Tài liệu Chasing String in the Digital Era docx

Chasing String in the Digital Era
by Jaffer Ali
Smashwords Edition
Copyright 2013 Jaffer Ali
Contents
Endorsements
Dedication
Preface
Introduction
Chapter 1: Politics and Media
Behold, Here Comes Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee
The Demise Of Mainstream Media, One Constituency At A Time
DOJ Asks Court to Keep GOOGLE-NSA Partnership Secret
The Decline of the MSM
What Middle East Uprisings Say About Online Marketing
The Egyptian Revolution, Media and the Internet
Is Media Privatization The New Trend?
Chapter 2: On Technology
Our Faustian Bargain
Has Google’s Empire Passed Its Zenith?
Can Eric Schmidt and Marketers Predict Human Behavior?
First, Do No Harm: How Our Need to Intervene Ruins Everything
From Simulated Life To Simulated Marketing
Will the Tallest Midget in the Room Please Stand Up!
Chapter 3: The Online Ecosystem
Sustainability
Media Evolve or Die?
After the Last Sky
The Internet’s Boulevard of Broken Dreams
Rescuing The Internet From Infocrats
Inside Plato’s Digital Cave

A Critical Discourse
One More Time - The Ad Model Is Broken
Has Online Advertising Lost Its “Schwerpunkt”?
The Audience In The Media Ecosystem
Chapter 4: On Privacy
An Interview with George Orwell & Paddy Chayefsky
Big Brother’s Brother
Why Behavioral Targeting Is Immoral
Behavioral Targeting: Putting Lipstick on a Pig
A Brand’s-Eye View of Behavioral Targeting
Chapter 5: Uncertainty Reigns
The Center Cannot Hold
Limits of Knowledge
The Paradigm of Prediction
Embracing Uncertainty
The Pretense of Knowledge
Chapter 6: Sense and Nonsense
Walking the Talk: Count on Yourself
Respecting the Rodney Principle
The Algorithmic Debate Is Over- The Loser Is Clear
Long Tail Marketing – A Field of Screams
Time for a New Thinking Cap
What’s My Job?
Leaked Memo from a Brand Manager – ‘Discovered’ by Jaffer Ali
Chapter 7: The Wonder of it All
Chasing String in the Digital Era
Marketing with Wonder
Being ‘In the Zone’
Dreams of the Heart
O Captain, My Captain

Abandoning Fear
Taking Flight with Black Swans
Fear is the Mind-killer
Media and Marketing Beyond The Algorithm
55 About the Author 
Endorsements
What Are They Saying About Chasing String in the Digital Era?
“Jaffer Ali’s prose is about all things large and small while forever lighting the way. Chasing String in the
Digital Era is part a working-man’s Nassim Nicholas Taleb, part Henry David Thoreau, part John Boyd, part
Marshall McLuhan, part soaring heart, part unfettered mind and - thankfully - all vintage Jaffer Ali.”
- Jeff Einstein, Media critic and founder of Brothers Einstein Digital Agency
“Everyone in online marketing has opinions, but like all industries there’s a great deal of groupthink. Jaffer has
a refreshing voice for two important reasons. First, he has invested his own money to test the approaches he has
opinions about. And second, he is more concerned with what works than with what is popular. I highly value
what Jaffer has to say. So should you.”
- Tom Cunniff, Founder of Cunniff Consulting
“Jaffer Ali writes from the intersections of Heart, Common Sense, Street Smarts and Experience. I’ve helped
countless brands in the digital marketing sector since 1994 and learn something new every time he makes time
to share his wisdom. Whether this is your first foray into ecommerce and digital marketing or you’re an
experienced veteran, this collection of Life and Business lessons will open your eyes.”
- Adam Boettiger, Senior Digital Marketing Strategist
“Whether you’re talking politics, privacy or technology, Jaffer’s insight and knowledge will help you sift
through the illusion of everyday life and cut right to the heart of matters!”
- Shelly Palmer, Fox Television’s Shelly Palmer Digital Living & author, Digital Wisdom: Thought
Leadership For a Connected World
Dedication
Everything I am or will likely become rests on the foundations that my father, Khalil B. Ali, taught me. At an
early age, he inculcated in me the notion of what it meant to be a “free man”. So much of what I write is a
loving tribute to this amazing man and Father. He was my first teacher about entrepreneurship and through his
lovingly patient and guiding hand lit the way for the path forward.

