ChinaWatch: Breaking Down Walls

Holes In The Great Wall

The U.S. government has figured out how to bust through Internet censorship filters in order to deliver news and other vital information via e-mail to people in countries like China, a report claims.

The report from the Broadcasting Board of Governors detailed successful testing the agency conducted last year as it tried to slip data into inboxes in Hong Kong and China. The testing involved technology known as Feed Over e-mail, or FOE, to bypass traps the Chinese government has in place to screen out unwanted Internet content.

According to the report, first obtained and published by the nonprofit GovernmentAttic through a Freedom of Information Act request, the technology “performed well in all tests.” BBG confirmed the report's authenticity to FoxNews.com.

Experts behind the testing say this information weapon probably could not have done much good in a situation like that unfolding in Egypt, where the government was flat-out blocking Internet access in response to the political unrest.

“If there's a blackout ... nothing works,” BBG Director of Information Security Ken Berman says.

But the agency's testing demonstrated that, at least in China, it can be used effectively to transmit everything from RSS feeds to downloadable files to proxy web addresses which users can access to browse an uncensored version of the Internet.

Follow The Money Trail

Changes under way in China “will gradually erode” the country's ability to closely manage the value of its currency and force the renminbi to float more freely on world markets, the U.S. Treasury says in a report that declined to cite China as a “currency manipulator.”

As in previous biannual Treasury reports on currencies, the document addressed the politically contentious issue of China's currency management, which critics argue is used to keep its exports unfairly cheap, The Washington Post reports.

Members of Congress and others have urged the Obama administration to brand China a “currency manipulator,’’ which, under U.S. law, would trigger negotiations and possible sanctions.

But like his predecessors, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has tried to resolve the issue through diplomatic channels – criticizing Chinese policy and urging them to make changes without formally invoking U.S. law.

With U.S. unemployment still at 9 percent, the issue has become particularly sensitive, but the latest Treasury document notes China's currency has appreciated modestly this year – by close to 4 percent in nominal terms, but by much more than that if the impact of inflation is included.

The document notes China is taking steps to liberalize how the renminbi can be bought and sold overseas.

“These reforms will gradually erode the controls that help the authorities manage the level of the exchange rate and, over time, will contribute to a more market-determined exchange rate,’’ the report concludes.

ChinaWatch

Online Tracking, No Thanks

As independent-minded consumers, Internet users have no interest in being tracked by online advertisers, based on the findings of a recent Gallup poll.

Major marketers such as AT&T are increasingly tracking users' habits on the Web so they can better deliver specific ads to specific kinds of people, according to AdAge.com.

The practice, known as behavioral targeting, has come under a renewed government scrutiny, specifically by the Obama administration and the Federal Trade Commission.

Asked if advertisers should be allowed to match ads to people's specific interests based on other websites they've previously visited, a clear majority of 67% said no, compared with 30% who said yes.

Marketers defending behavioral targeting argue, in part, that the public might not understand how much this advertising fuels free websites.

“Because there's been so much scare-mongering, people have been frightened about behavioral advertising,” says John Montgomery, chief operating officer of GroupM Interaction, a unit of WPP. “People are now equating it to something more pernicious.’’

What We Do

As a FREE subscription blog, WMB uses Google Analytics to determine which topics trend higher in viewership.

For example, our posts on stem cell research are the all-time “hit” leaders for WMB, and we introduced ChinaWatch, a weekly news digest, based on perceived growing interest in our nation's chief economic competitor.

WMB has Google advertising that “reads” our post content to help customize ads you may or may not be interested in seeing. We do not share your e-mail addresses or seek third-party sponsors (disclaimers are in the blog sidebar).

We offer this disclosure to assure you this blog’s two authors, free-lance writer Ken Cocuzzo and TechMan (tag name for employment reasons), respect and value your privacy as much as our own.

Gov't As Watchdog

The Obama administration and the FTC recently issued reports on the need for the industry to better regulate how advertisers track and target people online.

A recent U.S. Commerce Department report suggests creating a “privacy bill of rights” as well as a privacy policy office that would work with the FTC, the President, and other government bodies to protect online consumer privacy.

“America needs a robust privacy framework that preserves consumer trust in the evolving Internet economy while ensuring the Web remains a platform for innovation, jobs, and economic growth.

“Self-regulation without stronger enforcement is not enough. Consumers must trust the Internet in order for businesses to succeed online,” Commerce Secretary Gary Locke says.

