Another good business proposal to invest in would be Rebecca Hellmich's Matinee Munchies website. The website serves a specific audience — an important niche — and unlike other websites covering theater, it offers a "one-stop shopping" experience and "a
blend of expert opinion and average citizen opinion."
The website offers an outlet for regular citizen theater goers to submit reviews, which produces free content for the website. However, the website will also feature work by staff writers and experts. It will be taking advantage of what is already available by aggregating news content for site visitors. There will also be forums and sections (for subscribers) that list the best/least expensive places to go have a bite to eat.
The website would be launching primarily in New York City (the city that has the most theater presence), but there are plans to expand to other cities after a while.
There are no big issues with the content; however, when looking at the first year budget, the company will rely heavily ($30,000) on subscriptions the first year, which I do not believe to be feasible. Perhaps trying to get more funds from investors like us would be more realistic. A $30,000 goal of subscriptions for the third year is a bit more realistic.
One suggestion that was brought up during the presentation is to add a section in the website that consists of a database of the actors — and maybe reviews their performances.
Though perhaps we may need to take another look at the finances, the idea is overall interesting and possible. For this reason I think we should invest in Matinee Munchies.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Business idea proposal: Earth to Hearth
After to weeks of rigorous presentations, I have finally decided to propose we, as a wealthy board of philanthropists, back Meagan McGinnes' Earth to Hearth start-up website.
The website builds on what is already available for the food environmentalists. It takes websites like PeTA, Farm Sanctuary Shop and the USDA website, which work to inform the public about making sustainable food choices focusing on specific aspects of the food industry, and it brings it all together to one website. The website not only informs the public about food sustainability — including food miles, animal cruelty and healthy food options — but it also provides a platform to "activate" site members.
I believe there is a huge market for environmental websites, and this one brings together all aspects of food sustainability — which is a shift from all other websites driven by very specific agendas. The name works perfectly and is easy to remember.
Perhaps the only issue I found was the amount of content projected to be on the website vs. the number of staffers working to produce it. I thought having news articles, interactives, glossaries, calculators and a calendar (plus some other things) was a bit too much work for two or three staffers — plus the skills needed are of a broad range if people are going to be writing news articles and working with code creating interactives.
Also, the company did not present a projected budget for after the first year. Hopefully by then more staffers would be hired? Would they be paid more as an incentive to stay?
But these are small issues that can be resolved by taking another look at the proposal. Overall, I think it is a good idea and the perfect nonprofit start-up to invest in.
The website builds on what is already available for the food environmentalists. It takes websites like PeTA, Farm Sanctuary Shop and the USDA website, which work to inform the public about making sustainable food choices focusing on specific aspects of the food industry, and it brings it all together to one website. The website not only informs the public about food sustainability — including food miles, animal cruelty and healthy food options — but it also provides a platform to "activate" site members.
I believe there is a huge market for environmental websites, and this one brings together all aspects of food sustainability — which is a shift from all other websites driven by very specific agendas. The name works perfectly and is easy to remember.
Perhaps the only issue I found was the amount of content projected to be on the website vs. the number of staffers working to produce it. I thought having news articles, interactives, glossaries, calculators and a calendar (plus some other things) was a bit too much work for two or three staffers — plus the skills needed are of a broad range if people are going to be writing news articles and working with code creating interactives.
Also, the company did not present a projected budget for after the first year. Hopefully by then more staffers would be hired? Would they be paid more as an incentive to stay?
But these are small issues that can be resolved by taking another look at the proposal. Overall, I think it is a good idea and the perfect nonprofit start-up to invest in.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Saturday, December 1, 2012
New Mexican president spurs unrest
Today, Enrique Peña Nieto, PRI presidential candidate and winner, assumed presidency in Mexico, promising his fellow citizens that "the primary focus of my government is to achieve a Mexico at peace."
But his first day in office could not have signaled the beginning of a country farther from peace.
What began as peaceful protests from mainly young students, evolved into violent clashes between activists and police. The student leftist group — and progressive media outlet —, #YoSoy132, participated in the protest, but responded to the violence by announcing the end of their participation in the protests.
