net neutrality, as Comcast becoming even more powerful will be in a better position to restrict access to certain parts of the internet, and charge more for that access, to in effect create a tier system for online access similar to the system used for cable channels. And since Comcast owns NBCUniversal, there are conflicts of interest between the corporation's role as content provider and carrier that are intensified by this expansion, and further impact net neutrality. The one saving grace in all this is that this trend may result in more effort being put into alternative delivery systems, such as fiber optics from telephone companies, satellite, perhaps an expansion of Internet2 to home delivery, and maybe even a renewed form of over-the-air digital broadcasting.

Now, let me take you to the actual article, written by Julio Ojeda-Zapata, and published on February 13th of this year. Entitled, Comcast-TimeWarner Deal Has Some History in the Twin Cities, the article obviously has a local slant, and you can read it over in its local environment by clicking on the link, or read it here on my more New York Metropolitan Area-based site.

Here's how it begins:

Comcast's proposed Time Warner Cable takeover, announced Thursday, would create a mega-national cable company. Whether that deal would have any immediate impact in the Twin Cities remains unclear, though, especially since Time Warner no longer has a foothold here.

Time Warner once offered its services in the city of Minneapolis and the west-metro suburbs, but Comcast took over that territory in August 2006 as part of a complicated $17.6 billion deal. At that time, the companies bought up the assets of bankrupt cable company Adelphia and then swapped territories around the country to consolidate their respective holdings.

That's when Comcast seized control of virtually the entire metro area, minus small pockets served by other companies like Charter Communications, which still operates in the region.

"We fought very hard to put the Twin Cities together, finally," Comcast CEO Brian Roberts said at the time.

And the company is committed at the corporate level as well. It announced last month it is keeping its 700-employee regional headquarters in downtown St. Paul through 2024. From the offices across the Mississippi from downtown's core, Comcast oversees operations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Kansas and Missouri.

For customers, the merger with Time Warner shouldn't significantly alter the operational landscape in the Twin Cities, at least in the short term.

And this is where I come in, with the long and the short of it:

"Consumers generally do not have a choice of which cable company to use, (since these) are granted monopolies within given territories, so the short-term impact will be negligible," said Lance Strate, professor of communications and media studies at Fordham University in New York City.

"The long term impact will be negative, however, in that in the absence of strong regulation, monopolies have a tendency to overprice their products and services," Strate added. "The merger also makes it harder than ever to protect net neutrality, as Comcast becoming even more powerful will be in a better position to restrict access to certain parts of the Internet, and charge more for that access."

 And do note that net neutrality has become even more of an issue over the intervening months as the Federal Communications Commission has proven to be less than vigorous in defense of this basic principle regarding online communication, especially in the face of attempts to undermine and eliminate net neutrality on the part of internet providers, i.e., cable and telephone companies.

But let's get back to the rest of the article, which is more concerned with competition among content and connectivity providers:

Barry Randall, a financial-portfolio manager in St. Paul for Boston-based Covestor Investment Management, recently saw his Comcast bill exceed $200 for the first time. He does not believe the proposed merger would have an appreciable short-term effect on that score, or anything else involving Comcast in this area.

But he does think Comcast is running scared because of long-term trends. He notes how more and more people are dumping cable TV for online-streaming options, and how wireless carriers like Verizon and AT&T are building mobile broadband networks that are comparable to Comcast's Xfinity broadband Internet service in raw performance.

Randall smelled the desperation when he visited a Comcast store in Highland Park to pay his cable bill.

The company has been pushing its next-generation X1 television equipment, and "I could see the marketing effort first-hand," he said. "Anything that reduces the number of remotes in the living room is going to get a try, even while Comcast is subject to a changing competitive landscape."

Local observers have complained for years about the region's paucity of competing Internet providers with pricing and performance similar to Comcast's Internet access, a scenario not likely to change if and when Comcast gets regulatory approval to acquire Time Warner.

