Your hosts Richard Morrison and Cord Blomquist are joined by special guest co-host Jeremy Lott for a very swashbuckling Episode 38 of LibertyWeek. We start with the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips from Somali pirates by the U.S. Navy and Special Forces, look into the murky finances of AIG CEO Edward Liddy in Scandal Watch, and figure out what ISPs are up to in Technology News. We also get an update on how West Virginia is about to become even more Wild and Wonderful, and finally we answer the call for wealthy, multilingual volunteers in Olympic News.
content
If you’re a fan of professional print journalism, you may be a little worried as of late. Denver’s Rocky Mountain News just closed its doors after nearly 150 years in the news game. Meanwhile the San Francisco Chronicle and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer are both on life support. Even the New York Times, the largest newspaper in America, has cut its dividend and mortgaged its headquarters for $225 million.
It seems clear that the age of broadsheet newspapers is coming to an end, yet the web hasn’t come to its rescue. Partially this is because ad rates from the old world of print were inflated to reflect the size of the total audience of the paper. Online ads, by contrast, are micro-targeted at just those folks who advertisers believe are most likely to buy their products or services. This makes sense, but the numbers involved are still staggering.
Consider that the New York Times online as of 2007 had about 13 million unique users. Compare that to its weekday circulation of 1.1 million and its weekend circulation of about 1.6 million. The Grey Lady’s web presence had tenfold the reach of the paper, yet online revenue made up only about 10% of the Times total revenue. That means that a product with ten times the reach is getting only 1/10th of its old-school equivalent.
Long story short: the industry needs all the help it can get.
This is where Google comes in. Along with being a giant in the search industry, Google is empowering a network of publishers to the tune of $4.2 billion in revenue passed to them in 2007—according to members of Google’s DC office, the 2008 numbers are even larger. In fact, Google knows it is better to give than to receive—it gives more money out to its publisher network than it keeps for itself in profits.
Now this giant of monetization is introducing an even better advertising mechanism, Google’s “Interest Based Advertising” program. IBA works by collecting information whenever a user visits a site that features a Google AdSense network ad. This information is turned into a sort of a profile that helps to focus ads on a per-user basis, rather than just basing that ad on the content of the web page alone.
This means that advertisers will have a more effective means of getting their message out online—news that should be music to the faltering print news industry’s ears, not to mention their loyal readers.
Understandably, this news sounds ominous to many. Tracking your browsing? And we were worried about the Bush administration tapping our phones!
However, unlike when dealing with government looky lous, you have the choice to tell Google to mind their own business. Also, Google is telling consumers about the program. Folks concerned with privacy issues call these elements “notice” and “choice.”
The notice comes in the form of clear labels on all Google-based ads, something the company already does with the exception of some of their print ads. Currently, all ads served by Google feature their name, but some don’t feature the name of company paying for the ad spot. Now that will change. Users will know that Google is serving the ad and who’s paying them to do so.
Additionally, Google is allowing users to choose—this is the control part—how they’re classified by the new program. Their Ads Preferences Manager will let users view, delete, or add interest categories associated with their browser so that the advertising they see will at least be relevant to them.
Finally, Google is also giving consumers the ultimate control over the program in the form of a set of tools to permanently opt-out. They have even designed plug-ins for browsers that will maintain your opt-out choice.
It remains to be seen how this program—and others started much earlier by Yahoo! and other Google competitors—will increase revenues for publishers. However, since all of these systems are designed to serve more relevant ads to consumers, it would seem that all parties involved stand to benefit.
Yet, there is sometimes no satisfying the privacy alarmists. The AP relayed this comment from EPIC’s Marc Rotenberg:
“This is a very serious development,” said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “I don’t think the world’s largest search engine should be in the business of profiling people.”
Yet, with all Google is doing to allow users to opt-out of this system, one wonders if Mr. Rosenberg and those who share his opinion believe there should be any innovation whatsoever in online advertising, or if the industry should simply come to a stand-still.
Criticism of Google’s plan seems especially dubious given the alternatives offered. Mr. Rotenberg believes that the FTC should reexamine Google’s merger with DoubleClick. Translation: consumers are too dumb to manage their privacy, so the FTC should do it for them by tearing apart business deals that are deemed unsavory.
