Stop the presses!

A decade ago, before iOS vs. Android, there was one of the bloodiest wars of attrition of the early web: online music stores. Microsoft, Real and myriad others tried to dethrone Apple’s iTunes through bare-knuckle competition, press battles, lawsuits and hacking…all in vain.

As we enter the streaming media era, the last of these battles, and undoubtedly the most inane, has ended with a unanimous rejection by a jury in just three hours on Dec 16. The trial had long become a circus act, as have many of the cases involving Apple, notably in the court rooms of Judges Lucy Koh, Denise Cote and Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Indeed, this ended up being a 10-year old class-action case without a single plaintiff! As one law professor put it:

Frankly, I find that flabbergasting, that in a universe of eight million potential plaintiffs, the two that were selected were disqualified. That really tells you a lot about this trial.

About a dozen days prior to this inevitable conclusion, the lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that Apple had deliberately and secretly deleted competitors’ songs from users’ iPods. That’s what the lawyers who couldn’t find two qualified plaintiffs out of eight million prospects said. Here’s what the media reported the next day as fact:

pressclips

There were dozens and dozens of versions of this ‘fact’ syndicated in a zillion outlets: “Apple had deliberately and secretly deleted competitors’ songs from users’ iPods”.

Of course, it takes exactly two words to rise above click-bait headline framing:

Here’s how Apple’s lead lawyer reacted to it in his closing statement:

There’s not one piece of evidence of a single individual who lost a single song, not even a complaint about it. This is all made up at this point.

This is clearly a simple example, and yet this is how it happens: one story at a time, thousands of times a day, every day. Yes, journalism isn’t exact science, but from epidemiology to space exploration, from technology reporting to business coverage, the sheer amount of fact-free, opinion-framing ‘news’ is now exceeding our collective ability to notice, care or correct. Yes, journalism has always been messy, but the speed with which it’s generated, aggregated and distributed may now be overwhelming us. Yes, we have ever growing access to filtering software to shape our own sphere of coverage, and yet tens of millions of people read, and likely most believed, that Apple had deliberately and secretly deleted competitors’ songs from users’ iPods, an impression which may never be sufficiently corrected. Yes, we’re getting better tools to find and check facts, and yet the incentives to not deceive readers through disingenuous headlining and packaging are clearly not in place. How many headline corrections have you seen in this case?

Paradoxically, in the age of oncoming vertically integrated digital-media companies it may become easier, and certainly faster, to ignore the facts.

Follow Kontra on Twitter

“Give monopolists a chance”

dcohen

Following last week’s Obfuscation by disclosure: a lawyerly design pattern, just a few more points on the Comcast acquisition of Time Warner from WSJ:

  1. “[Comcast Chief Executive Brian Roberts] sits on a presidential jobs council, has hosted President Barack Obama and top presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett at his Martha’s Vineyard home and has also golfed with the president.”
  2. “Mr. Roberts and his wife, Aileen, have donated $417,290 to Democrats over the past 25 years, compared with $116,150 for Republicans”
  3. “[Comcast] one of the most visible players in Washington…spent $18 million on lobbying in 2013, making it the seventh-highest spender overall”
  4. “Comcast employees made a total of $6.5 million in campaign contributions during the 2012 election cycle, including $466,000 to the Democratic National Committee and $305,000 to the president’s campaign for re-election”
  5. “Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen is a major bundler of contributions for the Democrats, and has hosted a number of prominent fundraisers featuring the president at his home and other venues. Of the almost $870,000 Mr. Cohen and his wife, Rhonda, have donated to campaigns, 79% has gone to Democrats, while just 9% has gone to Republicans.”
  6. “Comcast’s lobbying and regulatory team includes Meredith Attwell Baker, a former Republican FCC commissioner who voted in favor of the Comcast-NBC Universal acquisition four months before she joined Comcast.”
  7. “One firm representing Comcast is Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, which last year hired former top antitrust official Jon Leibowitz, who served as Mr. Obama’s first chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC shares antitrust authority with the Justice Department.”
  8. David Cohen: “we’re not afraid of the government review process. We know it will be stringent. We believe it will be fair and open. All we’re asking for is an opportunity to make our case.”

But what an opportunity! The parties are so sure that this deal will pass through the regulatory charade that Time Warner did not even bother asking for a breakup fee from Comcast should it fail, as is customary in such M&A activity.

Since cable/telecom markets are practically rigged, wouldn’t it be a test of faith to put Comcast’s contention that this deal is “pro-consumer, pro-competitive and strongly in the public interest” to a national referendum? It won’t happen obviously, but a useful mental exercise to remember why big business so loves regulated markets and regulators.

Follow Kontra on Twitter

Obfuscation by disclosure: a lawyerly design pattern

This is not earth shattering news. Not even news per se. It’s what you get if you were to slow down the insane rush of ‘news’ just a split second to see how the sausage is made. In this instance, how the news (Comcast acquisition of TimeWarner) is packaged, from a quick, high-level design point of view.

What we have here is a legal document dressed as a press release masquerading as a blog post presented at a corporate website in a section called “ComcastVoices: A Place For Conversations With Comcast”. In other words, it’s lobbying collateral raised to the level of public conversation.

(tl;dr: According to Comcast, the merger is “pro-sumer” if you “get past some of the hysteria,” it’s “approvable” by the regulators and won’t “reduce consumer choice at all”. Will it raise prices? “not promising that they will go down or even that they will increase less rapidly.” Given the historical record of the industry, it’s Comedy Central material.)

comcast banner

Unless you’re in this industry, you’ll likely never read it: it’s 2,480 words. If you’re a civilian and do read it, you won’t understand most of it. It’s not meant for you. How do you know that? If you look at the large introductory banner (above) you get your first design clue: “public interest benefits and undertakings”. It highlights the good stuff: “public,” “interest” and “benefits”. All good. How about “undertakings”? Well, as a promise of potential future positive actions, it sure beats “anti-trust concerns”. Since “public interest benefits and undertakings” is the only part highlighted in color in what’s otherwise an ocean of gray type, you can read this framing statement and be done with it. It perfectly encapsulates the rest: This merger is good for you. Any questions you may have will be taken care of. Thanks for stopping by.

