One size fits all (or not)

With the dawn of the network age, institutions that used to flourish in the analog communications era (every year since before the network) continue to respond as if nothing has changed. Nowhere is this truer than with broadcasting, where its audience has become atomized in and by the network. But it’s more than that. People now have weapons to actually assist their escape from actual audience seats, which makes ignoring reality even more dangerous. And rather than invest in the very real opportunities of the network — especially at the local level — broadcasting continually works to redefine the disruption as just another obstacle to overcome in routinely trudging the road to its money tree.

Adweek was given a preview this week of Nielsen’s new multiplatform measuring tool, total audience measurement. This is Nielsen’s attempt to take that atomization and shove it back in the bottle from which it came. Here are key takeaways from the Adweek article:

…total audience measurement is real and, given the industry’s growing cries this fall (in the face of more live TV viewership declines) for a tool that will finally allow them to fully measure and monetize viewers, it’s spectacular…

The result is total audience measurement, Nielsen’s single-sourced platform to account for all viewing across linear TV, DVR, VOD, connected TV devices (Roku, Apple TV and Xbox), mobile, PC and tablets…

(Nielsen evp Megan Clarken) “What we’re acutely aware of is our measurement underpins $70 billion worth of advertising,” she added.

Make no mistake, this is entirely about advertising and the potential collapse of the top-down, stage-to-audience hegemony that runs everything. Why else use the word “audience?” With that word, Nielsen is saying, “Hey, everybody, nothing has changed. You needed us to figure out how to crunch these numbers to tell the story of how relevant you’ve stayed through this whole disruption mess. Thank God, right?” With $70 billion at stake, the back pats are deserved.

Or not.

“Audience” is defined as “the assembled spectators or listeners at a public event, such as a play, movie, concert, or meeting.” Mass media requires a mass (an audience) in order to get paid by advertisers who want to reach those audience members in order to advance commerce. Audiences are captive. They sit in seats and pay attention.

Or not.

Everyday people — those who Jay Rosen brilliantly tagged 10 years ago as “The people formerly known as the audience” — are using technology in their war against manipulation by forces that could do whatever they wished in the mass marketing era. Television advertising still works and probably always will, but it’s nowhere near what it used to be. According to the Adweek article, “live” television viewing makes up only 45% of a program’s total “audience.” Those technologies that Nielsen is putting together include those that run without commercials or can be skipped. Moreover, even if people don’t change the channel during commercial breaks, they are on to secondary screens, and their attention is diverted. Not all views are equal in the eyes of increasingly educated advertisers.

$70 billion is a lot to lose, and to a certain extent, defensive strategies like this are to be expected. What’s hard to fathom, however, is that in a competitive environment like the network, it’s fiscal suicide to only play defense. Meanwhile, money continues to flow to those in Silicon Valley (and beyond) that are doing the innovating in playing by the network’s rules.

They should. After all, they invented it.

Acts of citizen media

For as long as I’ve been blogging, I’ve been saying that the ability of everyday people to communicate across the bottom of culture is a disruptor that will completely alter the modernist world. This is because those influences that have always spoken from the top-down are no longer the only ones capable of speaking to everyone. The price of participation in the process is no longer reserved only for the elites. Dan Gillmor was the first to really explore this with his brilliant and prescient book “We, the Media.” In his book, Darknet, J.D. Lasica coined the phrase “personal media revolution” to define the phenomenon of everybody functioning as a media company.

I’ve long used the Middle East as an illustration of this, and while the subject truly angers those who unconditionally support Israel, citizen media in the region is making it harder and harder for Israel to maintain the narrative that it is always the victim. In the news today is a report from a human rights organization that describes the matter perfectly. From its press release:

While the Israeli government has to date escaped serious accountability for repeated human rights violations, “citizen journalism”—in which excessive acts of force are caught on camera—now is making it more difficult for the acts to be obscured or brushed aside, says the report.

“Thanks to the courageous acts of activists, family members and bystanders, Euro-Med has collected video footage and eyewitness testimonies documenting numerous, egregious abuses by Israeli soldiers during the last few weeks, which we believe is only the tip of the iceberg,” says Daniela Dönges. “In our report, we name eight of them, because they are not just numbers. They are human beings with stories that must be told.”

