E-Readers - The End or Future of Publishing?

I have recently become an owner of, dare I say, an electronic book reader – the Sony Reader, complete with a plethora of electronic books to read. Now, I am a book person. I work in publishing, I read books both for pleasure and for work. I devour print news from as many sources as possible, and I fancy myself a writer.

Publishers appear to fear for the future of books, magazine, and newspapers.

But I’m not sure that they should be. Books, magazines, and newspapers are tangible, real. They’ve been around for centuries. They bring people together, they tear people apart, they teach us, entertain us, enlighten us, provide us with opinions, they allow us to lose ourselves in a story … oh, and books look great on a shelf.

The Sony Reader is incredibly convenient … but possibly unnecessary. It holds upwards of a thousand books, which is nice, except why would I regularly need even ten books on me at once? The Reader is great for public transportation and presumably an extended vacation with lots of reading planned, but for sitting down for a nice read in the park or on the couch, I just can’t see myself picking up an electronic book.

At least not right now.

The future of devices like the Sony Reader can definitely be bright. The Ipod started as a device that only played music – already cooler and more practical than an electronic book – and helped people store not so portable music into a super portable device. The Ipod has continued to dominate the market and change the face of portable electronics because it continues to do more and more.

Electronic books like the Sony Reader and Amazon Kindle can revolutionize the publishing world … once they become more than just book readers, that is. I imagine a device that, for a fee, can bring you magazines and newspapers electronically, as well as your books (and the Kindle 2 is starting to do this). Publishers can charge per book – ebooks are already out there (obviously), the trick is being able to keep margins up.

E-readers can actually save news publications, I think, if publishers embrace them. More people are reading news dailies online than in print, and most large papers offer online readership for free. I can’t speak for all people, but I would pay a fee to subscribe to a news daily on my electronic reader. Perhaps a portable, convenient reader is just what the newspapers need to increase subscriptions and boost their revenue.

Portable electronic readers can be a convenient device for people in urban centers that regularly use public transportation, but without modifications and multiple uses, the readers will never replace books. They have the opportunity to have an impact on all aspects of publishing, and I think it can be for the better. And for all those book people out there, books will still be around. But you might want to clear a spot on your shelf for your electronic reader.

Housing "Hope"

When the news constantly speaks of doom, gloom, your shrinking 401(k), job losses, the end of the world as we know it, and your bills seem more and more ominous, the prospect of the government stepping in and helping out Middle America sounds like the break everyone seems to be waiting for.

The economy is suffering from a great many ailments, and one of them is a complete lack of hope in, well, everything. Lenders don’t trust borrowers, borrowers don’t trust lenders, consumers don’t trust producers, the East doesn’t trust the West, and nobody trusts Wall Street. People have no hope. President Obama hopes (ha!) to curtail this hopelessness with the new housing bill.

This country has, for its entirety, firmly believed in the American Dream, the belief that anyone can make it big or strike it rich, that you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps. The housing crisis is taking away hope in the American Dream. If you borrowed more money against your house than it’s worth and can’t make your payments, you’re at risk of foreclosure, and you didn’t make a very sound financial decision. If your mortgage payments are incredibly high and you can’t afford them, you either made a bad financial decision or you’re getting screwed by your lender – either way you’re not in a good way.

These people seem to be the real victims of the housing crisis: the homeowners that continue to make their mortgage payments, but struggle, either due to increasing mortgage rates, housing value deflation, or just the state of the economy in general. This new housing bill likely will not help these people out too much.

Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan explains that “there are no 'flippers,' investor-owners or scammers that are eligible for this program.”[1] That’s great, but something about this bill doesn’t sit quite right with me. Although the administration touts the bill as helping millions of Americans that are stuck with mortgages worth more than the value of their home, it will only allow mortgage restructuring for these kinds of loans backed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, a relatively small amount. There are also a host of other limitations (valuation cap, rate floor, etc) for being able to refinance your mortgage if you’re struggling to make payments.

With all of the money going into insolvent banks that made poor financial decisions, where the government threw hundreds of billions of dollars at the problem, one would think that giving all homeowners a helping hand here would be doable. Why not offer refinancing opportunities to all homeowners? It seems absurd that next door neighbors, both struggling, could receive vastly different amounts of help for the same (or at least an incredibly similar) problem.

