April 27, 2024

Archives for August 2013

Silver Lining in China’s Smog as It Puts Focus on Emissions

The grimy haze blanketing Beijing and other Chinese cities comes from motor vehicles, factories, power plants and furnaces that also emit carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas from human activities. The widespread ire about air pollution has forced China’s new leadership to vow firmer, faster measures for cleaner air that are likely to reduce carbon dioxide output, especially from coal, experts said. “The public concern about the air pollution has helped raise awareness about broader environmental problems,” said Mr. Jiang, a researcher at the Energy Research Institute, which advises the Chinese government. “This will be a big help in pushing China.”

Mr. Jiang is an unusual hybrid — part policy insider, part maverick — in a growing debate among Chinese officials, policy advisers and academics about how fast and far to limit greenhouse gas pollution, which now well exceeds that of any other country. The debate, increasingly vigorous but in typical Chinese fashion playing out largely behind the scenes, pits the demands of industrialization and urban growth against the realities of global warming.

Defying the habitual caution of government advisers, Mr. Jiang has developed a proposal to swiftly limit the growing volume of carbon dioxide that China produces from consuming fossil fuels, which constitute over a quarter of the world’s total such emissions. In his blueprint, China’s emissions would reach a peak by around 2025, at least five years earlier and at a much lower level than many Chinese experts have said is possible.

“I’m not saying it will be easy, but it’s feasible,” Mr. Jiang said. “Time for effective action is very limited.”

His plan appears far from winning government endorsement, but is “one of those trial balloons that wouldn’t be floated unless there’s serious discussion opening up about what China should do,” said Barbara Finamore, Asia director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a New York-based advocacy group.

Chinese policy advisers have developed proposals to control greenhouse gases in the nearer term, government-sponsored studies show. They include a carbon tax on fossil fuels, and beginning in 2016 setting annual guiding limits for carbon dioxide emissions from energy use. China will explore expanding nascent local carbon credit markets into a nationwide plan starting in 2015, Xie Zhenhua, an official who oversees climate change policy, said in late July.

In part, China is responding to international pressure, as governments negotiate a proposed new global agreement on climate change, scheduled to be settled in 2015 and go into force in 2020. In June, President Obama and President Xi Jinping agreed to discuss how to phase out hydrofluorocarbons, a potent class of manufactured greenhouse gases.

But domestic economic, energy and environmental worries are also forcing China’s leaders to consider policies that could limit greenhouse gases, analysts said. The new leadership wants to reinvigorate the economy by reducing reliance on heavy industry that produces high amounts of pollution. Mr. Xi and Prime Minister Li Keqiang have vowed to clean up contaminated soil, air and water, and achieving those goals could also bring carbon reductions in their wake.

“Air pollution was the perfect catalyst,” said Wai-Shin Chan, director of climate change strategy in Asia for HSBC Global Research in Hong Kong. “Air pollution is clearly linked to health, and the great thing is that everybody — that’s government officials and company executives alike — breathes the same air.”

There are, though, formidable obstacles facing proponents of rapidly cutting China’s emissions. Robust economic growth remains imperative for leaders, who fear that slowing growth and rising joblessness would imperil the Communist Party’s rule. China remains dependent on coal, the source of about 70 percent of the country’s energy. And officials and companies in China are likely to resist steps they fear could jeopardize their industrial investments.

“They will not be happy to see that the investment in new capacity they made a few years ago may have to be scrapped,” said Wang Tao, an expert on climate change and energy issues at the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy in Beijing. “It really all depends on how quickly China can transform the current economic structure.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/asia/silver-lining-in-chinas-smog-as-it-puts-focus-on-emissions.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Olympic Wheel of Fortune

Instead, on Sunday, Sept. 8, you’ll see the leaders of three sports federations — wrestling, squash and baseball-softball, which combined last year — presenting finely honed sales pitches to the 104 members of the International Olympic Committee. After each 20-minute spiel, there will be 10 minutes of questions and answers. At some point, the committee members will test their electronic voting equipment with an irrelevant warm-up question. (The group was once asked to choose a favorite of three oceans; the Atlantic won.) Then the members will decide a matter of genuine import: Which of these sports will join the Olympic Games in 2020?

It will be the culmination of a contest that began two years ago and has cost the finalists millions of dollars. But for the winner, the prize is so big that it’s hard to value. Actually, part of it can be valued. Every sport gets a cut of the money generated by the Games’ broadcast and revenue deals, with each share determined by the sport’s popularity, measured by the number of spectators, television viewers and other factors. The pot to be divvied up for sports in the London Games last year is $520 million.

