Monday, January 15th, 2018
Susan Quello, granddaughter of James H. and Mary B. Quello, provides her perspective on the launch of the James H. Quello Digital Archive. Susan, now at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, beautifully captures the significance of MSU and higher education to her grandparents, and underscores the value of the archive to preserving James Quello’s contributions to the FCC and communication policy.
Sunday, January 14th, 2018
NEW MEDIA ADDICTION
A. Michael Noll
January 13, 2018
© Copyright 2019 AMN
Concern is being expressed about the addictive use of smartphones. It has even been suggested that software be installed to limit use of smartphones, particularly use by young people.
All the supposed harm is similar to what was said about radio and also about television during their early years. There was discussion decades ago about the need to restrict use. I am not old enough to remember the telegraph, but I can guess that similar predictions of doom from overuse were also made. And what of all the time wasted reading newspapers, along with all the controversial ideas that were disbursed.
It seems normal that there is an over-fascination with any new medium, such as a smartphone. And then with time, usage fades and other more traditional forms of communication and entertainment return. The novelty and social status of the new wears off.
Sunday, January 14th, 2018
UNIVERSITY RESEARCH: A SKEPTICAL PERSPECTIVE
A. Michael Noll
January 13, 2018
© Copyright 2017 AMN
University research has skeptically made little contribution to the striking advances in communications technology of the last 50 or so years. This is hardly surprising, since most of the advances came from R&D at industrial facilities. The skeptical perspective in this piece is based on my early experience at an industrial research laboratory, in government, and later at a university. My conclusion is that university research is essential mostly for the education and training of students, who then graduate and conduct meaningful research for industry.
One important example of technological innovation in the communication area is communication satellites. But they were not the result of university research. Bell Labs pioneered satellite communications over a half century ago. In fact, science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke, as early as 1945, first proposed communication satellites. The Soviets (Sputnik in 1957) developed the first satellite. Then Bell Telephone Laboratories (Echo in 1960 and Telstar in 1962) developed early communication satellites — none of this was university research.
Another technological innovation is the Internet. Was it solely the result of university research? The precursor of today’s Internet was the Arpanet, which utilized packet switching to avoid then costly data service. The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the Federal defense department funded the development of the Arpanet, which was the brainchild of Dr. Larry Roberts, who directed the project at ARPA. Much of the actual development work was done at Bolt, Beranek, and Newman (BBN). Although university people were involved, the Arpanet was not solely the result of university research.
I am not familiar with chemical research and physics, and thus do not know how much practical research has occurred at university facilities. My expertise is in electrical engineering and telecommunications technology. Interesting university research has been done in astrophysics, but little relevance has occurred from this research – it deals with such topics as black holes and distances measured in millions on light years. Decades ago, John McCarthy at his laboratory at Stanford University, and the students he educated did exciting research in artificial intelligence and robotics.
The broader question is what is the purpose and mission of universities, and what is the role of university research? This can become the domain of self-serving opinion. It is a controversial topic with “muddy waters” on its importance depending on personal opinions and perspectives.
Sitting here at my desk with the computer on which I am writing this article, I think of the technology around me. The graphical interface on the computer was invented at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC); the mouse was invented at the Stanford Research Institute; researchers at Bell Telephone Laboratories invented the Unix operating system. None of this was university research. Many innovations are the result of discoveries by many researchers at different organizations – credit frequently should be more collectively attributed.
The Federal government through a peer-review process sponsors much university research. The process in seeking support for peer-reviewed research is lengthy and elaborate. It sometimes appears that more thought and effort goes into writing the proposal than the actual conduct of the research. The peer review process assures that the research will be mostly mainstream.
Decades ago, when I worked in Washington and collaborated with the Office of Management and Budget, I wondered whether university research funded by the National Science Foundation was a form of welfare for academics. It was also a reason for being released from teaching a course or two — teaching is real work.
I wonder whether it would be simpler and would result in more innovative groundbreaking research if the university simply supported the research from its endowment and own funds. But these funds would need to be distributed evenly and might not be sufficient to support current levels of research. However, avoiding proposal writing might add efficiency.