No dedication would be complete without mentioning my wife, Carol. She has been my faithful companion for
over 26 years. She defines what it means to nurture all that know her and gratitude is unbound for the joy she
has brought every day to our lives. As a serial entrepreneur, there is no way I could have managed the highs and
lows without her undying support. This is not a cliché. Everyone needs at least one person in the world to
believe in them. Her faith carried me through many tough days as she created an oasis of calm at home.
Lastly, I would like to thank my cousin Tom and sister Anisa for their patience in being my business partners
for over seventeen years. It has been quite a ride and they have always been generous with their spirit in both
good times and bad.
Preface
The online digital marketing and media ecosystem is a troubled mess. But few of the trade publications
acknowledge or are aware of the mess. Since our own media companies and marketing division has touched
every part of the online ecosystem, we have a front row seat into the problems and challenges of our industry.
I started writing about the problems of the industry way back in 1998 and continued more or less to this day. It
is not always comfortable to be the one yelling that the emperor has no clothes, but that is what I set out to do.
Chasing String in the Digital Era is a collection of the essays and articles written over the years.
But what is “chasing string?” If you ever had a pet cat, you would understand how it chased string endlessly,
seemingly without purpose. While we can never be sure what purpose is in the cat’s mind, modern day
marketers are doing their best feline imitation. Only the digital string being chased is behavioral targeting, Big
Data and a love of all things new (neomania). Our industry is chasing this string all the while purring like a
kitten.
I have noticed that few of the pundits that do most of the writing really have skin in the game. What I mean by
this is that few are really spending their own money while making a living in the online ecosystem. They may
be flush with VC money and publishing content. Others are at agencies who must peddle the latest technologies
and services to their clients. Other “experts” come from large brands making media buying decisions with
budgets supplied from high above them.
This environment does not lend itself to truth. It lends itself to a great deal of cheerleading. While we have
made a good living within this dysfunctional ecosystem, we never could get ourselves to don the pom poms and
cheerlead. I am congenitally unable to cheerlead.
Because we always spent our own money exploring this new thing or that new idea, we had to look at reality
squarely in the eye. If banners sucked as a medium, we would only say it after spending our own money. If pre-

roll advertising could be sold, but REALLY did not work very well, how could we continue to buy it? We could
not. How could we continue to sell pre-roll? We could not and still look ourselves in the mirror.
Nothing stops you from chasing string more than if that twine can wrap around your neck and strangle you. We
discovered the dangers of chasing string pretty quickly. There are others that really make a lot of money
dangling that string in front of others. Another metaphor of “snake oil” also comes to mind.
Chasing string has another terrible side effect. We get shockingly distracted from what is important. And that
goes way beyond making or losing money. Our digital lives have engendered the age of distraction where data
trumps knowledge and wisdom is in very short supply.
Chasing String in the Digital Era is meant to give readers a chance to pause…to think. To add a bit more
deliberation to what they do. We cannot continue to short change privacy…to exaggerate differences between
political parties…to surrender our thoughts and inclinations to entities “too big to fail”.
This collection of essays is a journey of sorts. Politics, economics, marketing and media are covered. Each
essay can stand on its own and collectively, a business and worldview emerges that hopefully the reader will
appreciate.
Jaffer Ali, March, 2013
Introduction
This collection of essays represents my fourth contribution to the publishing industry. Some may find it a
curious blend. The articles or essays are divided into seven themes. But what unites them all is a sense that
something is not quite right.
In Chapter One, “Politics and Media,” the curious relationship between our media, economics and political
discourse is examined. Traditional media is having a difficulty competing with the Internet on many fronts. It is
worthwhile asking just how much our MSM is secretly subsidized to maintain prevailing societal myths.
But as audiences for MSM news erodes, independent, online media are replacing traditional media outlets that
frame discourse with only two frames of reference. The online environment allows for many different types of
flowers to bloom.
In Chapter Two, the overriding theme deals with why we should not place unbridled faith in technology. There
is a pervasive love of all things new… neomania if you will and this is not healthy. Technology and its
relationship to regime change has been drastically overstated. Examining the relationship to social change and
technology is a subject worthy of a book by itself.
In Chapter Three we take a look at the online ecosystem from several perspectives. Asking questions of

