The Washington Post takes an in-depth look at the private sector work of Rudy Giuliani. In it, the Post shows how Giuliani used his name to quadruple his business, while sometimes bringing controversial figures on board.
For more information on NDN's coverage of the 2008 Presidential election, click here.
The New York Times offers another look at the role President Clinton is taking in his wife's campaign for president. From the lede:
Bill Clinton’s connections, and his endless supply of chits, only begin to capture his singular role in his wife’s presidential candidacy, advisers and friends of the couple say. He is the master strategist behind the scenes; the consigliere to the head of “the family,” as some Clinton aides refer to her operation; and a fund-raising machine who is steadily pulling in $100,000 or more at receptions.
For more information on NDN's coverage of the 2008 Presidential election, click here.
Paul Wolfowitz may have to work even harder to hang onto his job, according to the NYT:
Xavier Coll, vice president of human resources, provided to a bank committee investigating the matter supported the charge that Mr. Wolfowitz was aware of engaging in favoritism. One said the documents were “devastating” to Mr. Wolfowitz’s case...
A special committee investigating the allegations of misconduct will transmit its findings to the larger 24-member board of the bank on Monday. Also to be transmitted is a recommendation on how or whether Mr. Wolfowitz should be censured.
The bank board will listen to Mr. Wolfowitz’s testimony on Tuesday and decide what to do on Wednesday.
The Times offers a smart report from the "upfront" marketplace in New York. It emphasizes two of the major themes of our work at NPI - that our most important media, television, is going though rapid and significant change, and that we are entering a media age much more participatory than couch potatoey.
As the big agencies get ready for the biggest week of the year for the biggest advertising medium, changes are coming that can only be called, well, big.
The medium is of course broadcast television, which remains a powerful way to peddle products despite the recent inroads made by alternative ways to watch programs, which include the Internet, digital video recorders, cellphones, DVD players and video on demand.
Beginning today, the, er, um, big broadcasters will reveal their prime-time lineups for the new season in a week of lavish, star-filled presentations at Manhattan landmarks like Carnegie Hall and Madison Square Garden.
For years, the presentations during what is known as upfront week — so named because the agencies decide to buy billions of dollars of commercial time before the fall season starts — have remained essentially the same. Season after season, the spiels were mostly confined to rote reiterations of the value of buying spots on broadcast television.
But the growing popularity of the alternatives to watching TV on TV sets is forcing the networks to change decades of habits.
For instance, ABC is scheduled to describe at its upfront presentation tomorrow an extensive promotional initiative called “ABC start here” in which TV is just one medium among many. The campaign is intended to help guide consumers through the maze of devices on which they can watch ABC entertainment and news shows.
“It doesn’t matter — TV, online, iTunes, whatever,” said Michael Benson, executive vice president for marketing at the ABC Entertainment unit of ABC, part of the Walt Disney Company.
“They have control,” Mr. Benson said of viewers, “and we’re not going to fight that. We want to make it easy for them to get what they want, where they want, when they want.”
At the same time, ABC and the four other big broadcast networks are working on methods to hold the attention of TV viewers throughout the commercial breaks that interrupt the shows they want to see.
That is becoming increasingly important for two reasons. One is that more viewers are watching shows delayed rather than live, using TiVo and other DVRs. Research indicates those viewers are more likely to fast-forward through spots than those who watch live TV...
“We do focus groups with consumers 18 to 34, the most desired demographic, the most tech-savvy, and their media consumption habits are changing,” said Michael Kelley, a partner in the entertainment media and communications practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers. “With that comes receptivity to new forms of advertising, provided the networks get closer to viewers’ interests.”
To do that, Mr. Kelley said, the broadcasters must change their focus to “engagement,” or involving viewers in ads, from “impressions,” the total audience exposed to commercials. He likened the challenge to how Google persuaded computer users that ads could be useful rather than annoying, by promising that only relevant ads would be displayed alongside search results.
In an interview with the Washington Post, LA Governor Kathleen Blanco was blunt when discussing her dealings with Washington, DC after Hurricane Katrina. From the interview:
"It's all political," she began. "You know, this country's run on politics. But when a disaster comes that is not what you expect, you expect a human reaction, not a political reaction. And I will tell you, there's a void," Blanco drawled, "a total void of human response. And it's extremely discouraging as an American citizen. It makes me angry and extremely disappointed."
