Archive for the 'US' Category

Industry Rethinks Moneymaking Software Practice

Thursday, August 28th, 2008
Published: August 27, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO — Before they ship PCs to retailers like Best Buy, computer makers load them up with lots of free software. For $30, Best Buy will get rid of it for you. 
Skip to next paragraph 
Tim Boyle/Getty Images

Eric Fortuna, right, at a Best Buy in Illinois. For $30, his Geek Squad will eliminate programs installed by computer makers.

Christopher Pledger/The Daily Telegraph

Robert Stephens, head of Geek Squad, said of removing preinstalled software, “We’ll give consumers what they want.”

That simple cleanup service is threatening the precarious economics of the personal computer industry. Software companies pay hundreds of millions of dollars to PC makers like Hewlett-Packard to install their photo tools, financial programs and other products, usually with some tie-in to a paid service or upgrade. With margins growing thinner than most laptops, this critical revenue can make the difference between profit and loss for the computer makers, industry analysts say. If the programs are removed, the software makers gain no value out of the $2 to $10 they typically pay H. P. and others to install them on each PC — and PC makers miss out on their cut from revenue-sharing deals. But Best Buy, the nation’s largest electronics retailer, tells computer buyers that the preinstalled software, also known as bloatware, can clutter their machines and slow them down. “You’d be surprised how often consumers tell us to get rid of it,” said Robert Stephens, the head of Geek Squad, the technical support division of Best Buy that removes the software. He declined to say how many people were paying for the service, but said that “it’s going to increase in popularity.” The demand for the service, along with similar offers from Circuit City and other chains, reflects an outpouring of consumer frustration with the way that a brand-new computer can feel as if it is full of digital infomercials — even if those come-ons knock a few dollars off the PC’s price tag. The Web has dozens of do-it-yourself guides to removing such software, which, as one tutorial puts it, “turns your computer into a messy battleground.” Mr. Stephens said the personal computer makers should be worried about the demand for less cluttered computers. “No matter what manufacturers want, we’ll give consumers what they want,” he said. But he added that he believed computer makers would find different ways to profit: “While they may be scared by these trends, they’ll be O.K.” As it turns out, H. P., the world’s largest technology company, is already working on a fundamental change in the way it packages software on its new computers, and thus how its business model works. Stephen DeWitt, who oversees H. P.’s personal computer business in the Americas, said that starting next year the company’s new computers would point users to a Web site where they can buy and download games, productivity software and other programs. Revenue from the site will be split in some fashion among H. P., a retailer like Best Buy and the makers of the software. Mr. DeWitt said the change would cut how much software comes preloaded. Mr. DeWitt said this was happening because consumers were demanding something different, but also because the technology was now in place to allow downloading of software on demand. For now, he said, the benefits to consumers of the free software far outweigh whatever small slowdown it might cause. And he said Best Buy’s cleanup service was not pressuring H. P. to move to a new model. “There’s no tension coming from Best Buy on this — none,” he said. But in Best Buy stores in Northern California, there is clear evidence of the different agendas of Best Buy and the computer makers. The stores display two H. P. computers, identical except that one desktop is cluttered with software icons from eBay, Quicken, AOL, Yahoo and others, while the other is entirely cleaned up. Best Buy workers use the display to promote the company’s $30 “optimization” service. Industry analysts said that the planned change in H. P.’s approach could well reflect Best Buy’s growing influence — and its ability to exact new concessions from computer makers. They said Best Buy has benefited from two key changes: the declining fortunes of competing retailers like CompUSA and some large regional chains, and the addition to its shelves in the last year of computers made by Dell and Apple. Bob Kaufman, a spokesman for Dell, said, “This is an evolving story and Dell is evaluating how it can best deliver software to its customers.” Best Buy’s offer to remove software began in 2006. But recently the toll its policies are taking has heightened considerably, analysts and industry executives say. “Best Buy’s sway is definitely growing,” said Matt Fassler, an industry analyst who covers Best Buy for Goldman Sachs. He said the company had good relationships with computer makers, and, while it wouldn’t seek to harm those relationships, “if they have a strong competitive position, it is incumbent on them to use it.” Mr. Fassler estimates Best Buy will have sales of $44 billion this year. Of that, $1.5 billion to $2 billion will be from the sale of H. P. computers, analysts estimated. One important question is whether the new model being developed by H. P. will be as profitable as the current one. Mr. DeWitt said he expected it to be more profitable. But A. M. Sacconaghi Jr., an industry analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Company, said the change could imperil H. P.’s profitability, in part because there is no guarantee that consumers will buy software offered through H. P. instead of another site. As software buying moves online, Mr. Sacconaghi asked, “what makes a consumer go to HP.com over Google?” He also says the challenge for personal computer makers is that they are losing control of what shows up on PC screens — a form of real estate that they have used to sell billboard advertising for software. “They no longer have that real estate advantage,” he said. “There’s a substantial profit pool at risk.” And there can be little profit to begin with, analysts said. The profit margin on many personal computers can be 5 percent or lower, depending on the model. The margins are slim in part because of intense competition that has driven down prices. In some cases, the computers are profitable only because their makers earn $30 or more for each computer for preinstalling the software, according to Shaw Wu, an industry analyst with American Technology Research. And J. P. Gownder, an analyst at Forrester Research, said, “For the average PC, that could be the entire margin.” Without the preloaded software, Mr. Gownder said, “it could put them in the red. That’s why they’ve become so addicted to it.” Mr. Stephens of Geek Squad says he agrees with H. P. that the future is in allowing computer buyers to choose and download what they want. But he said he believed Best Buy, not H. P., was in the best position to help people choose what works for them because, he argued, the in-store technicians are in closest contact with them. “Geek Squad agents have one thing over Apple and Microsoft engineers. We spend most of the day talking to people,” he said.
Tags:

