January 2010

[Commentary] It is important to bear in mind that technology is not the sworn enemy of literature as Apple prepares to unveil its much-anticipated new tablet computer. Still, the collision of technology and literature in this case may well prove explosive.

A well-designed Apple tablet, embedded in the right business model, has the potential to blow up the book business as we know it, ultimately upending the whole rickety edifice of publishers, booksellers and agents, much as the digital revolution (and Apple) have done to the music business. The result will be a seismic change in the literary culture. Ubiquitous tablets will make books cheaper and more readily available. Tablets will also change the nature of books. And a tablet will offer not just text but also sound, images and video -- which will all be commonplace in books someday, in a balance we can't yet foresee. This may undermine the primacy of text.

"The history of literature," Alvin Kernan reminds us, "has always been closely involved with such worldly things as royal courts, patronage, copyright laws, middle-class leisure, nationalism, democratic educational systems, steam-driven rotary presses, free markets and Linotype machines." Sparks always fly when technology and literature get together. We can expect that this time, as usual, they will burn down the old and light up the new.

[Commentary] Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's warnings about bloodthirsty, oppressive regimes who hijack the Internet "to crush dissent and deny human rights" were themselves hijacked by a radical "media reform" group, Free Press, that ironically seeks to dramatically increase state intervention in both the Internet and media.

Rather than simply commending Hillary Clinton's uncontroversial defense of Internet freedom, Free Press used — or should I say, abused — the speech to launch a ridiculous attack on American companies. Explicitly comparing American phone and cable corporations with repressive overseas regimes in Iran and China, Free Press Executive Director Josh Silver conflated the network neutrality debate in the U.S. to the struggle for human rights in the rest of the world.

Yes, the network neutrality issue is hideously complex and, yes, there are important considerations in terms of actual anti-competitive or harmful behavior. But Free Press stepped over the mark of rational political discussion and entered the theater of political absurdity. Free Press lost its mind by conflating the reactionary butchers of Tehran with American telecoms like Verizon and AT&T. Free Press totally flipped by equating the one-party apparatchiks in Beijing with American cable providers like Comcast or Time Warner cable.

(Keen is author of Cult of the Amateur and is an adviser to Arts+Labs, a technology policy coalition of entertainment companies, software providers, telecommunications providers, artists and creators.)

A day after the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government may not ban political spending by corporations or unions in candidate elections, officials across the country were rushing to cope with the fallout, as laws in 24 states were directly or indirectly called into question by the ruling.

"One day the Constitution of Colorado is the highest law of the state," said Robert F. Williams, a law professor at Rutgers University. "The next day it's wastepaper." The states that explicitly prohibit independent expenditures by unions and corporations will be most affected by the ruling.

The decision, however, has consequences for all states, since they are now effectively prohibited from adopting restrictions on corporate and union spending on political campaigns. In his dissent to the 5-to-4 ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens highlighted the burden placed on states. "The court operates with a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel when it strikes down one of Congress's most significant efforts to regulate the role that corporations and unions play in electoral politics," he wrote. "It compounds the offense by implicitly striking down a great many state laws as well."

[Commentary] If you are an owner or manager of a television station, you need to write a check to the National Association of Broadcasters Political Action Committees (NABPAC).

TV broadcasting is a highly regulated business. The actions (or inactions) of Congress, the FCC or other federal agencies have a profound impact on the value of stations, how profitable they are and how much everybody gets paid. These days, they may also determine whether more jobs will be slashed. So, it's imperative that you try to shape those actions any which way you can. One way is by supporting the NAB. Most broadcasters do with their dues and, in many cases, their time. The association's boards and committees comprise owners and top managers.

Another critical way is by contributing to NABPAC. Most broadcasters don't. The PAC has been sorely underfunded for years — a fact that has weakened the NAB in all that it is trying to do in Washington on your behalf. In fact, it's become something of an embarrassment for the industry. Broadcasting isn't keeping up with its media neighbors. By making legitimate contributions to campaigns coffers, NABPAC, like other PACs, can reward members of Congress who stand up for broadcasting and open doors to others who hold key committee chairs and leadership positions. Without plenty of NABPAC funds to spread around, NAB can't play in the big leagues of Washington. It's kind of like the Cincinnati Reds trying to win the NL flag on their paltry player budget. Not impossible, but also not likely.