• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1465
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации41
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы525
      • Показать ещё
      Разное628
      • Показать ещё
      Формат36
      Люди207
      • Показать ещё
      Издания75
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели27
      • Показать ещё
21 января, 09:27

Toshiba на краю пропасти

Для того, чтобы выжить, японская компания собирается сокращаться и продавать активы Toshiba помогла осуществиться мечте японцев догнать западные страны и восстановить экономику страны после войны. Она долго являлась одним им символов Страны восходящего солнца. Сейчас положение одного из лидеров в области робототехники и электроники крайне тяжелое. Причин, считает Financial Times (FT), несколько. Это и громкие скандалы, и проблемы в управлении фирмой, и, конечно же, рискованная ядерная сделка, оказавшаяся большой ошибкой. В апреле 2015 года, когда компания призналась в фальсификации данных по прибыли за семь лет на 1,3 млрд долларов, многие экономисты полагали, что она уже достигла самой низкой точки падения, но в самом конце декабря 2016 года стало известно, что ее проблемы значительно серьезнее и глубже. Сейчас Toshiba грозит многомиллиардное списание ее американского ядерного бизнеса, которое, по оценкам ряда экономистов, может составить 8 млрд долларов. Рейтинговые агентства значительно понизили рейтинг Toshiba. За три дня, последовавшие после сенсационного признания 27 декабря, ее акции подешевели почти на 42%.

20 января, 18:30

Лучшая техника года: миллион голосов

Голосование за лучший гаджет 2016 года от Hi-Tech Mail.Ru все еще продолжается. В нем уже проголосовали больше миллиона раз!22 декабря Hi-Tech Mail.Ru объявил старт премии «Лучший гаджет 2016 года по версии рунета». Пользователи российского интернета сами выбирают, какое устройство им понравилось в прошлом году. Есть 6 разделов для голосования: смартфоны, компьютеры, гаджеты, телевизоры, камеры, а также операторы и ритейлы. Для выбора предоставлено 43 номинации и больше 200 устройств-участников. На данный момент лидируют: Лучший флагман — Samsung Galaxy S7 edge с отрывом в 0,1% от iPhone 7 Plus; Лучший ноутбук — MacBook Pro 2016 года, 27,3%; Лучшие умные часы — Samsung Gear S3, 28,3%; Лучший телевизор — Samsung 65KS9000, 41%; Лучшая зеркалка — Canon eOS 5D Mark IV, 31,5%; Лучший оператор — МТС, 28%. Это не окончательные результаты. Голосование продлится еще 10 дней, до 31 января. Так что все может измениться, успейте оставить свой голос! 25 января мы закроем результаты, чтобы оставить интригу до момента подведения итогов. 

Выбор редакции
20 января, 12:11

Canon considering investment in Toshiba's chip business - Kyodo

TOKYO, Jan 20 (Reuters) - Japan's Canon Inc is considering investing in Toshiba Corp's chip business, Kyodo news agency reported on Friday.

Выбор редакции
20 января, 09:33

CORRECTED-UPDATE 3-Toshiba making preparations for sale of stake in chip business -sources

* State-backed bank considers investment in chip business -sources

Выбор редакции
20 января, 02:35

10 of the Most Disappointing Movies of All Time

Not every film measures up to the hype. These disappointing movies fell well short of our expectations, leaving us to wonder what could have been.

19 января, 20:42

It's all connected! Pixar and the history of surprising film and TV shared universes

With the animation company revealing that its films are linked, what other unexpected connections are there between big- and small-screen worlds?There are some pretty weird Pixar fan theories out there, including the one about the seminal animation house’s entire canon representing a 65m-year struggle between humans, sentient toys and intelligent animals. But who needs wild stretches of fancy when mischievous animators with far too much downtime have inserted real visual Easter eggs connecting virtually all the studio’s movies? Continue reading...

Выбор редакции
18 января, 17:45

Top Ranked Income Stocks to Buy for January 18th

Top Ranked Income Stocks to Buy for January 18th

18 января, 16:37

‘Episode IX’: 10 Ways ‘Star Wars’ Could Handle Leia’s Story

Following the tragic passing of Carrie Fisher, the team over at Lucasfilm is left to figure out how to resolve Leia's story for 'Episode IX'.

Выбор редакции
16 января, 09:11

BRIEF-R&I affirms Canon's rating at "AA+" and announces stable outlook - R&I

* Rating and Investment Information, Inc. (R&I) affirmed the company's rating at "AA+" - R&I

15 января, 02:49

It It “Unscientific” To Rethink the Explanatory and Conceptual Fundamentals of a Science?