More important, the sport gets the global exposure of billions of television and online viewers and a place in the sports pantheon in which countries worldwide invest, simply because the sport is part of the Olympics. Suddenly, there are youth leagues and commercial endorsements. Medals are at stake, and with them a chance to burnish national self-image.

“The U.S. is a special case because, unlike most countries, it doesn’t have a direct federal government program for sports,” says Michael Payne, the I.O.C.’s former marketing director. “But look at Turkey. It’s currently spending $500 million a year on sports development, and all of that money goes to Olympics-related sports. You’re either at the table or you’re not.”

In the United States, the imprimatur of the Games means universities pay attention. A few years ago, it was hard to find a college team in women’s beach volleyball. The sport is now an Olympics favorite, and there are about 34 college teams, says Doug Beal, the chief executive of USA Volleyball.

“It’s impossible to overstate how significant it is to be included in the Olympics,” Mr. Beal says. “Participation has increased by a factor of 100 or 200. We’ve got high-performance camps, a national junior tour. The Olympics drives kids’ interest. They see it on TV, they identify with the medal winners and they want to play that game.”

This is squash’s third attempt to enter the Olympics, which has capped the total number of sports at 28, and it is the only sport among the finalists that has never been in the Games.

For squash’s ardent fan base, this is more than a little confounding. Every four years, when synchronized swimming scissor-kicks its way onto the world stage, squash aficionados ask: If that sport is in the disco, how long will squash be stuck behind the velvet rope?

Not much longer, if Mike Lee has his way. He is chairman of Vero Communications, a sports lobbying consulting firm that is part of a small but growing industry for campaigns like this. Mr. Lee, a onetime political consultant who is based in London, was hired by the World Squash Federation to oversee its Olympic bid. Among Vero’s recent achievements is guiding rugby sevens into the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. Squash was one of the sports that rugby sevens bested.

Working in politics and Olympic sports is not that different, Mr. Lee said. Both need compelling narratives and both need to cater to voters. The squash narrative, as framed by Vero, is all about the game’s global reach, its embrace of innovation and its easy integration into the Games — the event would involve just 64 players from around the world, 32 men and 32 women, in a glass court that could be built anywhere.

“In the final stage of this, we’re also giving a push to the very salient and important point that squash is the only truly new sport in terms of the Olympic program,” Mr. Lee said. “That will feature significantly in our final presentation in Buenos Aires.”

What exactly is the Olympics looking for? The I.O.C. has a dauntingly long list of 39 criteria. The sport should offer gender equity (medals to men and women in roughly equal numbers), excellence around the world (as opposed to a few countries) and popularity among fans and sponsors. Ease of broadcasting the sport is another factor, along with the cost of building a place for competition. There is also the vague but all-important “value added,” defined as “value added by the sport to the Olympic Games; value added by the Olympic Games to the sport.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/business/olympic-wheel-of-fortune.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

A Data Broker Offers a Peek Behind the Curtain

The Acxiom Corporation, a marketing technology company that has amassed details on the household makeup, financial means, shopping preferences and leisure pursuits of a majority of adults in the United States, knows that Mr. Howe is 45, married with children, the owner of a house in the 2,500-square-foot range, and is interested, among other things, in tennis, domestic travel, cooking, crafts, sweepstakes and contests. Those intimate details, Mr. Howe says, are entirely accurate.

“I am crazy about that stuff,” he says of the sweepstakes and contests.

Mr. Howe is one of the first Americans to get a detailed glimpse of his own marketing profile because he happens to be the chief executive of Acxiom. But most consumers never learn the specific pieces of information that have been compiled about them by marketers.

That is about to change. Acxiom, one of the most secretive and prolific collectors of consumer information, is embarking on a novel public relations strategy: openness. On Wednesday, it plans to unveil a free Web site where United States consumers can view some of the information the company has collected about them, just as Mr. Howe did.

The data on the site, called AbouttheData.com, includes biographical facts, like education level, marital status and number of children in a household; homeownership status, including mortgage amount and property size; vehicle details, like the make, model and year; and economic data, like whether a household member is an active investor with a portfolio greater than $150,000. Also available will be the consumer’s recent purchase categories, like plus-size clothing or sports products; and household interests like golf, dogs, text-messaging, cholesterol-related products or charities.

