Category: Business

Gently used iPod for sale

I’m not mad at Apple for announcing the new video iPod yesterday. I’d read the rumors before I purchased mine, but I was impatient. I’m also realistic to understand that I only want the video iPod to have the latest toy. I’m not going to download the latest episodes of Lost to watch on a 2.5″ screen when I have a 50″ screen in my living room. I’ll get over my “poor” decision.

What I don’t like about the iPod universe is iTunes. The software is perfectly usable and is stable, a feature I haven’t found in other music software I’ve used. And it’s free. The music store even has a broad selection of music. I can find random b-sides and live songs that I’ve never seen anywhere else. The service could be great, but this article from Australia explains why it’s anti-consumer. Consider:

Unfortunately for Australian consumers, the shows are available only through Apple’s iTunes online store in the US, for which you need a credit card registered to a US address.

The iTunes store is not yet available in Australia, and Apple is not saying when – or even if – it might open here.

I don’t live in Australia, but I do like British music. The U.K. iTunes store has singles from bands that I want but can’t buy because I don’t have a credit card with a British address. I know this is probably not Apple’s fault, with blame resting on the recording industry and its 1980’s view of music copyright and consumer use, but I don’t care. I want British music. With the Internets making the marketplace global, there is no reason why they should impose this limitation. Do I need to stress that I want to give them money? This strategy is one more reason I feel zero sympathy for the recording industry when it cries poverty. Any third-grader could tell them this is stupid business.

But now my hand’s in my pocket every time I see you cry

Reports of data theft appear on the front page with increasing regularity now that technology makes it easier to swipe such data. Lax security also contributes, making consumers more vulnerable to fraud and identity theft. In response to one recent theft of Visa and MasterCard account information, this is in the news:

Testing the bounds of consumer protection laws, Visa USA Inc. and MasterCard International Inc. are headed for court to determine whether they are obliged to notify 264,000 customers that a computer hacker stole their account information.

The dispute to be argued Friday in San Francisco County Superior Court revolves around a highly publicized security breakdown at CardSystems Solutions Inc., one of the nation’s largest payment processors.

Although a ruling in the class-action consumer lawsuit wouldn’t have legal standing outside the state, it would increase the pressure on Visa and MasterCard to notify all affected accountholders in this and any future breaches.

I have no specific opinion about the legal aspects, but I’m intrigued by the business implications. My first inclination is that of course they should notify all affected accountholders. If Visa and MasterCard can’t protect my data sufficiently, I should know about that. More importantly, if thieves stole my information, I want to know so that I can be aware of the potential. I expect the banks holding my accounts to notify me, which leads to this:

San Francisco-based Visa and Purchase, N.Y.-based MasterCard maintain that responsibility should fall to the myriad banks that administer the accounts because neither credit card association has direct relationships with the affected customers.

I don’t specifically care how the backroom processing happens. Someone needs to notify me. If Visa and MasterCard decide that the banks should notify me, great. Negotiate it into the contracts with those banks. Visa and MasterCard are significant brands with a reputation that banks want to latch onto. Both companies have bargaining power there. But this doesn’t count as a justification:

In their legal briefs, Visa and MasterCard have argued there’s little chance any affected customer will lose a cent because of the association’s long-standing policies to reverse all charges for fraudulent transactions. The “zero liability” policy lessens the need to alert individual customers about the fraud risks, said MasterCard spokeswoman Sharon Gamsin.

In a statement, Visa also said it is comfortable with its anti-fraud measures. But both companies worry that the opposite message might be sent if they are ordered to warn individual customers.

“Such an order would harm the banks’ goodwill because some customers would certainly be confused by the notice and believe the issuing banks were somehow to blame for the security breach,” Visa’s attorneys argued in a court brief.