Darwin, Galileo, Mayr, Copernicus, Edelman, Newton, and Hayek all rethought the very fundamentals of their sciences, from the problems and explanatory strategies of their disciplines, to the logical status and conceptual role of the elements of their activities. Yet among … Continue reading →

14 января, 04:55

Reconstruction Is Finally Getting The Historical Recognition It Deserves

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s base in Birmingham, Alabama. A bus station where segregationists attacked Freedom Riders. These civil rights sites of the 1960s, etched in black-and-white images in our memories, are naturals for selection as national monuments. Less obvious, but perhaps more powerful in our nation’s history, is President Barack Obama’s designation of Beaufort, South Carolina, a cradle of Reconstruction. Amid Obama’s last-minute flurry of executive orders and regulatory actions ― pardons, commutations, Arctic drilling bans ― Thursday’s dedication of the Beaufort monument seemed to fall in the shadow of the other two dedicated that day: the motel that served as King’s headquarters in the final push for the Voting Rights Act and the Anniston, Alabama, Greyhound station where a bus was firebombed in 1961. The monument in Beaufort commemorates a segment of the civil rights struggle that is far less prominent in American history. Beaufort’s Reconstruction Era National Monument will commemorate this lesser-known period (about 1865 to 1877) following the Civil War. For instance, how many Americans know the name of Hiram Revels of Mississippi, the country’s first black senator? At a time when the black population of the American South was still struggling to come to terms with life in the post-emancipation era, Revels belonged to the wave of black men who sought and won office across the region. They won seats in the Senate, in the House of Representatives, in state legislatures, and in hundreds of local and municipal posts across the South. (Reconstruction is the subject of a new Huffington Post podcast, produced with rapper Killer Mike, that will launch in the next few weeks. Sign up here to get an email when it drops.)  So why doesn’t Reconstruction get much attention? If you take as your starting premise that mainstream history remains largely written by white Americans, that question isn’t so hard to answer. There are few white heroes in this story (no Lyndon Johnsons), and there is no happy ending, no great civil rights legislation (not that survived, at least). The country’s (and arguably the world’s) first experiment in genuinely interracial democracy was strangled in its cradle ― or, given the decade-plus it survived, its childhood ― destroyed by a combination of political sabotage and terrorism. In the 1860s and ’70s, groups like the Ku Klux Klan, the White Leagues, and the Redshirts arose and conducted campaigns of violence aimed at intimidating Republican politicians in the South, especially their attempts to build black political power. “You were taking your life in your hands by becoming a black political figure,” says Columbia University history professor Eric Foner. “This group of black political leaders suffered more violence, whether it’s murder, or arson of their homes or whippings, than any group of political leaders I can think of in American history. Whatever the acrimony of politics right now, you don’t have armed men going after members of the legislature and whipping them or shooting them. We’re not quite at that level yet. But they were in Reconstruction.” By the end of the 19th century, white dominance in the South (or “home rule,” as it was euphemistically called) had been restored. Jim Crow was the law of the land, and the country would not see large-scale black electoral participation until the civil rights movement of the mid-20th century. In many ways, the drought in black political power lasted even longer than that: When Tim Scott was elected in South Carolina in 2014, it was the first time Southern voters had sent an African-American to the Senate since 1881. (Senators in the 19th century were actually elected by state legislatures, not directly by voters, but you get the point.) In recent months, Beaufort has mounted a vocal campaign to persuade Obama to designate a monument to Reconstruction there. Why Beaufort? The town and its environs occupy a unique place in 19th century history: In the fall of 1861, early in the Civil War, Beaufort County became one of the first places in the South to fall to the Union. Although it was precariously situated between Savannah and Charleston, two of the most important Confederate port cities, the concentration of black population in coastal Beaufort made it a hotbed of pro-Union sentiment, and the ideal location for Union naval forces seeking anchorage. Confederates and plantation owners had fled the region, leaving behind their homes, their land, and most importantly, their former slaves. Over the next few years, the region bore witness to one of the most extraordinary untold chapters of American history. Black leaders and white abolitionists saw an opportunity to demonstrate to white society (especially to skeptical Northerners) that blacks were capable of citizenship: that they could participate in the free labor economy, establish their own educational institutions and live as any other members of society. Northern abolitionists ― ministers, teachers, doctors ― traveled to Beaufort County to lend their expertise. The endeavor came to be known as the Port Royal Experiment. Like the Reconstruction as a whole, it succumbed to political reaction; after the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, Republicans began to lose their stomach for radical programs of land redistribution, and the Port Royal Experiment was abandoned.  