« January 13, 2007 | Main | January 16, 2007 »
Time Inc Layoffs
January 15, 2007
I saw this New York Times (registration required) article today about Time Inc. the publishing division of Time Warner cutting 150 people – half in editorial jobs. The cuts are surprising as they include editorial talent. This could be considered a very bad sign but in reality the editors have to go because the company is streamlining how it reports on news.Instead of having several correspondents send files to a writer in New York and then having a fact-checking department, the stories will be researched, written and fact checked by one person.
Larry Hackett, managing editor of People, said the new reporting model would not preclude putting several correspondents on one piece when the news warrants it.
Why is this an interesting development? Because this is what many websites and bloggers do today. So really the web and bloggers have made it impossible for Time Inc. to continue doing business as usual. This is classic media disruption at its best.
The question becomes whether Time Magazine will err on the side speed or accuracy. Perhaps this model will allow the best of both worlds.
Recently I wrote about how bloggers are now being considered by federal courts as journalists. Well here is further reinforcement from the old media world that bloggers are using the formula that makes the most sense today.
I should point out there will likely be a loss of quality with this new system Time Inc. is implementing but it has become obvious consumers of content will forgo some quality for more rapid reporting.
To me the timing of this news couldn’t be anymore amazing as in the post mentioned above I had a paragraph which sums it all up.
This past weekend I was at a birthday party and one of my relatives was thanking another relative because he hooked her on the Perez Hilton blog. She continued “I don’t need to subscribe to People Magazine anymore.” Again, consumers decide what the form of news will be and speed wins.
Link this |
Email this |
Leave comment
Trackback URL: Time Inc Layoffs
Technorati
Del.icio.us
BoingBoing
Slashdot
Digg
Spurl
Furl
USF Benefits Who?
January 15, 2007
The San Jose Mercury News has an in-depth article on the Universal Service Fund with a slant on California and their particular funds. The article hints at abuse and discusses exactly who benefits from the fund. The biggest beneficiary is AT&T by the way and this is not surprising as it is the largest phone company. "This program isn't a windfall to us," said Diamond. "AT&T doesn't receive any benefit. We simply are recovering our costs to provide phone service to high cost areas." Cable companies do not benefit from the fund as they do not provide services everywhere.One of the most ironic twists of the USF is that Malibu, California is an area of the country receiving subsidies because of its difficult terrain. While this does seem to make sense, it doesn’t seem in the spirit of a fund we pay into to help the needy, underprivileged and those who live in rural areas.
Here is part of the article which I thought most interesting:
The state's 25 million cellular subscribers contributed 60 percent of the payments to the B Fund, an Associated Press investigation found. That proportion that is likely to increase given the growing number of consumers relying exclusively on wireless communication.Where the money goes and how it's divvied up among the phone companies is shrouded in secrecy because government-sanctioned reporting procedures cloak the information from public view. What's clear is that the subsidies aren't always used to install phone lines in high-cost areas.
"We're mostly concerned that high-cost universal service funding has been used predominantly to subsidize inefficient wireline carriers," Kuo said. "(But) we also have seen significant waste in how that funding is distributed."
Much of the money disappears into corporate treasuries to be used at the companies' discretion; some sits in the bank, and some has even vanished into the state's general fund. During the 2002-2003 fiscal year the Legislature "borrowed" more than $278 million from its high-cost surcharge funds to help balance the budget. It has never been repaid.
Rob Schladale, assistant program budget manager for the state Department of Finance, said the transfer was never supposed to be repaid because the B Fund contained a surplus at the time. A 2003 change in the law prohibited further transfers.
"It's Verizon's position that special purpose funds should only be used for their intended purpose," company spokesman Jon Davies said. The high-cost subsidy "should never be tapped to balance the budget."
Link this |
Email this |
Leave comment
Trackback URL: USF Benefits Who?
Technorati
Del.icio.us
BoingBoing
Slashdot
Digg
Spurl
Furl