Here’s the video itself. It’s not easy to watch.

The Middle East is a laboratory in which this cultural disruptor can be studied, and yet, very few do. That’s because it shakes us to the core and raises the difficult question of the permanence or reliability of anything.

That may be discomforting, but this is only the beginning.

Deconstructing The Associated Press

apThe trade of journalism is facing trouble on all sides these days, mostly because its source of funding — primarily advertising — is going elsewhere. This squeeze is bringing out the worst in people who we used to believe dedicated themselves to the pursuit of truth. Not so today. It’s simply easier to embrace biased narratives than pursue facts, and nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East, where truth takes a whole lot of work.

But difficulty is simply an excuse, for if I can spot this stuff from my office in Alabama, it ought to be obvious to those still involved in the trade. With that in mind, I need to deconstruct (that tool of the postmodernist) a story by the Associated Press published yesterday that functions as a press release from the Israeli office of information. Oh, there’s a smattering of an opposing point-of-view, but the overall content, writing, and presentation represent the pro-Israel perspective.

The piece is structured in five chunks, so that’s the way I’ll present it here. My commentary will follow each “chunk.”

No end in sight for latest Israeli-Palestinian violence, raising fears of uprising

JERUSALEM – For nearly a month, Israel has been dealing with a wave of Palestinian unrest that shows no signs of stopping. Beginning with clashes at a sensitive Jerusalem holy site, the violence has spread throughout the city, across Israel and into the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Since the Jewish New Year last month, five Israelis have been killed in a shooting, a stoning and a series of stabbings. At least 26 Palestinians been killed by Israeli fire, including 10 identified by Israel as attackers and the rest in clashes between stone-throwers and Israeli troops. Hundreds of Palestinians have been wounded in such confrontations.

The violence comes at a time when prospects for negotiating an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appear nil.

While Israelis are on edge over the random nature of the current wave of attacks, many Palestinians feel hopeless because all paths to statehood and ending nearly half a century of Israeli occupation appear blocked.

The long-running diplomatic deadlock coupled with the current violence has raised fears that the region is on the cusp of a major new round of Israeli-Palestinian fighting.

Anyone schooled in the practice of propaganda knows that how the message is framed determines where you can go with it. Here, the first paragraph frames the whole piece by announcing that what’s happening is a “wave of Palestinian unrest.” Those darned Palestinians, right? If they’d just stop it, everything would be fine. Moreover, the writer explains that this began in Jerusalem and expanded outward, even reaching the West Bank and Gaza strip.

This is entirely false. The “unrest” is a response to Israeli terror, last year in Gaza and this year in the West Bank, where a family, including a sleeping baby, were killed in a firebombing by Israeli settlers who operate as an armed militia with impunity in the occupied territories.  Then there are extrajudicial executions by the IDF that have become commonplace, the latest being an 18-year old girl at a West Bank checkpoint.

Let’s also make clear here that this “unrest” involves mostly stone-throwers and an occasional stabbing, whereas the full military might of the government is used daily against Palestinians.


Clashes broke out at Jerusalem’s most sensitive holy site over the Jewish New Year, fueled by rumors that Israel was secretly plotting to take over the spot.

The compound is revered by Jews as the Temple Mount, home to the biblical Jewish Temples. Today it houses the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Islam’s third-holiest site.

Israel captured the site from Jordan in the 1967 Mideast war, but it remained under Muslim administration. Under a decades-old arrangement, non-Muslims are allowed to visit, but not pray there.

A growing number of Jewish visitors in recent years, coupled with calls by religious Jewish activists for a greater presence at the site, have stoked Palestinian fears that Israel is planning to change this arrangement.

Palestinians fiercely defend the site as both a religious and national symbol. Growing Palestinian fears that the shrine is in danger triggered unrest across the region.

Israel has repeatedly said it is committed to the status quo and has accused Palestinian and Muslim religious leaders of inciting violence.