Each entry comes with an icon that visitors can click to learn about the sources behind the data — whether self-reported consumer surveys, warranty registrations or public records like voter files. The program also lets people correct or suppress individual data elements, or to opt out entirely of having Acxiom collect and store marketing data about them.

With about $1.1 billion in revenue in its 2013 fiscal year, Acxiom is a leading player in an industry called data brokerage. The company collects, stores, analyzes and sells consumer data with the aim of helping its clients — including well-known banks, credit card issuers, insurance companies, department stores and carmakers — tailor marketing to their most valuable current customers or identify new customers.

A credit card issuer, for instance, could ask Acxiom to help aim a campaign for elite-level cards with concierge services at people above a certain income who live in certain suburbs or drive luxury cars. To do that, Acxiom, like many of its competitors, often uses its own proprietary classification system to segment consumers into socioeconomic marketing categories, like “Frugal Families” or “McMansions and Minivans.”

Some federal regulators and privacy advocates warn that this kind of data-mining could be used to aim at consumers vulnerable to predatory lending practices, for instance, or to favor certain high-value consumers with instant, attentive customer service while relegating other people to interminable wait time.

Mr. Howe says he wants to counter such fears by making industry practices more transparent. A former Microsoft executive, he came to Acxiom as C.E.O. in 2011, bringing the online industry’s enthusiasm for data sharing to what had been a hermetic company.

“We are not going to get anywhere by hiding,” he said in a recent interview at Acxiom’s headquarters in Little Rock, Ark. “You have to make things visible.”

But AbouttheData.com is as much ruthlessly pragmatic as idealistic. Mr. Howe recognizes that regulation of his industry may be coming and that it’s better for Acxiom to be seen as a part of the solution than a part of the problem.

ONE afternoon in late August, Mr. Howe sat in an executive conference room at Acxiom’s headquarters overlooking the Arkansas River, demonstrating a version of AbouttheData.com that was still a work in progress. Having filled out an identity verification form that asked for his name, birth date, address and the last four digits of his Social Security number, he landed on a page that gave him a choice of six data categories to examine.

Visitors who log in may be surprised at the volume of information that may be available and the detailed picture it can give of their personal lives. The household interest section, for instance, listed Mr. Howe as interested in health and medical issues (he subscribes to health industry trade journals and founded a site called Health123.com); crafts (he periodically works with stained glass); woodworking (he paid for his undergraduate education at Princeton in part by working as an apprentice carpenter); tennis (he was on his high school team); gardening (his wife subscribes to Fine Gardening magazine); and “religious/inspirational.”

“I don’t know how inspirational I am,” Mr. Howe said. “I am Methodist. My uncle is a Methodist preacher. I go to church very regularly.”

But consumers, he said, should not expect all information to be current or correct. For instance, the site listed Mr. Howe as the father of two; in fact, he is the father of three. It had also pegged him as Italian, but he is actually of Norwegian descent. (The system predicts likely ethnicity based on surname and is clearly imperfect.)

The home section, meanwhile, which listed such details as the year his house was built and its estimated market value, had incorrect information about his mortgage. “I don’t have a loan on my house anymore. It’s drawing on old data,” Mr. Howe explained. “That’s one I would absolutely go in and change.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/business/a-data-broker-offers-a-peek-behind-the-curtain.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bits: From Example to Excess in Silicon Valley

Another memorable moment for me happened roughly six years ago, when I tried Goog-411, an experimental phone service from Google. At a time when smartphones were far from ubiquitous, the service allowed people to call a toll-free number and obtain business listings by using voice commands. It was partly an effort to improve Google’s own internal software, but it left me marveling at its combination of technological brilliance and public service — completely in keeping with the company’s motto of “Don’t be evil.”

Since then, such technological good will has faded into a kind of disillusionment, and not just for me, it seems. It feels as if the promise of the tech world — its utopian ideals and democratic aspirations — has dissolved into much more selfish pursuits of power and wealth. And the promising developments or companies that do emerge are often dimmed by their flashier peers, who tend to get a majority of the attention.

Just look at Google’s impressive and much-hyped new product, Google Glass. While undoubtedly representing a technological leap, it has been criticized as a plaything for the geeky elite. And now the September issue of Vogue, in a 12-page spread, is positioning the product as a high-end style accessory.

At the same time, Google’s business practices are under intense scrutiny, with critics saying the company unfairly blocks rival search engines and advertisers.

Then there is Facebook. Over the last few years, the company has been accused of valuing profits over privacy and the public good. So last month, when its chief, Mark Zuckerberg, announced an effort called Internet.org to expand Web access in the developing world, some contended that the plan was motivated mainly by self-interest.