function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Beaufort was also the birthplace of arguably the most incredible political figure of the Reconstruction era. Robert Smalls was born into slavery in 1839 and won national fame in 1862 when he commandeered a confederate naval vessel, and, under cover of darkness, piloted it out of Charleston harbor and delivered it to the Union. He ended up meeting with Lincoln and influencing his decision to allow black soldiers to serve in the Union Army. Smalls became the first black man to command a U.S. naval vessel. He then had a long career in Congress, with Beaufort as his political base. Many of the historic sites that will comprise the new monument relate to Smalls and his life. “Unfortunately, African-Americans haven’t always been in control of their stories,” says Michael Boulware Moore. Moore is the president and CEO of the International African American Museum in Charleston, South Carolina. He’s also the great-great-grandson of Smalls. “And so stories like Robert Smalls’ just haven’t gotten out. Now over the last 15-20 years, certainly more people know of him and his accomplishments. But I grew up in Boston, and I think about Paul Revere ― who performed a valiant, historical service ― but he didn’t do anything close to what Robert Smalls did. But yet every child in this country learns about Paul Revere. I think [Smalls] still is under-exposed, but that’s changing year by year.” “I think for a lot of people, the story of Robert Smalls really hasn’t fit their narrative,” adds Moore. “In the South to this day, there are pockets where Robert Smalls is persona non grata because he embarrassed the Confederacy, and they don’t want to talk about it.” It took a very long time for Reconstruction to shake off its accumulated historical dust and assume a prominent place in the canon of American history. It’s still not there, really, but the popular conception of that era has made strides since a century ago, when its image was the one given to us by D.W. Griffith in his silent epic “The Birth of a Nation.” In this view, Reconstruction was undertaken by vengeful Northerners as punishment for the South’s independence of spirit. The success of the Democratic Party in banishing the Radical Republicans from the South was a victory to be celebrated. But most tragically consequential was the image this school of historical thought gave of the era’s black leaders. Black politicians were childlike, unintelligent, corrupt, and preoccupied only with their own enrichment. It posited too that northern Republican carpetbaggers cared nothing for the rights of blacks, and saw them only as pawns in their political campaign to subjugate the former Confederate states. Black political power, which during Reconstruction was substantial, was fundamentally illegitimate. “The whole idea that your former slaves were now passing laws which white people would have to obey was completely anathema to white Southerners,” says Eric Foner. Foner is generally credited as one of the most important figures in the late 20th century Reconstruction revisionism that swept away the “Birth of a Nation” school of thought, and he recently co-wrote a New York Times editorial arguing for the establishment of the Beaufort monument. “By the way,” he adds, “it’s not all that different from how so many white people view President Obama 150 years later. There are still people who can’t accept the fact that he’s actually an American and entitled to be president.” There’s only so much that a monument can do to affect people’s historical attitudes, but anyone who has lived or traveled in the American South knows that monuments honoring 19th century figures have a decidedly pro-Confederate slant. Perhaps the new monument in Beaufort will begin to reverse that trend. The removal of the Confederate flag from the South Carolina statehouse and the raging debate over removal of Confederate statues in New Orleans suggest that attitudes toward history may be changing. If current trends continue, we might be on the verge of a Robert Smalls/Reconstruction revival. In a recent interview, the director of the 2016 feature film “Free State of Jones” suggested that Smalls’ story would make a good movie. For now, we can revel in watching the first black president establish a monument to his 19th century forebears in the heart of the former Confederacy. CORRECTION: Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this article said Freedom Riders were attacked by anti-segregationists. The attackers were segregationists.   -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