Two things. One, the presentation of this as being started by a “rumor” is absurd on its face, although it fits the Israeli narrative that Palestinians are psychotic. There’s nothing new here, because Israel has always “wanted” all of Jerusalem. What did happen this year was that Israeli security forces aggressively stormed the mosque prior to the Jewish New Year in order to make it safer for Jews to visit the site. Firing stun grenades and rubber coated bullets, many Muslims were injured, and the Palestinians responded. Each year it appears to get worse. This year, Arab men under the age of 50 were forbidden from entering the Mosque.

Moreover, this mess didn’t “start” in Jerusalem. It’s been ongoing, and the current atmosphere was created by Israeli actions in the West Bank. One simply cannot understand the situation without accepting this knowledge, for to do otherwise is to utterly embrace the Israeli narrative in the region.


While some Israeli commentators have begun to call the unrest a new intifada, or uprising, it is premature to say so.

The violence has some things in common with the second Palestinian uprising. In 2000, a visit to the hilltop religious site by Israel’s then opposition leader, Ariel Sharon, helped trigger what turned into an uprising.

Some argue that Palestinian anger over living under Israeli military occupation for nearly 50 years, the collapse of peace efforts and the lack of hope for gaining independence has made the region ripe for a new bout of violence.

Still, there are key differences. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been an outspoken opponent of violence and has maintained security coördination with Israel to prevent the clashes from spinning out of control.

During the previous intifada, organized Palestinian militant groups were behind much of the violence, often with tacit support from their leaders. Most of those groups have been disbanded or their members jailed. The recent stabbings have been carried out by individuals with no known political affiliation acting on their own.

These “lone-wolf” attacks have made it hard for Israel to find a military solution to the unrest, or to predict how long it will continue.

Firstly, the “uprising,” if there is one, is a Palestinian response to the apartheid state within which they live and the escalating violent actions by the IDF in maintaining the status quo, which, again, includes permitting bands of armed Israelis who simply attack (and kill) whoever they like and for whatever reason in the occupied territories. These acts are carried out with absolute impunity.

The “collapse” of peace initiatives is tied to recent statements by the prime minister and defense minister that there will never be a two-state solution in the region. Hopeless? Well, I guess so.

Oh, and let’s leave the Palestinian “leaders” out of this entirely. The idea that any one person or group speaks on behalf of or “for” the oppressed is a straw man used entirely for propaganda purposes. This is entirely a grass roots response to actual Israeli behavior, which can only lead one to the conclusion that Israel does NOT want peace with them.


The stabbings have caused widespread panic in Israel, prompting Jerusalem’s mayor and other politicians to encourage licensed gun owners to carry their weapons.

Israeli leaders say the country’s large number of well-trained military veterans provides an extra layer of security. And after several stabbings, assailants have been quickly shot by either police or armed civilians. But critics say such talk only increases tensions, raising the risk that over-eager gun owners or troops will shoot to kill, even when unnecessary.

In one case caught on video, a young Palestinian man wanted in a stabbing was gunned down by a police officer as an angry crowd screamed for him to be shot. In the video, it is not clear whether the youth was armed, and the police car was far away from him, raising the question of whether the youth could have been subdued without being killed.

The “widespread panic” is a response to how this is portrayed in the Israeli media, especially television, because isolated incidents in various places that are then strung together to support a narrative can be and usually are terribly misleading.

The last paragraph points to just one of the many incidents that Palestinians are using to plead the case of Israeli aggression. The boy (not a man) was running TOWARDS police and away from the Israeli mob. Only in Israel — and against Palestinians — is it acceptable to shoot first, ask questions later, and not be held accountable for it. “Wanted in a stabbing” is not justification for extrajudicial execution. Or is it?

Finally, the headline of this section is right out of the Hasbara playbook. Read it. “How has Israel responded?” Again, the narrative being presented is that innocent Israel is, once again, being forced to defend itself against those who would do it harm. If anything, this is a Palestinian response, but that is completely disregarded in a blatant attempt to present the Israeli narrative as “news.”


Both Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could play key roles in ending the unrest, though both have been limited by external pressure.

Netanyahu is under heavy pressure from the public, and hard-liners in his coalition, to take even tougher action. In addition to his tough rhetoric, the Israeli leader has already beefed up the level of forces in Jerusalem and the West Bank, and loosened the rules on when troops can open fire at protesters.