Shares Rally as Oil Continues to Fall

Saturday, August 9th, 2008
Published: August 8, 2008
In what has become a familiar pattern on Wall Street, stocks surged Friday, a day after falling sharply. The immediate impetus for the rally appeared to be a big drop in commodity prices, including a 4.1 percent fall in crude oil, which settled below $116 a barrel for the first time since early May. The dollar also continued to gain strength, rising 1.7 percent against a basket of six major world currencies. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index rose 30.25 points, or 2.39 percent, to 1,296.32, its biggest one-day gain since April. The Dow Jones industrial average was up 302.89 points, or 2.65 percent, to 11,734.32; the Nasdaq composite jumped 58.37 points, or 2.48 percent, to 2,414,10. In recent weeks, the stock market has swung between strong rallies and steep drops. The S.& P. 500 has moved by at least 2 percentage points on 6 of the last 25 trading days since July 4. By contrast, there were only two days with 2 percent changes from the end of 2003 to the end of 2006. Despite all the sharp moves, the S.& P. 500 index rose just 0.3 percent from July 4 to Thursday’s close. Friday’s jump increased that gain to 2.7 percent. Some analysts say the volatility indicates that investors are increasingly uncertain about the economy. While they are encouraged that oil prices have fallen more than 20 percent from a high of $145.29 in early July, the housing market and the economy over all are still showing significant weakness. Earlier on Friday, Fannie Mae, the government-chartered mortgage giant, slashed its dividend after reporting a $2.3 billion quarterly loss. “Strictly from a psychological standpoint, it tells you that there is not a lot of conviction,” said Barry L. Ritholtz, chief executive of FusionIQ, an investment firm in New York. “Fund managers that are hot to buy one day, turn around and sell the next.” But others see reason to hope the market may have bottomed in mid-July and is starting a slow and hesitant rebound. These analysts note, for instance, that recent economic and housing reports may be bleak but the data is often better than expected. Home sales appear to be flattening out, though at a very low level, and in some regions home prices have edged higher during the spring and summer seasons, when home sales are at their highest levels of the year. “When you get that steady trickle, the market builds on that,” said James W. Paulsen, chief investment strategist for Wells Capital Management. “In between, what takes the market down is not economic reports. Sometimes it’s straight company reports, other times it’s spreading of rumors and fears.” Another trend that may be contributing to the volatility are reports of increasing weakness in Europe and Asia. On Friday, a report showed that Italy’s economy unexpectedly shrank in the second quarter. Earlier, reports showed weakness in Germany, Japan and Great Britain. Even Chinese government figures have suggested that growth will be a few percentage points lower this year. Such news has contributed to the drop in oil prices. Oil settled at $115.20 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange Friday. Other commodities also fell sharply, with wheat falling 6.7 percent and copper closing down 2.4 percent. In a report titled “Calling a Top,” analysts at Lehman Brothers wrote on Friday that oil prices had peaked, citing among other things lower demand from developed economies. Analysts suspect that slower growth could force the European Central Bank and the Bank of England to start lowering short-term interest rates, which are significantly higher than the Federal Reserve’s benchmark funds rate of 2 percent. That anticipation — coming the day after both central banks decided to leave their key rates unchanged — pushed up the dollar, which earlier this year fell to its lowest level since the currency was allowed to float freely in the 1970s. One euro now buys $1.50, down from $1.53 on Thursday. The yen fell to 110.24 to the dollar, from 109.45. If investors around the world believe the dollar will strengthen further, they may be moving some of their money into American stocks, said Douglas M. Peta, market strategist at J.& W. Seligman & Company. “All of a sudden investors have come to the conclusion that Europe and U.K. may be in worse shape than the U.S.” Still, weakness in Europe and Japan would not necessarily be a good thing for the United States, because American exports have become an important counter to the problems in the domestic housing market and helped keep the economy growing in the first half of the year. Another abiding challenge to the stock market and the broader economy alike is access to credit. Even as stocks have rallied, the credit market remains sluggish, with few new deals coming to the market and worries about defaults spreading to auto loans and credit cards. The KDP high-yield index, which tracks yields on junk bonds, climbed this week to its highest level since early 2003. Mortgage interest rates are near 12-month highs as investors worry about the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. “It’s tougher for individuals or corporations to have access to the credit markets,” said Steven M. Rogé, a portfolio manager at R. W. Rogé & Company in Bohemia, N.Y., who is skeptical that stocks have bottomed. The recent big moves in the market have also come at a time when trading volume has been relatively low, a phenomenon that is more common in the summer, said Jerry Webman, chief economist at OppenheimerFunds. When volumes are low, a few momentum traders can more easily drive markets up or down significantly, he said. “I would be cautious about overinterpreting any of the up days or down days this week.”
Floyd Norris contributed reporting.
Tags:

In Obama Campaign, Big Donors Are a Major Force

Wednesday, August 6th, 2008
Published: August 5, 2008
In an effort to cast himself as independent of the influence of money on politics, Senator Barack Obama often highlights the campaign contributions of $200 or less that have amounted to fully half of the $340 million he has collected so far. But records show that one-third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more: a total of $112 million, more than Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama’s Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries, raised in contributions of that size. Behind those larger donations is a phalanx of more than 500 Obama “bundlers,” fund-raisers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 or more. Many of the bundlers come from industries with critical interests in Washington. Nearly three dozen of the bundlers have raised more than $500,000 each, including more than a half-dozen who have passed the $1 million mark and one or two who have exceeded $2 million, according to interviews with fund-raisers. While his campaign has cited its volume of small donations as a rationale for his decision to opt out of public financing for the general election, Mr. Obama has worked to build a network of big-dollar supporters from the time he began contemplating a run for the United States Senate. He tapped into well-connected people in Chicago prior to the 2004 Senate race, and once elected, set out across the country starting to cultivate some of his party’s most influential money collectors. He courted them with the savvy of a veteran politician, through phone calls, meals and one-on-one meetings; he wrote thank-you cards and remembered birthdays; he sent them autographed copies of his book and doted on their children. The fruits of his efforts have put Mr. Obama’s major donors on a pace that almost rivals the $147 million raised by President Bush’s network of Pioneers and Rangers in contributions of $1,000 or larger during the 2004 primary season. Given his decision not to accept public financing, Mr. Obama is counting on his bundlers to help him raise $300 million for his general-election campaign and another $180 million for the Democratic National Committee. An analysis of campaign finance records shows that about two-thirds of his bundlers are concentrated in four major industries: law, securities and investments, real estate and entertainment. Lawyers make up the largest group, numbering roughly 130, with many of them working for firms that also have lobbying arms. At least 100 Obama bundlers are top executives or brokers from investment businesses: nearly two dozen work for financial titans like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs or Citigroup. About 40 others come from the real estate industry. The biggest fund-raisers include people like Julius Genachowski, a former senior official at the Federal Communications Commission and a technology executive who is new to political fund-raising; Robert Wolf, president and chief operating officer of UBS Investment Bank; James A. Torrey, a New York hedge-fund investor; and Charles H. Rivkin, chief executive of an animation studio in Los Angeles. “It’s fairly clear that this is being packaged as an extraordinary new kind of fund-raising, and the Internet is a new and powerful part of it,” said Michael J. Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute. “But it’s also clear that many of the old donors are still there and important.” The care and feeding that top Obama fund-raisers have received underscores their significance to his campaign. Members of his National Finance Committee who fulfill their commitment to raise at least $250,000 are being rewarded with trips to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Finance committee members participate in conference calls with top campaign officials every other week. The fund-raisers meet quarterly, often with Mr. Obama dropping in. He lingered after the most recent meeting in June in Chicago, telling his staff he wanted to thank every person in the room. Some fund-raisers who knocked on doors for Mr. Obama in places like Indiana, Iowa and Pennsylvania got to spend time with Mr. Obama backstage before and after speeches on primary nights. His fund-raisers invariably say their support for him is not rooted in any kind of promise of access, but rather their belief in him. “This is about Barack Obama and changing the direction of our country,” said Jonathan B. Perdue, a business consultant in Mill Valley, Calif., who has raised more than $250,000 for Mr. Obama’s campaign. Mr. Obama has pledged not to accept donations from lobbyists or political action committees registered with the federal government. But some top donors clearly have policy and political agendas. Hedge-fund executives, for example, have bundled large sums for Mr. Obama at a time when their industry has been looking to increase its clout in Washington. Kenneth C. Griffin, chief executive officer of Citadel Investment Group in Chicago, has collected more than $50,000 for Mr. Obama. But Mr. Griffin, whose $1.5 billion in income in 2007 made him one of the country’s highest-paid hedge-fund executives, has given generously over the years to Republicans as well, and he recently helped to hold a fund-raiser for Mr. McCain. Citadel has spent more than $1.1 million, dating back to 2007, in lobbying against higher tax rates for hedge-fund gains. (Mr. Obama has supported the higher tax rates.) Similarly, Paul Tudor Jones, a billionaire hedge-fund manager from Connecticut, has raised more than $100,000 for Mr. Obama. But he also gave to Mr. McCain, to Rudolph W. Giuliani and to Mitt Romney. Mr. Jones, who has given more than $900,000 over the last decade to federal candidates and political organizations, helped form a trade association that has fought hedge-fund regulation. Many fund-raisers sit on the campaign’s array of policy working groups, getting a chance to weigh in on policy positions and speeches. Mr. Genachowski, a Harvard Law School classmate of Mr. Obama, leads the technology working group. Fund-raisers from private equity and hedge funds sit on Mr. Obama’s economic policy group. Despite Mr. Obama’s image as a newcomer, many of his bundlers are Democratic Party stalwarts, including people who were some of the top fund-raisers for Senator John Kerry in 2004. At least 58 of them appear to have personally made more than $100,000 in contributions to federal candidates and committees over the last decade. Updated bundler lists released recently by the McCain and Obama campaigns show that they have similar numbers of high-dollar fund-raisers. The Obama fund-raising operation is meticulously organized. Bundlers are assigned tracking numbers, and the finance staff sends them quarterly reminders of how they are doing in meeting their goals. “There’s no price for admission,” said Alan D. Solomont, a top Democratic fund-raiser in Boston who made his fortune in the nursing home industry and has given more than $1.5 million to Democratic candidates and causes. “We value every donation and every donor equally. But we are a performance-based organization. We want everybody to feel like they’re included, but at the same time we’re not here to have tea together.” Mr. Obama began courting many of his fund-raisers soon after he burst upon the national scene with his rousing speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Mr. Solomont, a major fund-raiser both for Mr. Kerry and for Bill Clinton during their presidential runs, received a call on his cellphone in February 2005, a year after Mr. Obama’s election to the Senate, from a member of his staff who asked if he would like to get together with Mr. Obama. They met for Chinese food in Washington the following week, and Mr. Obama scored points with Mr. Solomont when he pointed out that they had both been community organizers earlier in their careers. “I’ve been involved in politics a long time,” Mr. Solomont said. “Nobody’s bothered to know that about me.” Early that same year, Mr. Obama attended a dinner in the Bay Area for about 20 major Kerry supporters. The dinner was organized by Mark Gorenberg, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who was Mr. Kerry’s single biggest fund-raiser, after Mr. Obama’s staff members contacted him. Several of those on hand, including Mr. Gorenberg and John Roos, head of a Silicon Valley law firm, became among the earliest and biggest check collectors for Mr. Obama’s presidential bid. In 2006, Mr. Obama became a vice chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, giving him the opportunity to campaign across the country and to cultivate other potential benefactors. When his book “The Audacity of Hope” came out later that year, his staff members organized book parties at the homes of major Democratic donors. In December, Mr. Obama visited the New York office of the billionaire investor George Soros to court a roomful of high-powered Democratic fund-raisers, hoping to lure some of them away from Mrs. Clinton. Not everyone was swayed, but Mr. Obama won over Orin Kramer, a hedge-fund executive from New Jersey, and Mr. Wolf, the UBS executive, both of whom are now among Mr. Obama’s biggest fund-raisers. Mr. Obama signed on as his finance director Julianna Smoot, who had led fund-raising for Senate Democrats and, before that, for Senator Tom Daschle when he was majority leader. With guidance from Ms. Smoot, a key part of the campaign’s fast start was its success in scooping up top former Kerry fund-raisers, including Lou Susman, a Chicago investment banker who was Mr. Kerry’s national finance chairman, and Kirk Wagar, a lawyer in Miami who became Mr. Obama’s finance chairman in Florida. Even so, the initial meeting of Mr. Obama’s national finance committee, held in Chicago the day after he officially announced his candidacy, was a relatively small affair, numbering about 75 people. Penny Pritzker, the billionaire heiress to the Hyatt hotel fortune whom Mr. Obama asked to become his finance chairwoman, challenged the group to double in size. The number of bundlers ballooned quickly. The Obama campaign made important inroads among affluent people under age 45, including Silicon Valley engineers and hedge-fund analysts, many of whom had not been on the political radar screen. Donations in June, the latest month for which Mr. Obama has disclosed his donors to the Federal Election Commission, illustrate the double-barreled nature of the campaign’s fund-raising. Mr. Obama brought in nearly $31 million in contributions of less than $200, his best month for small donations. But he also collected more than $12 million in contributions of $1,000 or more, the most since the first half of 2007. The share from large contributions appears poised to increase, as Mr. Obama has stepped up his fund-raising schedule. “In 2007, the campaign relied on the tried and true methods like fund-raisers, for both large- and small-dollar donors, with the candidate or his surrogates, and the Internet largely financed it in 2008,” said Kirk Dornbush, the president of a biotech firm and a top fund-raiser in Atlanta. “When you combine the traditional fund-raising methods with the continued online contributions, you have a very, very powerful fund-raising engine.”
Tags:

Media Outlets Are Seeking a Campaign Bounce of Their Own

Monday, August 4th, 2008
Published: August 4, 2008
This year’s presidential campaign has drawn more voter interest than any other race in generations. For mainstream news media, however, capitalizing on that interest has been hit or miss, though not for lack of trying.
Skip to next paragraph

Senator Barack Obama was asked about Senator John McCain during a taping of “The Situation Room” on CNN in May.

Charles Dharapak/Associated Press

Some magazines with the candidates had only a modest increase in sales.