Also last month, it was reported that Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, sold 2.37 million shares of company stock for $91 million. Eyes rolled when, shortly thereafter, a listing appeared online calling for an intern to work unpaid at her nonprofit foundation. (The organization has since said it will pay its interns.)

If there was a single event this summer that symbolized the perceived excess of Silicon Valley, it was the wedding of Sean Parker, the co-founder of Napster. He threw a multimillion-dollar “Lord of the Rings”-themed wedding in the redwoods of Big Sur, complete with a nine-foot-high cake and custom-made costumes for the attendees.

Evgeny Morozov, author of “To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism,” said that events like Mr. Parker’s wedding reflect “the kind of attitude that people find repelling.” Although it’s easy to find similar behavior in other sectors, like finance and real estate, its appearance within tech companies can be particularly galling, given the industry’s humanitarian rhetoric, he said.

“Wall Street people don’t claim to be saving the world,” he said. “They are very cynical about what they do: make money and take nice weekends in the Hamptons.” He also noted that many residents of the Bay Area, where much of the tech world is based, are struggling to find jobs and affordable housing as an influx of highly paid tech workers has pushed housing prices skyward.

In May, protesters in San Francisco — upset about rent increases — beat a piñata shaped like one of the Google shuttle buses that takes workers to the company’s headquarters in Mountain View, Calif.

Veterans of the technology world who have seen this pattern before — in the 1990s bubble that preceded the 2000-01 bust — say the outcry over the industry’s excess seems particularly loud this time around.

Maybe that’s at least partly because the tech elite has a much larger platform for bragging, preening and complaining. Popular social media sites like Twitter, Facebook and Tumblr did not exist in the ’90s, after all. Now any ill-advised photographs or posts on those sites are fair game for critics, who can fan the flames of outrage with posts of their own.

Peter Shih, co-founder of a payment site called Celery, for example, recently posted a satirical tirade against San Francisco on a blogging site that included complaints about the city’s homeless population. A storm of protest around the Web ensued; Mr. Shih apologized and the post was removed.

Mr. Morozov thinks that there may be a hint of a silver lining in recent expressions of displeasure over tech executives’ behavior. Until now, he said, the debate about the role of the modern tech industry has largely been limited to topics like online privacy.

“The virtuality of the debate has made it difficult for us to grapple with the consequences of the proliferation of the world outside of this bubble,” he said. “Now that the effects of the tech world invade the physical environment, we have to figure out the necessary philosophical and intellectual framework to deal with it.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/technology/from-example-to-excess-in-silicon-valley.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Economic View: A Carbon Tax That America Could Live With

THIS summer, the Obama administration released the President’s Climate Action Plan. It is a grab bag of regulations and policy initiatives aimed at reducing the nation’s carbon emissions, which many scientists believe contribute to global warming.

This got me to thinking: What might I do to reduce my own carbon emissions? Here are some things I came up with. Think of them as Greg Mankiw’s Climate Action Plan.

• I could buy a smaller, more fuel-efficient car.

• I could swap my traditional car for one with new technology, like a hybrid or an electric vehicle.

• I could car-pool to work.

• I could use public transportation.

• I could move closer to my job.

• I could buy a smaller house that requires less energy to heat and cool.

• I could adjust the thermostat to keep my home cooler in winter and warmer in summer.

• I could put solar panels on my roof.

• I could buy more energy-efficient home appliances.

• I could eat more locally produced foods, which need less fuel to transport.

I could go on, but by now you get the idea. Every day, we all make lifestyle choices that affect how much carbon is emitted. These decisions are personal but have global impact. Economists call the effects of our personal decisions on others “externalities.”

The main question is how we, as a society, ensure that we all make the right decisions, taking into account both the personal impact of our actions and the externalities. There are three approaches.

One approach is to appeal to individuals’ sense of social responsibility. This is what President Jimmy Carter did during the energy crisis of the 1970s. He encouraged Americans to adjust their thermostats and insulate their homes. I can still picture Mr. Carter sitting in the chilly White House, wearing his cardigan sweater.

It’s true that as a socially responsible economist, I always weigh the global costs and global benefits before pushing the ignition button on my car. (Yes, my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek.) But expecting most people to act this way is unrealistic. Life is busy, everyone has his or her own priorities, and even knowing the global impact of one’s own actions is a daunting task.