 While cable companies are given monopolies over their territories, here in the New York Metropolitan Area they compete with satellite TV services, and telephone companies. But it's easy to forget that other parts of the company don't have as many options as we do, just as, for those of us of a certain age, when we were growing up, we had access to seven VHF channels, including the three major commercial networks and PBS, whereas in other parts of the county, outside of similar major markets, folks might have had access to only one or two networks, and one or two local stations. Anyway, here's how the article ends:

David Lutchen, who runs Lutchen Computer Services in Cottage Grove, said Internet options other than Comcast border on the pitiful.

Verizon does not offer its fiber-optic-based Internet service in this area. CenturyLink does provide phone-based DSL service, but the infrastructure to support the service in Lutchen's area is spotty at best, he said, and connection speeds pale compared to those of Comcast broadband.

"We just don't have a very steady CenturyLink option," he said.

Comcast, in defending the proposed merger, said it will divest itself of several million cable subscribers to allay competitive concerns, and to make this deal more palatable for federal regulators, which need to sign off on it. Some such subscribers could be in the Twin Cities.

And hey, you can't blame them for focusing on the local angle, and the immediate impact on consumers. But we also need to talk about the large scale and long term impact on the media landscape, and the harmful effects of industry consolidation. 

Or to put it succinctly, let's purge the merge!

Giant Speaking Fees-Fi-Fo-Fum

So, back on December 18th, Palash Ghosh published an article over on the International Business Times entitled, Talk Is Not Cheap: Why Do Ex-Politicians Earn Huge Money From Making Speeches? And as you might have guessed, I'm bringing this up here on my blog of record because I'm quoted therein.

Here's how the piece begins:

Former Secretary of State, Senator, first lady (and potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate) Hillary Clinton may currently be “unemployed,” but that doesn't mean she isn't raking in big bucks. Following a long tradition of ex-lawmakers, Clinton earns hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars annually by the simple act of delivering speeches in front of adoring audiences across the nation and the world. As a high-profile global figure and a potentially history-making first female president of the U.S., Clinton commands handsome fees on the speaker circuit.

The Washington Post reported that she has received as much as $200,000 for lecturing a group of real estate developers in Dallas, adding another lucrative check from a crowd of deep-pocketed private equity managers in Los Angeles. The New York Times (usually a big supporter of liberal Democrats) slammed Hilary not only for taking big money for her speaking engagements but also for the lame quality of her canned deliveries. “For about $200,000, Mrs. Clinton will offer pithy reflections and Mitch Albom-style lessons from her time as the nation’s top diplomat,” the Times scoffed, adding examples of her bon mots: “leadership is a team sport,” “you can’t win if you don’t show up,” and the immortal “a whisper can be louder than a shout.”

But Hillary Clinton is a minor-leaguer compared to her husband–ex-President Bill Clinton has received as much as $750,000 for one speech (before an audience of executives and employees of telecom firm Ericsson in Hong Kong) and has raked in at least $89 million (and perhaps more than $100 million) from similar appearances around the world since he left the White House 12 years ago. The New York Daily News recently reported that Clinton snagged a cool half-a-million dollars for a 45-minute speech at a 90th birthday party for Israeli President Shimon Peres. That comes out to about $11,000 per minute–a princely sum paid out by Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael, the Jewish National Fund in Israel.

In addition, a newspaper publishing firm in impoverished Nigeria even coughed up $700,000 for the privilege of listening to the former president’s dulcet tones. Moreover, Clinton pocketed $550,000 for a speech given at a business conference in Shanghai. To be fair, it is unclear how much of this cash goes directly into his hands – since some of these earnings are transferred to his William J. Clinton Foundation and are subject to complex tax and income-reporting rules and laws.

At this point, I just want to note that this practice first became controversial when Ronald Reagan received $2 million for a speaking gig in Japan less than a year after leaving the presidency, so it's not exactly a Clintonian phenomenon. Anyway, not that there's anything wrong with it...  Or is there?