Do Not Track

The FTC suggests the implementation of a “Do Not Track” mechanism (modeled after the national Do Not Call list targeting telemarketers) that would sit on web browsers and monitor which advertisers can and cannot keep track of people, based on their preferences.

Opponents of a Do Not Track list say it could dramatically decrease the effectiveness of online targeted, or behavioral, advertising.

“Despite some good actors, self-regulation of privacy has not worked adequately and is not working adequately for American consumers,” FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz says. “We deserve far better from the companies we entrust our data to, and industry as a whole needs to do a far better job.”

The FTC will make policy recommendations and “take action” against companies that violate consumer privacy, “especially when children and teens are involved,” Leibowitz says.

Microsoft and Mozilla, makers of the Internet Explorer and Firefox web browsers, say they are working on a “Do Not Track” feature.

Microsoft recently introduced a function for the latest version of Explorer that lets users build lists of sites with which they don't want to share information.

The industry has a self-regulatory plan in place, called About Ads, which released its opt-out form a few weeks ago. GroupM, for one, plans to offer the program's opt-out icon to its list of around 200 clients which rely on behavioral targeting.

The Final Say

While WMB generally does not favor U.S. government regulation of the Internet, we do believe in consumer privacy protection.

This much is certain: We cannot depend completely on industry self-policing, and consumers deserve the final say in how much they reveal online.

 Ken Cocuzzo

U.S. Attacks Internet Freedom

Internet users have much to fear from a federal panel’s recent vote for adoption of a plan to regulate the Internet’s broadband networks.

The 3-2 decision by the Federal Communications Commission in favor of so-called “net neutrality” rules is a stunning change from the long-held congressional consensus that the Internet should remain free from government regulation.

Critics argue U.S. involvement will impede development of the worldwide Web. The dissenting FCC commissioners shared that view in rejecting rules FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed and the majority adopted.

The FCC regulations, the dissenters argue, will inhibit innovation and scare off private investment. In our still-weak economy, many argue (including WMB) this could tip us into a double-dip recession.

In WMB's view, free enterprise works best in this country with a minimum of government regulation. Consumer protection must be balanced in relation to business interests. Neither can succeed without the right mix.

Wallet Impact Felt

When FCC Chairman Genachowski first unveiled his plan for net neutrality last spring, the news scared cable and telecommunications investors.

Shares of Comcast Corp. dropped 9 percent; Cablevision Systems Inc., 6 percent; and Time Warner Inc., 5 percent. Even though the decline was brief, it shows the impact from the prospect of government expanding its regulatory reach into the Internet.

The purpose of the regulations, according to proponents of net neutrality, is to promote universal access to Web sites by ensuring a free flow of Internet traffic.

This may sound beneficial but, as a practical matter, this federal regulation will lead to constraining price controls for network providers.

Having to treat all broadband traffic equally means text and video content would have to flow at equal speeds and be charged the same price.

The FCC’s adopted plan essentially proposes to regulate broadband lines as if they were traditional phone lines, on which all traffic is the same.

But all traffic, as managed by cable and telecommunications companies, is not the same on broadband networks.

No Fixing Needed

FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell, writing for the Wall Street Journal, says:

“Nothing is broken that needs fixing ... The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s.

“Its nature, as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks, defies top-down authority. Adequate laws already exist to protect consumers.

“Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.”

Leave Internet Alone

WMB believes this FCC action could serve as a major deterrent to global economic expansion and job creation.

The Internet is a frontier, and we believe it is still in its infancy. Any government constraints on access could stunt growth.

There are many industries throughout the world that depend on data and file transfer. In most cases, speed and security are essential to success.

By contrast, the U.S. government cannot run many federal agencies without inefficiency, incompetence and waste. What makes regulation of the Internet any different?

This FCC intrusion is at best unnecessary and at worst a gross overstep of government authority over free enterprise.

These rules serve no real beneficial public purpose; they should be shelved, permanently.

This post is by TechMan, WMB co-author who blogs about trends, issues and ideas affecting industry, business, technology and consumers. If you like this post, please share it.

Internet Will Replace TV?

So you’ve heard about people who’ve dumped traditional TV in favor of watching complete episodes of their favorite shows online at such free sites as hulu.com.