This country (for the most part) is an equal opportunity meritocracy. Shouldn’t a plan to help homeowners offer equal opportunity aid?

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/22/obama.housing/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Cell Phones in Schools? For Learning?!

Mobile Learning ’09 is a conference held in Washington, DC this week that focuses on using mobile communications technology in education[1]. Yes, that’s right, this conference revolves around the idea that cell phones not only should be used in schools, but that used properly, cell phones can improve student performance.

Outside of teachers and those of my generation, the use of cell phones in schools was never an issue. Even for me, I never had a cell phone until I had a car, and even then, my parents controlled my plan, and it was paltry – I really could only use the phone for emergencies … and that seemed about right.

I spent some time as an assistant teacher in a public elementary school in NYC, and some of my students had nicer cell phones than I did. I mean, what does a ten year old need with a BlackBerry!? What can he possibly be doing that would add to his educational experience? This is the question that CITA, a cell phone trade group, is trying to answer with research funded by Qualcomm (a cell phone chip maker).

The gist of their argument is this: smartphones can provide a cheap alternative to laptops as mobile learning devices in the classroom. Basically, makers of smartphones want to score a contract with the education system to provide students with handheld computers (smartphones) to help with their studies.

The Qualcomm study gave test 10^th grade students smartphones with applications designed to help them with their algebra coupled with a private social networking site that allows them to share tips and solutions with other students in the class. Apparently, students that used the smartphones and social networking scored 25% higher on the end-of-the-year algebra exam than students that didn’t use the smartphones[2].

That’s all fine and good, but I can hardly think that a smartphone could ever replace computers as learning tools. Laptops can help teachers show students to use the internet for research, to write papers, to teach more than one student at a time, and can even be used for educational games. Sure, they’re more expensive, but wouldn’t it make more sense to have one or a couple roaming laptop (with enough computers for one or two classrooms to use at a time) cart for a school than handing all of the students smartphones? I just can’t see phones not being a distraction for students, especially if the students can use the smartphones as actual phones or for texting.

Potentially my biggest issue with the use of smartphones is the way that text messaging and social network sites are killing writing ability. Internet acronyms, as I call the shortcuts used in texting and instant messenging like lol or omg or ttyl, may well be the downfall of civilization and culture as we know it.

Ok ok, that’s overly dramatic and hyperbolic … maybe. I can’t imagine a smartphone used in a classroom could possibly improve students’ writing skills or help a student research and write a paper. Sure, the students would have incredibly agile thumbs, but is that enough? It seems to me that the cell phone industry is really just promoting the next generation calculator, and that’s something I can get behind: smart calculators that help students solve problems and share solution tips with each other.

But the idea that cell phones could replace computers as learning/teaching devices in classrooms just makes me laugh my ass off, or, if you prefer, LMAO.

 

---

[1] http://www.mobilelearning09.org/index.html

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/technology/16phone.html?ref=technology

No Sympathy Here

Apparently, a $500,000 a year salary is barely enough to survive. According to Allen Salkin of the New York Times, after taxes, private schools, nannies, chauffeurs (salary range: $75,000 - $125,000 a year), mortgages (on their Upper East Side condo and million dollar homes in the Hamptons), vacations, galas, expensive clothing, and other life essentials, the $500,000 is all but completely gone.

The editorial goes on to say that top bank executives more or less have to spend that kind of money – because of peer pressure. When you work in a field where the culture relies on heavy spending to denote success, “it’s like the same thing that goes back to high school peer pressure. It’s about fitting in.”[1] Well forgive me for not sympathizing with your plight.

You know, I live in NYC at roughly one fifteenth of that salary and I am able to sustain myself fairly well, although clearly not as luxuriously as some. Really, it almost makes me feel bad for the mega rich, myself, and the future of the country. If the people put in charge of running the financial system can’t properly manage their own financial lives on $500,000 every year, then how are we supposed to have faith in the industry?