13 января, 15:57

What the Russian Orthodox Church can teach the West

Talking in his study - a book-lined room dotted with gold-backed icons in Cambridge University's medieval Magdalene College, where he is currently Master, Williams speaks of the influence Russia has had on his life. Staring down from one wall there is the peaceful face of St. Seraphim, one of Russia’s most famous and popular saints. The saint, like former archbishop himself, has white beard and wise, compassionate expression. A poet and theologian, Williams is unflaggingly interested in diverse cultures and ideas and says the Russian Orthodox tradition has been crucial to his spiritual life. The Russian influences he cites range from the music of Modest Mussorgsky to Eugene Vodolazkin’s novel Lavr, which only appeared in English (as Laurus) in 2015. Powerful images What sparked this lifelong interest in Russia? It began as a teenager, says Williams. He remembers watching Sergei Eisenstein’s film Ivan the Terrible: “I became aware that here was a fascinating, alien cultural presence,” he says; “here was something I wanted to research further.” His postgraduate thesis was on Russian philosopher and mystical theologian, Vladimir Lossky, a leading 20th century religious thinker; Williams had access to transcripts of Lossky’s talks and a handwritten wartime journal. As a teenager, Williams had also read Russian novels, listened to Russian composers and owned a little paperback with reproductions of icons that he found mesmerizing. “How you pray with an icon,” he explains, “is quite different from how you pray with a western picture or a statue.” The arrangement of the figures in Andrei Rublev’s “Trinity” (an image that has had an enduring influence) means the viewer becomes a fourth person at the table, joining the three angels (representing the Holy Trinity) in their deeply symbolic gathering. At the end of a poem in which he imagines the icon painter talking to God, Williams writes: “We shall sit and speak around/ one table, share one food, one earth”. Part of the appeal of Orthodoxy, he says, is that it is not a religion confined “purely to the liturgy and the church”. In Russian Orthodox theology “every domestic act is liturgical, every household ritual”. Rublev’s famous Trinity icon, 1411 or 1425-27. Source: Press Photo Williams has only himself been to Russia once, in 2003 for the anniversary of St. Seraphim’s canonization. The trip was “intense” with impressions and conversations; he remembers “the river, the riverbank and the overwhelming statue of St. Seraphim at prayer.” The icon of the saint on his study wall was painted for him personally in a Russian convent. 2003 also saw the publication of a book by Williams about icons of Christ; looking at one of these images is to be in “the presence of one … who gives us the power to see all things freshly.” Dostoevsky’s icons Rowan Williams. Dostoevsky: Language, Faith and Fiction. Continuum, 2010. Among the forty-odd books Williams has written in as many years, is a book about the novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky, subtitled Language, Faith and Fiction. In it, he argues that: “The writing of fiction can itself be a sort of icon”. He explains that Dostoevsky explores “the Orthodox idea of the image of both true and false sainthood”. For the novelist, imagination is truth and, in his “tensely-worded dialogues”, Dostoevsky explores “what it is that human beings owe to one another”. Williams writes at length about Devils and he says Stavrogin’s confession in the novel is “one of the most horrifying things I have ever read.” Dostoevsky’s themes, as Williams outlines them, sound more relevant than ever: Terrorism, child abuse, fragmented families, the future of liberal democracy, the clash of cultures and the nature of national identity. Williams quotes the novelist’s famous words about faith: “My hosanna has been formed in the crucible of doubt.” Language and literature Williams began to learn Russian as a student and has since translated poems and modified or annotated published translations of Dostoevsky. He was born in 1950 in Swansea (and hopes to return to Wales when he leaves Magdalene in three years) and his family spoke Welsh; his theological studies meant learning several languages and he also translated, from French, Pierre Pascal’s The Religion of the Russian People, a book that helps explain how Christianity continued to thrive as “a living and vital force” in Russia even during the officially-atheist Soviet era. Although Dostoevsky has been the focus of his literary criticism, Williams has read many other Russian authors (“and returned to them many times”). One of his poems describes Tolstoy’s final days at Astapovo railroad station. Some of Tolstoy’s novellas, like The Kreutzer Sonata, have been disturbing and memorable; he mentions the 1890s short story “Father Sergius”, which describes someone who “very nearly but not quite achieves holiness”, building up an “intense spiritual persona” only to reveal its emptiness. Greatest novel Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita is, Williams says, “the greatest novel of the twentieth century”; in it, “the sacred world – both diabolical and divine – breaks in at right angles into Stalin’s Moscow”. The devil and a giant cigar-smoking cat arrive in the city, but Jesus and Pontius Pilate also enter this extraordinary novel. “Make of that what you will,” smiles Williams. Are these works equally important in the contemporary world? Absolutely! “One of the most significant things a great novelist does is to force us to inhabit a world that is not our own.” Eugene Vodolazkin. Laurus. Oneworld Publications, 2015 Williams’ knowledge and appreciation of Russian literature does not end with the Soviet era. Vodolazkin’s Laurus, a bestselling novel about the life of a 15th-century Russian monk, was central to his recent talk on the “tradition of holy fools”. He sees the parallel traditions of faith as mutually beneficial, but distinct: “Russian Christianity is what it is because of the Russian history (and so is western Christianity)”. But he insists that: “Learning from Russian Christianity has been one of the most important aspects of my inner life.” And literature, in the Russian mold with a theological underpinning, remains crucial: “In a political world which is beyond satire,” Williams asks, “how do spiritual voices find a hearing?” Read more: How to read and comprehend a Russian icon Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh: London’s holy Russian inspiration Orthodox Russian London

Выбор редакции
12 января, 11:51

BRIEF-ASE orders machinery equipment from Canon Semiconductor Equipment Taiwan

* Says orders machinery equipment from Canon Semiconductor Equipment Taiwan Inc worth T$513.7 million ($16.31 million)

11 января, 17:06

New Strong Buy Stocks for January 11th

New Strong Buy Stocks for January 11th

11 января, 10:57

В 2016 году IBM установила новый рекорд по количеству полученных патентов

В минувшем 2016 году IBM установила новый рекорд по количеству полученных патентов, став первой компанией в США, зарегистрировавшей за год более 8000 патентов. В прошлом году специалисты IBM получали в среднем 22 патента в день, и в итоге компанией было получено 8088 патентов. Для сравнения, предыдущий рекорд, установленный американской компанией в 2015 г., равен 7355 зарегистрированных патентов. 22-й год подряд IBM возглавляет список ведущих обладателей патентов в США. В рейтинге ведущих патентообладателей, составленном аналитической компанией IFI CLAIMS Patent Services, на втором месте находится Samsung с 5518 патентами, полученными в США. Состав первой пятёрки остался неизменным по сравнению с 2015 годом. На третьем месте рейтинга находится компания Canon, четвёртом и пятом — Qualcomm и Google.