sustainability to drilling down and examining the advertising model, there is a lot of fodder for the fire if one
wishes to explore in depth after reading.
Chapter Four deals with privacy challenges a connected world presents. In a drive for improving advertising
returns, there is a real cost to our privacy. The irony of ironies is that all the data collected on us is not leading
to improved economic performance.
If one is honest and experiences poor performance of the new ad models, it behooves us to understand why so
much data has not improved ROI. Chapter Five deals with how uncertainty is cooked into the meals we are
served… in our online ad models and beyond.
There is not always a hard delineation between one chapter and another. In Chapter Six, we cover the extremes
between what makes sense and nonsense. We hope you have a little fun with The Rodney Principle which
liberally uses simple, yet elegant one-liners from Rodney Dangerfield. Tying jokes to business models was not
as difficult as it might sound. Working for fifteen years in the online space, I have seen more than my share of
business models that were no better than jokes.
The final chapter “The Wonder of It All” offers hope and a possible way out. It is not just a way out for online
marketers, it is a way out for us personally who admit to the challenges of being tethered to the Internet 24/7.
Our online lives have merged with our offline lives. The space between the two has narrowed. They promise to
narrow even further. One need not look further than Google Glasses in beta at the time of this e-book coming
out.
Chasing string is a useful metaphor for our lives. I hope these collected essays offer a perspective that can help
you in your personal and professional lives.
Chapter 1: Politics and Media
Behold, Here Comes Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee
Published 10/9/12
“Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two
bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.”
- Helen Keller, in a letter written in 1911
Did you happen to catch the “debate” last week? The monumentally wooden Jim Lehrer spent most of his time
trying to get Romney and Obama to air how different they were from each other. Lehrer was not so much of a
moderator but more of a human jack-o-lantern with eyes looking as if he was drawn by a Japanimation artist.
But I digress…

I spent a lot of time watching the pundits afterwards further making a case for the “stark differences” between
Obama and Romney. CNN and MSNBC felt the differences were not drawn as sharply as they could have…and
“should have”. Chris Matthews was practically foaming at the mouth because Obama did not draw enough
distinctions.
In short, Tweedle Dum appeared too much like Tweedle Dee.
I have been writing about politics, media and marketing for over thirty years now. The binding thread of all
three is that they all deal with illusion. My particular style of writing is to expose the illusions, sort of like that
guy sitting in the front row at a magic show saying the bird is in the front, left pocket.
“There’s not a dime’s worth a difference between the two of them.”
- Judge Napolitano
So here is just a partial checklist of areas in which Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee are in almost perfect
harmony:
Bailouts: Both supported corporate welfare programs
Federal Reserve: Both support the policies of the Fed as well as Chairman Ben Bernanke
Iranian Sanctions: Both support
Patriot Act: Both support
NDAA: Both support [National Defense Authorization Act codifies into law, for the first time in our history, the
right to imprison US citizens indefinitely WITHOUT trial]
Universal Health Care: Both support [Marginal differences]
Gun Laws: Both support the same registration procedures
Foreign Aid: Both support same levels of foreign aid
Support for Israel: Both fall over themselves touting full-throated support
Aggressive Foreign Policy: Both have neo-con advisors advocating imperial ambitions
Goldman Sachs: Largest donor to both campaigns
“Between Romney and Obama, there isn’t all that much difference.”
- George Soros
I actually could go on for quite some time. While I disagree with most of the above, that is not the point of this
post. The reason for this blog post is to point out the illusion. To demonstrate that the differences are
exaggerated by powerful interests that seeks to foster the illusion of choice.
I know most reading this are about to protest and ready with MSM talking points on the minutia of differences

between them.
Now for the speculation.
We have demonstrated that the pigeon is in the inside front pocket. But why does the MSM wish to continue the
illusion? Why does the MSM want to foster the nonsensical notion of “choice” and therefore seek to draw
distinctions without real differences?
The answer is quite simple. As long as we FEEL there is a difference between these candidates, we will not
seek out candidates that want real change. The MSM exists to perpetuate the myths of the power elite. In
essence, to protect the elite. To protect its interests. To protect the status quo. So if we busy ourselves with the
illusion of choice, real change can be avoided.
A candidate like Ron Paul threatens the status quo because he represents real change. He would knock down the
military-industrial complex. He would bring troops home from 170 bases around the world. He would eliminate
the Federal Reserve. He would decentralize decision from authoritarian government to individual states. He
would not make war without a Congressional declaration of war.
That is major stuff…and real change.
How much money did Goldman Sachs give to RP’s campaign? They actually strip the illusion by giving
generously to both candidates…but the MSM keeps that quiet. It matters not to Goldman which candidate wins,
as long as the winner is Obama or Romney.
Because of the Internet, the grip of MSM and therefore the elite’s mouthpiece is waning with each passing
election. That is why the elite tried hard to pass SOPA and will try many new things in the coming years to
control information. The elite requires a powerful advocate.
Helen Keller wrote the words that introduced this post back in 1911. Although blind, she saw more than we do.
Although deaf, Helen Keller heard more acutely than we do.
The Demise Of Mainstream Media, One Constituency At A Time
Published 9/11/12
“There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand
that it would never appear in print…You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an
independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping
jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property
of other men.”
- John Swinton, 19th Century NY Times Journalist (Source: Labor’s Untold Story)