Sure, many intelligent and decent people work in banking. And yes, I imagine that the pressures and demands placed on you are pretty great, but let’s put them in perspective for a moment. Do you deal with life and death on a daily basis? Are you sent off to fight a war you may or may not support? Do you work your ass off at three jobs and still barely manage to scrape by because you’re paid $8.50 an hour? Will you be losing your home because a bank hooked you up with god awful mortgage rates?

I mean, your job is mostly about crunching numbers, in a completely oversimplified definition. You run the banks that fuel the economy through credit. You make tough decisions and determine the fate of companies and individuals alike. Your jobs are difficult and demanding, but hardly the stuff of life or death.

When a complaint goes out from executives earning more money in one year than most Americans won’t make in twenty, don’t expect those complaints to fall on sympathetic ears.

Note to bankers: if you make $500,000 a year, you’re hardly struggling. Make some tough decisions in your own life. Pull your kid from that private school and enroll them in public education, then use some of that political leverage to get public schools some of the funding it deserves. Take public transportation. Use your collective real estate clout to bring housing prices in NYC down to a realistic level. Fly coach. Move to Harlem.

The American public might start to take that stigma away if the financial industry fell back down to earth. Now we’ll just have to wait for entertainers and athletes. Here’s hoping in a few years I’ll be able to afford concert, films, and ballgames again…

[1] Salkin, Allen. "You Try to Live on 500K in This Town." The New York Times 6 Feb. 2009. 9 Feb. 2009 .

It's been too long...

A lot has happened in the past weeks: a Vice Presidential debate, two presidential debates, and a finance bill that turned the Secretary of the Treasury into the most powerful member of the cabinet. The markets are still collapsing – now across the globe, not just stateside. Instead of discussing any of these things in depth, I will mention them briefly here:

The VP debate was far and away more entertaining and more enlightening than the first two Presidential debates – it’s sort of a tossup between the Veep debate and the third Pres debate. Joe Biden was succinct and sharp, Sarah Palin was cute but doesn’t know anything about anything and didn’t answer a single question or pronounce a single g at the end of a word (how can anyone think that she would be a good choice for VP?! With McCain at the top of the ticket, you’re essentially voting for him and his replacement after his heart fails two years into his term…).

The 2^nd Presidential debate made me realize that Barack Obama is a pensive and incredibly intelligent person that will likely become one of the greatest leaders this country (and the world) has ever seen – if we elect him. It also revealed John McCain to be a bitter, hostile old man that cannot sit for any length of time. How can a man that yells at fellow senators be expected to hold discussions with foreign leaders that disagree with him? He referred to Senator Obama as “that one” during the debate. I just cannot see McCain being a strong global leader if he cannot deal with opposing viewpoints.

The final Presidential debate showed McCain as having learned a great deal about economic policy and how to talk about it (here is where I falter as a Democrat because I am absolutely a fiscal conservative and believe in the power of markets to run efficiently. And yes, I’ve been paying attention to the news, but I, for one, agree with The Economist in thinking that this crisis was caused more by misguided regulation than deregulation. McCain started strong and had lots of energy, but as the debate wore on, McCain seemed to lost both steam and energy, turning back into the crotchety old man we have all grown to know. Obama, again, looked incredibly intelligent and pensive. And he also demonstrated his ability to remain calm and collected despite McCain’s cavalier attitude, half-truths and attempts to get a rise out of him. Watching this debate made me realize how desperately I crave an intelligent President that will weigh his options, make well-thought-out decisions, and not lose his temper.

Another note from the debate, upon answering the question of why their running-mates would be qualified to take over as President, Obama touted Joe Biden’s political accomplishments while McCain seemed only able to say that she is a reformer, fresh, and that he is proud of her. That endorsement really leaves something to be desired.

