June 2013

Consumers are just as interested in purchasing digital content from Pay TV providers as they are from Over-The-Top (OTT) content providers, challenging “the prevalent notion” that OTT content providers are preferred over broadcast Pay-TV operators when consumers purchase digital movies and TV series episodes, according to market research from CSG Systems International. Surveying 1,200 U.S. consumers ages 18-65, CSG found that 71% of consumers are willing to buy content from an OTT provider, while 70% are willing to buy from their Pay TV provider, according to CSG’s “U.S. Pay TV and Digital Content” report.

[Commentary] The federal antitrust case over collusion and price-fixing in the e-book industry entered what will likely be its final chapter on June 3, with opening statements in court from the Department of Justice and Apple — since all of the accused publishers have already settled. And while Apple is undoubtedly going to make an impassioned defense of its innocence over the next few weeks, the fact is that the DoJ has what amounts to a slam-dunk case: no matter how you look at it, the company colluded with publishers to keep e-book prices high. In fact, the government’s case is so compelling that the judge in the trial has already said she thinks it will prevail, despite Apple’s protests to the contrary. In pretrial comments, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote said she believes the government “will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case will confirm that.”

[Commentary] Newspaper people make decisions about what to cover and what to emphasize every day. They have finite resources — only so much space in the paper, only so many reporters — and they have to choose. In this context, one question I’ve been thinking about for several months is this: How well does The New York Times cover those who live in poverty and the news that affects them?

No one can say that The Times ignores poverty. But is it enough? Is it the right kind of coverage? Where are the gaps, and what is the big picture? These questions are important, particularly because there is an undeniable moral dimension. Within America’s great affluence, nearly 50 million people live in poverty, defined as income below $23,550 for a family of four. Surely, the mission of the nation’s greatest newspaper ought to include a deep concern about those 50 million. Based on reading, interviewing and simply paying more attention, I’ve made some observations.

When The Times does write about poverty — whether in a special series or a long feature article — it usually does so with depth and intelligence. The amount and intensity of the coverage, however, may not be in proportion to the size of the problem. One in six Americans live in poverty, and it’s worse for children: one in five. In New York City, it is commonplace to see men and women sleeping on the street. Among the city’s 8 million residents, 1.5 million don’t have enough to eat; a third of those are children. Occasional coverage — no matter how excellent — doesn’t get the job done. Some advocates for the poor see another problem: News organizations, including The Times, tend to treat those in poverty as “the other,” a problem that is “over there.”

House Republicans are launching a new website aimed at engaging citizens in the legislative process by allowing them to “co-sponsor” bills introduced in Congress.

The site will allow users to track legislation as it goes through committee and to the floor, and it could give lawmakers an idea of which proposals are gaining traction outside the Beltway. “This is a program and a website designed to engender a national conversation online about legislation that we’re considering here in Congress,” said Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA). “It is yet another example of our trying to live up to the commitment of transparency, the fact that this is a government that belongs to the people, and they ought to know what’s going on.”