The great political theater otherwise known as our political conventions are over. The way Ron Paul and his
delegates were treated made me pause to think about how the MSM covered him. I happened to be in Maine
when the Ron Paul delegation was unseated by the RNC. The RNC did not want Paul to have a 5-state plurality
of delegates that would have insured his name put into nomination for President.
The MSM basically made this story nothing more than a footnote in the theatrical production. Millions of Ron
Paul supporters know that the MSM basically left him out of the equation for the entire campaign. In other
words, the Ron Paul constituency learned what journalist John Swinton said more than 100 years ago.
But how many other constituencies have learned the lessons of Ron Paul and John Swinton?
If you are a Native American that has not fully assimilated or lost his/her identity, would you not know that the
MSM has largely marginalized your history…and your present circumstances as well? On my recent trip to the
great Northeast, I traveled from Illinois (a vestige of the Indian word, “irenwe-wa” meaning “speak the regular
way”) to Niagara Falls (Iroquois for “thundering water”) and on to Maine which was only inhabited by the
Algonquin Indians until the 1600s.
My trip was breathtakingly beautiful, but the long forgotten Native American names and villages along the way
reminded me what Gore Vidal said; “USA stands for the United States of Amnesia.” MSM has been obliging in
forgetting history and even made its destruction sound noble with phrases like “Manifest Destiny.” MSM lost
the confidence and trust of the Native American constituency long ago.
If you are a black person living in the USA, an overwhelming majority have dropped out of the MSM target
audience. One in three black men end up in prison. Less than 30% of blacks vote. I think it is safe to say that the
MSM has lost the trust of a majority of this constituency, from conservative blacks like Louis Farrakhan and his
followers to progressive voices like Cornel West.
If you are a progressive who hangs on every word Noam Chomsky says, you will not find him anywhere on
MSM news outlets. If you lean left…really left, there is no place within the MSM matrix to satisfy you. You
understand quite well what Swinton was talking about.
If you are one of the 7 million Muslims in the US, you know how the MSM implies association with Al Qaida if
you dare question drone strikes killing civilians. The NY Times has done this on more than one occasion,
helping out its handlers. MSM has never earned the trust and confidence of this constituency, so it could not
lose that trust.
If you are a real conservative Tea Party member (as opposed to the neo-conservative Tea Party hack) or a
liberal Occupy Wall Street protester, you know how the MSM has marginalized you as fringe groups and most

likely have you wearing a tinfoil hat. The MSM has lost the trust and confidence of these two constituencies.
If you are a person who questions why a private bank (Federal Reserve) is allowed to print money and earn
interest from printing trillions of dollars…interest paid by the government earned from taxing citizens…you are
marginalized as a “conspiracy theorist” for even asking why we pay taxes to pay interest to a private bank.
Meanwhile, the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a partial audit of the Fed and discovered that $16
TRILLION was given to banks, not the amount reported by the MSM (see page 131 of the report for details.)
If you are one of the 57% that believe that Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman or 52% of the population
who questions the official version of 9-11, the MSM labels you a kook…and tries to marginalize you. Simply
put, these constituencies no longer believe or trust the MSM which continues to promote the official story.
Another former, NY Times journalist and Pulitzer Prize summarized why the MSM is in decline:
“We are ruled, entertained, and informed by courtiers — and the media has evolved into a class of
courtiers. The Democrats, like the Republicans, are mostly courtiers. Our pundits and experts, at least
those with prominent public platforms, are courtiers. We are captivated by the hollow stagecraft of
political theater as we are ruthlessly stripped of power. It is smoke and mirrors, tricks and con games,
and the purpose behind it is deception.”
- Chris Hedges, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle
There are many more constituencies for whom the MSM has lost trust. In the past, there was really no place for
these constituencies to turn. But the Internet has allowed these groups to find and nurture each other. And what
has become of the national news outlets?
They are in precipitous decline. With each attempt to marginalize yet another group, newspapers and national
news outlets like CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC News, NBC News and CBS News have all become a shell of their
former selves. They increasingly carry the water for their masters. They give quote approval for Obama and
Romney camps. They withhold stories on demand.
When the most trusted name in US journalism is an American comedian, Jon Stewart, the joke may be on us.
The MSM is in full decline because it has lost constituencies one at a time. I could have continued with naming
more but in the interest of time, I cut it off. Many of the ones listed may disagree with each other but they are all
in agreement that trust in MSM has been lost. And they have all found alternatives.
DOJ Asks Court to Keep GOOGLE-NSA Partnership Secret
Published 3/16/12
“Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how