University research frequently is more theoretical, not very practical, and long term. It usually is not the kind of proprietary research that leads to breakthroughs and pioneering innovations with practical industrial application. The mission of university research frequently is “new knowledge for its own sake,” as contrasted with industrial research that supports the mission of the industrial firm. It is not the mission of the university to make new products and provide new services.
The best research supports the mission of the sponsoring organization. The mission of a university is education – not providing telecommunication service, space craft, refrigerators, and so forth. Indeed, the major mission of the university should be education. If doctoral students are to be educated and trained, then they need the opportunity to perform some form of research. After they graduate, these doctorial students then frequently go to work at industry performing practical and relevant work. The career path for doctoral students that seems to be most applauded by the faculty is to graduate and work at another university, where their doctoral students then apply to yet another graduate program – not for industry or on practical problems. “Practical” and “relevant” seem to be characterizations to be avoided at many universities.
Research usually tackled practical problems in support of a real-world mission of the sponsor. A good way for a university to be involved in such research is through a separate for-profit research unit. The researchers would not teach nor be tenured – they would be employees. Patents would be obtained, along with other intellectual property. Students and faculty could also work part-time at the research facility. The management of the research unit would evaluate the research. An issue with university research is that the departmental administration does not evaluate it and instead relies on outside peer review.
The “product” of universities is its graduates. Research universities educate and train doctoral students. As graduates these newly minted doctorates go to work in industry performing propriety industrial research and devolvement. The results of this R&D makes their way back to the university, affecting and refining the topics of research done by faculty and current doctoral students. This is a tight loop.
I have taken a skeptical and controversial tone in this piece. But in the end, what should matter is meaningful research that solves real problems or leads to new knowledge and innovations — not where it is performed. Research should make our lives better through new products and services.
Friday, January 5th, 2018
Recently we posted a blog that outlined three key findings in our Detroit Digital Divide Project. These findings focused on issues of Internet connectivity, use, and interest among Detroit residents. We argued that the findings of our research run counter to a number of perceptions about Internet digital divides in Detroit, and to a degree that they might be better understood as myths. However, just the recognition of misguided assumptions is not enough. As we continue to analyze the data further, and refine the patterns emerging, the Quello research team has begun to examine what can be done to address these divides in light of our findings.
Below we briefly review these myths before moving to an outline of three possible steps forward.
Myth #1: Detroiters are under-connected
When asked if they have home Internet access, about 78 percent of respondents in our three examined neighborhoods said they do have home access, yet only about 60 percent report having a contract with an ISP. However, almost our whole sample identified themselves as using the Internet in some form. This suggests that Detroiters are finding their way online, but they have to be innovative in order to connect. The problem is that unstable, unreliable or mobile-only connections are simply not good enough.
Myth #2: Detroiters go online primarily for entertainment
Despite claims that Detroiters use the Internet primarily for entertainment purposes, our study found that entertainment and leisure activities are decidedly less central than information seeking and communication activities. In other words, far fewer people are streaming music or watching videos online than the number of people who are emailing, getting news, or health information. For example, just over 50 percent say they go online to watch videos while about 85 percent go online to email.
Myth #3: Detroiters are not interested in home Internet access
We did not find evidence to support the notion that Detroit residents avoid the Internet because of a lack of interest. First, most Detroiters are online. But often, they are limited to using a mobile device to access the Internet. Second, a majority of those who do not have an ISP at home say they would like home access. Third, among those who do not have home access most have access at work or some other public space, and the lack of home access most often comes down to price, not interest. For example, focus group participants who expressed ambivalence on the subject of home access cited barriers such as costs, a loss of family time, and duplication of services as some of the reasons for their “lack of interest”. In other words, among those who say they are not interested in home access are those who have Internet access elsewhere.
A deeper exploration of these three myths requires a discussion of what can and should be done to dispel such misconceptions. For those who care about Detroit and issues of the digital divide, the following guidelines could serve as a starting point for setting the record straight.
To learn more about this research, please visit our Project Page.
Thursday, December 21st, 2017
The Quello Center recently completed a study focused on Internet use in Detroit, Michigan. The findings may surprise anyone who believes that Detroiters are under-connected, go online primarily for entertainment or are uninterested in the Internet.