It is important to remember that ex-politicians who earn money from speeches are not violating any laws–although questions of ethics and integrity may abound. In addition, post-career politicians making speeches is nothing new–what has changed is the amount of money being paid out, and their relative lack of scruples about whom they accept fees from, said Dr. Lance Strate, professor of communication and media studies and associate chair for undergraduate studies at Fordham University in New York, in an interview. “Many believe that stricter regulation is needed to rein in such activities, and there is no question that the potential for conflict of interest exists,” said Strate.

So, there I go again. Ethics, you know? And maybe, propriety? The dignity and respect of the office? I know, I know, silly of me. Anyway, let's hear more about Clinton:

In any case, CNN reported that Bill Clinton averages about $189,000 per speech–somewhat less than his annual salary as president in the 1990s. In 2011 alone, the 42nd president took home about $13.4 million from 54 speeches (averaging out to almost a quarter-million dollars per event). His earning capacity has been escalating ever upwards–he made $10.7 million in 2010, and $7.5 million in 2009. The magnitude of Clinton’s enormous wealth came to light only because his wife’s status as a federal official required her to disclose her family's income statements.

Bill Clinton himself addressed his sudden newfound riches. "I never had any money until I got out of the White House, you know, but I've done reasonably well since then," he said in 2010 during a forum in Cape Town, South Africa. “Reasonably well” means tens of millions of dollars in earnings (and counting).

And hey, we all love a rags-to-riches story here in the USA, but many of us think that the presidential salary alone is pretty darn nice. And anyway, the question suggested by the article is a good one, what exactly is reasonable, when it comes to speaking fees, and more generally to earnings?

A Canadian-based communication executive defended Clinton’s huge income. "The work [Clinton] does around the world has given him a very unique perspective. Not just a former president's perspective, but also the very unique perspective from his philanthropic work," Norman Stowe, who arranged an economic conference with both Clinton and his successor George W. Bush, told CNN. "[Clinton is] really a gifted speaker. He speaks in a language that everyone can understand."

No question about it, Bill Clinton is good. A regular rock star of public speaking. But is there a difference between being a rock star or movie star or TV star, and being an ex-president or public official?

Even political luminaries who failed in their presidential bids ride this very green gravy train for all it’s worth. Rudolph Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, who ascended to global fame in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attacks, attracts fees of up to $270,000 per speech. In 2007, during his failed run for the Republican presidential nomination, Giuliani revealed that he had earned $9.2 million over the past 13 months in speaking fees alone, or about $700,000 per month. Former Vice President Al Gore has also maintained an extremely busy and profitable “retirement” from politics. Among his many endeavors, the ultra-environmentalist makes as much as $156,000 per speaking engagement.

Former President George W. Bush is no slouch either. Generating as much as $110,000 per talk, Bush has reeled in at least $15 million from making speeches since he left office, according to the Center for Public Integrity. In some instances, Clinton and Bush–despite their different politics–have even made joint appearances, including dual speeches in New York before the wealth management subsidiary of Swiss bank UBS.

And now, another question: Is it at all reasonable to expect that if a former president or public official is making big bucks from public speaking, that their remarks be made, well, public? After all, after leaving office, they continue to be paid and subsidized by the American people.

CPI reported that most of Bush's speeches are closed to the media–as such, he has been criticized for undertaking such projects. “I find it puzzling,” Stanford University presidential historian Robert Dallek told iWatch News. “[Bush] says he wants to keep a low profile. What is he doing except enriching himself? It sounds like it’s self-serving. It’s following the good old American adage to make as much as you can.”