They also issued a press release denouncing the governments violent response to the protests. They ask that the 65 #YoSoy132 members who were arrested be released.
There are still 22 people who went missing during the demonstrations today. More than 200 #YoSoy132 members and supporters arrived at the police station where these demonstrators are said to be detained.
But his first day in office could not have signaled the beginning of a country farther from peace.
What began as peaceful protests from mainly young students, evolved into violent clashes between activists and police. The student leftist group — and progressive media outlet —, #YoSoy132, participated in the protest, but responded to the violence by announcing the end of their participation in the protests.
They also issued a press release denouncing the governments violent response to the protests. They ask that the 65 #YoSoy132 members who were arrested be released.
There are still 22 people who went missing during the demonstrations today. More than 200 #YoSoy132 members and supporters arrived at the police station where these demonstrators are said to be detained.
Friday, November 30, 2012
It's getting hot out here
Following Superstorm Sandy, Al Gore said it was “a disturbing sign of things to come." Gore is the most outspoken advocate of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. His statement is actually backed by an overwhelming 97 percent of climate scientists agree climate change is actually happening.
However, about 66 percent of Americans still believe many scientists disagree global warming exists, according to a national poll. Most people are unaware 97 percent of climate scientists actually agree global warming is an issue, according to a report by a George Mason University team led by Ed Maibach.
Based on his analysis, Maibach concludes that if people were more informed about the impact of global warming and that scientists had definite evidence for these projections, then their levels of concern for global warming would increase significantly.
But, why are people uninformed on this topic in the first place?
Media Matters for America, a non-profit progressive research and information center, published an extensive blog post detailing the latest attempts by conservative media to confuse the American public about what is really happening with our climate.
Here are the highlights:
1. The Heartland Institute launched a bilboard campaign this year associating global warming with "murders, tyrants and madmen." The institute received $25,000 from the Charles Koch Foundation last year and expected $200,000 in 2012 — but then again, why expect any less from Koch.
James Taylor, who heads Heartlands environmental campaign but has not real environmental experience, has a weekly column with Forbes and has appeared on Fox. Mainstream media help him promote misinformation.
2. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has been funded by the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, Texaco, General Motors and the Koch Family Foundations among other fossil fuel interests over the last decade, has advertisements, op-eds and blogs to discredit climate change scientific research.
The institute sends its experts — some with no scientific background — to do media appearances at Fox News, Forbes, CNN among others.
3. Marc Morano, who runs ClimateDepot.com, has often appeared — not surprisingly — on Fox News. He worked for Rush Limbaugh and Sen. James Inhofe — both deny climate change.
4. Steve Milloy has called those concerned about global warmed whacked out, intellectually and morally bankrupt." He published columns in the Washington TImes and frequently appears on Fox News.
5. Joe Bastardi, meteorologist for WeatherBell Analytics, is an adviser to the American Tradition Institute and a Fox News contributor.
6. The Wall Street Journal has also cast doubt on climate change claiming it's a "fad-scare." and its science "disputable." Its science writer Matt Ridley has used his column to dismiss the threat of climate change. He is also an unpaid adviser to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which was founded by the chairman of an oil company — none of which is disclosed by the Journal.
Honorable mentions:
Manhattan Institute And Robert BryceChris Horner And The American Tradition InstituteHeritage FoundationCato Institute And Patrick MichaelsAmerican Enterprise InstituteAnthony Watts
But misinformation in mainstream media is not the only reason 66 percent of people are still in disbelief about global warming. As a post in Fair.org points out, global warming is barely ever on Sunday news.
In short, mainstream media is not informing Americans about the real climate issues. Scientists agree global warming needs to be addressed, but it will never be if the media ignores it.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Get your hands of my ... net neutrality?
Net neutrality has been a contested issue for the last couple of years, and it seems to have become the most important technological issue in our time.
Net neutrality is a principle that advocates for government regulation of internet service providers to avoid website discrimination based on influence and remain impartial to the content we all enjoy — even the most obscure, hipster, random websites in the interweb.