The appropriate level of privacy in our lives can’t be set by the government. It can only be set by free people able to explore the full range of choices offered in the marketplace. When you consider not only Google’s consumer-friendly ad program, but other products like pre-paid cell phones, nameless debit accounts, proxy servers, anonymous email accounts, and the like, privacy seems to be out there for those who want it.
The best advice for those who want privacy: don’t go online. The Internet is the modern public square, no more a private retreat than is a public park. Technologies can help to mask your identity, but ultimately much can be found out about who you are online. The only thing stopping that now is the free market’s respect for contracts and the choices of consumers. Attacking that very freedom to choose is no way to secure great privacy in the future.
“A Matter of Fact,” a new report from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, challenges the Washington Post to correct George F. Will’s “Dark Green Doomsayers” column, published February 15th. The report, by CAP’s Brad Johnson, asserts that George Will made three factual errors:
- Current “global sea ice levels” equals those of 1979
- There hasn’t been warming in “more than a decade”
- “Global cooling” joins a list of well publicized “planetary calamities that did not happen.”
Will’s column is not perfect, and Johnson raises some valid questions. For the sake of intellectual honesty, however, Johnson should broaden his fact-checking scope to incorporate misstatements on both sides of the global warming debate—including his own fudging of the truth.
But first, let’s address CAP’s critique of Will’s column.
Error 1. It seems that Will is guilty of delay. On the one hand, the University of Illinois Arctic Climate Research Center, the source of his assertion that global sea ice levels haven’t changed in 30 years, publically disavowed Will’s claims. On the other, ACRC reported on January 1, 2009 that global sea ice levels were “near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979.” Will’s column appeared 45 days later, during which the discrepancy between current levels and 1979 levels grew by 8%. If anything, this demonstrates the perils of reporting on an ever-changing global climate.
Error 2. CAP and George Will have it wrong. Will wrote that it hasn’t warmed in “more than a decade,” while Brad Johnson claims that “global warming is continuing.” According to data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, compiled by NASA’s Dr. Roy Spenser, there has been no statistical warming of lower atmosphere temperatures over the past seven years, despite the fact that global greenhouse gas emissions have increased.
Error 3. Will is right and CAP is wrong. Johnson notes that there was never a “scientific consensus” on global cooling, but that’s not what Will claimed. He only wrote that some scientists and media outlets warned of global cooling, which is true.
I am an unabashed global warming “denier,” but I nonetheless applaud Brad Johnson’s efforts. On the topic of global warming, misrepresentations of the science abound, and we in the energy/global warming policy community should root them out and expose them with vigilance.
With that in mind, I have a “Matter of Fact” list of my own:
Fiction: Al Gore claims in his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, that “there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer ….”
Fact: It hasn’t warmed in 7 years, despite a steady increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. Where’s the Warming, Al?
Fiction: Dr. James Hansen, ultra-alarmist, has suggested that a 2-3 degree warming would cause sea levels to rise by 80 feet. Hansen then lowered his estimation to 20 feet. His most recent estimate is “at least” 3.2 to 6.4 feet.
Fact: The preeminent body of climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, suggests that a 2-3 degree warming would cause sea levels to rise 7 to 23 inches.
Fiction: In 1986, Dr. John P Holdren, President Barack Obama’s choice to become White House Science Adviser, is quoted as having said that global warming could cause the deaths of 1 billion human beings by 2020. During his confirmation hearing two weeks ago, Holdren was questioned about this claim, and said that “it is still possible.”
Fact: To fulfill Holdren’s alarmist warning, climate change would have to kill twice as many people as died in World War Two, each year, for the next ten years.
Fiction: The Center for American Progress’s Brad Johnson last summer reported that the death of two Boy Scouts in Iowa was “evidence” of “the consequences” of global warming.
Fact: As recently noted on Roger Pielke Jr’s Prometheus, the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters cautions that “justifying the upward trend in hydro-meteorological disaster occurrence and impacts essentially through climate change would be misleading.”
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 