it can bear discussion and publicity.”
- Lord Acton
I waited a week before I decided to write about today’s topic. The idea that I read as many online industry trade
publications as I do and have not read a single word on this point astounds me. The source was not some
“conspiracy” site, but rather The Legal Times Blog. The article was short and I encourage all to click here to
read it.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed suit to compel the government to tell us about the deal Google
has made with the NSA concerning the information they are collecting on us. The government’s position is that
it’s really none of our business.
I have written extensively about the collusion between government and corporate data hoarders. I need not go
into that here. The real point of taking to the keyboard is to chastise our industry trades for a job poorly done.
Amidst all the privacy talk, how much has focused on the unholy alliance between Google and the government?
If I am to be kind, I will say, “not enough”. But if we are honest, we can conjure a raft of epithets that come
much closer to the mark. I accuse our industry trades of malignant neglect. The privacy debate is incomplete
without addressing collusion between “Big Data” and Big Government.
And in the rare instances when the topic arises, some “enterprising” mouthpiece for “Big Data” will invariably
go on the attack by labeling the whistleblower a “conspiracy, tin-foil hat aficionado”. I have personally brought
this issue up in two high profile industry discussion groups comprising self-professed industry leaders.
With the exception of only a few, the issue did not resonate. I guess it was not deemed important by the trade
publications. The trades exist to inform us on important issues that affect us, yet the ongoing collusion between
“Big Data” and the NSA has not made the headlines. Are these trades de facto tools of these unholy alliances?
Not sure. Perhaps the answer lies in an analysis of whose advertising dollars are at play. Or, maybe the industry
trades are not tools, but merely fools.
So often I have felt like Brando in the Wild One. When asked, “What are you protesting?” He answered, “What
have you got?” I don’t write as much as I used to. I am tired. It sure would be grand to see a few younger people
in our online industry pick up the torch and defy the darkness.
The Decline of the MSM
Published 2/15/12
“We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have
never heard of.”

- Edward Bernays
My last essay on the fourth estate garnered more feedback than I have had in a long time. People sent me email
generally praising the notion that something is not quite right with the state of journalism and our mainstream
media (MSM).
So I decided to continue the theme. The quote that begins today’s essay comes from Edward Bernays. Have you
heard of him? If you are a media professional and have not heard of him, our problem as a nation begins here.
We all need to learn the history of the profession in which we operate.
Bernays is the father of modern-day advertising and public relations. He also happened to be the nephew of
Sigmund Freud. He wrote a book, Propaganda. Back then, the term “propaganda” was not a negative term. It
was not until after WW II and Nazi Goebbels set out to systematically apply the principles outlined by Bernays
that the term took on negative connotations.
By the way, before you start thinking that Bernays was some kind of right-wing yahoo, he was a liberal in the
Rooseveltian sense. Once one really dives down into media criticism, you discover that conservative/liberal
labels do not really matter.
Last week an expose came out on the BBC. You probably did not hear about it, but it was significant. The
Independent broke the story how documentaries were produced by production companies receiving millions of
dollars from the subjects of the films. Egypt’s Mubarak paid a production company to tout how great he was
and the BBC hired this firm to make a documentary on Egypt.
The Independent discovered 13 such propaganda films made in the past year. The BBC was forced to issue a
global “apology” for breaking editorial rules. This is a big story and ask yourself, “why didn’t you know about
the story?”
I spend a lot of my time reading alternative media sources. And I try to understand history in a different light
ever since reading Howard Zinn’s “People’s History of the US.” But a recent PBS documentary, “Slavery By
Another Name” shocked me. After the 13th amendment was passed making slavery illegal, a little known
exception in the amendment made slavery legal if one was imprisoned.
So “peonage laws” were passed throughout the south that made many cultural practices that blacks normally did
illegal. The result? Hundreds of thousands of blacks were imprisoned and then their services sold to coal mines,
steel mills and other businesses.
How is it that this shameful chapter in history is not known by every grade school child? Instead, we get a day
off in grade school honoring Columbus, who raped, murdered and pillaged from the native population amidst