Cable news ratings have risen sharply, with record viewership for debates and growing numbers for Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and Wolf Blitzer on CNN. Sites including MSNBC.com and CNN.com have set new records for views of online videos. A trade association for newspapers has placed advertisements telling campaign managers that “newspapers deliver voters.” But many media companies are struggling to translate campaign coverage into repeat readers and viewers — or revenue. The presidential primary debates had little lasting impact on TV ratings, and some magazines say that issues with candidates on the cover show only a modest bump in newsstand sales. More noticeably, the broadcast networks’ evening newscasts — the traditional standard-bearers of television news — have been unable to stop their long-term ratings declines, even during the hotly contested primaries. The newscasts on NBC, ABC and CBS had an average combined audience of 23.7 million viewers from January to June, down 2 percent from the same time period in 2007. That decline came despite expensive efforts to remain competitive. The networks have produced special series about the candidates and kept reporters on the campaign trail. Most recently, Brian Williams of “NBC Nightly News,” Charles Gibson of “World News” on ABC and Katie Couric of the “CBS Evening News” all traveled with Senator Barack Obama as he toured the Middle East and Europe, yet household ratings for each of those three newscasts were flat compared with the previous week. Jon Banner, the executive producer of “World News,” suggested that the ratings, especially during the slow summer months, might have slid further were it not an election year. He added that the heightened interest in the election can benefit many media entities without taking away from others. “It’s not a zero-sum game,” he said. It is true that the amount of news Americans consume has grown over the last few years, as has the number of news sources. The lineup of Web sites, newscasts and publications that jockey for attention and advertising dollars continues to expand. Three months before the election, one clear winner of the cycle so far is The Politico, an upstart news organization founded in January 2007. The Politico, with nearly 70 editorial employees, publishes a 26,000-circulation newspaper three days a week in Washington, D.C. But it is Politico’s round-the-clock online news reporting and analysis that have made it a must-read for a large audience outside the Beltway. Politico.com averaged 2.5 million unique visitors a month in the first half of 2008, more than all but 13 American newspapers, according to Nielsen Online. The Politico has benefited from profound changes in the way people get news, according to Jim VandeHei, the executive editor and co-founder. People look for news far more often during the day, they are far more likely to seek multiple sources as well as favorite bloggers and writers, and they are far more interested in watching video online. “The difference between ’04 and ’08 is like walking into a different century,” he said. “Virtually everybody who comes to us also goes to The Post or The Times or Drudge or Yahoo or Google. Having a sole source of news — those days are over.” A spring poll by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that 17 percent of Americans learn about the campaign via the Internet on a typical day, more than double the number that did in the spring of 2004. But traffic on Internet news sites has grown steadily for years, making it hard to say how much of this year’s rise is attributable to the election. (Nor does it mean that online publications are translating page views into dollars. Politico still gets most of its revenue from ads in its printed newspaper, placed by interest groups hoping to influence the paper’s powerful readers.) Charlie Tillinghast, the president of MSNBC.com, said he believed that at least part of his site’s success is election-related. In December, weeks before the first primaries, MSNBC.com’s traffic surpassed the 30 million visitor mark. It has held up since then, attracting 37.6 million visitors in June, when the final nominating contests were held. For news Web sites, the most significant change from 2004 is the amount of video being consumed. Compared with previous election years, “the video players are better, the video quality is much better, and the overall user experience is vastly improved,” Mr. Tillinghast said. “It’s actually a pleasant experience, whereas before, users suffered a little pain to watch online video.” On YouTube, the Internet’s most popular video site, political commercials are far more popular than news reports. John McCain’s recent ad tying celebrities like Britney Spears to Senator Obama has been viewed nearly 1.5 million times. Cable news has been a huge beneficiary of the campaign cycle. An analysis of Nielsen ratings by Turner Broadcasting, the parent company of CNN, shows cable with a 58 percent share of all news-viewing on television, up from 50 percent in 2004. (Page 2 of 2)     As the nominating contests played out in the first half of 2008 and the cable networks showed two dozen candidate debates, CNN had, on average, 32 percent more 25- to 54-year-old viewers than during the same period in 2004, while MSNBC (starting from a much smaller base) averaged 73 percent more. The Fox News Channel showed a 17 percent decline compared with the same time period, but still had more viewers than the other news channels.
Skip to next paragraph
Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press

The Politico, a news organization started by John Harris, above left, and Jim VandeHei, has benefited from the campaign.

MSNBC.com is offering interactive graphics.

Record-breaking spending on political ads has helped local TV stations, though it only partly offsets a slump in the general ad market. Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, the likely nominees, are each spending about $6 million a week on television ads, mostly on local TV in battleground states, particularly Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida. During the prolonged primary season, many more local markets enjoyed a taste of campaign advertising dollars. “Local stations were seeing primary money late into the season that had never seen a dime before — states like South Dakota, Montana, North Carolina,” said Jack Poor, the vice president for marketing at the Television Bureau of Advertising. Among magazines, Newsweek, where the campaign is a bread-and-butter topic, reports that issues with Senator McCain or Senator Obama on the cover have been among its best sellers, but that is not saying much, because its sales do not vary greatly based on cover photos. Rolling Stone and Us Weekly also had moderately higher-than-average sales with their Obama covers. The audience for newspaper Web sites rose sharply this year, even as the printed papers continued to lose circulation. Nielsen figures compiled for the Newspaper Association of America show that in an average month in the first half of 2008, 66.3 million Americans visited a newspaper Web site, a 12.2 percent increase from the first half of 2007. Again, how much of that growth stems from the campaign, and how much from factors like better video on those sites, is unclear. Newspapers still get less than 10 percent of their ad revenue from the Internet, so vast online audiences do not mean financial success. With so many outlets covering the campaign, standing out is hard, but some are still trying. The British Broadcasting Corporation is renting a bus and intends to drive across the country between the conventions and the election. Other outlets that do not regularly feature political news are trying to cash in on the election interest. In the July week that “Access Hollywood” showed a four-part interview with Mr. Obama’s family, the entertainment show had a 20 percent increase in viewers. Senator Obama’s family has also been featured in Us Weekly and People magazines. Attention like that has led to accusations from the McCain campaign that Senator Obama has become the media darling of the election, raising the question of whether mainstream media outlets risk longer-term declines if they are seen to favor one candidate. For instance, ratings for MSNBC, which has been singled out by the McCain campaign as being pro-Obama, have risen, largely because of Mr. Olbermann’s program. “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” has had its audience of 25- to 54-year-olds double in the last two years. The audience of “Hardball With Chris Matthews” has also jumped significantly. Phil Griffin, president of MSNBC, said that the election is emblematic of a larger shift away from broadcast news and toward cable, a trend that he expects will keep viewers tuning in after Election Day. “More and more, the news game is being played out on cable,” he said. Single broadcasts, however, do not seem to have any aftereffects. After Mr. Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, the host of ABC’s Sunday morning show, moderated an April debate between Senators Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, they were widely criticized for emphasizing scandal over substance. But neither the debate nor the harsh criticism that ensued seemed to affect ABC’s ratings. The numbers for “World News” edged up in the days after the debate, but soon returned to normal.

Tags:

Media Outlets Are Seeking a Campaign Bounce of Their Own

Monday, August 4th, 2008
Published: August 4, 2008
This year’s presidential campaign has drawn more voter interest than any other race in generations. For mainstream news media, however, capitalizing on that interest has been hit or miss, though not for lack of trying.
Skip to next paragraph

Senator Barack Obama was asked about Senator John McCain during a taping of “The Situation Room” on CNN in May.

Charles Dharapak/Associated Press

Some magazines with the candidates had only a modest increase in sales.