I’m not too stupid to understand English. Explain what happened and I’ll understand it. I’ll probably be able to decipher who’s at fault. However, perhaps they’re right that I’ll confuse the issue and blame the wrong party. That implies that Visa and MasterCard should work smarter at protecting data. If the banks don’t want to harm their goodwill, they’ll put pressure on Visa and MasterCard to improve security. They have bargaining power, too. If they think that acting as an extra line of protection for their customers won’t help their goodwill (if for no other reason than preventing loss of goodwill in cases like this), they’re stupider than I think they are.

I don’t have the market power to spank Visa or MasterCard, or even an individual bank. But a group of customers might force that pressure on a bank. The bank might then have minimal ability to change Visa and MasterCard by itself, but a group of banks most definitely has that ability. This lawsuit is proof that no one is powerless in the free market. A lawsuit may not be the best or most appropriate way to force change, but it’s usually effective. Visa and MasterCard should remember that where business refuses to regulate itself, government is more than willing to step and do the job. Me, I’d rather see self-regulation but I guess we know where Visa and MasterCard stand.

We find something about all our friends to rip on.

Since Subway never responded to my letter, I’m happy to see this story:

It was a situation clerks have faced again and again: customers upset by the discontinuation of rewards programs at franchises. But business owners say the programs simply cannot continue.

The reason: fraud.

In a world of home laser printers and multimedia PCs, counterfeiting has become increasingly easy. With materials available at any office supply store, those with a cursory knowledge of photo-editing software can duplicate the business-card-size rewards cards once punched at Cold Stone Creamery or the stamps once given out at Subway sandwich shops.

People are counterfeiting Subway stamps? And selling them on eBay, as the article points out? Who thinks to search eBay for Subway stamps?

All of that is certainly bizarre, but perhaps it occurred to someone somewhere that maybe a little technology could fix a problem caused by technology. Perhaps Subway executives have even seen it in action in a grocery store or gas station. Those places only try to get me to sign up for their Reward/Frequent Shopper/Super Saver/Generally Swell Guy cards every single time I shop at their establishments. The thought didn’t even have to be original. Observe. It’s such a basic business technique, it’s stunning that Subway missed it. (Cold Stone Creamery is featured in the article, as well, but I don’t hate them, so I’m only picking on them in in this paranthetical aside. Though, they do sell dairy products, so maybe I should… nah, I’m not that type of vegan. Screw Subway.)

And there’s this to consider:

And while the new system’s upfront costs might be high, it may reap larger rewards for the companies in the long run. As grocery stores have learned, the market research gleaned through establishing databases while handing out discounts can turn swipe cards into a winning formula very quickly.

Which is exactly why I never sign up for those cards or give my phone number to cashiers. I understand that I’m losing out on HUGE SAVINGS, but I’ll take my chances. Except at Best Buy. Best Buy is good. Best Buy gives me gift certificates for swiping my Reward Zone card. I like gift certificates. But I hate junk mail and telemarketers and all that useless, invasive crap. I’ll pay three cents extra for my tofu, thanks. I like the capitalistic idea that they’ll give me the best price without a gimmick and I’ll give them money without hesitation. Everything else is a time-waster. How about this sign on the entrance to every store:

We won’t sell you out.

Subway won’t clean a knife before cutting a sandwich. Why would anyone think they’ll respect customers enrolled in the electronic Sub Club?

Is it November 2006 yet?

Only in a country that loves David Hasselhoff as a singer would anyone consider this economic reform:

Ms Merkel has emphasized that the flat tax is a distant dream, a vision for how taxes could be simplified and lowered. Her short-term goal is to raise the value added tax by 2 per cent and use the extra revenue to stimulate the jobs market.

I strongly support the flat tax (more to come on this), so I don’t want to belittle too much what she’s trying to accomplish. But in no way is a country attached to reality when government tells business “give us your money and we’ll create jobs within your companies”. Here’s an idea: outlaw Germans from working more than 5 hours per day. The work will still exist, so more people will no doubt need to be hired. Ignore the man behind the curtain saying that more people will be underemployed.