Of course, if you’re really careful, you’ll also notice that it’s bylined by David L. Cohen not just as Executive Vice President (which is what he uses pretty much everywhere else and most notably at the official Comcast Executive Biographies org-chart) but also as Chief Diversity Officer. Yes, “Diversity”. Now you know you’ve really hit on the corporate heavy-gun of choice against discrimination, anti-trust and class warfare charges.

It would be very tempting, at this point, to go into the sausage factory and do a point-by-point walkthrough dealing with the creation of a media/internet/communications colossus that’ll dominate a third of the nation and all the anti-competitive network effects of such consolidation, but that too would be old news. Also, I promised this would be quick, high-level and design oriented.

If you read a lot of contracts or are involved in writing corporate legalese, you already know that it’s important to segregate the good parts from the bad and the mundane, even in those droning tomes set in monospaced fonts like the ubiquitous Times Roman or Courier. Type size, line length, leading, margins, bullets, lists and boldface can subtly lead the reader to pay unequal attention to selected parts. Of course, it’s best when this is done with a delicate touch for maximum surreptitious effect. Like so:

pro

It’s all pro, it’s all good. “Benefits” repeated 4X? Check. Segmented and bulleted? Check. Boldfaced talking points? Check. Inviting? Check. But what about the cons?

cons

Well, we already lost the boldface emphasis and the sound-bite friendly talking points. First comes “certain competitive concerns might be raised.” (“Might be” as if this M&A deal will sail through without any competition/anti-trust questions?) Then comes the yes-but mental priming before we get to deal with “certain competitive concerns”. (Not as memorable as the pro section above, is it?)

But if you really want to lose your audience, you’d best bring out the biggest gun of all: the text-soup with no paragraphs, no segmentation, no bullets, no highlights, no boldface, no nothin’. And dare your readers to read it…forget understanding or recalling any of it.

app1

app2

“Important Information” and “Cautionary Statement”. So “important” and so “cautionary” as to be served as text-soup. Unfortunately, they are not for the “benefit” of the corporation, so glance-and-forget-it.

Am I being naive here? After all, this is a corporation putting its best foot forward, isn’t it? I know. (In another life, I’ve done this for some of the largest corporations in the world.) My point is actually as obvious as it’s depressing: perversely, there is good news in all this. Design works, however evil it may be.

Follow Kontra on Twitter

“You Might Also Like”

I read an article the other day by a veteran reporter whom I like. Actual, useful news:

article

At the bottom of the piece, I also noticed a “You Might Also Like” prompt, like the ones everyone’s accustomed to seeing on blogs and publications to expose the reader to relevant or related content. I’d never “surf” this publication linearly, looking for something to read. But I noticed the photo of George Soros (not identified) seemingly linked to what appeared to be an odd story:

mainarticle

So what happens if you follow this publication’s (what appears to be) editorial recommendation and click on the link to (what appears to be) a tip on a stock about to explode by (who appears to be) George Soros? Well, you end up here:

sorosarticle

And what does George Soros (whose photo still unidentified) say about this stock about to explode? Not a single word. The “article” has absolutely nothing to do with Soros, or any other professional investor remotely of his caliber. What is this six-month old “article” that this publication thought “You Might Also Like” about?

emailscam

Quite simply, it’s a pump and dump, penny stock email scheme…which comes with its own lengthy disclaimer, if you can read it:

disclaimer

Of course, you’ve seen this movie before, in your spam-mail folder. And yet this isn’t some obscure publication written mostly by keyboard slaves over there in some remote country or a ‘news-blog’ sweatshop gearing up to sell itself to a bigger one.

cnn

No, this is nothing but household brands: CNN (the once-daring company that changed cable forever) and Fortune (founded by Henry Luce in 1930, four months after the Wall Street Crash of 1929). This is the establishment. The “mainstream” media that is constantly fretting about its loss of stature, impact and financial viability.

You might say, “Hey, what’s the big deal, they’ve got to make money so they’re running some ads!” Another way of saying the same thing is that one day some fine folk at Time Inc. gathered in a conference room and decided that it was acceptable to mislead their readers by disguising penny stock sales brochures as editorially related content. Because, presumably, they need the money.

“But it works!”

Does it, really? If “it works” — meaning Time Inc. online properties intellectually attract and profitably serve the penny stock demographics — can they remain financially solvent news outlets for any length of time? Or are they so financially distressed that they’ll do anything for revenue right now? If this has no adverse effect on news credibility or brand equity, then what’s next? “Native advertising” where an average reader will no longer be able to tell apart news from advertising in the editorial stream? (One 156-year old publication already rented its editorial space to a cult.) Will these advertorial deceptions and misdirections move from the ad wells around the periphery of the page into the news delivery itself? Will there be product placements within news sentences? What follows that? Is the “mainstream media” management about to capitulate on long-held principles because it’s unable or unwilling to pursue any other strategy but the race to the bottom of the advertising barrel? Is there anything more precious than credibility to a news organization? If not, why is Time Inc. poisoning its own well so nonchalantly?

If Google has taught us news is free, Time Inc. is teaching us so is our time.

*

UPDATE: Only hours after this post, The New York Times jumped eyes wide open into the “native advertising” well, as explained in a tortured letter from the Public Editor.

Follow Kontra on Twitter