Выбор редакции
11 января, 02:50

10 Breathtaking American Cars Highlighting the 2017 Auctions

Classic automobile lovers will find some of the greatest American cars ever made this season. Here are 10 breathtaking models up for auction in 2017.

Выбор редакции
06 января, 21:15

Ralph Fiennes and Hugh Laurie join Will Ferrell's Holmes and Watson

The actors are to play as-yet-unspecified canonical roles in the comedy, which features Ferrell and John C Reilly in the leadsThe mystery surrounding Sony’s comedy take on Sherlock Holmes thickened yet further today with the news that Hugh Laurie and Ralph Fiennes have joined the cast. The film – which has nothing to do with the Guy Ritchie reboots starring Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law, or the BBC series with Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman – is scheduled for release next year and is currently shooting in London. Continue reading...

Выбор редакции
06 января, 01:05

CES 2017: фотокамера Canon PowerShot G9 X Mark II с улучшенным стабилизатором изображения

Компания Canon анонсировала компактный фотоаппарат PowerShot G9 X Mark II, приходящий на смену модели PowerShot G9 X, дебютировавшей в октябре 2015 года. Новинка демонстрируется на выставке CES 2017, которая в эти дни проходит в Лас-Вегасе (Невада, США). Как и оригинальная версия, представленная камера наделена 1-дюймовой  (13,2 × 8,8 мм) КМОП-матрицей BSI-CMOS с 20 млн эффективных пикселей. В то же время использован более производительный процессор обработки изображений DIGIC 7 против чипа DIGIC 6 у модели первого поколения.

Выбор редакции
05 января, 19:03

A man recently broke into my church. Good on him, I say | Giles Fraser: Loose canon

When I had the keys to St Paul’s, I often sat in there at night on my own. So I can understand why one man would go to such desperate lengths to prayThe church door had been forced open during the night. The church warden arrived early on Tuesday morning to unlock the place, only to discover the side door already swinging open. Her heart sank. We do have occasional robberies, although since the candlesticks were taken we have little of value left to pinch. And besides the thieving, there is always the threat of vandalism. Windows are often being smashed, and our church hall was deliberately burned down a few years ago – by bored kids, I suspect, although the police have never arrested anyone. So the warden was right to be cautious as she stepped inside.The first thing she noticed was that all the candles had been lit. And by all, I mean all. The main altar candles, the side altar candles, about 20 or so on the votive candle stand, the one in front of Our Lady, and so on. For a high church establishment such as ours, lighting all the candles is quite an undertaking. The place looked like a John Woo film set. And there, sitting a few pews up from the front, a solitary man sat still. He hadn’t broken in to rob or damage, he had broken in to pray. And judging by the amount of candle wax he burned, he had been there half the night. Continue reading...