Though it wasn't enough, Governor Blanco recognized the President's efforts to bring much-needed funds to her state. She then offered rather alarming commentary on her experience with the 109th Congress:
"I absolutely hated the idea of having to go to Washington, D.C., to deal with the last Congress, because their attitude was brutal," she said. "The old Congress made us feel like we were pretty stupid for standing in the way of the hurricane and that we were asking for far too much assistance.
"They ignored the fact that it wasn't the hurricane, per se, that caused our damage," Blanco explained in a forceful, yet measured, tone. "It was the failure, an engineering failure, of the federal levees that caused our enormous grief. If we had not had levee failures, people would have walked home, and today we would not even be sitting here talking about it." She did say the new Congress was "definitely more interested in trying to help us."
We must address all elements of this problem together, or none of them will be solved at all. We must not repeat the mistakes that caused previous efforts at immigration reform to fail. So I support a comprehensive immigration reform bill that accomplishes five clear objectives:
First, America must continue our efforts to improve security at our borders.
Second, we must hold employers to account for the workers they hire, by providing better tools for them to verify documents and work eligibility.
Third, we must create a temporary worker program that takes pressure off the border by providing foreign workers a legal and orderly way to enter our country to fill jobs that Americans are not doing.
Fourth, we must resolve the status of millions of illegal immigrants who are here already, without amnesty and without animosity.
Finally, we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot. Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, and an ability to speak and write the English language. And the success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society and embrace our common identity as Americans.
An article from the Washington Post sheds light on yet another local law attempting to fix our broken immigration system the wrong way. This time, the spotlight is on Farmers Branch, TX, a Dallas suburb, which is facing a vote to keep an ordinance like others around the country "prohibiting landlords from renting to most illegal immigrants."
Some residents of Farmer's Branch blame the inability of the federal government to act on this issue as the reason for taking such a stand. But we all know that Harry Reid and Senate Democrats are attempting to put forth a comprehensive plan, one that doesn't evoke discriminatory views or bigotry.
The Washington Post weighs in with an editorial detailing the victories Democrats won in the new bi-partisan trade deal (read our statement here).
While we should all be pleased with the spirit of this deal, it would be advisable for those wanting to garner votes to create a bigger context for the coming debate. The data is very clear here - in this decade globalization has been very good for those with capital and for American corporations, but has not been so good for American workers and families.
A vital strategic goal for those of us who believe in the benefits of liberalization must be to help our elected leaders come up with an agenda that successfully reverses the sluggish job growth and weak income and wage growth of our time. To believe that the American people will accept the current way the economy is unfolding is niave. Poll after poll, and the core economic data show that for about two-thirds of all Americans the economy is not what they want it to be. They are losing faith that this century's global economy has the capacity to give them the opportunity and upward mobility all generations of Americans have to come to expect. Making the American economy work for more Americans is one of the most important governing challenges of our time, and one NDN has been relentlessly focused on for the past several years in our Globalization Initiative.
So in the days ahead I think it would be wise for those looking to build public support for this new trade policy to talk about what their strategy is bring greater prosperity to our workers and kids. We've offered many ideas - raise the minimum wage, reform our immigration system, put a laptop in every backback, bring broadband to all Americans, fix our health care system so all Americans can have adequate insurance and good care, give our workers the option of card check, adopt the Speaker's innovation agenda, significantly increase funding for the teaching of science and math in all schools - the list goes on and on. And it is time for once and for all to stop throwing out "TAA - trade adjustment assistance" as a sop that everyone knows isn't an adequate response to the realities we face today.
The conversation about trade cannot happen in a vacuum. Unlike the 1990s, globalization is neither seen to be, or is, working for a majority of Americans. If the American people and their elected leaders are being asked to support greater liberalization, they must be told in clear terms what the strategy is to help them achieve the American Dream in a much more competitive age. These conversations need to be linked. And those looking to build public support for further liberalization need to get serious about offering not just a new trade policy, but a comprehensive economic strategy for America in the 21st century that helps ensure that globalization works for all Americans.