What you may not realize is the trend is toward more Internet time at the expense of television, whether it’s digital or analog. TV, as we know it, may be just another fading format.

What leads WMB to that conclusion? Based on a research survey by Forrester, the average U.S. consumer now spends as much time online as watching television. A tipping point toward online could be on the horizon.

The online/TV statistic marks a big shift for the United States at large; this is the first year in Forrester’s survey that people have reported spending equal amounts of time on the two activities — 13 hours a week, the Wall Street Journal reports.

It’s not because people are spending less time watching TV; those numbers have remained about the same. It’s because Internet usage has grown so dramatically — 121 percent in the past five years.

We, at WMB, suspect many of us have shifted our daily habits and routines. More online time means less time for radio listening, reading books, magazines and newspapers offline, exercising, going outdoors and, sadly, quality face time with family and friends.

The authors of this free blog admit being in the same trap: It takes time to develop quality posts on a variety of topics, get the facts, the links and photos, and then package it three times a week. It’s a labor of love, but it comes at a price – free time to do other things.

And, let’s face the ugly truth, being online is pretty much a solitary activity, even if you have a zillion friends on Facebook and e-mail everyone on your Yahoo address list. It’s just you and the keypad – desktop, laptop, smartphone, netbook, whatever your communication device of choice.

E-commerce and social networking have seen the biggest rise in popularity since 2007, Forrester’s survey of more than 40,000 people shows.

Three years ago, about a third of Americans shopped online, and now nearly two thirds do. About 35% of people visit social-networking sites like Facebook regularly, up from 15% in 2007.

Even the things generating the loudest buzz (or trend hype?) in the tech world — microblogging services such as Twitter and streaming radio like Pandora — haven’t fired up the imagination of the online crowd.

Reading blogs is something done by only 18% of people, according Forrester. So, if you’re reading this, consider yourself in the minority!

“The reality is these activities will never have the mass appeal of something like e-mail,” which is used by 92% of people, writes Forrester researcher Jacqueline Anderson in the report. Her theory is that people are most likely to adopt technology that fills a general need and fits easily with other things they were doing anyway.

Though WMB doesn’t conduct surveys, we use Google Analytics to measure our viewership’s interests (which led us to introduce ChinaWatch, WMB's weekly digest of news from China, as a regular feature).

We suspect, however unscientific, many of you watch TV on digital flat screen or analog sets as you travel online via laptop or desktop in the comfort of your home. It’s a natural fit because it puts you in the cockpit of information.

For example, you could be watching Anderson Cooper’s TV news reports on CNN while checking out breaking sports news on espn.com, a form of personal multi-tasking that immerses you in need-to-know developments.

Yes, you could toggle between the CNN and ESPN TV channels with your remote, but what fun would that be, unless you did that while texting?

Seriously, based on a combination of price and convenience, the day may come when you find just one information and entertainment format works best – and that’s online. Given the tech advances of last decade, that day may be closer than we all realize.

As for me, I practice what I preach at writenowworks.com. If you like this post, please share it.

Dear Applicant, Don't Bother

As much as computers, the Internet and other electronic advances have brought us together, they also keep us apart. Face-to-face communication, personal letters and even phone conversations have been replaced by e-mail and texting.

OK, there’s no putting the technology genie back in the bottle, and who would argue with innovative gadgets which help us in our everyday lives. But there are downsides to this progress: diminished human contact in the form of communication walls that contribute to an impersonal, hands-off existence.

Take the case of job applicants today. Many employers have gone “paperless” for economic and environmental reasons. Or, in the case of a few employers, they find it a convenient way to eliminate a paper trail if legal issues arise in a hiring dispute. Just hit the delete key and that file vaporizes (though it might still be retrievable by a cyber sleuth).

Some employers refuse to accept resumes and cover letters via U.S. mail (a contributing factor to the postal service’s financial woes). Instead, applicants are urged to submit online profiles with the appropriate documents to the e-mail of a specific person – human resources director, recruiter, etc.

Those seeking work always are encouraged by job boards and services to address their cover letters to a person, not a generic “Dear Sir” or “Dear Madam.” If you follow that advice, you would expect and hope for fair consideration of your application. Unfortunately, this is the response you might see months later:

Dear applicant:

Thank you for your recent expression of interest in the position of Director of Impersonal Communications.

Although your credentials are impressive, we regret to inform you that you were not selected to interview for this position. The decision was made to pursue candidates whose background and experience more closely match the position requirements.

