Information Superhighway Robbery

I’m uploading this page to my web server over my cable modem internet

connection. Time Warner Cable used to have a monopoly on internet

cable service in Manhattan, but over the past few weeks we’ve started

seeing a rash of advertisements for cable modem connections offered

by Earthlink and AOL; soon a small ISP called New York Connect will

do the same.

At first glance it looks as though Time Warner has been forced by

law to open up its cable pipes to other internet service providers,

just like local phone companies were forced to let rival operators

into the game a couple of years ago. The truth is rather different.

AOL, Time Warner’s new owner, wanted to offer a broadband version

of its own service through Time Warner’s cables, and the FTC wouldn’t

let it do so unless other companies were allowed to play too.

Of course, there’s no real reason to sign up with Earthlink or New

York Connect rather than with AOL Time Warner. They’re no cheaper,

and if anything goes wrong you have to spend ages trying to work out

whose fault it is before anything gets fixed.

If there was genuine competition, prices would be going down. Instead,

they’re going up. The rates for my service have gone up twice in the

past three months, and my last cable bill was an astonishing $122.78.

What’s more, there aren’t any nice cheap packages any more, like there

used to be, where you get the combination of cable modem internet

access with a good range of television channels for a relatively modest

charge. Now, if you want an internet-included package, it’ll cost

you $111.95 a month, plus tax.

The reason, of course, is that AOL Time Warner wants more people

to sign up for AOL Broadband, and fewer for Time Warner Cable’s proprietary

RoadRunner service. (You pay extra for all those annoying pop-up ads.)

Sometimes, competition ain’t what it seems.

Posted in Culture | 1 Comment

The fall and fall of celebrity journalism

Be worried about the decline of magazine journalism in this country.

Talk might not have achieved a cohesive identity, but at least it

did run some well-written pieces. To see what Tina Brown was reacting

against, I suggest you pick up the latest issue of Cosmopolitan. It’s

published by Hearst, just like Talk was, although it has a much larger

circulation (2.6 million, compared to somewhere under 700,000). If

this is what Hearst is happiest with, it’s easy to see why they were

never really comfortable with Talk.

On the cover, we have Britney Spears. I think she’s always on the

cover of any magazine she appears in: it’s an integral part of the

celebrity-wrangling process. But Cosmo had to give her more than just

the cover: they had to make her the magazine’s "Fun Fearless

Female of the Year".

Turn to the cover story, and it begins with this sentence:

If you don’t know who Britney Spears is, the only

explanation is that you’ve been living on another planet for the past

few years.

And it doesn’t get any better, believe me. It’s hard to convey the

sheer awfulness of this piece without quoting it in full, but suffice

to say that the mind-numbing torrent of superlatives, the stream of

dubious assertions ("as if straying from her past proven formula

wasn’t ballsy enough, she’s about to venture into the world of acting")

and dreadful prose ("the star, who was voted by Forbes magazine

in its 2001 100 Top Celebrities list as the fourth-most-powerful star,

is now using her might to give back") combine to create an article

only a publicist could love.

Britney’s People certainly had copy approval, of course, and the

piece carries the byline of a very senior editor at the magazine,

who presumably could have done better if it hadn’t been dictated to

her by a talentless flack. But this is the sort of stuff which

really makes the public suspicious of journalists’ ethics, not inside-baseball

snits about Paul Krugman. Say what you like about the horrible cover

stories in Talk or Vanity Fair, at least they are readable,

and at least there was always much better stuff elsewhere in the magazine.

Neither is true of Cosmopolitan.

One question I do have, though: is it – could it be – that

we can see Britney’s right nipple through the gauze of her

frock in the Patrick Demarchelier photograph on page 142? Retouchers,

retouchers, where were you?

Posted in Media | 1 Comment

Don’t go anywhere near iname or mail.com

Many years ago, at the dawn of the internet era, a company called

iname had the rather good idea of registering a whole bunch of domain

names (you didn’t need to pay for them back then, it was first come

first served) and then getting people to use email addresses which

were prettier than the sort of 100235.9972@compuserve.com which one

usually got back then. They wouldn’t store your email for you, they

would just forward it on to an address which you gave them.

It was a good idea, and I took them up on their introductory offer

of one email address free for life. No matter which ISP or employer

I was using at the time, I would always have the same email address:

felix@journalism.com. Easily memorable: perfect.

Not much later, Hotmail came along and stole a lot of iname’s thunder

with their web-based system. I think at this point iname started getting

a bit sloppy, and its servers would sometimes suffer nasty latency:

emails wouldn’t arrive until hours after they were sent. Eventually

they wound up merging with mail.com, but even that didn’t seem to

solve the reliability issues.

To make matters worse, the merged company decided that it wasn’t

bound by iname’s promises, and announced that it was stopping all

access to its outgoing mail servers unless I paid them a monthly fee.