THE second approach is to use government regulation to change the decisions that people make. An example is the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards that regulate the emissions of cars sold. The President’s Climate Action Plan is filled with small regulatory changes aimed at making Americans live more carbon-efficient lives.

Yet this regulatory approach is fraught with problems. One is that it creates an inevitable tension between the products that consumers want to buy and the products that companies are allowed to sell. Robert A. Lutz, the former General Motors executive, laments that CAFE standards are “a huge bureaucratic nightmare.” He says, “CAFE is like trying to cure obesity by requiring clothing manufacturers to make smaller sizes.”

Yet another problem with such regulations is that they can influence only a small number of crucial decisions. In a free society, the government can’t easily regulate how close I live to work, whether I car-pool with my neighbor or how often I don a cardigan. Yet if we are to reduce carbon emissions at minimum cost, we need a policy that encompasses all possible margins of adjustment.

Fortunately, a policy broader in scope is possible, which brings us to the third approach to dealing with climate externalities: putting a price on carbon emissions. If the government charged a fee for each emission of carbon, that fee would be built into the prices of products and lifestyles. When making everyday decisions, people would naturally look at the prices they face and, in effect, take into account the global impact of their choices. In economics jargon, a price on carbon would induce people to “internalize the externality.”

A bill introduced this year by Representatives Henry A. Waxman and Earl Blumenauer and Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Brian Schatz does exactly that. Their proposed carbon fee — or carbon tax, if you prefer — is more effective and less invasive than the regulatory approach that the federal government has traditionally pursued.

The four sponsors are all Democrats, which raises the question of whether such legislation could ever make its way through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. The crucial point is what is done with the revenue raised by the carbon fee. If it’s used to finance larger government, Republicans would have every reason to balk. But if the Democratic sponsors conceded to using the new revenue to reduce personal and corporate income tax rates, a bipartisan compromise is possible to imagine.

Among economists, the issue is largely a no-brainer. In December 2011, the IGM Forum asked a panel of 41 prominent economists about this statement: “A tax on the carbon content of fuels would be a less expensive way to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions than would a collection of policies such as ‘corporate average fuel economy’ requirements for automobiles.” Ninety percent of the panelists agreed.

Could such an overwhelming consensus of economists be wrong? Well, actually, yes. But in this case, I am confident that the economics profession has it right. The hard part is persuading the public and the politicians.

N. Gregory Mankiw is a professor of economics at Harvard. He was an adviser to President George W. Bush.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/business/a-carbon-tax-that-america-could-live-with.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Off the Shelf: In ‘Treasury’s War,’ Missiles for a Financial Battlefield

Mr. Zarate, now a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, makes a persuasive case that a series of financial weapons developed after 9/11, and used mostly by the Treasury Department, have given the United States opportunities to weaken terrorists and rogue states as never before. He develops that argument by tracing Treasury’s aggressive actions against various American foes over the last decade, whether Al Qaeda, North Korea, Iran, Libya or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

For those of us who start feeling drowsy at the very mention of the words “Treasury Department,” this book is an eye-opener. Under Mr. Zarate, and his successors, Treasury quietly built new capabilities that owe less to junk bonds than to James Bond.

“Treasury’s War” chronicles an array of the department’s enforcement efforts, from corralling informal Middle Eastern money-transfer networks useful to Al Qaeda to tracking Saddam’s missing millions. But the heart of the book is the emergence and evolution of Section 311 of the Patriot Act, which allows the Treasury Department to designate any bank in the world as a “primary money-laundering concern” and prevent it from doing business with any American bank.

In today’s financial world, where every bank wants to do business with every other bank, and where New York and the United States dollar remain of paramount importance, “hitting” a bank with a Section 311 order has the effect of transforming it into an overnight pariah. Mr. Zarate cites example after example in which 311’s have all but destroyed rogue banks that had been important conduits for money flows involving, for example, Al Qaeda or Iran.

The genius of Section 311 is that Treasury doesn’t do anything other than apply a financial “scarlet letter.” The actual damage is done by the bank’s peers, which typically refuse to do business with it out of fear that they, too, will be cut off from the financial system. Just the threat of a 311, Mr. Zarate writes, has caused nations as powerful as Russia, and as recalcitrant as Myanmar, to change their money-laundering laws, forcing their banks to conform to international standards. A handful of well-placed 311’s, he says, has put much newfound pressure on governments including North Korea and Iran.