You may wish to periodically check our website in order to keep apprised of other positions which we are actively recruiting.

Thank you for your interest.

The e-mailed rejection above is real, nearly word for word, except for the bogus job title. Sadly, this is pretty typical of the new type of form response letters employers are using (if they respond at all). “Dear applicant” and no name or signature of any kind at the bottom. Would any serious job seeker apply for a position that way?

Yes, employers today will defend the practice by saying they have been too overwhelmed by a flood of applicants because of the Great Recession.

It’s not unusual for three open positions, say at a college or university PR office, to draw 350 applicants whose credentials are likely to vary from “absolutely ideal” to “you’ve got to be kidding.” That’s a ton of processing for employers, especially companies which have downsized and have fewer staffers doing the same or more work.

But, even with that changed reality, how can “Dear applicant” be acceptable when it takes just a minute more to address an electronic response to Mr. Doe, Mrs. Doe or Ms. Doe – if your hiring personnel bothered to look at the application package? What happened to a more personalized and professional greeting?

Perhaps the “applicant” waited several months to get a form response that turned out to be a rejection. What PR message does it send? Maybe the wrong message: If this company, institution of higher education, or business, cares so little about interaction with strangers seeking employment, how would it be if I worked for them? Would I ever apply there again? Why waste my time?

Electronic communication can be a wonderful experience. In the case of Facebook, for example, it can bring together long-lost relatives who live thousands of miles apart, reunite old high school friends, allow you to stay in touch with former co-workers, develop new friendships based on shared interests, connect with job leads, etc.

But on the flip side of advances in technology, electronic walls allow us to brush aside the finer communication skills, ones that require human interaction in a more meaningful way. You can't read body language and gestures in an e-mail or text message. Video, even when streamed live, still has an artificial quality.

With remote access dominating communication, you get a society whose children are disconnected with parents and the real world because they’re lost in virtual world. For instance, they don’t play sports outdoors because it’s easier to play indoors with the gadgets (and perhaps bully other kids online, a growing trend).

I’m not saying we should go backward and reject technology – personal computers, laptops, cell phones, iPad, iPod and the rest. They represent progress in the Information Age, and we can anticipate more innovations on the horizon.

But in our haste to embrace all things technology, let’s not forget about little touches that enrich our lives – at home, in the office and at school. It begins with simply addressing someone by name, even if the news is not good.

As for me, I practice what I preach at writenowworks.com.

Paper Tiger Turns Clueless

Imagine we’re in a time machine which took us to 2006, the last full year before the Great Recession started pummeling most hard-working people in this country. Our jobs seemed somewhat secure and our retirement plans within reach.

Few of us suspected in ’06 that industries and paychecks were about to slide to a place the United States hadn’t seen since the 1930s. In the newsroom where I worked, everyone was being asked by upper management about “reinventing” the newspaper, making it more viable for print readers and online viewers.

My recommendation focused on the way people lived, by having the paper embrace the electronic world through portable devices because that business format seemed to be gaining traction among potential readers, especially those under 40 (the parade began with cell phones and laptops, and continues now with Kindle and iPad).

By the time our “reinventing” input was sought, however, it already was too late for much of the newspaper industry (with the notable exception of The Wall Street Journal). We spent the remainder of the time before the bust began in late ’07 debating whether we should charge for online content or provide it for free.

With these events in the rear view mirror, it came as no surprise when the results of a recent poll of newspaper and broadcast news editors concluded American journalism is in decline, and nearly half of them believe their employers will go out of business if they do not find new sources of revenue.

“Among print editors, 18 percent said their papers were actively pursuing the idea of charging readers for access to their Web sites, while 58 percent said it was under consideration,’’ reporter Richard Perez-Pena writes for The New York Times. “Twenty-three percent said they believed that in three years, such subscription fees would be their primary source of online revenue, having overtaken advertising.”

The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism polled members of two industry groups, the American Society of News Editors and the Radio Television Digital News Association. Other poll findings:

•48 percent of the editors who participated said that without a significant new income stream, their organizations could not remain solvent for more than 10 years; 31 percent gave them five years or less.

•58 percent of the editors said journalism was headed in the wrong direction, especially in an era of shrinking newsrooms; 62 percent said the Internet had changed the profession’s fundamental values, with most citing a loosening of standards.