The study surveyed three Detroit neighborhoods, Cody-Rouge, Milwaukee Junction and 7/8 Mile and Woodward. Focus groups were also conducted with community stakeholders, adult residents and youth. The results are based on a sample of 525 Detroit residents who responded to our telephone survey and nearly 30 residents who participated in focus groups.
Myth #1: Detroiters are under-connected
Our study found that even among those who do not have home access, Detroiters overwhelming find a way to get online. Like other studies, our study found that only about 60 percent of Detroit households have a contract with an Internet Service Provider in their home, however, that statistic alone is misleading. When asked if they have home Internet access, about 78 percent say yes. This suggests that most find a way to access the Internet at home with or without an ISP. Even more people are online when they are traversing around the city.
Myth #2: Detroiters go online primarily for entertainment
Once online, Detroiters are doing work or involved in information seeking tasks – dispelling another misperception of Internet use in Detroit. Across all of our focus groups participants report using the Internet “every day and everywhere.” When asked what they do online, the number one activity reported in the survey was checking email, followed by getting information on local events, reading the news and searching for health information. Comparatively the least reported activities included getting information on sports, streaming videos and posting photos. In other words, Detroiters use the Internet for a variety of purposes, the least of which is entertainment.
Myth #3: Detroiters are not interested in home Internet access
Among the participants in this study, Detroiters say they are very well aware of the benefits of Internet access. Most use the Internet regularly. Most have very positive attitudes toward the Internet, especially when compared to any stated fears. While most are regularly online and use the Internet at home, 60 percent of those who do not have home access say they would like it.
Still, access gaps and digital divides remain. These gaps and divides are more subtle than simply using or accessing the Internet. These gaps and divides manifest in the form of dependence on mobile phones, and the limitations of mobile devices when compared to, or used in combination with, home devices like desktops and laptops. Not all content is mobile friendly. Job and scholarship applications cannot be completed on mobile phones. Homework and work related spreadsheets and documents are limited, difficult or impossible to complete on a mobile phone. Creativity is stifled by the limitations of a mobile phone. In order to address these gaps, Detroiters need to recognize these limitation, and have access to home devices, particularly laptops and software to sustain work, homework and creative endeavors.
It is also worth noting that those who do have home access are paying a disproportionate amount of their income for an ISP. For example, in our survey the average household is paying $50 a month. At the same time, the average household income in Detroit is $26,000 a year, and 75 percent of our sample say their household income is average or below average (nearly 50 percent of the sample say their household makes below or far below $26,000 a year). To put this in perspective, focus group participants admitted to delaying, avoiding or canceling other important services and necessities in order to continue to pay for home Internet or cell phone bills to use the Internet. Parents say they do it for their children. Working adults say they do it to stay competitive. Those seeking employment say they do it search for jobs and to receive calls if an opportunity becomes available. In other words, Detroiters are very well aware of the value of accessing the Internet and most are doing whatever it takes get online.
Sunday, December 17th, 2017
DISNEY BUYS MURDOCH
A. Michael Noll
December 16, 2017
© Copyright 2017 AMN
Walt Disney is purchasing Murdoch’s entertainment empire for over $50 billion. Is this a great deal – or a huge challenge for the future of Disney?
The vision is a future in which video entertainment (and sports) is downloaded over the Internet directly from the source, bypassing the middle distributors, such as the cable TV company, the satellite company, or the phone company. This vision has been known as cable bypass. But it assumes an Internet that is “free.”
Disney, and its Bob Eger, should be frightened that the FCC just terminated “net-neutrality,” which means that the middle distributors can charge different Internet rates depending upon the source and the content.
Rubert Murdoch is known as a very shrewd businessman. The fact that he wants to sell his entertainment properties should be the cause of suspicion. If it looks like a good deal, it most likely is a good deal – for Murdoch.
Indeed, the Internet was not designed for the delivery of broadband video. The bandwidth (or data capacity) and need for instantaneous delivery, coupled with the one-way nature, of video is costly. One solution is to charge more, as now allowed by the elimination of net-neutrality. Another solution would be a network optimized for the technological demands of video – but that would require technological innovation. Unfortunately, the Bell Labs of the past that used to give us such innovation is no more, and the telephone companies, such as AT&T, simply are not innovative.
