May 2015

[Commentary] The problem with political reporting today isn’t only the communications revolution represented by the Internet and social media. The problem, at least in part, has its roots in Theodore H. White’s classic book “The Making of a President 1960.” White wrote so elegantly about the inner game of presidential politics, the tactics and maneuvering behind the scenes, that coming generations of political reporters have attempted to emulate White -- in real time. White’s books on presidential campaigns (he wrote four of them) have led to coverage that is dominated by analysis of political tactics at the expense of an examination of the more fundamental issues in a campaign. Too often the news media will note a new position by a candidate and then go on to explain the political motivation for the position but not discuss the substance of the proposal. Most political reporters are experts in the machinations of politics not the nuances of policy.

The reality of the Internet is that voters can find the information they need to make informed voting decisions¸ but it takes effort and a willingness to be open to information that might contradict already held beliefs. However, a news literacy course can only be part of that effort. The challenge remains for the news media to make voters aware that there is fact-based information available to them. As an ever-expanding election cycle goes in full motion the challenge for the news media is to provide fact based information to voters including, but not dominated by political tactics, and for voters to take advantage of the unprecedented availability of that fact based information.

[James Klurfeld is a visiting professor of Journalism at Stony Brook University]

[Commentary] Cable companies keep looking at industry regulation through a video-centric lens. Most Americans enjoy television, with the cable industry having invested heavily to extend the reach of over-the-air TV beyond the bounds of antennas. Given the reach of over-the-air TV and the proliferation of multichannel video competition to the cable industry (first from satellite, then telecommunications such as Verizon, AT&T, and now Google Fiber and Internet-based video providers such as Sling TV and Sony Vue), the risks posed by video consolidation are relatively minimal with the courts twice striking down legislation to limit marketshare held by video distributors to 30 percent of all US subscribers.

Remember, the primary argument in support of investing in cable stocks over the past five-plus years has been that the current “pipe” is so robust, it will not require digging up the streets again to add capacity. While the government clearly appreciates the investment the cable industry has made to build high-quality broadband access across the US, they are concerned that cable has built its way into a powerful position that is dangerously close to a monopoly. This will ultimately change as Google rolls out Fiber, AT&T T 0.36 percent improves U-Verse by offloading video via, and municipal broadband efforts accelerate. However, for the next several years, if not longer, most Americans will have little to no choice for high-end broadband beyond their local cable operator.

[Richard Greenfield is a media and technology analyst with BTIG Research]

When it comes to who in Congress has sway over media and tech issues, look no further than House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR). Chairman Walden, a ham radio operator and former broadcaster, has been trying to get some changes at how the Federal Communications Commission does its business for the better part of three Congresses. And he’s not about to give up now. Nor is Chairman Walden stopping with the FCC. The mild-mannered lawmaker is also ready to take on a rewrite of the entire communications law, the 80 year-old statute that hasn’t had an update since 1996 -- before the Internet and before mobile devices became a part of every day life. We interviewed Chairman Walden before May 20th’s mark up of 7 bills to reform FCC process. Among the changes proposed: require the agency to publish drafts of proposed rules before votes and immediately publish texts of final orders after votes.

When Hillary Clinton handed over 30,000 e-mails to the State Department, she did so in a very 20th-century way: She had them all printed out. That decision -- combined with the fact the some but not all of the pages were double-sided -- meant the State Department had to spend five weeks of time re-digitizing the documents. The department now expects it won't release the documents until at least January. The State Department recently completed a tedious process to convert the 55,000 pages of e-mail and attachments back into a suitable electronic format. “The scanning process itself involves five steps that are time-consuming and labor-intensive,” the filing said. More details of the process include:

Scanning each page one-by-one, placing barcode separator sheets between documents
Extracting their text using OCR (optical character recognition) software
Manually entering metadata about the e-mails, including “to,” “from,” “cc,” “bcc,” “date sent,” and “subject” fields
Identifying possible duplicate documents using computer automation
Manually checking quality control on these processes

The State Department has 12 full-time employees dedicated to handling the request, “plus other analysts and information technology specialists who provide collateral assistance,” the filing said. Five weeks of digitizing the documents adds up to more than 18,000 man-hours of work -- at taxpayer cost, of course. According to the court filing, only some of the 55,000 pages were double-sided, spanning at least 27,500 pieces of paper delivered in 12 bankers boxes. Factor in the barcode separator sheets the State Department used to scan the documents in (again, there were 30,000 documents to keep track of), and you’re considering a whole lot of paper. All which could have been avoided had Clinton transferred the e-mails in a digital format. After all, e-mail is, by definition, electronic. Here’s to hoping that when the State Department publicly releases the e-mails, it does so in a sensible electronic format, lest the documents go through yet another meticulous round of digitization.