landing in the New World.
You see, our history books are part of the MSM and they serve a real function of fostering myths. Propaganda
by another name.
I have never voted Republican NOR Democrat so I am no party hack. But if you have not noticed how the
MSM treats Ron Paul, you are simply not paying attention. Here is just one line from the MSM LA Times
trying to marginalize Ron Paul.
“As usual, he ranted about monetary policy and railed against wars and other military operations
abroad.”
- Kim Geiger, LA Times, 2/4/2012
But where the MSM particularly shines is in its full throated calls for war with Iran. Lost amidst the rhetoric is
the fact that Iran has not attacked another country in more than 300 years. It has oil, which we all know, but no
longer accepts dollars to settle oil sales. This fact coupled with what that means evades discussion.
On the Morning Joe (2/15/2012), the normally antiwar Al Sharpton was trotted out at 5:30 AM to lend his voice
to the cause of war. The MSM needed Rev. Al to shepherd his flock or constituency to the cause of war. We are
being manipulated into supporting war.
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an
important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society
constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”
- Edward Bernays
The BBC was caught being subsidized by propaganda agents. The Bush Administration was caught paying
Armstrong Williams to go on MSM outlets to promote education policies. They also were caught paying
generals to write and appear on MSM outlets touting war with Iraq. The MSM gives the platform…for a price
as they are secretly subsidized by government agencies. That is how they are surviving the huge erosion in
audience and not just in the US as the BBC and the Dutch MSM shows.
If you have read this far and are asking “so what” then you need to understand how critical it is for governments
to grab control of information. And that means the Internet. The MSM is losing its grip. Ron Paul’s campaign
demonstrates this point well. The MSM continued declining audience when it comes to news is losing to
alternative information sources. This is the real intention behind SOPA, PIPA and ACTA. Beware of what new
alphabet soup will soon be served to you.
What Middle East Uprisings Say About Online Marketing

Published 2/18/11
“Despite our best intentions, the system is sufficiently dysfunctional that intelligence failure is
guaranteed.”
- From The Coming Intelligence Failure, Defense Intelligence Agency Analysis
Middle East politics and online marketing are two of my passions. Whenever I get a chance to combine the two
in one article, I gladly take the opportunity.
Unless you have been living in a cave, you know that there are major uprising going on in Tunisia, Egypt,
Yemen, Bahrain, Libya and Iran. With the exception of Iran where Western support for protesters involves
financial subsidies, none of these organic protests were predicted.
Israel’s vaunted Game Theory and the overwhelming data mining techniques of the CIA have failed
MISERABLY to predict the most massive events in modern Middle East history. Nassim Taleb would label
these uprisings “Black Swan” events – occurrences that deviate beyond what is normally expected of a situation
and that are extremely difficult to predict.
A simple question to ask is; “If our predictive modeling methodologies cannot foretell major, cataclysmic
events, what value do these tools really have?”
The simple answer is not much.
Think of the US government’s investment in Mubarak. This is not a hypothetical because we invested in him
for 30 years, as we did the Shah of Iran from 1953 to 1979. Mubarak and the Shah paid off huge dividends
while they reigned. Much like the huge dividends we have reaped through our support of the Bahraini, Saudi
and Kuwaiti monarchies.
But these investments turn potentially toxic when we continue to pour money into them because we cannot
predict the Black Swan. In essence, the Middle East is experiencing a political market crash. This analogy rings
true in light of recent experience that proved data methodologies incapable of predicting, let alone preventing, a
global stock meltdown.
And this is the point that behavioral targeters and those supporting this pseudo science refuse to acknowledge.
These models invariably – and cataclysmically – fail when you need them most! The CIA has computers
capable of doing 10 trillion calculations per second that use the SAME DATA MINING AND PREDICTIVE
METHODOLOGIES favored by stock-market mathematicians. The CIA uses the SAME DATA MINING
AND PREDICTIVE METHODOLOGIES touted by online behavioral-targeting marketers.
“If you want to make a fool fail, give him information.”