05 января, 15:08

The U.S. Media’s Problems Are Much Bigger than Fake News and Filter Bubbles

The U.S. media has come under intense scrutiny, with analysts, politicians, and even journalists themselves accusing it of bias and sensationalism — of having failed us — in its coverage of the presidential election. Critics across the political spectrum have said that fake news and cyberattacks played a big role in determining the course of events. The prevailing logic has an “if only” tenor: If only the media had been less swayed by shocking stories, if only bias in the media had been purged, and if only fake news had been eliminated and cyberattacks curtailed, the outcome would have been different. The presidential transition has been marked by the same attitude: if only the media were less distractible and headlines more accurate. Thinking that way is tempting, but it misses the mark. The media did exactly what it was designed to do, given the incentives that govern it. It’s not that the media sets out to be sensationalist; its business model leads it in that direction. Charges of bias don’t make the bias real; it often lies in the eye of the beholder. Fake news and cyberattacks are triggers, not causes. The issues that confront us are structural. To the question, If the media were to cover the election again, with the benefit of hindsight, could we expect anything different? my answer is a sobering no. This is for two reasons: the way news is produced and amplified (the supply side) and the way consumers process news (the demand side). A caveat is in order. The analysis here is not concerned with which candidate deserved to win or whose message was “better.” It is concerned with examining the media and its coverage, identifying its root causes, and understanding what we should expect going forward. The Supply Side I: Connectedness Matters More than Content or Money Political campaigns are marketing campaigns, messages aimed at selling a product. Like marketers, politicians obsess over messaging (what journalists would call “content”) and a few key metrics that historically have determined success: amount of television advertising, number of “foot soldiers,” intensity of get-out-the-vote operations, and voter demographics. But in the last two contests in which Hillary Clinton has participated, the 2008 primary and the 2016 election, she won on most of these metrics — and lost the elections. Two developments bear noting. First, and most obvious, traditional media is no longer the only way to spread the word. Any candidate can communicate directly and instantly with millions of people. Media companies are experiencing an extreme form of competition that comes with digital technologies: Everyone is a media company today. Second, and even more significant, social media is distinct from traditional media in that it connects users to each other. This means that messages can spread far more easily and quickly (compare how often you share a TV ad and a tweet). Essential Background How Focusing on Content Leads the Media Astray Strategy Audio Sarah Green Carmichael Bharat Anand, author of The Content Trap and professor at Harvard Business School, talks about the strategic challenges facing digital businesses. Save Share The implications are threefold: The best product doesn’t always win. Even if you have the best product or candidate, if you run a hub-and-spokes campaign, you’ll attract followers one by one. Create a product or candidate that connects users, and your message — and advantage — will spread rapidly. Apple learned this the hard way. For 20 years, starting in 1984, the Macintosh was superior to any PC. Yet by 2004 its market share was down to 3%. Apple had a great product, but Microsoft had a network of connected users. Because more people used PCs, and wrote software for them, they became the default choice for nearly everyone. Many organizations and entrepreneurs miss this lesson. Focus only on creating the best content or product, and you can lose because of untapped user connections — a phenomenon I call the “content trap.” It explains why firms that have anchored their strategies to content have ceded digital leadership to those that have focused on connections. Consider the Scandinavian media firm Schibsted, which engineered an impressive digital transformation through a philosophy of connectedness. It focused its efforts on earning a majority share of Europe’s digital classified advertising market (a product that connects buyers and sellers). It then shifted its news focus from great content to content rooted in the question “Can we help readers help each other?” During the volcanic ash crisis of 2010, what it offered wasn’t prize-winning stories about the roots of the eruption or its health implications, but an app (Hitchhiker’s Central) that allowed readers to share travel plans and offer rides to each other. Similarly, during the 2016 election, many American voters found journalistic content less relevant than what they were experiencing in their own lives. Bigger marketing budgets may not pay off. In a digital world full of product clutter, the best marketing campaigns spend nearly nothing. JC Penney spent no money on television advertising during the 2015 Super Bowl, yet its “mittens” campaign was one of the most watched. The campaign relied solely on Twitter and went viral by virtue of intentional spelling mistakes. Once a “connected” product draws in users, those users effectively become the sales force. Facebook, Uber, and Airbnb are all examples of this. Donald Trump spent only half of what Clinton did during the campaign. Expectations matter. In connected worlds, expectations about future growth affect what current users choose; people want to be on a winning platform. This has led to a strategy known as vaporware, a term for when firms announce strengths they may not possess or supposedly imminent product launches to draw users. Consider Trump’s first words in the June 2015 announcement of his candidacy: “Wow. Whoa. That is some group of people. Thousands.…This is beyond anybody’s expectations. There’s been no crowd like this.” This wasn’t just a campaign message; it was an effort to shape expectations and trigger connectedness. The Supply Side II: Ratings Determine Which Messages Get Amplified The first phase of a marketing campaign is deciding how and where to spend your marketing dollars. The second is influencing how your message gets amplified. One of the most important mechanisms for this is traditional media — so-called “earned media coverage.” You can spend a lot in the first phase and get little amplification in the second, or vice versa. Recycling the same message won’t earn amplification. And in today’s media environment, even “normal” news doesn’t break through information clutter; big, surprising events do. The media’s bias toward big events stems from three features of its economics: Fixed costs. The cost of covering a golf tournament doesn’t depend on whether Tiger Woods plays. But if he does, ratings — and revenue — double. The same phenomenon affects decisions about covering news stories or political rallies. An advertising-based model. Advertising (and other indirect charges like cable operator fees) are central to the economics of most news media, and this creates a bias whereby the number of viewers is more important than whether viewers like the coverage. (What matters is that you watch news coverage, not whether you are ready to throw a chair at it out of disgust.) Fixed costs have