Yet a severe crackdown risks triggering even more violence and international condemnation. For this reason, he has also taken steps to ease tensions, such as banning lawmakers from visiting the Jerusalem holy site.

Abbas is also interested in restoring quiet. But after years of stalled statehood negotiations — paralysis he blames on Netanyahu’s hard-line approach — he is deeply unpopular. Containing the violence and openly continuing the security coöperation with Israel risks promoting the image that he is weak and ineffective.

In any case, it remains unclear how much control either man has when the violence is emanating from the ground up, carried out by angry teenagers who have little hope for the future.

By presenting this as “Abbas versus Netanyahu,” the Associated Press takes us down a well-worn path that leads to nowhere. Netanyahu could conceivably stop this, but why should he? He was just re-elected by, among other things, scaring voters with last-minute panicky statements that “the Arabs” were voting in droves. He believes he operates with the complete support of Israeli citizens, and there’s nothing to indicate otherwise. Abbas has no power among Palestinians and certainly none with Israel.

Netanyahu is exploiting the response of the “occupied” population to Israeli violence by shoving more violence down their throats in order to maintain control. Sadly, the press — led by articles like this from The Associated Press, and especially the work of the New York Times — is assisting him in getting away with it.

If you believe, as some do, that conqueror Israel has the right to write its own history, then I hope you enjoy your bath in the tarpits. In a networked world, one-sided views of history can’t stand up to scrutiny, because horizontal communications allow us access to the very ground floor that is rising up in the occupied territories.

This will not end well for either “side” unless and until the world intervenes.

I’m not holding my breath.

Re-writing history by erasure

Media in the U.S. is more often than not the servant of special interests, even though professional journalists would scoff at the idea as absurd. Unfortunately, the truth is that it’s been this way since the early 20th Century and the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson. I’ve written extensively about the Creel Committee and its manipulation of information about World War I and especially the later work of its members, Walter Lippmann and his friend Edward Bernays. The only way to overcome this and set the historical record right is to participate in the postmodern practice of deconstructionism. The problem is rarely one of the facts but almost always of the narrative or grand narrative that comes from selecting certain facts and dismissing others.

Journalism in the future — it is certainly my hope — will embrace active deconstructionism to separate truth from self-serving narratives. It simply has no choice in a networked world. That’s because people can talk to each other without filters. Truth in mass media is often obscured for the sake of populism and nationalism, and we have a great example of this underway currently in the Middle East.

Zionism is a very real attempt to eliminate certain portions of history in order to establish a direct connection between modern day Israel and the historical record of the Old Testament in the Bible. There are regional political and economic reasons for so doing, and I get that. However, we don’t need to sit back as a culture and look aside as crimes are being committed in the process, no matter how righteous our intentions. The truth is there isn’t a direct connection between contemporary Israel and the Israel of the Bible, and attempts to make that connection by eliminating everything between are entirely self-serving. We must not only be concerned with what’s happening today, but what will happen tomorrow, if such a connection becomes a part of the grand narrative of world history.

mamillaMondoweiss, a publication that searches for verifiable truth in the region, today published the words of Sergio Yahni, an Israeli journalist and coördinator of the Palestinian-Israeli organization, the Alternative Information Center. The article expresses concerns about the necessities of Zionists to establish Jerusalem as entirely a Jewish city, despite prior agreements to keep it multi-cultural. The article specifically references an important Islamic cemetery.

“They are commercializing the city, selling it as a modern Jewish city, but at the same time as an ancient one. The mayor, Nir Barkat, wants to sell Jerusalem to the world as an opulent tourist attraction, because of this, he is transforming its character and the nature…”

“To reach this goal, it’s erasing the Islamic history and tradition of the city. Jerusalem is built on multiple layers, a unique stage of history, but the municipality is working hard to simplify it. How? Erasing the Islamic layer in order to replace it with the Roman and the Jewish ones…”

“The scientific archeology was replaced by the ideological archeology: all the Israeli work in this field is based on the Bible and the Old Testament, trying to demonstrate their narrative, and obviously, in this context, there is no space for the Islamic and Arab tradition. Let’s take the example of the Moroccan Quarter, in the Old City, just beside the Wailing Wall: it was built in the 12th century and it was destroyed after 1967 because it was contradicting the Zionist narrative. The same thing is happening in Silwan with the City of David and in Mamilla: the archeology is a tool to justify a personal and self-interested narrative, erasing the real one”.