“Geopolitics is now a game best played with financial and commercial weapons,” Mr. Zarate writes. “The new geoeconomic game may be more efficient and subtle than past geopolitical competitions, but it is no less ruthless and destructive.”

The centerpiece of the book, and probably the best example of Section 311’s uses and limitations, is the story of Treasury’s assault, beginning in 2005, on North Korea, which American officials said was involved in activities like counterfeiting and drug trafficking. Mr. Zarate describes how the United States hit one of the banks it linked to North Korea, Banco Delta Asia in Macau, with a 311.

Practically overnight, banks throughout the region, even in China, began turning away or throwing out North Korean government business. By this one simple act, Mr. Zarate writes, “the United States set powerful shock waves into motion across the banking world, isolating Pyongyang from the international financial system to an unprecedented degree.” He adds: “The North Koreans didn’t know what hit them.”

As the depth of its plight sank in, North Korea appeared to panic. First, it fired off a missile into the Pacific, a move that had the additional benefit of freaking out the State Department, which demanded to know what Treasury was up to. Then, Mr. Zarate writes, a North Korean representative contacted the United States, seeking relief from the 311. At the State Department’s insistence, negotiations began in Beijing, and appeared to end when a Chinese bank volunteered to handle a measly $25 million of North Korean money the authorities in Macau had frozen.

Mr. Zarate writes that “the amount of money wasn’t the issue” and that the North Koreans “wanted the frozen assets returned so as to remove the scarlet letter from their reputation.”

Then, he says, something amazing happened. Despite its government’s support of North Korea, the Chinese central bank refused to approve this solution, indicating that it, too, wanted nothing to do with a bank hit by a 311. “Perhaps the most important lesson was that the Chinese could in fact be moved to follow the U.S. Treasury’s lead and act against their own stated foreign policy and political interests,” he writes. “The predominance of American market dominance had leapfrogged traditional notions of financial sanctions.”

Eventually, however, Treasury’s pressure on Pyongyang had to be lifted at the insistence of the State Department, which was far more worried about North Korea’s missiles than its bank accounts. Mr. Zarate deplores the move. “The North Koreans had expertly turned the tables” on the United States, he says. “We were outmaneuvered at the height of international pressure and gave up our leverage.”

Fascinating stuff, I grant you, but not quite a fascinating book. Alas, some decent scene-setting aside, the author often writes like a government bureaucrat. In places, the book reads like a white paper. It also lavishes much praise on just about every official he has dealt with — his bosses and peers are described as “brilliant,” “hard-charging” and “legendary.”

Those quibbles aside, “Treasury’s War” does a fine job of shedding light on a new and significant aspect of international relations that many of us may not be aware of, and that is likely to gain in importance in the years to come. The risk, Mr. Zarate concludes, is that other nations are now learning Treasury’s new tricks, and may eventually find ways to use them against us.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/business/in-treasurys-war-missiles-for-a-financial-battlefield.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

U.S. Open Fans Affected by Coverage Blackout Have Options

But more than 3.2 million Time Warner Cable customers in the New York, Los Angeles and Dallas markets will not be able to watch the coverage on their local CBS stations. A rights-fee dispute between Time Warner Cable and CBS has resulted in a blackout of those stations.

That will prompt fans to seek alternatives. One is to watch the matches on USOpen.org, which is streaming them live and without a need for authentication. The second is to turn to the United States Open on the CBS Sports Network cable channel, which is not subject to the blackout, and which is showing tournament action all three days — but not the marquee matches that will be featured on CBS.

If the blackout is not lifted by Friday, when CBS’s tournament coverage resumes, fans in the affected markets will not be able to watch the men’s and women’s semifinals and finals on their local stations. But they will still be able to watch them at USOpen.org.

CBS and Time Warner are negotiating, but the impasse could push the blackout into football. The first crucial date is Sept. 14, when Alabama, the defending national champion, plays at Texas AM at 3:30 p.m. Eastern, in a game of greater concern to fans in the Dallas area than in New York.

The next day, Peyton and Eli Manning will meet when Denver plays the Giants at MetLife Stadium at 4:25 p.m., also on CBS.

Jets fans get a temporary reprieve from blackout worries. The team’s season opener, on Sept. 8 against Tampa Bay, will be on Fox. The following Thursday, the Jets play at New England in prime time on NFL Network.

Their CBS schedule begins on Sept. 22, with a home game against Buffalo.

“Every other distributor in the country is carrying our games,” said Sean McManus, the chairman of CBS Sports. “We’re getting our games carried by companies in the same business as Time Warner, but the only company we can’t make a deal with is Time Warner.”