always been central to the economics of media. Advertising came later — and when it did, in the early 20th century, news became more sensational. That’s hardly surprising: The main metric by which news outlets are judged is the ratings they command, the page views they get, or the copies they sell. Spillovers. A big event in media and entertainment doesn’t just draw viewers to the event itself; it also entices viewers to consume follow-on or related products (and a company’s previous products, too). People who watch a television program are far more likely to watch the next program on that channel, for example. Each of these factors, individually, means that ratings or page views — the size of the audience — matter a lot for media firms. Together, they lead to a fixation on ratings to the exclusion of almost anything else. Competition further reinforces this dynamic, making audience size the metric by which media firms are measured. The outcome is a “ratings bubble” within which companies operate. Big-event bias is even more pronounced in entertainment worlds, where getting noticed has gotten increasingly hard over time. This explains the trend toward spinoffs, sequels, and franchises in broadcast television and movies (viewers are already familiar with the basic story) and big-name authors in books (they generate publicity) and why successful sports franchises tend to get even more successful over time (they draw lots of viewers, which allows them to spend more on star players, who draw even more viewers). Success might have more to do with awareness than with quality. When the pseudonymous Robert Galbraith published A Cuckoo’s Calling in 2013, the novel sold about 1,500 copies in the first month. After the author was revealed to be Harry Potter creator J.K. Rowling, sales rose to over one million. Piggybacking on big events has allowed certain media companies to grow over time. Fox News, for instance, entered the seemingly mature cable market in 1996 and experienced notable upticks in viewers after “big news” events — the 2000 election, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the start of the war in Iraq. When an event drew viewers to cable news in general, Fox’s ratings grew along with the other networks’. But more of the viewers who tuned into Fox stayed with it after the event had passed when they realized the network’s coverage was different. In political campaigns, big events arise in one of three ways. The first is sporadically and unpredictably, as with the San Bernardino shooting or the Access Hollywood tape. The timing of such surprises can be particularly fortuitous or damaging (see: James Comey). The second is through name recognition. Events become more newsworthy if they’re accompanied by a big name. The third is by being created. Steve Jobs understood this more than most technology executives, which is why he elevated product launches to an art form: Every media firm had to cover a new Apple release. And Trump understood this more than any other candidate: Every time he made a provocative comment on a new subject, the news outlets covered it. These forces help explain why Trump got so much more media coverage than, say, Bernie Sanders, who touted a similarly antiestablishment, populist message. Populism and inequality aren’t news; calling Mexican immigrants rapists and vowing to build a wall are. So Sanders’s brand of populism wasn’t news; Trump’s was. The reason was rooted in media economics, not in the effort or preferences of journalists and programming executives. A combination of fixed costs, an advertising-reliant model, and spillovers produced a staggering difference in earned media coverage during the primaries: $2 billion for Trump and $300 million for Sanders. Television advertising, where Clinton had a huge leg up on both, hardly seemed to matter at all. Competition Can Backfire Competition and private firms operating in their self-interest typically lead to well-functioning markets. But that’s not always what happens. A well-known exception occurs when externalities exist — side effects on other people or firms that aren’t usually accounted for by private actors. (Canonical examples are cigarette smoking or pollution, or a store manager in a large retail chain pursuing actions that benefit his individual store but damage the parent company’s brand.) In situations like these, following your self-interest (in this case, as a media firm) doesn’t necessarily further the collective good, or even your own. In 2009 Netflix needed high-quality content to grow its streaming business. It could get that content only from Hollywood studios. The studios had seen Netflix grow its DVD business for a decade, and now, with a stronger bargaining position in the streaming market — the first-sale doctrine that allowed any DVD owner to resell did not apply to streaming — they could have chosen not to license to Netflix and nipped it in the bud. But they granted licenses, and Netflix soon became the giant they hadn’t wanted to see arise. Why did the studios act against their own interests? If they could have collectively agreed not to license to Netflix, the result would have been different. But they couldn’t. At first only Viacom relented, licensing archived Beavis and Butt-head episodes. One show, it reasoned, could not a streaming giant make. But then everyone followed that logic. It wasn’t that the content providers didn’t see what was happening; it was that they couldn’t coordinate. It’s why newspapers let Google crawl their content for Google News. It’s why they handed content to Facebook for its Instant Articles format last year. So, too, with the recent political campaign. If every media outlet had ignored Trump’s rallies and rhetoric, it would have paid handsomely for one outlet to cover them. But once one did cover them, no others could afford not to. These events coalesced dramatically toward the end of the campaign, when Trump announced a press conference in which he would ostensibly make a major announcement about President Obama’s birth certificate (a lie that he had prolonged that had found traction in media coverage several years back). Nearly every media outlet showed up. How could they not cover a major announcement by a presidential candidate? But it was a sham — there was no real announcement, other than that there would be no more announcements on the subject. This is the prisoner’s dilemma of reporting amid competition: Following your self-interest does not always further the collective good. The situation generated one of the most dispiritingly candid statements ever from a media executive: Early in 2016, when the head of CBS was asked about the disproportionate attention given to Trump, he quipped, “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.” The network wasn’t alone. Cable news outlets enjoyed similar gains in 2016, marking it as their best year ever. Meanwhile, public trust in the press reached its lowest level in history. The Demand Side: Consumers Consume What They Want To One of the longest-standing debates in marketing is not whether advertising works, but how it does. One view is that marketing persuades consumers to purchase. Hear a song once, and you may not like it; hear it repeatedly, and you’ll start to, regardless of how good or bad it is (hence the phrase “all publicity is good publicity”). Others argue that marketing merely increases awareness without altering beliefs. By this reasoning, repeated exposure to a song that doesn’t match your taste might make