ANTITRUST
Diverse Group Opposes EchoStar-DirecTV Deal (NYT)
Microsoft, Opponents Make Cases To Judge (WP)
INTERNET
Online Publishers Struggle to Decide Where to Draw Line on
Advertising (WSJ)
Read All About It! Newspapers Lose Web War (HBS)
ANTITRUST
DIVERSE GROUP OPPOSES ECHOSTAR-DIRECTV DEAL
Issue: Merger
Satellite TV makes strange lobbying fellows. As EchoStar Communications
tries to win regulatory approval for its takeover of DirecTV, the formidable
forces arrayed against him include Rupert Murdoch, the Rev. Al Sharpton,
powerful members of Congress from both major parties and a Missouri soybean
farmer named Charles Kruse. Mr. Sharpton is arguing that the deal be
rejected unless EchoStar agrees to carry more religious programming and
programming aimed at minority groups. Mr. Kruse, president of the Missouri
Farm Bureau Federation is concerned that the EchoStar-DirecTV merger could
keep households in sparsely populated areas from having a choice of pay
television providers. Many members of Congress from rural and Western states
agree, and a coalition of state attorneys general may form to oppose the
merger. Scott C. Cleland, chief executive of the Precursor Group, an
independent research firm in Washington, estimated that "there is less than
a one-in-three chance," that the merger will be approved. "This is not a
close call. It's over the line of almost any traditional antitrust
analysis."
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Laura M. Holson And Seth Schiesel]
(http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/30/business/media/30BIRD.html)
(requires registration)
MICROSOFT, OPPONENTS MAKE CASES TO JUDGE
Issue: Antitrust
Yesterday, a flurry of filings marked the end of a 60-day period during
which the public could comment on the proposed settlement between Microsoft
and the Justice Department. Efforts to sway the federal judge handling the
case played out in a public campaign yesterday as the company and its rivals
released thick reports and cited prominent legal and economic experts. Two
Noble prize winning economists said a proposed settlement between the
Justice Department and the company - which the judge must approve - would
not restore competition to the computer software marketplace. The Justice
Department now has 30 days to respond to the public comments. One criticism
of the agreement is that it does not incorporate a ruling by the appeals
court that Microsoft illegally commingled its Internet browsing software
with its core Windows operating system. Opponents are argue that enforcement
provisions of the agreement are too weak.
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Jonathan Krim]
(http://www.washtech.com/news/regulation/14904-1.html)
INTERNET
ONLINE PUBLISHERS STRUGGLE TO DECIDE WHERE TO DRAW LINE ON ADVERTISING
Issue: Internet
The already fuzzy line between content and advertising on the Internet, may
blur even more in the future as advertisers struggle to get the attention of
Web surfers. "Some of these ads can be innovative, but they can also be
confusing to the reader," said Denise Garcia, media research director at the
consulting group GartnerG2. "It's a buyer's market because we're in a
recession now. If publishers want the money, they'll do what advertisers
tell them to do." Paid-for content and links are appearing more and more on
the Web, and in many cases are labeled as being "from our sponsors" or
"sponsored links." But the difference isn't always crystal clear. The New
York Times has drawn attention with a section on its site called the
"Tolkien Archives," a promotional package tied to the "Lord of the Rings"
movie, that contained articles from the paper's database, leading some
critics to say that it bore too close a resemblance to the news content on
the rest of the Times site. A study on credibility in online journalism due
out this week from the Online News Association
(www.onlinenewsassociation.org) raises the question of whether the site
should have more clearly explained that the Tolkien area was sponsored.
Howard Finberg, one of the study's authors, said more should be done to
ensure that the distinction between paid-for content and editorial is clear.
"We're not at the point of erosion, because the public hasn't totally made
up its mind about credibility on the Internet," he said. "We now have an
opportunity to strengthen the credibility of this new medium."
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Seth Sutel (Associated Press)]
(http://online.wsj.com/article/0,4286,SB1012338436993891400,00.html?mod=new%
5Fmedia%5Fprimary%5Fhs)
(requires subscription)
READ ALL ABOUT IT! NEWSPAPERS LOSE WEB WAR
Issue: Journalism
Newspapers have responded to the threat of the Internet by racing to move
their content online, but according to Harvard Business School professor
Clark Gilbert, papers have failed to take advantage of the Web as a unique
medium. In his research, Gilbert found that "most companies aggressively
'crammed' the new business into the old business model and sales processes."
He gave the example of newspapers attempting to make money online sites by
selling the same types of advertising to their traditional print
advertisers. Gilbert recommended that newspapers bring in people from
outside the newspaper business to help identify the emerging new markets.
[SOURCE: HBS Working Knowledge, AUTHOR: Sean Silverthorne]
(http://hbsworkingknowledge.hbs.edu/pubitem.jhtml?id=2738&sid=0&pid=0&t=inno
vation)
--------------------------------------------------------------