Cable news ratings have risen sharply, with record viewership for debates and growing numbers for Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and Wolf Blitzer on CNN. Sites including MSNBC.com and CNN.com have set new records for views of online videos. A trade association for newspapers has placed advertisements telling campaign managers that “newspapers deliver voters.” But many media companies are struggling to translate campaign coverage into repeat readers and viewers — or revenue. The presidential primary debates had little lasting impact on TV ratings, and some magazines say that issues with candidates on the cover show only a modest bump in newsstand sales. More noticeably, the broadcast networks’ evening newscasts — the traditional standard-bearers of television news — have been unable to stop their long-term ratings declines, even during the hotly contested primaries. The newscasts on NBC, ABC and CBS had an average combined audience of 23.7 million viewers from January to June, down 2 percent from the same time period in 2007. That decline came despite expensive efforts to remain competitive. The networks have produced special series about the candidates and kept reporters on the campaign trail. Most recently, Brian Williams of “NBC Nightly News,” Charles Gibson of “World News” on ABC and Katie Couric of the “CBS Evening News” all traveled with Senator Barack Obama as he toured the Middle East and Europe, yet household ratings for each of those three newscasts were flat compared with the previous week. Jon Banner, the executive producer of “World News,” suggested that the ratings, especially during the slow summer months, might have slid further were it not an election year. He added that the heightened interest in the election can benefit many media entities without taking away from others. “It’s not a zero-sum game,” he said. It is true that the amount of news Americans consume has grown over the last few years, as has the number of news sources. The lineup of Web sites, newscasts and publications that jockey for attention and advertising dollars continues to expand. Three months before the election, one clear winner of the cycle so far is The Politico, an upstart news organization founded in January 2007. The Politico, with nearly 70 editorial employees, publishes a 26,000-circulation newspaper three days a week in Washington, D.C. But it is Politico’s round-the-clock online news reporting and analysis that have made it a must-read for a large audience outside the Beltway. Politico.com averaged 2.5 million unique visitors a month in the first half of 2008, more than all but 13 American newspapers, according to Nielsen Online. The Politico has benefited from profound changes in the way people get news, according to Jim VandeHei, the executive editor and co-founder. People look for news far more often during the day, they are far more likely to seek multiple sources as well as favorite bloggers and writers, and they are far more interested in watching video online. “The difference between ’04 and ’08 is like walking into a different century,” he said. “Virtually everybody who comes to us also goes to The Post or The Times or Drudge or Yahoo or Google. Having a sole source of news — those days are over.” A spring poll by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that 17 percent of Americans learn about the campaign via the Internet on a typical day, more than double the number that did in the spring of 2004. But traffic on Internet news sites has grown steadily for years, making it hard to say how much of this year’s rise is attributable to the election. (Nor does it mean that online publications are translating page views into dollars. Politico still gets most of its revenue from ads in its printed newspaper, placed by interest groups hoping to influence the paper’s powerful readers.) Charlie Tillinghast, the president of MSNBC.com, said he believed that at least part of his site’s success is election-related. In December, weeks before the first primaries, MSNBC.com’s traffic surpassed the 30 million visitor mark. It has held up since then, attracting 37.6 million visitors in June, when the final nominating contests were held. For news Web sites, the most significant change from 2004 is the amount of video being consumed. Compared with previous election years, “the video players are better, the video quality is much better, and the overall user experience is vastly improved,” Mr. Tillinghast said. “It’s actually a pleasant experience, whereas before, users suffered a little pain to watch online video.” On YouTube, the Internet’s most popular video site, political commercials are far more popular than news reports. John McCain’s recent ad tying celebrities like Britney Spears to Senator Obama has been viewed nearly 1.5 million times. Cable news has been a huge beneficiary of the campaign cycle. An analysis of Nielsen ratings by Turner Broadcasting, the parent company of CNN, shows cable with a 58 percent share of all news-viewing on television, up from 50 percent in 2004. (Page 2 of 2)     As the nominating contests played out in the first half of 2008 and the cable networks showed two dozen candidate debates, CNN had, on average, 32 percent more 25- to 54-year-old viewers than during the same period in 2004, while MSNBC (starting from a much smaller base) averaged 73 percent more. The Fox News Channel showed a 17 percent decline compared with the same time period, but still had more viewers than the other news channels.
Skip to next paragraph
Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press

The Politico, a news organization started by John Harris, above left, and Jim VandeHei, has benefited from the campaign.

MSNBC.com is offering interactive graphics.

Record-breaking spending on political ads has helped local TV stations, though it only partly offsets a slump in the general ad market. Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, the likely nominees, are each spending about $6 million a week on television ads, mostly on local TV in battleground states, particularly Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida. During the prolonged primary season, many more local markets enjoyed a taste of campaign advertising dollars. “Local stations were seeing primary money late into the season that had never seen a dime before — states like South Dakota, Montana, North Carolina,” said Jack Poor, the vice president for marketing at the Television Bureau of Advertising. Among magazines, Newsweek, where the campaign is a bread-and-butter topic, reports that issues with Senator McCain or Senator Obama on the cover have been among its best sellers, but that is not saying much, because its sales do not vary greatly based on cover photos. Rolling Stone and Us Weekly also had moderately higher-than-average sales with their Obama covers. The audience for newspaper Web sites rose sharply this year, even as the printed papers continued to lose circulation. Nielsen figures compiled for the Newspaper Association of America show that in an average month in the first half of 2008, 66.3 million Americans visited a newspaper Web site, a 12.2 percent increase from the first half of 2007. Again, how much of that growth stems from the campaign, and how much from factors like better video on those sites, is unclear. Newspapers still get less than 10 percent of their ad revenue from the Internet, so vast online audiences do not mean financial success. With so many outlets covering the campaign, standing out is hard, but some are still trying. The British Broadcasting Corporation is renting a bus and intends to drive across the country between the conventions and the election. Other outlets that do not regularly feature political news are trying to cash in on the election interest. In the July week that “Access Hollywood” showed a four-part interview with Mr. Obama’s family, the entertainment show had a 20 percent increase in viewers. Senator Obama’s family has also been featured in Us Weekly and People magazines. Attention like that has led to accusations from the McCain campaign that Senator Obama has become the media darling of the election, raising the question of whether mainstream media outlets risk longer-term declines if they are seen to favor one candidate. For instance, ratings for MSNBC, which has been singled out by the McCain campaign as being pro-Obama, have risen, largely because of Mr. Olbermann’s program. “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” has had its audience of 25- to 54-year-olds double in the last two years. The audience of “Hardball With Chris Matthews” has also jumped significantly. Phil Griffin, president of MSNBC, said that the election is emblematic of a larger shift away from broadcast news and toward cable, a trend that he expects will keep viewers tuning in after Election Day. “More and more, the news game is being played out on cable,” he said. Single broadcasts, however, do not seem to have any aftereffects. After Mr. Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, the host of ABC’s Sunday morning show, moderated an April debate between Senators Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, they were widely criticized for emphasizing scandal over substance. But neither the debate nor the harsh criticism that ensued seemed to affect ABC’s ratings. The numbers for “World News” edged up in the days after the debate, but soon returned to normal.

Tags:

Steven Spielberg’s Director’s Cut

Sunday, July 27th, 2008
Published: July 27, 2008
HOW did Hollywood lose Steven Spielberg?
Skip to next paragraph
Frazer Harrison/Getty Images, for A.F.I.

Steven Spielberg is seeking a backer outside Hollywood. Way outside.