The “bailout” is being spun and perceived entirely wrong. At its best, it’s an investment that will earn taxpayers a profit in the long-run. At its worst, it’s wasting taxpayer dollars on self-important sultans of excess that will eventually cost close to $1,000,000,000,000. What it’s turning into is a hastily thrown together plan that grants one man incredible financial power and discretion – while causing little boost to public or market confidence in the economy. Here’s the deal: the markets are driven almost entirely by perception – people need to stop panicking and allow the market its usual ebb and flow. Sure, this is a down time, and the whole world seems to be falling apart, but things will turn around. That’s what the market does. Have faith in it. Give the recovery plan some time to work. It’s a long-term fix, so in the short-term, have some confidence. Thank goodness I’m not retiring any time soon…

What I’d really like to talk about is the fact that the campaigns and the debates have really made me start to dislike both candidates. I think there is something terribly wrong with our ridiculous two party system. Here are some suggestions to improve the American political system:

Create Campaign Term Limits

I know left Britain to start our own country, but we should steal a page out of their political playbook with this one. They enforce a four month campaign time limit. That’s right. Candidates can only campaign for four months leading up to Election Day. That’s a far cry from our current system. Barack Obama has been running for president for two years. TWO YEARS. George Bush seems so powerless and forgotten right now it’s almost as is he’s not even President…

Modify the Two Party System

This is related to the campaign time limits. If there is a time limit to the campaigns, there can no longer be a ridiculously long primary season. I see two potential changes to be made here:

1) Instead of eliminating candidates in the primary season, allow all of the candidates to run in the general election. They can remain Republican and Democrat. That’s fine. Let the Republicans run Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, John McCain and the rest. Let the Democrats run Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, and anyone else. This way, the extreme right can have their candidate, the extreme left can have theirs, and the vast majority of voters – those that fall somewhere in the middle – can get back the political clout they deserve. Sure, there are a lot of potential issues with this: how many people can run? Who decides who can run? Won’t the far left/right win out if there are too many people in the middle? How will the debates work? etc, but it would certainly make for a more interesting general election…

2) Get a big name Democrat (Hillary) and a big name Republican (Romney) to run as representatives of lesser parties or as independents. This way there would be four legitimate candidates for president. Other parties can join the fray as well, giving progressives, conservatives, leftists, rightists, isolationists, libertarians, separatists … everyone can potentially be represented.

In a perfect world (the world inside my head), the multi-party system would include debates between all of the candidates, last four to six months, and force candidates to focus on issues. In a race between more than two people, policy issues become paramount. Again, though, there would have to be lots of oversight and regulation to prevent candidate collaboration, coordinated attacks of leading candidates, etc.

Born of this idea (and one that I haven’t really fleshed out): force the elected official to choose his/her VP from the pool of presidential candidates. Just a thought.

Eliminate the Electoral College

There are arguments both for and against this idea, but they focus on a two party system of elections. In an election with six or more people vying for President, the Electoral College becomes a completely ridiculous idea. I tend to agree with the Founders that the general public probably is not intelligent enough to elect their leader, but the multi-party system would necessitate its elimination. Let’s make America a true Democracy, force candidates to campaign everywhere (or everywhere they think they can win. This would really make for an interesting campaign schedule, right? Conservatives focusing on the South, Progressives/Liberals fighting it out in urban centers… Exciting stuff!), and let the voice of the American voter really be heard.

Bring Back Real Debates

Enough with the coddling of candidates in national debates. It’s embarrassing to watch moderators toss up easy questions only to have the candidates dodge them and respond with scripted, barely related answers. How about letting moderators go after candidates for dodging questions. Or, better yet, let the candidates go at each other, debating about issues. Another thought: have a ticker across the bottom of the screen doing real-time fact checking – we have the technology. Fox News can run its version of the “facts,” CNN can run liberal facts, and PBS can run the Truth. Watching Obama and McCain trade falsities without anyone correcting them was painful. The entire debate was painful. Bring out all of the candidates (we’re in a multi-candidate system, remember) on stage, and let them duke it out, primary debate style. Now those were entertaining – candidates showing emotion, getting passionate, calling each other out, fighting about policy … bring that kind of energy to the actual election.

__________________________________________________________________

Sure, these changes are rather radical, but it appears to me that we’re living with a broken system. If nothing else, this country was founded on the belief that government ought to be reformed if it stops serving the interests of the people … and I think it’s time for a change. And, really, these changes just give the voter more choices. The actual governing of the country won’t change (although I think we’ve turned over all power to the Secretary of the Treasury – and that is a scary thought), just the election process. Who knows, maybe this could eliminate pandering to special interest groups and radical voters. Or maybe it would lead to more of the same. All I know is that we could use a change.