A. Michael Noll is Professor Emeritus of Communications at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California. He has written many articles and opinion pieces about the telecommunications industry and technology.
Wednesday, December 13th, 2017
Are We All Just Lazy?
A. Michael Noll
December 11, 2017
© 2017 AMN
How many of our new products and services are motivated mostly by our laziness? However, the marketing folks would claim that they are just making life easier for us.
Television sets of the past had tuners with knobs. To change a channel, we had to get up from our sofas and go to the TV set to turn the knob to a different channel. This was so much effort that we usually just left the TV set on a single channel for the entire evening. And then the TV remote was invented. Now we could relax in our sofas and simply press a button to flip from one channel to another – the height of laziness.
Today we have voice-assisted products. All we have to do is simply speak to it to obtain information or to turn on a lamp. No longer do we have to search the Internet by typing on a keyboard. We just speak to our computers and voice-assistants.
Decades ago, AT&T was attempting to market its video teleconferencing service. But people thought it was easier to take the train than to schedule and walk across the street to a teleconferencing room.
It takes physical energy and effort to speak – it can be tiring. Somehow it is easier just to type or text a message. Perhaps it simply takes less physical effort and is less tiring. But if we do not have a keyboard immediately available, then speech is the way to go.
Monday, December 4th, 2017
On Wednesday, November 29, the Quello Center hosted a discussion advancing policy and governance as a College focus area. This college-wide panel on media & communication research and policy discussed how policy is related to and involved in research activities across the College of Communication Arts and Sciences, as well as what kinds of synergies we can leverage across the college. The discussion served as an opportunity to bring together faculty and students with an interest in policy and governance as an important focus area for the College.
Moderator: Johannes M. Bauer, Department of Media and Information
Panelists: Daniel Bergan, Department of Communication; Dave Ewoldsen, Department of Media and Information; Keith Hampton, Department of Media and Information; Natascha Just, Department of Media and Information; Bibi Reisdorf, Quello Center.
Attendees: Shelia Cotton, Laleah Fernandez, Maria Lapinski, Dar Meshi, Jef Richards, Nora Rifon, Ashly Sanders-Jackson, Ruth Shillair, Rick Wash, Aleksandr Yankelevich
Unable to attend, but mentioned interest: Rachel Mourao, Kjerstin Thorson
*The following summary is organized by themes rather than chronological.
How can we make sure policy issues get the attention they deserve in both research and teaching?
Panelists and attendees discussed a broad range of tactics and strategies for gaining attention on policy topics ranging from informal (yet centralized) information sharing through the Quello Center to PhD training and culture changes at the college level (e.g. valuing policy-directed output for the tenure process). For example, better sharing of information, more cross departmental collaboration, and making everyone more aware of the policy implications of their research.
One panelist started the conversation by saying that perhaps it shouldn’t be the goal of research to gain attention because such efforts can jeopardize the objectivity of the research we do. From this view, the appeal of political gain, financial gain, and media attention have the capability of casting an academic into the role of being an “expert” even in areas that fall outside the boundaries of his/her expertise. In these cases, academics can do more damage than good or lose academic credibility.
One panelist suggested that we begin by finding a common ground, proposing the Quello could serve as a basis for that common ground. She pointed out that it is important to harness the reputation of the Quello Center and the College and to create the value of policy research. She warned that finding a common ground for policy research is not an easy task, pointing out “we all have different mind sets about how to engage in policy,” for example, describing policy or advocating are two very different approaches and the way we ask questions when policies are the object of analysis are different from questions that analyze something societal that might be relevant for policy. The starting point, therefore, might be the distinction between policy-focused research and policy-relevant research.
One panelist provided very pragmatic answers to this question. She noted a number of opportunities available through the Institute of Public Policy and Social Research (IPPSR) ranging from the Michigan Applied Public Policy Research grant to policy-focused learning opportunities for new and existing lawmakers as well as faculty. The IPPSR, for example, runs regular workshops for faculty who want to make their research more applicable to the policy realm. At the federal level, she suggests a college-wide effort to boost presence at the TPRC Research Conference on Communications, Information and Internet Policy in Washington D.C. as well as other similar conferences that bring together researchers, industry and policymakers.