Which leads me to today’s economic stupidity from an American. By now, everyone’s read House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s stupid quote declaring an “ongoing victory” on cutting fat from the federal budget. The statement is ridiculous in a way so obvious that further comment specific to that quote is pointless. I do think it important to highlight this quote, as well.

CAGW [Citizens Against Government Waste] and the Heritage Foundation also suggest rescinding the 6,000-plus earmarked projects in the recently passed highway bill.

But Mr. DeLay said those projects are “important infrastructure” and eliminating them could undermine the economy as Congress tries to offer hurricane relief.

“It is right to borrow to pay for it,” he said. “But it is not right to attack the very economy that will pay for it.”

Mr. [Tom] Schatz [president of CAGW], though, said the highway bill included projects such as flowers for the Ronald Reagan freeway in California, which he said aren’t essential spending.

The pork in the Transportation bill, and presumably most other pork spending, is essential to the economy. The wise, benevolent capitalists in Congress must take money from everyone named “Joe” in Kentucky so that 50 Alaskans can have a bridge. Otherwise, the economy is under attack. I guess the only reason those 50 Alaskans didn’t build the bridge connecting their tiny island with the rest of Alaska is because they’re stranded, with no method to return and no materials to build the much-needed bridge. And the increase in interest rates caused by an additional $2,000,000,000,000 in federal debt in the last five years is inconsequential to the economy.

This is the best representative the fiscally conservative Republican Party can find in Congress?

I’m dreaming; forgive me my delusions

Rogier van Bakel, guestblogging for Radley Balko, offers this analysis of President Bush. Consider:

Five years ago, it looked as if putting a guy with a business degree in charge might at least have the benefit of a certain level-headedness. The MBA President! No ordinary POTUS, but a hardbitten, dyed-in-the-wool Executive-in-Chief! A results-oriented fighter with a penchant for hacking through red tape!

Today, that notion, that promise — along with the expectation of a certain competence-under-pressure — lies buried beneath millions of gallons of oily, snake-infested water, unmoored from reality, gone forever.

I don’t think President Bush’s specific failure with regard to Hurricane Katrina nullifies the promise of a “results-oriented fighter with a penchant for hacking through red tape”. President Bush may not be that guy, but it’s still possible. Where the dream went awry is that we don’t specifically need an MBA president. Having an MBA doesn’t make a person qualified to be president; leadership does. The idea of a business-oriented president mentally geared to produce positive, identifiable results is worthy. But it can’t come from just any business person. It must come from someone who thinks like an entrepreneur. Ideally, we want Ross Perot without the “he’s nuts” factor.

The entrepreneur looks to grow a business. We don’t want a president to grow the government, per se. If that’s the goal, President Bush succeeded admirably in his first four-and-a-half years. In relation to government, I take that to mean the government does what it’s supposed to do. He (or she, if you like) forces the government to find its niche (what the private sector can’t/shouldn’t do) and excel at it. His government would shed responsibility to those better able to accomplish them (the private sector) the tasks government can’t/shouldn’t do. For example, the entrepreneurial president wouldn’t wait for political pressure to fix obvious holes in FEMA’s response. (The entrepreneurial president wouldn’t give a vital position as a political patronage, either, but I’m trying to deal with where we are.) The entrepreneurial president would expect the government to improve at what it does, even when it succeeds. “Great job. How can we do this even better next time?” becomes the motto.

The entrepreneurial president also understands that spending the nation into bankruptcy is stupid. He’d cut costs where they can and should be cut. He’d hold spending down when the government’s financial position doesn’t support more spending. If new spending needs arose, say from a natural disaster, he’d find a way to allocate that money, but he’d cut something else less essential. Perhaps a pork-barreled bridge in Alaska, for example. And he’d certainly not fall over himself trying to hand it out without any accounting of where it’s going and what it will buy. Necessity beats political urgency.