Another presidential historian, Julian Zelizer at Princeton University, also blasted Bush. “It’s one thing to stay out of the public realm, which George Bush has said he wants to do,” he said. “But then he goes on the speaking circuit and makes enormous amounts of money giving lectures mostly to corporate groups and other select audiences. Some Americans can find this distasteful.” Zelizer added that the mixture of political influence and big money presents some dangers. “We’re in an era where there are countless fears about money and politics,” he said. “I think former presidents have to be careful about what they’re doing with their speeches. For some people it’s another version of the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street," the hive of Washington's lobbyists.

And as previously noted in the article, this phenomenon is not limited to ex-presidents alone. Here are some more examples:

As you go down the hierarchy of former political bigwigs, you will find even more people eager to make speeches with their hands out–although the income they demand is typically proportional to how much power and influence they once enjoyed.

Bush's former second-in-command, Dick Cheney–who, ironically, was once represented by the same speakers’ agency as his predecessor, Gore–gets $75,000 a pop, according to Politico. Other former big-time politicians, including billionaire (and failed Republican presidential candidate) Mitt Romney and his ideological opposite, Democrat Howard Dean, also score big bucks on the speakers circuit. Even a relative nobody like former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has made $2 million from speeches since he quit Barack Obama's administration in 2011.

But what's the real significance of all this? Well, here's my take on it:

But why would anyone pay such huge amounts of money for what is typically a canned speech written by others? Strate explained that a variety of institutions and organizations, both foreign and domestic, are willing and able to pay the very high speaking fees of leading American politicians and former officeholders. “For some, there is the basic interest in being associated with a celebrity, the prestige that comes with the presence and participation of a famous and influential individual,” Strate said. “This is the case for universities, for example.”

For other groups, those with political or commercial agendas, or those outside of the United States, the mere presence of a well-known political leader amounts to a tacit endorsement of the organization or nation, a sign of approval, Strate added. “And while there may not be any quid pro quo, there is a certain reciprocity that may be gained when a political figure is paid a large amount of money for giving a talk,” he noted.

Certain ethics rules bar officeholders in various parts of government from accepting speaking fees, but nothing prevents them becoming walking cash registers after they return to private life. Bill Clinton, despite his various personal deficiencies and scandals, remains a highly popular and admired global figure – thus, many corporations and other organizations eagerly seek him out. Strate suggests that any links to Clinton might impart to organizations “some benefit from connections that are made” as well as gaining the ability “to make other connections through introductions–this is the ultimate in networking.”

Another attraction of inviting former presidents to speak at major events is that the people who pay premiums, say, via sponsorship, get VIP access to the former politicians. “And that offers a range of mutually beneficial opportunities where both parties make contacts to advance their agendas,” said Jamie Chandler, a political scientist at Hunter College in New York.

With respect to Hillary Clinton, she must make a sharp separation between personal income drawn from making speeches and funds raised for her (likely) 2016 presidential run. “Wealthy candidates may use their personal finances for their campaigns, but right now Hilary is campaigning without actually being a candidate, while separate exploratory committees would be doing the fund-raising,” Strate explained. Chandler further noted that for potential 2016 candidates like Hillary Clinton and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, speaking events build their name recognition even higher and also help connect them to big donors.

There are more issues that come up for anyone who might consider running for office or other subsequent public service:

However, in the event Clinton takes money from lobbyists during her time as a "private citizen"–and then enters the White House in 2017, questions could be raised if she subsequently were to push for any legislation favorable to said lobby groups.

Dr. Jeanne Zaino, professor of political science at Iona College in New Rochelle, N.Y., noted that there have been cases in which former officials have gone on to earn lucrative speaking fees only to find later that such activities posed difficulties when they hoped to re-enter public life. Case in point – in 2009 it was reported Obama’s choice for secretary of health and human services was former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D. But Daschle eventually withdrew his name from consideration as a result of controversy regarding his payment of taxes. “But in the context of that appointment it was also revealed that he had received almost $400,000 in speaking fees from health-related groups,” Zaino stated. “The revelation raised questions regarding a potential conflict of interest for someone who might be in charge of the president’s efforts regarding health care reform.”