I realize a lot of people simply say “so what? After all, Israel won the war, so let them do what they want.” The problem is very simply this: The prophecy that both Jews and Evangelical Christians use to justify this (Ezekiel 36:24–36) must be edited in order to apply it to contemporary Israel, for the text concerns God scattering the Jews for their misbehavior regarding the covenant God had established with them. The verses describe God’s great mercy in cleansing them and bringing them home. So one is free to ask the only pertinent question in light of the prophecy: is the nation of Israel’s behavior righteous or is it not? Are the people living in accordance with the laws and sacrifices ascribed to them as the people of God?

Even an idiot could answer that question correctly, unless they’re only given a tilted form of truth.

If Zionism is allowed to get away with this ruse, we will all bear the global consequences of a country, armed to the teeth, doing whatever they please in the name of God.

It’s enough to make you wonder who are the real good guys and bad guys in what we see unfolding day in and day out in the Middle East.

Local Advertising Hits A Tipping Point

“(W)e’ve reached the end of the Golden Age of Advertising,” says pioneering media researcher Gordon Borrell in a new report that paints a very realistic picture of the state of local advertising. This report — Local Advertising Hits A Tipping Point — is a 5-year follow-up to a report published in 2010 and tracks the opinions of 7,228 small and mid-size advertisers (SMBs).

While there is a lot of between-the-lines conclusions to be drawn, here are just a few of the report’s findings. Remember, these are advertisers speaking, or it would be more appropriate to call them “the people formerly known as the advertisers.”

  • 82% of SMBs have established their own media channel in the form of a website or social media page.
  • Since 2007, spending has skyrocketed to the point at which businesses last year spent 72% more on marketing services and promotions than they had spent 10 years earlier. Meanwhile, the annual expenditure on local advertising was 22% less than it was a decade ago.
    Screen Shot 2015-06-10 at 12.41.44 PM
  • 72% of those are purchasing digital services to support those channels, spending far more on those efforts than on basic advertising.
  • By examining IRS tax records, Borrell concludes that “if businesses were devoting the same percentage of this year’s gross revenues to advertising as they were 10 years ago, the advertising economy would be $56 billion richer.”
  • Online media appeals to the largest percentage of local advertisers and takes the largest share of ad budgets of any other media. This is a pedestal newspapers have occupied for over 300 years! “Over the next 12 months, the gap will almost certainly widen to the point that all traditional advertising channels — print, broadcast, outdoor and mail — begin to look like niche support mechanisms to a local businesses’ digital marketing plan.”Screen Shot 2015-06-10 at 12.33.49 PM
  • Traditional media has devolved into an option, selected by habit or by preference but certainly not by necessity.
  • Online is so strong that by 2020, Borrell projects that all traditional media will scramble to maintain a small set of advertisers who will spend small shares of their budgets with them.
  • Local businesses, on average, get 20% of their sales from online, versus 13% by the old standby, the telephone.
  • These businesses have just begun to become digitally savvy, according to a new metric from Borrell. 85% of SMBs fell short of a line considered “very active” in digital activity. What this means is that they are novices that somebody can teach and that the more savvy they become, the more disruptive they’ll likely be.
  • 82% of respondents maintain a social media page with an average of 2,123 followers, though 61% have fewer than 1,000. The report notes that growing their own audience base equates to real customers for SMBs, which is radically different than buying ads based on somebody else’s reach.
  • Native advertising (a.k.a. Content Marketing) is another area of satisfaction for SMBs, although its use is low. This equates to a growth opportunity for those providing a service.
  • Mobile is another BIG area of interest, although not in any traditional advertising sense. The projected spending categories for mobile relate almost entirely to SMBs own web franchises and include things like Responsive Design (mobile-friendly), search, SMS, proximity, apps and video.