The moderator pointed out that one challenge in the department is communicating clearly when the competition over ideas gets complicated. He added that politically some groups are doing a better job in that space, while academia appears to be generally unsure of their role. One attendee said that academics have a long tradition of playing an advisory role, and as long as technology is advancing new policy will be created, reactively. There is a space for academics to fill here. Another approach, as suggested by one panelist, is training the PhD students to appreciate how their work is important to potentially impacting policy. This concept could be included as we are currently restructuring the PhD program.
What is the difference between policy-relevant research and policy-research and why does it matter?
Concern over a lack of definition, ambiguous definitions and a negative connotation associated with the term policy research was echoed throughout the discussion. One attendee noted that the definition of policy-relevant research and policy research is very much a function of one’s position, perspective or discipline. Thus, all the research in the building is policy relevant, from these varying positions. His suggestion: work toward a shared definition, or change the terminology. The need for changed terminology is rooted in the stigma associated with the term “policy research” (with some colleagues in the communication field). One panelist similarly suggested that not only are definitions based on discipline, but so are the questions that are asked. She added that these questions of policy apply to multiple levels, and there are different areas of policy to consider.
Another atendee later added that it is difficult to move issues forward with a lack of consensus. Her suggested solution is to examine models for engaging with policy centers and advocating for engaged scholarship. Another attendee added that we figure out ways to keep our thumb on the pulse in terms of advocacy work, more specifically, she called on faculty to “know what the advocates are trying to figure out,” to help guide our research. One panelist warned that mixing advocacy and research had the potential to muddy objectivity. One attendee countered that it is possible to balance both, admitting that in her own research her ultimate goal is to see the world become a little better.
While a shared definition of policy-relevant and policy-focused research was not explicitly agreed upon there was consensus among panelists and participants that in some way everyone was doing work that was policy relevant. In other words, policy can be expressed at multiple levels, in countless contexts and through various lenses – it can mean law making, it can mean interpreting existing law, it can be normative behaviors and cultures, it can be pre-emptive or reactive. As such, in our research an organic expression of and relationship to policy tends to emerge, even in the absence of intention. This idea, therefore, lends itself to ways to deliberately nurture and articulate that policy relevance by devising shared techniques and best practices.
One attendee noted that, for some, policy includes law, regulation, code, social norms and culture. From this perspective, law is used as a back-up when norms and culture don’t work. Other attendees and panelists echoed this idea noting that American politics do not necessarily combine studies of a sociological nature with policy decisions, whereas other countries throughout Europe do.
What is the role of communication arts and sciences in policy (relevant) research?
The role of communication arts and sciences in policy research was another area that was highly dependent on one’s discipline, training, goal and comfort level. For example, one panelist pointed out that some communication scholars are sociologists, and from his perspective there is “no natural entry point” for policy focused research, adding that there is a difference between advocates and academics. However, even in the absence of advocacy work there is a place for communication scholarship in the production and distribution of data in multiple public outlets. He added that there are risks associated with aligning our research interests to policy issues because you may be called upon to speak to related issues — not necessarily within your area of expertise. He asks “do you become a communicator of ideology” or “stay in your lane, acknowledging the borders of your expertise?” This panelist asked others, if we head down this road “are we vulnerable to stepping beyond our safe spot?”
However, another panelist pointed out that in communication studies the focus on psychology has a history of policy implications. For example, the role of psychology in understanding the impact of information on people and policy implications of such impacts. This relationship is evident in areas of study such as media policy, press restraints and the public’s reaction to such restraints, and product placement research. This panelist added that there are a number of models and theories in the field that can be and are used to understand and predict public reaction to information, and used to influence policy. One specific example described to illustrate these points is a study of the under reporting of the media on the impact of alcohol in criminal behavior.