Look, there is no question that ex-presidents and other former public officials are free to seek new forms of employment after leaving office, to make money, earn a living, etc. It's just that, having served as a public official, which is a privilege after all, there is some responsibility to uphold the dignity of that office even once it is vacated, and some responsibility to be mindful of the person's public image.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both of whom are 67, have many years left to keep fattening their already overstuffed bank accounts–not only from making speeches, but from a pension, income from consulting, book deals, being associated with a law firm, corporation, or university, and in many other ways, Strate noted.

Barack Obama presents an interesting case–wildly popular with a segment of the U.S. (and foreign) population, the first non-white U.S. president has already ascended to the lofty status of super-celebrity and historical figure. Thus, potentially, he could earn untold millions from speaking fees for the next two or three decades. But Strate doesn't think Obama will embark on that route to guaranteed riches. “Given his own self-consciousness about his place in history, and what he means to so many people, he may show more restraint than others have, and that may limit his earnings,” Strate proposed.

Of course, not everyone agrees, and only time will tell:

But Chandler thinks Obama could potentially break the bank after he departs the Oval Office. “I expect given the historical nature of his elections, many will clamor for his appearances,” he said. “But ultimately this depends on how much speaking [Obama] wants to do. George W. Bush, for example, is not as active as Clinton in this area because he chose to take a lower profile in his post-presidency."

And putting things into a historical context is always helpful:

Speaking of past presidents, Chandler explained that Harry Truman gave speeches after his term in office, but he did not accept money for such efforts. “He wouldn’t endorse any products or accept positions on boards,” Chandler noted. “He did take fees for consulting, but not lobbying.”

The interesting thing is that Truman left office without the benefit of the lucrative pensions that current former presidents pull in, Chandler added. Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the Past Presidents Act in 1958, which established the presidential pensions system. Eisenhower himself made some money from speaking fees, and he also spoke at major political events, including the 1964 Republican National Convention.

What remains clear is that big-name politicians will continue to draw huge fees from speaking engagements.

That's how the article concludes, and it's probably true. It seems that the big speaking fees have gone hand-in-hand with the rise of television. Perhaps this is a response to electronic mediation, so that the value of actual physical presence increases dramatically once we become so inundated with parasocial interaction? No doubt, it is a facet of television's culture of celebrity, as it has been extended into realms previously off limits to it, like politics and religion. And at least so far, the further evolution of the electronic media environment via the internet, mobile technologies, cable and satellite, seems to have only intensified the trend.

Now, to get a better sense of what I had to say on the topic and the larger context out of which my comments were taken, as well as to get some insight on how journalists pick out a few quotes from a larger interview, here is the original Q & A conducted by email with Ghosh's questions and the answers I provided:

Ghosh: Prominent former US politicians, including Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, George W. Bush, Al Gore, and others, are raking in huge amounts of cash in speaking fees. Generally speaking, who is paying out this money and why? What do they get in exchange for these people making their canned speeches?

Me: A variety of institutions and organizations, both foreign and domestic, are willing and able to pay the very high speaking fees of leading American politicians and former office holders. For some, there is the basic interest in being associated with a celebrity, the prestige that comes with the presence and participation of a famous and influential individual. This is the case for universities, for example. For other groups, those with political or commercial agendas, or those outside of the United States, the mere presence of a well known political leader amounts to a tacit endorsement of the organization or nation, a sign of approval. And while there may not be any quid pro quo, there is a certain reciprocity that may be gained when a political figure is paid a large amount of money for giving a talk.

Ghosh: Are US politicians banned from making money from outside sources while they’re in office?

Me: There are ethics rules for office holders in various parts of government that do not allow them to accept speaking fees, and even private citizens who are running for office tend to avoid earning personal income in this way because of the potential harm to the candidate's image. Of course, fundraising for campaign contributions is another story altogether.