Last, and most important, the entrepreneurial president raises “revenues” responsibly. He’s already accepted the government’s legitimate role and shed everything else. He’d expect the government to assess and collect only the taxes necessary to meet that goal. He’d leave the private sector to fund everything else. In establishing that tax policy, he understands that fair is fair. Every citizen, according to his means, pays his share. No progressivity, no redistribution. (Two words: flat tax) The entrepreneurial president knows that government’s role in the economy is to get out of the way. To do this, the government must not tax like a monarch seeking tribute. He also understands that government can’t incentivize “proper” actions because proper actions are subjective and ever-changing. Think not subsidizing the portable cd player because the iPod made it obsolete.

The entrepreneurial president understands all of this. He isn’t in the middle management business. In the end, he is concerned with success, both for the nation and all of its citizens. He measures that through results, accountability, and action. That’s the “businessman as president” dream I’m keeping alive.

Um, the 7-Eleven, right? You take a penny from the tray.

I’ve written before of my “displeasure” with Yahoo. I stopped supporting them when they blatantly stole $5 from me and couldn’t make their technology work to acknowledge that they owed me another $5. Through my experience with Yahoo, I learned that I will abandon a company for $10. The real amount is probably lower, but Yahoo made me understand that the minimum is no higher than $10. Stupid companies should figure this out, because $10, and I would’ve settled for the $5 Yahoo promised to repay, is a ridiculous amount to keep to lose a customer. But Yahoo is perpetually stupid and I take glee in their disasters.

This story does not offer me glee; it offers pure outrage. Consider:

Internet giant Yahoo has been accused of supplying information to China which led to the jailing of a journalist for “divulging state secrets”.

Reporters Without Borders said Yahoo’s Hong Kong arm helped China link Shi Tao’s e-mail account and computer to a message containing the information.

…

Shi Tao, 37, worked for the Contemporary Business News in Hunan province, before he was arrested and sentenced in April to 10 years in prison.

According to a translation of his conviction, reproduced by Reporters Without Borders, he was found guilty of sending foreign-based websites the text of an internal Communist Party message.

Reporters Without Borders said the message warned journalists of the dangers of social unrest resulting from the return of dissidents on the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, in June 2004.

Yahoo can’t find any record that I canceled a trial membership, despite the confirmation I received, yet it can link Shi Tao to an e-mail about the dangers of social unrest and provide that link to prosecutors, which the Chinese government deems a crime worthy of ten years in prison? Yes, they’re in China so they must obey the laws. But doesn’t this travesty raise the more basic question of whether or not Yahoo should be in China while the communist government continues to oppress its people, at the expense of what should be a basic principle for a company founded around the Internet? Unbelievable. I guess the dollar yuan is mightier than principle.

I like the mysticism

Until a few weeks ago, I plodded along with my trusty usually working Dell mp3 player, which handled most of my portable music needs for the last eighteen months. It didn’t play Audible audiobooks and I’d begun to push the 20 gigabyte storage capacity, but I didn’t want to spend money for a new player. Those issues grew until I decided to upgrade to a new, not-iPod mp3 player. I saw zero reason to upgrade by spending $100 more on an iPod than on any other comparable player. After some research, I purchased a new player. When I heard the sound quality, I returned it. I researched the market a bit more, finally deciding that I’d risk the iPod’s extra expense once, just to understand the fuss. Three weeks ago, I bought an iPod. Today I’m a believer.

Now that I have an iPod, I’ve discovered the joy of iTunes, if obsessively spending 99 cents every day (or every few minutes) can be considered a joy. (Here’s a hint: It can be.) It offers the convenience of downloading individual songs that I discovered six years ago when Napster first made its appearance. If I hear a song I like, such as Alphaville’s “Forever Young”, but realize that it’s the group’s only song I like, I can pay 99 cents instead of $10. It’s amazing, but you knew that already.