While some panelists and attendees shied away from the idea of expressing their research expertise in addressing policy issues, others quickly and deliberately position themselves to be heard by decision makers. One attendee summarized by saying “policy will happen regardless of whether we weigh in or not, best to contribute what we know,” to help informed decision making. He noted the value of the advisory role as academics and noted that research focused on the process of technology development (or restriction of development) is particularly relevant to policy research. More specifically, “understanding how tech gets built, or restricted” leads to a better understanding of influencing factors related to policy outcomes.
Panelists suggested a number of areas where communication and media research could contribute including: changes of values, networking, regulations of Internet platforms, tolerance, diversity, digital inequality, role of technology in inequities, how technology is altered and exasperated by policy, how social media change policy, understanding how tech are being created and how people use technology.
Some specific examples of ongoing work in these areas, as cited by attendees and panelists included: research around algorithms to improve social outcomes; the role of communication studies related to perceptions of the world through the lens of social media, and how that perception by lawmakers influences policy. Another example is how major digital companies, such as Amazon, intentional and directly influence policy. Another panelists concluded by saying “policy research can also be used to call B.S. on existing arguments.”
How can we create a thematic focus in the college to increase impact?
The group as a whole agreed that continued discussions and long-term effort with this goal in mind are necessary to create this thematic focus. Such efforts could and should be directed and overseen by the Quello Center.
One attendee said such a thematic focus should consider ways to influence people who have questions in order to create better interventions. Another attendee said college-wide collaboration from multiple perspectives will provide a starting point for this goal. Another attendee suggested the model used by the Health and Risk Communication Center (HRCC). More specifically, she described a rotating research core that involved policy research that brings in tangential people to focus activities more closely to policy relevance and social translation. She also reminded attendees and panelists that Michigan Environmental Science program, and infrastructure, is readily accessible yet under-utilized source for CAS faculty.
One panelist suggested that an overall awareness of policy relevance is a reasonable first step. More specifically, he proposed that the recognition that there are policy implications to the research that we are already doing is one way to start developing this theme. For example, research that looks at how to handle people playing Pokémon Go might result in the restriction of public spaces from your research perspective, whereas another researcher might say it is better to facilitate this gathering in public spaces for the sake of democratic deliberation and encouraging a public sphere. This example prompted one attendee to chime in by saying, from his perspective, research into the constitutionality of restricting such spaces is yet another perspective. This dialogue further emphasized the ubiquitous nature of policy research and the varying definitions based on individual perspectives.
Some discussed the need to prioritize. One attendee conceded that through our research we can get a fairly descriptive picture of policy and social issues, but having a perfect models doesn’t allow people to make good decisions. From a pragmatic perspective, she adds, we have to prioritize areas of greatest concern.
The moderator brought up the challenge of the dynamic nature of socio-technological systems. He cautioned against the assumption that components of such systems are stable, citing the instance of Smart Cities research and traffic jams. One panelist said that some models can account for that type of change or instability.
In terms of next steps, one attendee suggested that we focus on translation and bring together faculty to discuss and decide upon models that are most effective. The idea here is to move research into the hands of people who can use it. She suggested that events like Brews and Views have been successful in other areas of research and might work for our purposes as well.
How can we improve our presence in policy (relevant) research across MSU?
Formal and informal information sharing networks, in combination with ongoing discussions, led by the Quello Center, are necessary to improve our presence. The moderator suggested that Quello take the lead in bringing together people of practice and policy.
One panelist suggested that we leverage existing resources at the University, specifically utilizing connections with the Institute of Public Policy and Social Research (IPPSR). This center has a number of mechanisms for direct interaction with law makers including: monthly forums and round tables to inform current legislators and staff of timely issues and research at MSU, learning opportunities for new lawmakers, and small grants available for policy relevant research that is shared with lawmakers upon completion. One attendee echoed this call, noting that she makes a deliberate effort to interface with decision makers whenever possible through her internal network of contacts and strategic choices about conference attendance. More specifically, she chooses conferences in which she knows that lawmakers, and agency heads will be attending. She adds that the academic culture is not exactly conducive to this approach of information sharing and collaboration, in fact, within academic circles she has been criticized for her choice to interface and engage regularly with policy makers.
Another attendee suggested using HRC workshops to communicate research and draw attention. She also noted that additional forums to talk about the ways to communicate research and draw attention and developing or identifying better resources to get the word out.