Ghosh: Bill Clinton has reportedly made at least $89 million in speaking fees since he left office in 1999. When he talks in front of a corporation, is he working behind the scenes to make deals with foreign companies through his international business contacts?

Me: Probably not, because as he learned all too well, there are no secrets in our contemporary media environment, at least none that can be kept for very long. But it may be enough for the corporation to obtain the prestige of association, the implicit approval that comes with his presence, and perhaps some benefit from connections that are made, and the ability to make other connections through introductions—this is the ultimate in networking.

Ghosh: With respect to Hilary Clinton – if she runs for president in 2016 (which many are saying she will), is the money she’s making now from speeches tantamount to “future campaign contributions”?

Me: There is a clear separation between personal income and campaign monies, in some way similar to the distinction between personal and corporate assets. Wealthy candidates may use their personal finances for their campaigns, but right now Hilary is campaigning without actually being a candidate, while separate exploratory committees would be doing the fundraising.

Ghosh: Can an ex-politician or future politician take money from lobbyist groups?

Me: There are all sorts of ways that lobbyist groups can provide funding and benefits for politicians, former, present, and future, and it is not unheard of for someone leaving government to work on behalf of an interest group or lobby.

Ghosh: Are these former (or future) politicians breaking any ethics rules or even laws by taking money for making speeches?

Me: Not necessarily, but there are ethical questions that can, have, and should be raised, for former politicians about the harm done to the dignity of the office they once held, for future ones about the harm done to their chances of being elected.

Ghosh: Are these lucrative speeches immune from any regulation or campaign finance laws? How about the possibility of potential conflict of interest?

Me: Many believe that stricter regulation is needed to reign in such activities, and there is no question that the potential for conflict of interest exists.

Ghosh: Do these politicians list their speaking fees on their tax statements as income – or do they find some clever way of hiding their true earnings?

Me: Only the IRS knows for sure, I imagine. If the individual has a foundation, trust, nonprofit organization, or business where the funds can be channeled, they might avoid having the fees listed on their returns, yes.

Ghosh: For people like Clinton and Bush, are speeches their sole source of income in “retirement” or do they generate additional dollars from elsewhere?

Me: The pension that former presidents receive would be more than adequate for the vast majority of Americans, they can receive income for consulting, being associated with a law firm, corporation, or university, and in many other ways.

Ghosh: Even lower profile political figures like former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs make millions from speeches. What influence or importance can such marginal figures like him possibly have?

Me: It's all a matter of degrees of separation. Unlike the six degrees most of us have on average, someone like Gibbs has direct contact with many high profile figures, and at one degree of separation with many more. Networking yields access.

Ghosh: Given that Barack Obama is a historic figure, once he leaves office, do you expect him to break Bill Clinton’s record of huge earnings on the lecture circuit? Will companies and other clamor for his appearances?

Me: He certainly has the potential to do so, because of his symbolic value as the first African-American president, beyond his status having held the highest office in the nation. But given his own self-consciousness about his place in history, and what he means to so many people, he may show more restraint than others have, and that may limit his earnings.

Ghosh: Did old-time politicians like Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower also make money from speeches after their terms were over? Or is this a relatively recent development?

Me: Speeches and lectures are nothing new, and in the 19th century were a major form of entertainment. What is new is the amount of money being paid, and the relative lack of restraint on the part of former politicians about whom they accept fees from. A variety of institutions and organizations, both foreign and domestic, are willing and able to pay the very high speaking fees of leading American politicians and former office holders. For some, there is the basic interest in being associated with a celebrity, the prestige that comes with the presence and participation of a famous and influential individual. This is the case for universities, for example. For other groups, those with political or commercial agendas, or those outside of the United States, the mere presence of a well known political leader amounts to a tacit endorsement of the organization or nation, a sign of approval. And while there may not be any quid pro quo, there is a certain reciprocity that may be gained when a political figure is paid a large amount of money for giving a talk.