I mention this back story to lead into a discussion of this article about Steve Jobs, Apple, and an impending battle within the downloadable music industry. Consider:

Two and a half years after the music business lined up behind the chief executive of Apple, Steven P. Jobs, and hailed him and his iTunes music service for breathing life into music sales, the industry’s allegiance to Mr. Jobs has eroded sharply.

Mr. Jobs is now girding for a showdown with at least two of the four major record companies over the price of songs on the iTunes service.

If he loses, the one-price model that iTunes has adopted – 99 cents to download any song – could be replaced with a more complex structure that prices songs by popularity. A hot new single, for example, could sell for $1.49, while a golden oldie could go for substantially less than 99 cents.

Can the music companies be that stupid? That’s rhetorical because it’s the same industry that fought downloadable music for years, choosing to sue its customers instead of altering the product to meet their changing demands. Apple has already sold more than 500,000,000 songs, but consumers paying for downloads is still in its infancy. The “training” that record companies should’ve done five years ago is just beginning. The rules shouldn’t change yet. And yet, this is the logic of one record company:

Andrew Lack, the chief executive of Sony BMG, discussed the state of the overall digital market at a media and technology conference three months ago and said that Mr. Jobs “has got two revenue streams: one from our music and one from the sale of his iPods.”

“I’ve got one revenue stream,” Mr. Lack said, joking that it would require a medical professional to locate. “It’s not pretty.”

It’s not Mr. Jobs’s fault that Sony BMG can’t figure out how to diversify its business. That assumes that Apple screws the record companies with each sale, which isn’t true because the record companies earn approximately 70 cents per song. I haven’t verified the cost structure, but that seems impressive when assuming that Apple bears the costs of operating iTunes.

The other aspect of the impending battle involves Apple’s closed standards for the iPod and iTunes. Currently, users must burn songs purchased through iTunes onto blank discs before transferring the songs to a player other than an iPod. I encountered that tedious procedure, which is why I bought only a few songs before I purchased an iPod. Now that I have an iPod, the restriction is annoying but trivial. As much as I’d like to see Apple open its standards, it doesn’t seem to be necessary right now. I purchased an iPod, and I was adamant about not paying the extra $100. Apple is doing something right.

That makes this statement interesting:

Hilary Rosen, the former chairwoman of the Recording Industry Association of America, agrees on that point. “If Apple opened up their standards, they would sell more, not less,” she said. “If they open it up to having more flexibility with the iPod, I think they’d sell more iPods. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s their fault that nobody else has come up with something great” to compete.

If the sun comes out tomorrow, it’ll be light. If it doesn’t come out tomorrow, it’ll be dark. What kind of idiotic statement is that? While Ms. Rosen does acknowledge that Apple “invented a better mousetrap”, she wants to believe that they should give away that advantage. Why? To sell more iPods? That logic is ridiculous. Considering it comes from a former representative of the RIAA, I’m not surprised. In not opening its standards, Apple is “reacting” to consumer demands. As long as iPods outsell other mp3 players 4-to-1, Apple’s executives have no legitimate reason to change their strategy. I’d entertain the idea that it’s not a viable long-term strategy, considering what happened to the Mac in the late ’80s, but for now, I see few flaws. Ride what works.

Finally, consider Sony BMG’s strategy for gaining an advantage:

Sony BMG in particular has taken steps that may apply pressure to Mr. Jobs to make Apple’s software compatible with that of other companies. The company has issued dozens of new titles – including high-profile CD’s from the Dave Matthews Band and the Foo Fighters – with software to limit the number of copies that can be made from the disc.

The software is compatible with Microsoft’s music software, but not Apple’s, and as a result music from those Sony BMG albums cannot be transferred to iPods that are hooked up to Windows-based PC’s. EMI has been test-marketing similar software with a handful of titles.

Those albums must be labeled. If I buy an album with that nonsense on it, I will be angry. I have complete faith that hackers will produce software to break the security scheme, just like the pointless DVD regional codes, but I shouldn’t have to go to such extremes to use my music in a manner most convenient to me. Stupid.