I didn’t want to pay, of course, so that had a nasty effect: while

email addressed to felix@journalism.com would continue to come to

me, any replies would have to come from whatever address I was using

at the time: salmon@ideaus.com, or fsalmon@bridge.com. No longer could

people see "felix@journalism.com" on the From line of their

emails, and any replies they sent would bypass the whole iname service

entirely. I sent iname an email asking them about this, and they sent

me an automated reply which didn’t answer any of my questions.

By this point, however, the fact that most of my email was going

nowhere near iname was quite a good thing.The latency issues were

not going away, and a short-lived attempt to use felix@journalism.com

as my main email address failed within a few days of my leaving Bridge.

The emails were just not getting through, and I reverted to the email

account I have with my ISP: fsalmon@nyc.rr.com.

All the same, a lot of people would still write to me at felix@journalism.com,

mainly because it’s so easy to remember, and eventually, their emails

would get through. Well, they won’t any more. Iname sent me another

email today, saying that they’re now going to start charging for the

forwarding service. All their promises of a lifelong email address

have gone out the window.

So don’t use iname, don’t use mail.com, and if you want to get in

touch with me, don’t use felix@journalism.com. Use felix@felixsalmon.com

instead: I own the domain name, so I know I won’t get shafted this

time.

(Oh, and are you interested in what iname has to say about all this?

Here you go: "Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Customer

feedback is our most valuable resource for making improvements to

our service. We will consider your feedback as we make decisions on

improving our service and bringing you new features.

You will not receive another reply to your message.Thank you again

for writing.Sincerely, The Mail.com Team.")

Posted in Announcements | 26 Comments

More on Sullivan and Krugman

Sullivan has now gone

mad. Just after 7:00 this evening, he posted no fewer than four new

pieces on l’affair Krugman – an affair, I hasten to add,

which he single-handedly created.

He seems to be an expert at following up a valid point with something

completely barmy. Here’s an example: "Your average New York Times

reader [would] be shocked, I think, to find a New York Times columnist

who, before he joined the Times, was a $50,000 paid crony for a major

corporation that was in the process of fleecing its shareholders –

especially since he is now one of that company’s fiercest

critics." (my italics). Never mind the "paid crony"

hyperbole, why does the fact that Krugman is criticising Enron make

his former membership of its advisory panel more shocking?

Sullivan is certainly a stickler for journalistic ethics: here he

is a little bit further down.

Josh Marshall writes the following amazing sentences:

“If there’s an embarrassment here, it’s that Krugman participated

in the common business of taking a pretty large sum of money from

corporate bigwigs for a pretty small level of exertion. (Note to corporate

bigwigs: this is a common business in which Talking Points Memo is

eager to become involved — though he’ll keep criticizing until the

offers start coming in.)” Am I hallucinating or is Marshall semi-jokingly

saying that he is a columnist for hire? And people wonder why the

general public are suspicious of the ethics of journalists?

No, you’re not hallucinating, Andrew. But I would say that your monomania

on the subject of Krugman contributes much more to the general public’s

suspicion of journalists than does a joky aside by Josh Marshall.

Besides, in a very real sense all columnists/pundits are columnists

for hire. There really isn’t a lot of difference between being paid

to opine on an advisory board and being paid to opine in the pages

of the New Republic or the New York Times. Krugman isn’t

a journalist, he’s an economist. People read him because he’s

an economist. I’m reminded of how James Cramer used to respond to

people who attacked him on similar grounds: if I didn’t do this for

a living, my column would be significantly worse.

Sullivan also seems to have a huge chip on his shoulder that Romenesko

doesn’t link to him, seeing the mediagossip supremo as a prime mover

in the Liberal Media Conspiracy. Bollocks, Andrew: Romenesko doesn’t

link to you because you don’t provide fixed links! You’re such a profligate

poster (thank you) that a link to http:///www.andrewsulllivan.com

is often out of date within an hour. You want Romenesko to link to

you? Follow Josh Marshall’s lead and provide unique links for each

entry.

A lot of the rest of Sullivan’s post simply reheats old criticisms.

Come on, Andrew, if you’re going to wheel out that thing about how

"many public figures who were once, like Krugman, beneficiaries

of Enron’s largess, have now given the money to charity"

then do you think you could name them? Or can you not do that

because the only money which has been donated thusly to charity was

donations to political campaigns?

One word about Krugman, though, because I don’t want this simply

to be an exercise in Sullivan-bashing. On his

website he writes

this: "The Argentine situation demands comment. My New York Times

readers are, I hate to admit, not as interested in Argentina as they

should be, so I am placing it here."

This is all wrong. The weakness of Krugman’s column has been the

way in which it has been used overwhelmingly to give high-rent economic

credence to Democratic party-political GOP-bashing. Most people I

meet these days are both interested in and ignorant of what’s going

on in Argentina: they would love Krugman to help explain it to them

(although his previous columns on the subject have not been particularly

good). Krugman is an excellent international economist: he should

allow himself (and Gail Collins should allow him) to write about international

economics. If you only give the people what they think they want,

they’ll never learn anything.

Posted in Media | 1 Comment