Maureen Huff, a spokeswoman for Time Warner Cable, said: “We’re working hard to reach an agreement that represents a good deal for our customers. We appreciate their patience and hope to resolve this soon.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/sports/tennis/us-open-fans-affected-by-coverage-blackout-have-options.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Cumulus Media Will Buy a Radio Syndicator

The deal, which was announced on Friday and is subject to regulatory approval, would let Cumulus beef up its syndication business with programs from the National Football League, the Olympics and Nascar, as well as news and entertainment. And it represents talk shows like “Loveline ” for advertising. Clear Channel’s Premiere Radio Networks division dominates the market with major talk hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

“These transactions give us the necessary scale to provide the marketing and enterprise solutions our advertising and affiliate partners require,” Lewis W. Dickey Jr., the chief executive of Cumulus, said in a statement. “Our goal is to be the leading producer of premium audio content distributed through multiple platforms while continuing to build our broadcast platform in the top 100 U.S. markets.”

The complex deal involves four radio companies. To finance its acquisition of Dial, Cumulus is selling 68 of its stations to Townsquare Media, a broadcaster that operates mostly in small markets. Townsquare will pay $238 million for 53 of those stations.

For the other 15, Townsquare will give Cumulus five stations in Fresno, Calif., that it is acquiring as part of an 11-station deal with yet another radio owner, Peak II Holding. (To comply with Federal Communications Commission regulations, Townsquare will place three of the stations from Cumulus in trust for a future sale.)

If all the transactions are approved, which the companies said they expect by the end of the year, Cumulus will be left with 460 stations in the United States, and Townsquare with 312. CBS Radio has 126 stations, but most are in larger markets and have greater revenue.

“Cumulus wants to raise its profile in larger markets to better compete with CBS and Clear Channel, and Townsquare gets a lot bigger out of this in smaller markets,” said Tom Taylor, who writes a newsletter on the radio industry.

Developing and branding content has become critical for radio broadcasters as they face competition from satellite and digital services like Pandora. Those services are starting to become common features in new cars, radio’s traditional stronghold.

This year Cumulus brought country music back to the New York market with Nash FM (WNSH, 94.7 FM). It plans to extend the Nash brand on the radio and on other platforms. Clear Channel, too, has been heavily marketing its iHeartRadio app, which streams its stations and also has a Pandora-like custom listening feature; Clear Channel will present its third annual iHeartRadio Music Festival in Las Vegas next month.

“Players like Pandora are pushing into the car, so having other content that’s differentiated from music is a good place for them to be,” said James M. Marsh, a media analyst at Piper Jaffray Company in New York.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/business/media/cumulus-media-will-buy-a-radio-syndicator.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Chinese Chicken Processors Are Cleared to Ship to U.S.

The Department of Agriculture on Friday approved four Chinese poultry processors to begin shipping a limited amount of meat to the United States, a move that is likely to add to the debate over food imports.

Initially, the companies will be allowed to export only cooked poultry products from birds raised in the United States and Canada. But critics predicted that the government would eventually expand the rules, so that chickens and turkeys bred in China could end up in the American market.

“This is the first step towards allowing China to export its own domestic chickens to the U.S.,” said Tony Corbo, the senior lobbyist for Food and Water Watch, an advocacy group that works to promote food safety.

The U.S.D.A.’s decision follows years of wrangling over the issue, and comes as Americans are increasingly focused on the origin of their food.

In recent years, imports have been the source of contamination, prompting broader worries about food safety. The Food and Drug Administration just released an analysis of imported spices, showing high levels of salmonella in coriander, oregano, sesame seeds and curry powder.

China does not have the best track record for food safety, and its chicken products in particular have raised questions. The country has had frequent outbreaks of deadly avian influenza, which it sometimes has been slow to report.

Recently, an F.D.A. investigation tied the deaths of more than 500 dogs and a handful of cats to chicken jerky treats that came from China. The treats, which were eventually recalled, additionally were blamed for sickening more than 2,500 animals.

The proposed sale of Smithfield Foods to Shuanghui International, a major Chinese food processor, has added to the industry scrutiny. In July, senators from both parties questioned Larry Pope, the chief executive of Smithfield, about the implications of his company’s deal for food safety and United States employment.

Mr. Pope responded that the deal was intended to address the rising demand for meat in China and that American workers would be employed in that effort. “This means increased capacity for U.S. producers, more jobs in processing and more exports for the U.S. economy,” Mr. Pope said. “At the same time, we will continue to supply our same high-quality, renowned products to U.S. consumers.”