Ghosh: Are US politicians banned from making money from outside sources while they’re in office?

Me: There are ethics rules for office holders in various parts of government that do not allow them to accept speaking fees, and even private citizens who are running for office tend to avoid earning personal income in this way because of the potential harm to the candidate's image. Of course, fundraising for campaign contributions is another story altogether.

Ghosh: Bill Clinton has reportedly made at least $89 million in speaking fees since he left office in 1999. When he talks in front of a corporation, is he working behind the scenes to make deals with foreign companies through his international business contacts?

Me: Probably not, because as he learned all too well, there are no secrets in our contemporary media environment, at least none that can be kept for very long. But it may be enough for the corporation to obtain the prestige of association, the implicit approval that comes with his presence, and perhaps some benefit from connections that are made, and the ability to make other connections through introductions—this is the ultimate in networking.

Ghosh: With respect to Hilary Clinton – if she runs for president in 2016 (which many are saying she will), is the money she’s making now from speeches tantamount to “future campaign contributions”?

Me: There is a clear separation between personal income and campaign monies, in some way similar to the distinction between personal and corporate assets. Wealthy candidates may use their personal finances for their campaigns, but right now Hilary is campaigning without actually being a candidate, while separate exploratory committees would be doing the fundraising.

Ghosh: Can an ex-politician or future politician take money from lobbyist groups?

Me: There are all sorts of ways that lobbyist groups can provide funding and benefits for politicians, former, present, and future, and it is not unheard of for someone leaving government to work on behalf of an interest group or lobby.

Ghosh: Are these former (or future) politicians breaking any ethics rules or even laws by taking money for making speeches?

Me: Not necessarily, but there are ethical questions that can, have, and should be raised, for former politicians about the harm done to the dignity of the office they once held, for future ones about the harm done to their chances of being elected.

Ghosh: Are these lucrative speeches immune from any regulation or campaign finance laws? How about the possibility of potential conflict of interest?

Me: Many believe that stricter regulation is needed to reign in such activities, and there is no question that the potential for conflict of interest exists.

Ghosh: Do these politicians list their speaking fees on their tax statements as income – or do they find some clever way of hiding their true earnings?

Me: Only the IRS knows for sure, I imagine. If the individual has a foundation, trust, nonprofit organization, or business where the funds can be channeled, they might avoid having the fees listed on their returns, yes.

Ghosh: For people like Clinton and Bush, are speeches their sole source of income in “retirement” or do they generate additional dollars from elsewhere?

Me: The pension that former presidents receive would be more than adequate for the vast majority of Americans, they can receive income for consulting, being associated with a law firm, corporation, or university, and in many other ways.

Ghosh: Even lower profile political figures like former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs make millions from speeches. What influence or importance can such marginal figures like him possibly have?

Me: It's all a matter of degrees of separation. Unlike the six degrees most of us have on average, someone like Gibbs has direct contact with many high profile figures, and at one degree of separation with many more. Networking yields access.

Ghosh: Given that Barack Obama is a historic figure, once he leaves office, do you expect him to break Bill Clinton’s record of huge earnings on the lecture circuit? Will companies and other clamor for his appearances?

Me: He certainly has the potential to do so, because of his symbolic value as the first African-American president, beyond his status having held the highest office in the nation. But given his own self-consciousness about his place in history, and what he means to so many people, he may show more restraint than others have, and that may limit his earnings.

Ghosh: Did old-time politicians like Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower also make money from speeches after their terms were over? Or is this a relatively recent development?

Me: Speeches and lectures are nothing new, and in the 19th century were a major form of entertainment. What is new is the amount of money being paid, and the relative lack of restraint on the part of former politicians about whom they accept fees from.

As you can see, it was quite an extended exchange that we had, and something significantly different from the article that was eventually published. What both underscore is that this is an issue worthy of our attention, and in many ways, our concern, and that's not all hot air...