We often forget the internet is actually run by a handful of telecommunications companies like Verizon and Time Warner.
Small online businesses and some internet titans are known advocates of net neutrality — "not evil" Google is for ... or against ... not sure at this point ... it.
But why is government regulation actually a good thing to have online? Because ISP companies are greedy and without regulation (net neutrality) nothing stops them from deciding that for you to access certain websites, you have to pay a little extra, not much, say ... $1 every time you want to access Facebook. Or, perhaps if you don't want to pay extra, the internet speed to access those websites will be slower than when you access Verizon's main page. Yep. It is possible.
NetworkWorld recently published an article presenting the other side of the issue. Forget the fact that they published what is more of an opinion piece with some he/she said's here and there in their "news" section ... with no real arguments from the FCC side.
The author writes:
"It doesn't make sense for the FCC to maintain monopoly-inspired regulations on telecom-based broadband carriers when there's healthy competition from mobile broadband, satellite broadband and other providers, said Robert Litan, director of research at Bloomberg Government and co-author of an upcoming book on broadband policy."
A discussion was held at Brookings Institution on recommendations made by Litan and Hal Singer, managing director and principal of Navigant Economics for FCC to move to passing rules only after the evidence of a problem in the broadband market."
James Cicconi, who participated in the discussion said:
"Panelist James Cicconi, AT&T's senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs, targeted the FCC's 2010 net neutrality order as an example of regulation without major evidence of a problem."
But here is the evidence. As very well put by Michele Combs, vice president of communication of the Christian Coalition of America, there have already been explicit instances in which ISP's have used their power to censor websites or content online. Verizon Wireless and AT&T both blocked political speech in 2007. And Comcast blocked access to users ability to access the Bible that same year.
Most recently, with the release of the iPhone 5 on the U.S. AT&T, users were told they couldn't use the built-in FaceTime feature over 3G, even when such usage fell within the constraints of their data allowance. Being selective toward certain services allows them to promote rival services with whom the carriers have contracts or agreements.
Yesterday, top Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a briefing to discuss Verizon's legal challenge to the Federal Commission's net neutrality rules.
At the meeting, Verizon argued:
“'Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others,' Verizon and MetroPCS attorneys argued in a joint brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit."
FCC Chairman Reed Hundt responded:
Net neutrality is a principle that advocates for government regulation of internet service providers to avoid website discrimination based on influence and remain impartial to the content we all enjoy — even the most obscure, hipster, random websites in the interweb.
We often forget the internet is actually run by a handful of telecommunications companies like Verizon and Time Warner.
Small online businesses and some internet titans are known advocates of net neutrality — "not evil" Google is for ... or against ... not sure at this point ... it.
But why is government regulation actually a good thing to have online? Because ISP companies are greedy and without regulation (net neutrality) nothing stops them from deciding that for you to access certain websites, you have to pay a little extra, not much, say ... $1 every time you want to access Facebook. Or, perhaps if you don't want to pay extra, the internet speed to access those websites will be slower than when you access Verizon's main page. Yep. It is possible.
NetworkWorld recently published an article presenting the other side of the issue. Forget the fact that they published what is more of an opinion piece with some he/she said's here and there in their "news" section ... with no real arguments from the FCC side.
The author writes:
"It doesn't make sense for the FCC to maintain monopoly-inspired regulations on telecom-based broadband carriers when there's healthy competition from mobile broadband, satellite broadband and other providers, said Robert Litan, director of research at Bloomberg Government and co-author of an upcoming book on broadband policy."
A discussion was held at Brookings Institution on recommendations made by Litan and Hal Singer, managing director and principal of Navigant Economics for FCC to move to passing rules only after the evidence of a problem in the broadband market."
James Cicconi, who participated in the discussion said:
"Panelist James Cicconi, AT&T's senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs, targeted the FCC's 2010 net neutrality order as an example of regulation without major evidence of a problem."