you less likely to buy it. Does media reporting change what we believe, or do our preferences shape what media we choose to watch in the first place? Most research indicates that the latter is central: Our preexisting preferences largely determine what media we watch. One of the most reliable findings in the study of television entertainment is that viewers watch programs whose characters are like themselves. Older people watch shows featuring older characters, younger viewers watch shows featuring younger ones; the same goes for gender, ethnicity, and income. A similar effect is seen in news: We watch outlets whose reporting is consistent with our beliefs. Viewers who identify with the right are more likely to watch Fox, while left-leaning people are more likely to watch MSNBC. Similar differences apply to intra-network program choices, since programs on the same network can differ in their positioning. These patterns in news-watching would be puzzling if all that news providers did was provide verifiably objective information. But like entertainment programs, news programs and channels differ in their positioning, in the way they report information (often referred to as slant), and in what information they report (agenda setting). News positioning matters — viewers watch news programs and channels whose positions match their tastes and beliefs. This pattern of sorting on beliefs is amplified over time by various additional factors. The first is competition among media, which has increased as digital technologies have led to a vast number of new media outlets, each catering to more-niche tastes. The second is viewers’ confirmation bias, which leads us to reject valid information that is not consistent with our beliefs. Confirmation bias is deeply rooted in human behavior. It affects not just how we process information but who we associate with, creating “filter bubbles.” These bubbles are further reinforced by website algorithms designed to personalize the information we receive based on our past behaviors. Persuasive effects of the media also serve to solidify these bubbles. (And even small persuasive effects can have large effects in close elections.) Each factor increases viewer polarization, which on certain measures has reached unprecedented levels. Together, they shape how we respond to bias in the media. Consider the debate over left and right media bias, which goes back several decades and has grown in intensity over time. Part of what makes discussions of bias so thorny is that we almost never agree on what bias is. Both the debate and studies tend to focus on what the media reports — on content. But studies show that content is not the only place where bias lives. In experiments, when two people with different beliefs view exactly the same content, their perceptions of bias differ. Add it all up, and the implications are profound. First, we watch what we believe, but what we don’t watch, we don’t believe. This is the effect of sorting based on beliefs. Second, negative coverage can have unintended consequences. Hear a source you don’t trust, and when it reports something inconsistent with your beliefs, you’ll discount that thing even more. (The rare exception is when events are incontrovertibly verifiable — for example, the question of who said what on the Access Hollywood tape.) During the election season, more newspapers endorsed Clinton than any presidential candidate in U.S history. Papers with a tradition of endorsing Republicans endorsed her; papers with a tradition of not endorsing a candidate did, too. But none of it mattered; editorial content was essentially irrelevant. Third, and for the same reason, charges of media bias can actually help an outlet. The more your favorite channel is alleged to be biased by people you disagree with, the more you’ll watch it. Trump wasn’t the first to see this phenomenon: In Fox News’s early days, senior executives often acknowledged that charges of bias appeared to help them. And it isn’t specific to right-leaning voters. After the election, when Trump tweeted complaints about the New York Times and Vanity Fair, both outlets saw a rise in subscriptions. Charges of bias harden beliefs and reinforce polarization. Particularly sobering is that all this has nothing do with the much-lamented problem of fake news. Get rid of all verifiably fake news, as Facebook and others certainly should, and filter bubbles, polarization, and charges of media bias will remain. Where Does This Leave Us? Three forces combine to create the media coverage of political campaigns we observe today: connected media, which spreads messages faster than traditional media; fixed costs and advertising-reliant business models in traditional media, which amplify sensational messages; and viewers’ news consumption patterns, which leads to people sorting across media outlets based on their beliefs and makes messages they already agree with far more effective. Each reinforces the others. Without these enabling factors, even the best marketing campaign would go nowhere, and fake news or leaked information from cyberattacks would have little effect. Fair questions have been raised about the lack of investigative journalism early in the campaign, false equivalencies in reporting, and the use of paid campaign operatives as experts on television news. But digital technology and business incentives exerted more influence over the media coverage than editorial decisions and missing voices did. The ratings bubble had as much impact as filter bubbles did. The forces at work here — the search for profitability, competition, and self-interest — are things we embrace as profoundly American. Competition in the media leads to efficiency as well as to checks and balances — all good things. But it fails to internalize the externalities from profitable but sensational coverage. It leads to differentiation and more voices (also good, and what’s been the focus of regulatory efforts) but also to fragmentation, polarization, and less-penetrable filter bubbles (dangerous). It’s tempting to stretch the analysis between marketing and politics too far. They are different in important respects. Most notable, in marketing you can win through strategies that exploit the big-event bias of media (through attention-grabbing rhetoric) and the beliefs of consumers (through allegations that discredit your competitors). These strategies draw in consumers who are right for your brand. But in presidential politics, the same approach is incredibly risky because when you win, you serve everyone, not just those who “purchased your product.” Despite these differences, the same economics of information supply-and-demand that shape digital strategies in business are doing so in politics. Which leads to my conclusion: Even if we could somehow push “reset,” we would have to expect the same sort of coverage that we got. The problems are too deep and structural for anything else. What’s the way forward? There are no easy answers to the question. This analysis mainly points to solutions that won’t work. Voluntary efforts at restraint by well-meaning journalists won’t work, because of advertising-based business models and competition. Eliminating fake news won’t change the fact that voters ignore ideas contrary to their beliefs. And it won’t solve the media’s structural challenges or change its incentives. Media companies, their regulators, and their customers — all of us — have to look for ways to confront these challenges. The stakes could not be higher.