The poultry trade between the United States and China has been contentious for years. Under the Bush administration, the U.S.D.A. moved to allow imports of chicken from China, which has banned imports of American beef since 2003 over worries about mad cow disease.

In response, Congress blocked Chinese chicken exports. China retaliated by slapping huge tariffs on American chicken. The fight ended up at the World Trade Organization, which ruled that the tariffs were too high.

After that, the U.S.D.A. then audited Chinese processing plants, giving its approval for them to process raw birds from the United States and Canada.

Under the new rules, the Chinese facilities will verify that cooked products exported to the United States came from American or Canadian birds. So no U.S.D.A. inspector will be present in the plants.

And because the poultry will be processed, it will not require country-of-origin labeling. Nor will consumers eating chicken noodle soup from a can or chicken nuggets in a fast-food restaurant know if the chicken came from Chinese processing plants.

“We certainly don’t look forward to any more imports, but we also realize free trade is a two-way street,” said Tom Super, spokesman for the National Chicken Council, which represents big chicken processors in the United States. “We’re hoping the Chinese will look a little more favorably on our chicken products and on other U.S. agricultural imports.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/business/chinese-chicken-processors-are-cleared-to-ship-to-us.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

For News From Syrian Battleground, a Reliance on Social Media

Western journalists are struggling to cover what the world has so far seen largely through YouTube. But while some television news crews have been filing reports from Damascus, the dangers of reporters being killed or kidnapped there — as well as visa problems — have kept most journalists outside the country’s borders and heightened the need for third-party images.

“The difficulty of getting into Syria, the shrunken foreign correspondent corps, and the audience gains for social media make it likely this story will be consumed differently by the American public than tensions or conflicts in past years,” said Ann Marie Lipinski, the curator of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard.

The Committee to Protect Journalists calls Syria the deadliest country in the world for reporters. Last year, 28 journalists working there were killed, and 18 have died so far this year, according to the group, a nonprofit based in New York.

Among the few television outlets broadcasting from Damascus are CBS News, the BBC and ITN, a British news provider. A CNN correspondent, Fred Pleitgen, had been reporting from Damascus, but his visa expired this week and he was relocated to Beirut, Lebanon, a spokeswoman for the network said.

The Wall Street Journal has a reporter in Damascus, and Reuters and The Associated Press both said that they had journalists inside Syria.

For many news organizations, though, Beirut or Syria’s borders are the closest they can safely get. Richard Engel, an NBC News correspondent who was held hostage for five days last year in Syria, traveled inside the country earlier this week, but most recently reported from the Turkish-Syrian border.

Reporters from The Washington Post and The New York Times are in Beirut, and this week ABC News reopened its bureau there after two decades.

“It’s risky being in Damascus in the best of times, and when you’ve got U.S. missiles raining down on the city, it adds to the sense of risk,” said Jon Williams, ABC News’s managing editor for international news.

For networks without a Syrian correspondent, partnerships with other organizations supply some video. ABC works with the BBC, for example, and NBC with ITN. But the networks also rely on YouTube and other third-party sources, which have yielded some of the most vivid and disturbing video of the conflict, but has also brought a host of verification problems.

This week, CNN broadcast a film showing what purported to be evidence of mass graves, and said that it came from “an independent filmer who is absolutely trustworthy.” CBS News uses a team of Arabic-speaking employees in London to review third-party videos, according to Christopher Isham, its Washington bureau chief.

ABC News, Reuters and other outlets use Storyful, a company that scours social sites and verifies videos through tests like comparing street scenes to maps and checking an uploader’s affiliated accounts. The New York Times has also worked with Storyful in the past. David Clinch, Storyful’s executive editor, said it first learned of a possible chemical attack last week from videos, and alerted its clients within an hour of the incident.

“This content is often the only content available,” Mr. Clinch wrote in an e-mail, “because news organizations either can’t get to the scene of suspected chemical attacks, don’t have anyone in Syria (some do but most don’t) or their staff cannot go out from Damascus.”

For those still within Syria, the challenge has simply been to stay safe. Mr. Isham said that CBS went to “extreme lengths” to protect its staff there, although he did not elaborate.

“Anytime you go into a combat zone, your folks are at risk,” he said. “You want to reduce that risk as much as possible.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/business/media/for-news-from-syrian-battleground-a-reliance-on-social-media.html?partner=rss&emc=rss