I know it’s just a poll

Warning: Do NOT follow the link in this story if you do not wish to know potential spoilers for the new season of Alias. I wish I didn’t know, but I already did, so I read it. End of warning.

While reading this story about the new season of Alias, I noticed a reader poll in the sidebar. Consider:

The answers are stupid. Just like movie studios delayed disaster/terrorist films after September 11th, 2001, any new movie delays in the aftermath of new terrorism are attributable to obvious business logic. When a major calamity strikes a society, impacting most members, even if the impact is merely on an individual’s national pride, demand for calamity entertainment withers. Why would a movie studio, in the business of making entertainment money, release supply into evaporating demand? Yes, an event like September 11th was beyond any imaginable scale, so some sensitivity factors in (an assumption I’m willing to concede). But it makes up little of the overall decision, because what if the nation wanted that movie as a catharsis? Would the movie studio show it for free as a matter of sensitivity to the victims? Of course not.

To news outlets who offer such worthless content: if you’re going to bother me with silly, poorly-reasoned polls, show me an ad instead.

I can’t wait to read the new Google searches

Who knew America could offer such overwhelming concern for our culture? Consider:

The Internet’s key oversight agency agreed Tuesday to a one-month delay in approving a new “.xxx” domain name after the U.S. government cited “unprecedented” opposition to a virtual red-light district.

Michael D. Gallagher, assistant secretary for communications and information at the Commerce Department, had stopped short of urging its rejection, but he called on the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [ICANN] to “ensure the best interests of the Internet community as a whole are fully considered.”

The department received nearly 6,000 letters and e-mails expressing concerns about the impact of pornography on families and children and objecting to setting aside a domain suffix for it, he said.

Wow, 6,000 letters from 300 million Americans. That’s a lot. It’s good to know so many (probably) one group cares so much. And wants the rest of us to understand so little.

Oppose porn? Fine, oppose it. But answer this simple question: why would porn sites convert to ‘.xxx’? That would allow the porn filters to block them with one simple edit to the filter. Ah, but the 6,000 concerned Americans know this, I would think. Perhaps not.

“Pornographers will be given even more opportunities to flood our homes, libraries and society with pornography through the .xxx domain. The .xxx domain will increase, not decrease, porn on the internet,” [Family Research Council] said.

This is a blatant scare tactic. Hide the women and children, the porn is taking over. Except, as I’ve just stated, internet filters exist. Add ‘.xxx’ to the filter criteria and, although the porn has increased, the user’s exposure has not. This isn’t about families being exposed to more porn. If that were the case, the Family Research Council would have no opinion. Instead, it’s about access to porn by willing adults. The FRC essentially spelled this out in its press release.

“Selling hard core pornography on the internet is a violation of federal obscenity law so the Bush Administration is right to oppose the ‘.XXX’ domain. The Bush Administration should not, in any way, be seen to facilitate the porn industry which has been a plague on our society since the establishment of the internet. The ‘.XXX’ domain proposal is an effort to pander to the porn industry and offers nothing but false hope to an American public which wants illegal pornographers prosecuted, not rewarded.

“The ‘.XXX’ domain was never intended to force the porn industry to leave the ‘.com’ domain, which has been a cash cow for pornographers. Indeed, any law attempting to force pornographers to relocate to ‘.XXX’ would be constitutionally suspect and not likely to be effective. Instead, if the ‘.XXX’ domain were established pornographers would keep their lucrative ‘.com’ commercial sites and expand to even more sites on ‘.XXX,’ thus becoming even more of a menace to society. Pornography violates the dignity of the women and men involved, destroys marital bonds, and pollutes the minds of child and adult consumers.

“The Family Research Council supports Attorney General Gonzales’ major new prosecution initiative against the porn industry, announced in May. We are confident of his determination and of his ultimate success. The pornographers, instead of expanding their presence on the internet, would be well advised to get out of business all together right now before they are called to court to answer for their crimes.”