One attendee shared efforts (pre-2016 election) to collect information directly from FTC employees and compile a book of issues that “kept them up at night.” Despite the utility of this information, she noted that there currently is not an appropriate or useful venue to share this with colleagues or faculty that might find it useful for their own research, asking “where are the platforms to share this information?” She noted that focusing on public policy and marketing conferences might be one way to reach the intended audience and boost presence in this area.
One attendee said it is necessary to make strategic decisions about where we publish, aiming to publish in journal and publications with a policy-oriented audience rather than a strictly academic audience. She emphasized the importance of translation in academic work, particularly among those in government with questions who are designing interventions. The moderator echoed that it is worth re-examining the way we value published research in the tenure and promotion processes.
One attendee said that we should consider stepping away from the idea that research in this area needs to be cutting-edge and instead think about things that everyone in the field or discipline already knows. Perhaps, these tried and true approaches and models are best applied if we are able to translate for policy purposes. Another attendee added that while our research may not have all the answers, at least it is thoughtful and generally fact driven.
One attendee suggested that we create a pipeline to funnel translated research to broader audiences such as through the New York Times. She added a dedicated journal is also worth considering. Another attendee pointed out that Quello has the potential to be a pipeline, however, it is important to respect relationships that others have developed with policy-makers, public officials or agencies in any such type of information-sharing endeavors.
Friday, November 24th, 2017
The 1st INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION (ICMC 2018), hosted by the Department of Communication Studies of Abu Dhabi University, will be held on March 19-21, 2018 at the Radisson Blu Hotel, Yas Island, Abu Dhabi, UAE. The former director of the Quello Center, Emeritus Professor Steve Wildman, will be presenting one of two keynotes.
The Aims and Objectives of ICMC 2018 are to exchange best practices and promote international partnership and cooperation among academia and media practitioners worldwide and to create an international forum to present, discuss and exchange the latest academic research in media and communication.
Dr Mike Friedrichsen, President, Berlin University of Digital Sciences, Germany, will be presenting the other keynote.
Wednesday, November 22nd, 2017
AT&T Goes Hollywood
A. Michael Noll
© Copyright 2017 AMN
AT&T wants to purchase Time Warner — the White House and the Justice Department correctly oppose the acquisition. The acquisition would create a huge vertical integration of content and conduit that would not benefit consumers, in my opinion. But the local telephone companies have a long history of lusting after content and Hollywood.
Today’s AT&T is really a former local Bell company: the past Southwestern Bell that then became SBC Communications which then acquired AT&T and then wrapped itself in the AT&T identity.
Over two decades ago, the local Bell companies chased after the entertainment industry. And now again one of the remaining of the two super Bells – AT&T – is again inflicted with Hollywood fever.
AT&T is a conduit company, providing the cables and wireless paths over which consumer access various services. In 2015, AT&T extended its control over conduit through its acquisition of DirecTV for nearly $50 billion, delivering video over satellite to homes. But throughout history, the old Bell operating companies have lusted after also providing the content that their customers want to access over the conduits.
The telecommunication conduit business in the United States has become mostly a duopoly. AT&T and Verizon dominate wireless. Either AT&T or Verizon and a CATV company dominate wired access. Duopolies inherently adjust “competition” so that markets are shared and profits maximized, without attracting government attention. In the late 1940s, the studios were forced to divest their vertical integration of movie theaters. So today If AT&T wants to become a content company, it should be required to divest its wireless and wireline conduit businesses.
AT&T knows little of Hollywood and the news and entertainment businesses. It should stick with its strengths in providing wired and wireless conduits, as I wrote in 1993.* One might argue that if AT&T wants to lose its shirt chasing Hollywood, then let it. However, like decades ago, now is still not the time for AT&T to go Hollywood.** “Hollywood” might well end up as “Follywood” for AT&T.
*“Baby Bells Should Stick With Strengths,” by A. Michael Noll, Los Angeles Times, October 22, 19933, p. B15.
**“The phone company has gone Hollywood,” by A. Michael Noll, Morris County Daily Record, January 7, 1994, p. A11.
November 22, 2017