Posted February 19th, 2010 by Andrew Kaplan - Special Assistant to the Future of Media project
FCC finds that a limited extension of time will further the public interest by allowing all commenters additional time to file studies, analyses and other submissions in response to the Public Notice, facilitating the compilation of a more complete record. The deadline is therefore extended to Friday, May 7, 2010.
Posted in About the Project , Public Notices , Information Needs of Communities
Posted February 17th, 2010 by Irene Wu
In his book, Post-broadcast democracy: how media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections (Cambridge, 2007), Markus Prior shows the following graphs. To simplify, he argues when people with little interest in public affairs lived in an environment with few media choices, they were more likely to hear the headlines – for example, catching a news reel while at the movies. With more media choices – cable and satellite television and the Internet – catching the news as a by-product of other activities declines. In other words, more Americans watched the news when there was little else to watch. Fast forward to today, this means that with more media, citizens who are not interested in politics live in an increasingly separate world those who are – thus elections and political involvement are more polarized. What do you think?
Posted February 4th, 2010 by Andrew Kaplan - Special Assistant to the Future of Media project
This past Tuesday, Frontline, an investigative journalism show airing nationally on PBS, explored how digital technologies are changing every aspect of our lives, including how we consume media in a 90 minute documentary Digital Nation: Life on the Virtual Frontier.
Posted February 3rd, 2010 by Dana Scherer - Senior Policy Analyst, Media Bureau
Standard and Poor’s has a similar estimate in its August 2008 Publishing Survey. [James Peters, Industry Surveys: Publishing (includes Advertising), Standard and Poor's, Aug. 21, 2008, at 26.]
The rule of thumb is that an online ad brings in at most about one-tenth the revenue as the same as the same ad in a newspaper. There are two reasons for this: readers spend less time reading a paper online than they do a newspaper, and because ad space is not scarce on the Web, advertisers pay lower rates.” [Ken Auletta,”Chasing the Fox,” Googled, 2009, at 165.]
Do you think that these estimates are valid? Do you think these estimates will persist? If so, could the paper dollars vs. digital dimes ratio apply to subscription revenues as well?
Posted in Ideas and Debates , Business Models and Financial Trends , Internet and Mobile , Newspapers and Magazines
Posted February 2nd, 2010 by Andrew Kaplan - Special Assistant to the Future of Media project