With all Borrell research, it’s useful to take a step back and try to get a 30,000 foot view. What this report doesn’t say directly is that the levers of commerce in our world are shifting to the hands of businesses themselves due to the growth and development of a networked culture. The beauty (or evil, depending on your perspective) of the network is that it is a 3-way communications medium, which allows human beings to by-pass filters that the network deems inefficient and, frankly, now useless. This includes our entire cultural infrastructure of expertise divided into silos, the first of which is how we communicate. There will be others.

This Borrell report tracks empirically the shifts relating to the way money changes hands in the levers that grease of the skids used by businesses to reach customers and sell their wares. Those businesses are loudly telling us now — along with their customers — exactly how THEY want things done, and clearly that doesn’t include traditional forms of getting the word out. It’s too expensive. It’s too haphazard. It’s out of control in ways that we tend to disregard in the name of profit.

While I certainly respect the crisis that journalism may face in all of this, we’ve been our own worst enemies in the assumption that we could simply shift our model to the Web. It’s too late to effect any significant change in that strategic blunder, but it’s not too late to shift our focus to what we’re being given and away from what we want. That, I’m afraid, is the only logical path for the days, weeks, months and years ahead.

Meanwhile, Gordon Borrell will continue to apply his fascinating research to helping us understanding not only what’s going on today but also where that’s all headed.

Just sayin…

Dear people.

Once upon a time there was a writer who tried to present logical views of tomorrow in a rapidly-changing media universe. His words were rejected, and the reasons given were usually based in the idea that this prophet’s projections were a) not our business model b) too negative or c) my favorite: too out there (in other words, crazy). This was one of them: “Creating Spectrum Within Spectrum,” published in September of 2007.

I’m waiting (but not holding my breath) for an arrangement between all incumbents that allows them to move their competition between each other to a single platform on the Web, to operate as they wish within this specialized platform. Think of it as moving their existing spectrum to cyberspace and operating therein. If you want network television, for example, you go to the network television platform. If you want movies, you go to the movie section, and so forth. This could actually be done — and it would be useful for “consumers” — but it would require individual companies within these industries to work together, and that is very unlikely to happen.

For local media, the same thing could be done. If users wanted access to local news video, they would go to one place, where all local news video was available. This would create a form of spectrum within the whole, where individual players could duke it out just like they do in their own universe today. The problem, again, is that it would require separate companies to work together, and that’s highly problematic. The number one station would tell the others to go to hell, because they think they can a) do just fine on their own and b) it would “cheapen” them by putting their work on the same stage as their competitors.

Would this station prefer their work to stand alone as a blip in the overall spectrum of the Web or be a part of a bigger blip, a piece of spectrum designed specifically to better enable users to find their work? And this same number one station is stratching its head, trying to figure out how it can attract a larger audience.

For the answer to this dilemma, let’s go back downtown, to that piece of closed retail spectrum. As people moved to the suburbs, the retail world understood that it had to be where the people were. It could not expect the people to come to them.

And so the suburban shopping mall was created, and what is a mall but a group of competitors banded together for the convenience of shoppers? Would the number one department store refuse to anchor the mall, because its chief competitor was on the other end? Of course not!

Fast forward to today, where my friend Harry Jessell of TVNewsCheck and NetNewsCheck fame published an article: TV News Groups To Offer Local News App.

“In the ideal world, we aspire for it to be an iconic destination for people who care about local news,” says Louis Gump, the CEO who developed similar news apps for CNN and The Weather Channel.

“You can see multiple stations potentially in the area where you live and you can also get content from other places you care about, either because you are from there or you have friends who live there.”

…The charter station groups insure a large initial footprint for the service. Collectively, they operate 112 news-producing stations in 84 markets, including eight of the Top 10 and 17 of the Top 25. There will be multiple stations in 21 of the markets.

That’s just for starters. NewsON intends to sign on other stations or “affiliates” to stretch the footprint across the entire nation. “I would be ecstatic to see one station out of every market. We would like to serve everybody in the U.S. with content that it relevant to them. That a big audacious goal.

“I’m not assuming that every last station group will participate, but I want them to know that everybody is welcome to participate in some form or fashion.”

And so, once again, the writer rests his case. How do you judge a prophet? If the things he says come to pass.

Just sayin…