A few quick observations.

— I have no idea if selling hardcore pornography is illegal, but the claim seems dubious, at best. I suspect it has more to do with what the pornography depicts.

— The American public wants “illegal” pornographers prosecuted. What about the legal pornographers? And I suppose those 6,000 letters constitute the American public. And the billions of dollars spent on pornography are clearly stolen from customers.

— Why bother to (unconstitutionally) force pornographers to switch from ‘.com’ if their businesses are illegal? Wouldn’t it make more sense to shut them down and prosecute them? Or is that also constitutionally suspect?

— Who’s to say porn violates the dignity of the women and men involved? I tend to agree, but I acknowledge that as opinion, not fact. If you make a statement like that, prove it.

— If the pornographers are committing crimes right now, how will getting out of the business prevent them from being “called to court to answer for their crimes”? If I embezzle money, but stop before being caught, am I no longer eligible for prosecution?

Technology is robust enough to block the overwhelming majority of porn from Generic Internet User’s computer. Install a firewall and anti-spyware software and, with minimum diligence, porn will not sneak up and expose itself to Generic Internet User. It really is that simple. If Generic Internet User is an ignorant Ludditte, learning how to protect his computer is the solution.

But groups like Family Research Council aren’t interested in that. Without pretending that the threat is scary, overwhelming, and pervasive, they wouldn’t gain sufficient political clout to pursue their true objective of Puritan nanny-statism. Instead of working to show porn consumers how it’s a detriment to a happy, productive life, groups like the FRC seek governmental control over the actions of all. We can have any freedom we want, as long as no one is against it.

Is the idea of freedom and personal responsibility really as dead as it seems?

He’s not a person, he’s a suit! You’re mailroom. No consorting.

I’ve written a little in the past on the liberal media and possible alternate explanations for the mass conspiracy that many conservatives want to see there. In the beginning I posited the idea that “bad news sells” is a better explanation. I’ve since refined it to include liberal bias, but only in the context of specific media outlets. Smear The New York Times with a liberal bias claim and I can accept that. But I’d same the reverse about Fox News. The back-and-forth could go on a long time. Information, with whatever desired slant, is available in a multitude of forms. The old, entrenched media is liberal? Fine, read, watch, or listen to something else. Changing technology has a way of flattening the market of competitive dinosaurs. It’s Capitalism 101. Accept it.

Because of that, whenever I hear or read “liberal MSM”, I suspect that the speaker/writer merely wants to spew an ideological point to score points. It’s little more than stereotyping to diminish. My idea of reporting, writing, and thinking is that facts win. If there’s a bias, I rely on my intellect to decipher truth. I don’t need a political party to filter my perception. Not to mention that the ideal world would have no bias, not a non-liberal-so-it-has-to-be-conservative bias. So I stand by my theory.

Luckily for me, the news media provided an example earlier this week. (I’m not happy that the actual events happened to prove my point. I wish it hadn’t happened and all that hippy blah, blah, blah.) So, consider this headline:

Marc Cohn shot in head during car jacking

I was horrified. I like Marc Cohn, so I clicked the link. This is what followed:

A Grammy-winning musician and husband of ABC news reporter Elizabeth Vargas was treated at a hospital and released Monday after being shot in the head during an attempted carjacking following a performance.

Right, so the headline gave no indication of that. Now, a few days later, the sub-headline does, but search the headlines and, even now, half still lead with only “Marc Cohn shot in head”. Is that liberal bias? Or is it “bad news sells” bias? I clicked. And that’s what the news media, whether MSM or not, want me to do. Again, it’s Capitalism 101. If people weren’t buying, the MSM wouldn’t be selling. More to the point, aren’t those people who link to and write about liberal bias in the MSM clicking and reading and discussing?

Solution? Keep questioning the “liberal” media. Technology makes that possible. But also question the people who bitch about the “liberal” media. Your brain makes that possible.