Late last month, DreamWorks, the boutique movie studio that Mr. Spielberg co-founded in 1994, let it be known that it had found a way to exit its unhappy three-year marriage with Paramount Pictures. Reliance ADA Group, a Mumbai conglomerate, was nearing a deal to give the dream workers $550 million to form a new movie company. That Mr. Spielberg and his business partner David Geffen had found an investor wasn’t surprising. Mr. Spielberg is a superstar. DreamWorks had made it clear for months — via public comments and private grousing fed into the Hollywood grapevine — that they hated being part of Paramount and were going elsewhere as soon as it was contractually allowed. But there was still an element of shock: Hollywood could not come up with a rich enough deal for Mr. Spielberg, the most bankable director in the business and a “national treasure”? His last movie alone, “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” has sold $743 million in tickets and is still playing in theaters around the world. For that matter, there wasn’t anybody on Wall Street willing to write a blank check for the guy with “Jaws” and “Jurassic Park” on his résumé? The pending deal with Reliance underscores some realities about Mr. Spielberg — mainly that he has become so expensive that few public companies can afford him. Mr. Spielberg’s standard deal, on par with other blue-chip talent, is 20 percent of a movie’s gross from the first ticket sold, although he agreed to a somewhat less aggressive paycheck on the latest “Indiana Jones” installment to offset its high budget. And there’s another whisper coming from Hollywood’s highest echelons. It’s a sensitive topic — and one that Mr. Spielberg’s associates find hugely insulting — but one that bears consideration: How long before the A-list director, at 61, is a little, well, Jurassic? SUCH talk is rooted in sour-grapes justifications for losing Mr. Spielberg to Reliance, his allies say, noting his huge list of projects on the horizon. Among them are potential blockbusters like “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” which he will produce. He’s also pursuing more cerebral projects like an Abraham Lincoln film with a script written by the “Angels in America” playwright Tony Kushner. Even so, Mr. Spielberg’s representatives had been talking with potential backers for months, said three people involved who requested anonymity for fear of angering the powerful director. The Spielbergians had casual chats with companies including Sony and the News Corporation. Hollywood-friendly banks like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs were also in the mix. Hollywood’s seeming inability to close a deal with Mr. Spielberg highlights the shift toward a more corporate, buttoned-down movie business. Just a few years ago, bragging rights often drove business decisions. Steven Spielberg is available? Back up the money truck. We want that jewel in our crown no matter what the cost. And studio bosses could justify such ego-driven loss leaders: In the entertainment business, talent draws talent. Associates of Mr. Spielberg say they have not seriously entertained any Hollywood overtures, something corroborated by Ron Meyer, the president of NBC Universal. “We have not been given the opening to be in business with DreamWorks,” said Mr. Meyer, adding that the studio would jump at the chance given “the opportunity and the right deal.” But now that the big studios are all firmly embedded in big corporations, profit margins are the obsession. Add in skyrocketing star salaries and ballooning marketing costs, which have hammered margins, and pop go the sweetheart deals. “Big names don’t carry the same weight they used to,” said Harold L. Vogel, an independent media analyst. DVDs also have a starring role in the reluctance to take on risk. After years of blistering growth, domestic DVD sales fell 3.2 percent last year to $15.9 billion, according to Adams Media Research, the first annual drop in the medium’s history. While DVDs are still a big business, any decline is cause for great concern, because DVD sales can account for as much as 70 percent of revenue for a new film. When DVDs were soaring, studios had an incentive to own projects outright. Recently, they’ve been going the other way, trying to share ownership to protect themselves. Indeed, the DVD situation combined with other business challenges — the arrival of widespread Internet streaming being one of the thorniest — has studios so panicked that all their executives chatter about these days is mitigating risk. Hardly a time to double down on a fat deal with Mr. Spielberg. Studios are also increasingly focused on out-of-the-park franchise films that sell overseas. The DreamWorks slate is a little patchy — namely because Mr. Spielberg and Stacey Snider, the company’s chief executive, believe in delivering a mix of prestige films and blockbusters. Along with “Norbit,” the sophomoric Eddie Murphy smash that sold $159 million in tickets, come films like “Things We Lost in the Fire,” a drama starring the Oscar-winner Halle Berry that sold about $8.4 million in tickets. Chip Sullivan, a corporate spokesman for DreamWorks, declined to comment. He said Ms. Snider was on vacation and unavailable. Mr. Spielberg, via a spokesman, declined to comment. Bruce Ramer, the director’s longtime lawyer (Mr. Spielberg named the mechanical shark in “Jaws” after him), also declined to comment. As for Wall Street, the firm belief in Hollywood is that the arrival of Reliance marks the end of the private equity and hedge fund boom that has propped up the industry. With the capital markets in turmoil, terms have tightened substantially for movie deals. Investors are demanding faster payback schedules, better guarantees and even a say in how movies are made and marketed. None of that is acceptable to the DreamWorks team. Mr. Spielberg, who has directed more than 50 films, also wants to control his own destiny; at this point in his career, say friends, his accomplishments have earned him the right to have 100 percent control over his movies. Autonomy and ownership are paramount, and, at the moment, overseas investors are the most likely to allow Mr. Spielberg to write his own ticket, say studio executives. In some ways, Reliance marks a return to the past. Studios have over the last decade tapped American investors — DreamWorks began with backing from Paul Allen, a founder of Microsoft — but foreign investors, notably Germans, were a big source before that. THE deal with Reliance is not done. People involved in the talks, which are private, say that work is progressing but that no deal is likely to be signed for several weeks. In addition to the $550 million in equity — which may inch higher during negotiations — DreamWorks is seeking access to a $400 million line of debt financing. And Hollywood will still have a chance to nab a piece of the storied director. After negotiations with Reliance wrap up — if they wrap up — Mr. Geffen and Mr. Spielberg will start looking for a distribution deal with one of the big studios, most likely Universal Pictures or 20th Century Fox. Will Mr. Geffen and Mr. Spielberg see a bidding war? Probably, but it depends on what kind of terms they want. Tags:

Weight Drives the Young to Adult Pills, Data Says

Saturday, July 26th, 2008
Published: July 26, 2008
A growing number of American children are taking drugs for a wide range of chronic conditions related to childhood obesity, according to prescription data from three large organizations. The numbers, from pharmacy plans Medco Health Solutions, Express Scripts and the marketing data collection company Verispan, indicate that hundreds of thousands of children are taking medication to treat Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and acid reflux — all problems linked to obesity that were practically unheard-of in children two decades ago. The data, disclosed publicly in recent months or provided at the request of The New York Times, shows that concerns that children will be taking adult medications — heightened recently by a controversial recommendation by a national pediatricians group — are already a reality. This month, the American Academy of Pediatrics said that more children, as young as 8, should be given cholesterol-lowering drugs. The recommendation was quickly attacked by some experts as a license to put children on grown-up drugs. While the drugs do help treat the conditions, some doctors fear they are simply a shortcut fix for a problem better addressed by exercise and diet. Even so, some pharmaceutical companies are developing new versions, including flavored ones, of adult medications for children. While some of the percentage increases in the three analyses are significant, doctors empha-size that prescriptions of these drugs to children still represent less than 1 percent of their sales. Express Scripts and Medco developed estimates of how many children might be taking such drugs by extrapolating their data — involving a total of more than four million children — across the broader population. The companies use different assumptions to reach their estimates, but the data suggests that at least several hundred thousand children are on various obesity-related medications. The greatest increase occurred in drugs for Type 2 diabetes, with Medco’s data showing a 151 percent jump from 2001 to 2007. Medco’s data, released in May, showed that use of drugs to treat acid reflux problems in children, often aggravated by obesity, increased 137 percent over seven years. Its analysis also showed an 18 percent increase in drugs to treat high blood pressure and a 12 percent increase in cholesterol-lowering medications during the seven-year period. Express Scripts found a 15 percent increase over three years in drugs to treat cholesterol and other fats in the blood, a category that is primarily statins. “We were amazed at how quickly the rates of drugs used have climbed,” said Dr. Donna R. Halloran, an assistant professor at St. Louis University who worked on the Express Scripts analysis, presented at a meeting of the American Public Health Association in November. Verispan data recorded a 13 percent increase in high blood pressure prescriptions in the under 19 age group from 2005 to 2007. Its numbers show, however, a less than 1 percent increase during the period in cholesterol-lowering drugs in children. Doctors and some financial analysts have said that less pronounced increases in cholesterol drugs compared with some other medications — seen in all three analyses — reflect a wariness by some doctors about using those drugs in children. Some experts have expressed concern that the increases in many of these obesity-related drugs reflect a systemic failure, with doctors and parents turning to them because they find lifestyle changes too difficult to implement or enforce. “I think a lot of people in pediatrics, myself included, are struggling with what is the right management to do for these kids,” said Dr. Russell L. Rothman, an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University, who recently surveyed doctors and found wide variations in how children were being treated. “You see elevated blood pressure, or elevated sugars, or elevated cholesterol and you try exercise and diet and you don’t see any improvement,” Dr. Rothman said. “I worry that some providers and some families are looking for the quick fix, and are going to want to start medication immediately.” Some pediatricians say they have been treating children with statins for several years. Dr. David Collier, director of a pediatric weight management center at East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C., an area where 45 percent of the children are overweight, is among doctors who support the recent recommendations that statins may be warranted in some children as young as 8. “We have been using statins for two or three years now,” he said. One of his statin patients, he said, was a 6-year-old girl. Dr. Collier, who describes his location as “right smack dab in the middle of the stroke belt,” believes that aggressive therapy is needed to prevent a health crisis. “It’s hard to overstate the size of the problem,” he said. Dr. Francine R. Kaufman remembers a patient, a 13-year-old girl, whose weight had ballooned to 267 pounds. The teenager appeared destined for the same fate as her grandmother, who lost a leg to Type 2 diabetes. “To control her high blood sugar level, her high blood pressure, and her high cholesterol, this young girl left my office with five medications,” Dr. Kaufman, a pediatric endocrinologist in Los Angeles, told a Senate subcommittee last week during hearings on obesity in children. The girl stood out as unusual more than 10 years ago, but children with the same array of problems are increasingly seen in the diabetes center where she practices at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Dr. Kaufman said. Diet and exercise are tried first, but “lifestyle is really tough,” Dr. Kaufman said. Some of her patients live in neighborhoods without grocery stores and attend schools that do not offer physical education programs. “They deserve to be treated,” Dr. Kaufman said. “I think the slant from most of the media is that pediatricians are jumping to put kids on medications. That’s not true at all. Since lifestyle is so difficult, we have no other choice but to go to pharmacotherapy.” At Camp Pocono Trails, a weight loss camp in Reeders, Pa., that enrolls about 700 children each summer, owner Tony Sparber said that campers are arriving with medications, a pharmacopeia that include statins and diabetes medications. “You just look at these kids’ medical forms,” Mr. Sparber said. “You see kids with some very high-risk numbers. Cholesterol in the high 200s.” Experts say that the trend could balloon health care costs. As many as 30 percent of children nationwide are overweight. And children who start such medication often rely on the drugs for a lifetime and are prone to health problems as adults. Despite a push by the Food and Drug Administration to foster drug studies in children, many experts believe that many clinical studies in children have not been extensive enough. And adult doses are often not correct for children. The agency publishes a list of drugs for which pediatric versions are needed. So far, the size of the pediatric market is not big enough to make it profitable for companies to make special children’s formulas of drugs for disorders that commonly go along with obesity and high-fat diets. That appears to be changing. Madeira Therapeutics, based in Leawood, Kan., is formulating a liquid statin for children that will be sold in either grape, cherry or bubblegum flavor, according to the company’s chief executive, Peter R. Joiner. Madeira became interested in the drug to treat children with a genetic cholesterol condition, familial hypercholesterolemia, which strikes 1 in 500 children regardless of their diet. The recent American Academy of Pediatrics statement adds to the potential market, according to Mr. Joiner. The company, whose liquid statin may be available by late 2010, is also interested in a liquid oral diabetes medication. “Because of the obesity epidemic in the United States, we see diabetes as another important area for contribution,” Mr. Joiner said. A nonprofit group in Cambridge, Mass., the Institute for Pediatric Innovation, is working to encourage the reformulation of medications for children. Dr. Stephen P. Spielberg, the former dean of Dartmouth Medical School, is leading the effort. “What we’ve learned over the years is that the way in which the body handles medicines, the half life of a medicine, how it’s metabolized, how it’s excreted by the body, does vary, from babies all the way up to adolescents,” Dr. Spielberg said. Hypertension medications present a particular challenge in dosing for children. “Even in clinical trials where adult pills were crushed and such, you often can’t even demonstrate that the medication works,” he added. Medco cautioned that hypertension data can be misleading because some children with attention deficit disorder are treated with hypertension drugs. The most significant increase in the use of drugs for children has been in oral medication for Type 2 diabetes. And some doctors believe much of those prescriptions were “off-label” use of the drug, metformin, to treat prediabetes, which may affect two million children nationwide. But some doctors object to the use of metformin for that purpose in children, even though studies have shown it may prevent diabetes in young adults. “There are no studies like this in children,” said Dr. Tamara S. Hannon, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh. “The argument may be that we know what happens in adults, so the same should happen in children. It’s been proven untrue in several cases in the history of medicine.”
Tags:

Obama Lands in Afghanistan for First Tour of War Zones

Saturday, July 19th, 2008
Published: July 20, 2008
WASHINGTON – Senator Barack Obama arrived in Afghanistan early Saturday morning, opening his first overseas trip as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, to meet with American commanders there and later in Iraq to receive an on-the-ground assessment of military operations in the two major U.S. war zones. Mr. Obama touched down in Kabul about 11:45 a.m., according to a pool report released by his aides. In addition to attending briefings with military leaders, he hoped to meet with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan before flying to Iraq later in the weekend. His trip was cloaked in secrecy, which advisers said was due to security concerns set forth by the Secret Service. His whereabouts have been unknown since he departed Chicago. He left Andrews Air Force Base near Washington on Thursday afternoon, according to a pool report, and turned up in Afghanistan on Saturday. Before he left the United States, he gave a brief outline of his trip to two pool reporters traveling with him from Chicago to Washington. No reporters accompanied him to Afghanistan. “Well, you know, I’m more interested in listening than doing a lot of talking,” Mr. Obama said. “And I think it is very important to recognize that I’m going over there as a U.S. senator. We have one president at a time, so it’s the president’s job to deliver those messages.” Mr. Obama’s arrival opened a weeklong foreign trip that includes visits to Iraq and two other stops in the Middle East as well as appearances in three European capitals. His tour of Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a Congressional delegation — similar to trips that Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, made in the spring — in which he is joined by Senators Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, and Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, both of whom have been mentioned as possible vice presidential running mates. The international trip by Mr. Obama is intended to counter Republican criticism — and one advanced by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Democratic primary campaign — that he has too little experience in foreign affairs to serve as a world leader. His advisers said Mr. Obama chose to begin his trip in Afghanistan because he believes that the region is among the most important foreign policy challenges facing the United States. “Well, I’m looking forward to seeing what the situation on the ground is,” Mr. Obama told reporters on Thursday before he left Washington. “I want to, obviously, talk to the commanders and get a sense, both in Afghanistan and in Baghdad of, you know, what the most, ah, their biggest concerns are. And I want to thank our troops for the heroic work that they’ve been doing.” It is the first trip to Afghanistan for Mr. Obama, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. This week, he proposed deploying about 10,000 more troops to battle resurgent forces in Afghanistan, a plan intended to shift the American military focus from the Iraq war to what he calls the central fight against terrorism. The proposal has become a centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy and a major point of disagreement with Mr. McCain, who maintains that both places are major battlegrounds and disputes Mr. Obama’s suggestion that the war in Iraq has distracted the United States from its efforts in Afghanistan. Mr. McCain has suggested to voters that Mr. Obama lacks the experience to serve as commander in chief. He particularly criticized the Illinois Democrat for not having held a single hearing in his capacity as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee’s subcommittee on European affairs. “He’s going to go to the American people and say, ‘I want to be commander in chief,’ ” Mr. McCain told reporters on Thursday, “and yet he has been the chairman of the subcommittee that oversights NATO and he has never had a hearing, nor has he ever visited Afghanistan.’ ” But that criticism was dismissed this week by Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who said issues related to Afghanistan were intentionally being addressed “at the full committee level.” Mr. Obama’s trip is drawing considerable attention in the United States and abroad. It is being carefully choreographed by his campaign strategists to coincide with a new television advertisement in 18 states intended to highlight his ideas on foreign policy and portray him as ready to serve as commander in chief, which is one area where polls show that voters give an edge to Mr. McCain. In addition to visiting Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr. Obama is extending his overseas tour, his first as a presidential candidate, to include a visit to Amman, Jordan, on Monday, followed by stops in Jerusalem, the Palestinian territories, Berlin, France and London. Now that Mr. Obama has decided to take the trip, the McCain campaign is not sure what to make of it. Jill Hazelbaker, the communications director for Mr. McCain, offered a hint of the Republican criticism of the trip on Thursday by dismissing it as “the first-of-its-kind campaign rally overseas.” But Mr. McCain sought to temper the message, saying: “I’m glad he is going to Iraq. I am glad he is going to Afghanistan. It’s long, long overdue if you want to lead this nation.” Robert Gibbs, a senior campaign strategist for Mr. Obama, dismissed that suggestion. He said the trip was rooted in substance, rather than politics. “The trip is not at all a campaign trip, a rally of any sort,” Mr. Gibbs told reporters on Friday. He said Mr. Obama would hold “a series of substantive meetings with our friends and our allies to talk about the common challenges that we face and the national security dangers for the 21st century.” In the next week, Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet several foreign leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Jordan’s King Abdullah, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Shimon Peres and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Tags:

iPhone Users Plagued by Software Problems

Saturday, July 12th, 2008
Published: July 12, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO — For many people on Friday, the iPhone was the iCan’t. Apple suffered extensive network gridlock Friday morning, as many of the six million users of the original iPhone tried to upgrade to new software while the first buyers of the new iPhone 3G were trying to activate their purchases. The setback was a classic example of the problems that can follow when complex systems have single points of failure. In this case, the company appeared to almost invite the problems by having both existing and new iPhone owners try to get through to its systems at the same time. “There are certainly lessons in preparedness,” said Richard Doherty, a consumer electronics industry consultant who is president of the Envisioneering Group in Seaford, N.Y. He compared the day with Christmas morning, “the acid test for many years” for electronics companies because customers contact them in droves after opening presents and trying to get gadgets to work. The problems led to slow-moving lines of would-be iPhone 3G purchasers at Apple and AT&T stores, while current iPhone users found that their phones had stopped working when they tried to upgrade them to the latest software. The iPhone must connect to Apple servers through the iTunes program for authentication before it will function again after a software upgrade. Apple did not comment publicly on the problems, but privately executives acknowledged the missteps and said the combination of the software upgrades and new iPhone 3G owners trying to complete their activation swamped the company’s servers. At Apple and AT&T stores on Friday morning, employees began telling buyers to take their new iPhones home and activate them there. A year ago, when the original iPhone went on sale, customers performed the activation at home. But Apple and its cellphone partners changed the process this time, in part because the carriers are partially subsidizing the cost of the phones, so they are eager to make sure that phone buyers are locked into a contract. Many of the original iPhones were bought in the United States and then taken overseas for use on foreign carriers. A number of industry executives have said that the change in policy was intended to reduce the number of phones that were bought and then modified for use on unauthorized cellular networks. Early indications were that the company was facing strong demand for the new phones. In many cases the customers were existing iPhone users looking to upgrade to the iPhone 3G model. Apple’s stores opened at 8 a.m. At the store in downtown San Francisco at 11:30 a.m., there was still a line of more than 300 customers stretching down one block and around the corner waiting for iPhones. Some customers said they had hired placeholders to stand overnight in line. Mark Siegel, a spokesman for AT&T, Apple’s cellular partner in the United States, said the company had experienced extraordinary demand and that most of its stores nationwide were sold out of the iPhone during the day. He said he had heard reports that some customers were already camped out in front of stores waiting for the next shipment of iPhones on Saturday, but he could not identify a particular store. Mr. Siegel said the rush of customers and upgrades had overwhelmed Apple’s servers, and that he sympathized with the company’s predicament. “Apparently the iTunes system has just been overwhelmed by demand and Apple is working very hard to get this fixed,” he said. He acknowledged that part of the problem was the new policy of requiring authorization in the stores. In a related issue, customers had problems with Apple’s switchover from its .Mac Web service to a new service called MobileMe that is intended to seamlessly share information between Macintosh computers and the iPhone. Apple’s stumble was an unusual one for a company that has taken pains in recent years to become more customer-oriented. The technology blog Gizmodo dubbed it the iPocalypse. When the original iPhone was introduced, AT&T took the blame for most of the early service problems. Sergio Martinez, an editor at Teak Motion Visuals in San Francisco, said in an e-mail message that he had run into trouble with the software upgrade. “Like everyone else across the world, I have had no luck upgrading,” he wrote. “Bill Gates must be enjoying this one.”
Laurie J. Flynn contributed reporting.
Tags:

Google Told to Turn Over User Data of YouTube

Friday, July 4th, 2008