- Nassim Taleb, The Bed of Procrustes
Marketers with significant skin in the media investment game should heed this warning: the more you “bet” on
these failed methodologies, the more you are at risk when the Black Swan rears its predictably unpredictable
head. If you continue to measure more and more about less and less, and rely on algorithmic reduction to
predict human behavior, the only certainty is that you will fail. And you won’t realize it until it happens.
The Egyptian Revolution, Media and the Internet
Published 2/3/11
OK, if you are only watching CNN/FOX/ABC/NBC/MSNBC, you probably think you know what is going on
in Egypt. Right?
Wrong. Al Jazeera English was the place to get the information, except since cable operators are largely
boycotting the channel in the US, you would have to be one of approximately 1 million folks who were glued to
Al Jazeera’s live stream.
Tin pot dictator, Hosni Mubarak decided to follow the US playbook in Iraq. After occupying Baghdad, the US
occupation decided to let chaos reign, hardened criminals set free from prisons, social services suspended,
museums looted all the while controlling the information landscape. This “chaos strategy” involves creating a
crisis then to be followed by the “solution” of order. Iraq still has not found that order years after the fall of
Saddam. But that is a different story.
In a key component of this chaos strategy, Mubarak had police in plain clothes start looting. This fact you
would not hear from US media outlets, or Al Arabiya, the Saudi-owned channel. (King Abdullah of Saudi
Arabia is a staunch supporter of Mubarak). The Egyptian people outwitted and largely foiled the regime and its
plan. People quickly created neighborhood watch groups and protected antiquities, properties and each other.
When the initial chaos strategy failed due to citizen activism, thousands of police donned plain clothes and
mounted a counter protest. They began attacking anti-government protesters with Molotov cocktails, gunfire,
rocks, knives, etc.
Al Jazeera had its license revoked because it dared to expose the agent provocateurs. Mubarak’s government
tried to suppress this and other news by denying 22 million internet users access to online information (out of
85 million total population). This was as much an attempt to control information from getting out as it was an
attempt to stop protesters from communicating and coordinating with each other.
Al Jazeera had six on-the-ground correspondents arrested, but continued to broadcast images from an
undisclosed location. They continued to interview people though land line communications and satellite phones

as the cell phone industry closed down by government edict.
To keep the outside world abreast of what was going on, proxy tweeters relayed information called in. Dial up
accounts in France were set up since land lines had not been cut. Twitter was used as a broadcast medium as an
army of worldwide sympathizers retweeted news. Al Jazeera through Creative Commons made much of its
footage available for uploading.
YouTube and RT videos provided brutal images and were shared worldwide. Hundreds of citizen journalists
communicated with the outside world in 140 character bursts. New “networks” were seemingly created
overnight. Audio feeds from on-the-ground protesters and citizen journalists somehow made their way from
“Liberation Square” and Alexandria to websites. The URL was tweeted around the world.
Mubarak was not going to give up power easily. He decided to name a VP, Omar Suleiman. This former
intelligence thug was in charge of torture and the US rendition program. Again, a piece of news you would not
hear on ANY US mainstream media outlet until days later. Instead, our media gave us a steady attempt to
bolster Muhammad El Baredei as a possible successor to Mubarak. El Baredei was one of the key folks who
was part of the WMD charade in Iraq and was in Vienna when the revolution broke out.
The real story of the Internet and Egyptian revolution is that it was largely irrelevant to the events on-the-
ground. The digital revolution helped us outside Egypt stay informed but the people on-the-ground had the best
social media at their disposal; word of mouth. But I will suggest that there was one tremendous benefit of
Mubarak’s inability to block the flow of information; the world had a window to what was really going on. The
White House was actually monitoring Twitter feeds of #Egypt.
Is Media Privatization The New Trend?
Published 1/1/08
The title of this article is somewhat rhetorical. With Clear Channel and the Tribune Company each entering into
multi-billion dollar leveraged buyouts (LBO), there are two main reasons for what some are seeing as this
emerging trend. One is economic and the other is political.
The first is often spoken of freely in public discourse while the other lies largely hidden beneath the water line.
As audience shares decline and future economic performance appear unstable, mainstream media assets must
get higher marginal advertising rates to compensate for the new realities. How long is this sustainable? The LA
Times recently said,
“Shares of major newspaper publishers have been declining in recent months over deepening concerns
about an ongoing migration of readers and advertisers to the Internet.”

- LA Times, October 18, 2007
“Going private” is one strategy media outlets are considering. Even the venerable Sumner Redstone, Chairman
of CBS responded to the LBO trend,
“…would we consider [going private] at some time in the future? We consider all alternatives. And if we
did decide to take one of these companies private there would be more money offered than we could
possibly handle.”
- Sumner Redstone, Chairman of CBS
Speculation abounds that the NY Times and Virgin Media will also follow the privatization trend. But the astute
reader will instantly recognize that “going private” will not solve the fundamental economic dilemma facing
traditional media. Going private is no magical elixir for solving the audience shift that is afoot.
But what going private does offer is a shield for companies from prying, public eyes. Traditional media has an
enormous “responsibility” that is rarely spoken about. That is to promote the prevailing worldview of the
government. What? Let me say this in another way. Traditional media exists to promote acquiescence to a
political agenda.
Let me use two examples to clarify.
The number one selling album in the nation last week was the new Bruce Springsteen album, Magic. Clear
Channel, the largest radio network has ordered that its stations not play a single track from the album. They are
publicly saying Springsteen is too old, yet they play his older tracks liberally.*
It makes no sense until you understand that Magic is intensely anti-war and Clear Channel, which is being
purchased by Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital, has the unfortunate habit of exercising its
political agenda.
It is obvious that people will gravitate toward alternative media outlets to find “The Boss”. Clear Channel seems
to be acting against its economic interests. This situation only makes sense when you understand that it is being
loyal to its political agenda.
Another example of the media dutifully acting as a quasi-governmental arm can be seen by examining how the
media en masse reacted to the September air strike on a Syrian facility. When President Bush was asked about
it he curtly said, “I will not comment on that.” The press corps tried one more run at the issue and the President
grew more irritated. The press corps got the message and let the issue slide into obscurity.
But just a few weeks after the attack, Israel’s Jerusalem Post published a report that it was not Israel who
attacked Syria, but it was the US Air Force that carried out the air strike and Israel only provided air cover.