But here is the evidence. As very well put by Michele Combs, vice president of communication of the Christian Coalition of America, there have already been explicit instances in which ISP's have used their power to censor websites or content online. Verizon Wireless and AT&T both blocked political speech in 2007. And Comcast blocked access to users ability to access the Bible that same year.
Most recently, with the release of the iPhone 5 on the U.S. AT&T, users were told they couldn't use the built-in FaceTime feature over 3G, even when such usage fell within the constraints of their data allowance. Being selective toward certain services allows them to promote rival services with whom the carriers have contracts or agreements.
Yesterday, top Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a briefing to discuss Verizon's legal challenge to the Federal Commission's net neutrality rules.
At the meeting, Verizon argued:
“'Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others,' Verizon and MetroPCS attorneys argued in a joint brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit."
FCC Chairman Reed Hundt responded:
“'This idea that the Internet can be closed, or blocked, or managed by private parties is the exact opposite of America’s foreign policy,' Hundt said, pointing to the Obama administration's Internet freedom advocacy. 'The Internet is a common medium.'
"Hundt dismissed Verizon’s view that it is somehow similar to a newspaper. “Verizon is like paper, not a newspaper,” he said."
At these point these meetings are only that, meetings. The FCC net neutrality rules took effect last year, and Verizon's challenge will not be reviewed until next year.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
A legend speaks at IC
Last night, journalist David Cay Johnston visited Ithaca College to give lecture "Digging Up the Dirt: Investigative Journalism." The lecture was co-sponsored by the college's chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, the department of journalism and the Park Center for Independent Media.
Johnston has only a high school diploma, though in eight years he attended seven colleges including the University of Chicago and acquired enough credits for a masters degree, he said.
He is commonly known for reporting on taxes, the one percent, the casino industry and about the police department in Los Angeles a few years back.
What makes this guy most impressive is not the fact that he is a Pulitzer Prize winner, or that he has worked for the Los Angeles Times, or The New York Times, or Reuters among other reputable publications without holding any sort of degree. What makes him badass is his legacy in investigative journalism.
During his time at the LA Times, Johnston uncovered political spying ordered by the LAPD. He also investigated the misuse of charitable funds at United Way and news manipulation at WJIM-TV in Lansing, Michigan, among other issues.
He once even hunted down a killer the police had failed to catch, which resulted in an innocent man winning acquittal at his fifth trial.
His work was produced mainly at mainstream media, which he complained would sometimes censor or refuse to publish his more controversial articles.
This brings us to a question. What if Johnston had been a blogger at the time? He probably would have published these regardless of how controversial.
In class Johnston mentioned student journalists should expect a difficult job market. It will be hard to get a job in mainstream media ... but with the freedom that comes with blogging and writing for other independent outlets, more and more journalists are shifting to those mediums. I don't blame them.
 |
| David Cay Johnston Source: PBS |
Johnston has only a high school diploma, though in eight years he attended seven colleges including the University of Chicago and acquired enough credits for a masters degree, he said.
He is commonly known for reporting on taxes, the one percent, the casino industry and about the police department in Los Angeles a few years back.
What makes this guy most impressive is not the fact that he is a Pulitzer Prize winner, or that he has worked for the Los Angeles Times, or The New York Times, or Reuters among other reputable publications without holding any sort of degree. What makes him badass is his legacy in investigative journalism.
During his time at the LA Times, Johnston uncovered political spying ordered by the LAPD. He also investigated the misuse of charitable funds at United Way and news manipulation at WJIM-TV in Lansing, Michigan, among other issues.
He once even hunted down a killer the police had failed to catch, which resulted in an innocent man winning acquittal at his fifth trial.
His work was produced mainly at mainstream media, which he complained would sometimes censor or refuse to publish his more controversial articles.
This brings us to a question. What if Johnston had been a blogger at the time? He probably would have published these regardless of how controversial.
In class Johnston mentioned student journalists should expect a difficult job market. It will be hard to get a job in mainstream media ... but with the freedom that comes with blogging and writing for other independent outlets, more and more journalists are shifting to those mediums. I don't blame them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)