“When asked why the industry was in such trouble, nearly half the editors said that in good times, the demands for profit margins were excessive, while many others said their organizations were too slow to embrace and invest in the Internet,” Perez-Pena reports. “And 30 percent of the print editors said their papers should have begun charging Internet readers long ago.”

Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, captures the irony of the situation – professionals whose jobs depend on anticipating the “what next” of news were caught like deer-in-the-headlights when it came to evolving technology.

“Two years ago, we might have seen a higher number (of editors) saying this was beyond our control,” Rosenstiel says. “I think there’s more awareness of innovative approaches to online business and advertising that they didn’t take but other people did, like Google and Yahoo.”

The seeds of the damage sustained by the newspaper industry in recent years were planted in the mid-1990s, when the Internet began to take hold among American consumers who bought PCs and Macs. The Web’s business model continued to evolve while many newspaper executives turned away and believed, naively, that somehow everything would take care of itself.

It didn’t, and the end result: 5,200 jobs were lost in 2009, or 13,500 positions since 2007, according to the American Society of News Editors in its latest survey of newspaper newsrooms. Still, there is an upside to those disturbing numbers.

“It's a slowing of job loss since 2008, when nearly 6,000 journalists left the industry through buyouts and layoffs,’’
writes Eric Deggans, St. Petersburg Times TV/media critic, in The Feed blog. “According to ASNE, U.S. newsrooms have lost more than 25 percent of their workforce in nine years, declining to levels the industry hasn't seen since the mid-1970s.”

I was among the 6,000 shown the exit door. I had a great 30-year run in a variety of challenging positions, everything from a print reporter to an online editor. Every day was different, never really dull. I miss the people and the stories, both inside and outside the newsroom.

What I don’t miss are the shortsighted newspaper executives who contributed to the mess that became our industry. They lost sight of the “what next” of technology, a pretty basic concept for anyone who wants to stay in business today, and it cost all of us who care about quality journalism in all forms.

As for me, I practice what I preach at writenowworks.com.

Newspapers: Survival Of The Fittest

It's a staggering and sobering fact that more than 40,000 newspaper jobs were lost this year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. No Merry Christmas for those who remain employed in this decimated industry or those who were forced to leave through layoffs or buyouts.

The number of newspaper jobs lost for 2009 is nearly twice the 21,000 cut in 2008 and more than any single year in the past 10 years, according to Joe Strupp, reporter for Editor & Publisher, a 125-year-old magazine which appears to be yet another casualty of the recession. In an all-too-familiar story, advertising revenue, the lifeblood of the print industry, has slowed to a trickle.

E&P, sadly, is on the ropes. January may be its last print edition.

"Even with furloughs, salary cuts and numerous retirement fund freezes, publishers lopped off a tragic number of positions, even as they sought to expand online and, of course, increase workloads for those who remain,'' Strupp wrote as part of his top 10 newspaper business stories of 2009. "The count at the end of 2009 is 284,220 jobs. In 1999, that number was at 424,500. If things don't slow down, any attempt to properly cover news, and write and edit it, will be lost if it hasn't been already."

It's unlikely the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times will disappear, though the latter is definitely cutting costs and jobs. They have specific reader followings that probably will outlast any economic downturn. What appears to be suffering the most are many daily metro papers in America's largest cities.

Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Detroit, Denver and Seattle are among the urban spots with daily newspapers on life support or already lost because of weak advertising, high delivery costs, declining readership and fierce electronic competition.

In contrast, rural and more suburban areas seem to be supporting smaller papers, weeklies for example, through niche market advertising. Check out the ads in your local weekly -- affordable and targeted to your neighborhood.

What this means for business and consumers is a highly customized market match-up. The Internet provides a global vehicle for larger B2B and B2C endeavors, but hyper local print advertising still connects closer to home, especially where readers prefer traditional ways of doing business.

Smaller papers have a lower overhead and what they produce tends to make a longer, stronger impact. Surveys, including one by the National Newspaper Association, show many readers keep a weekly in their household for days and spend more time viewing the content.

A deep recession and soaring Internet use have rocked the U.S. newspaper industry to its very foundations. Online versions of newspapers, for the most part, have not generated the kind of ad revenue that print previously did.

What remains to be seen is which publications will survive and what changes it will mean in their business models. For sure, a challenging year lies ahead for the print industry as it evolves along with technology in an uncertain economy.