The truth or falsity of who attacked is beyond me to personally know, but the point is that when a government
official can determine what is news or what is not news by dismissing important questions, then we in fact have
a subservient media that is complicit with the government agenda. It should be clear to anyone with any sense
of journalism that an air strike on Syria is news, whichever nation carried out the attack.
The case has been made that mainstream media audience share will continue its decline if media outlets do not
break their allegiance to an overall political agenda. I have read in at least four or five alternative online media
sources about our air strike on Syria, and of course have listened to Springsteen’s Magic tracks on outlets other
than Clear Channel. Millions have found alternatives to traditional media and will continue to do so.
What I am suggesting is that there is a connection between the economic dynamic of audience shrinkage and the
overall political agenda. All media must be subsidized from advertising or other sources. In dictatorships, media
is subsidized directly by the government. In democracies, media is subsidized by corporations.
The Private Equity firms leading the LBO charge have a political agenda as well as economic agenda.
“Private-equity firms …largely unknown outside Wall Street now possess more than $2 trillion in buying
power. In addition to Kohlberg Kravis, the new brand names of finance are Bain Capital, Blackstone
Group, Carlyle Group and Texas Pacific Group.”
- NY Times July 25, 2006
If you doubt the political agenda of some of these Private Equity firms, one only needs to look at the board of
directors of just one of the movers and shakers in this space:
Carlyle Group
George H. Bush: Former President
James Baker: Former Sec. of State
Frank Carlucci: Former Dir. of CIA
John Majors: Former PM of England
So the trend to privatize will continue precisely because audience shares will certainly continue to decline. The
more that CNN, Fox, NY Times, Washington Post and other media outlets appear to become subservient to and
act as a quasi-propaganda arm of Washington politicians, people will “exit”.
Privatization will allow mainstream media outlets to follow a political agenda without the public quarterly
report card. Ultimately, privatization is not a long term answer to the problem. At best it is like sweeping back
the tide with the proverbial broom.
Notes:

* Bruce: Magic Refused Radio Play
Chapter 2: On Technology
Our Faustian Bargain
Published 12/29/11
“[A]ll technological change is a trade-off. I like to call it a Faustian bargain. Technology giveth and
technology taketh away Our unspoken slogan has been “technology über alles,” and we have been
willing to shape our lives to fit the requirements of technology, not the requirements of culture. This is a
form of stupidity, especially in an age of vast technological change.”
- Neil Postman
The end of the year is always a time to take stock of the past year and if one is lucky enough to dream, we can
slow down enough to wonder in the world of possibilities. As part of taking personal stock, it is fair to say that
there are a few recurring themes in what I write.
After a cursory review, a pompous approach to our industry must be admitted. Trying to be more erudite than I
actually am is a character flaw that can only be cured through abandoning an ego often running amok.
Hopefully 2012 will bring more humility to bear.
Also after reviewing several of past essays, an old speech that Neil Postman gave came to mind. Neil Postman
was a media ecologist and wrote about the intersection between culture and technology. The quote at the
beginning is a nice summary of his work. It accurately summarizes the binding thread of my essays.
The legend of the Faustian bargain never has the devil [Mephistopheles] outlining the potential dangers of
making a pact with him. That makes sense since the infernal region does not have any benefits to sell as the
alternative to the supposed advantages. An overview of our industry trades reveals an unbridled belief in the
benefits of technology. Faith in our media and technological prowess has assumed similar irrational impulses
worthy of the Heaven’s Gate cult. At minimum, faith in technology has assumed religious zeal.
For my part, transferring faith in a higher power to science and technology has not enriched our beings. As
Thoreau said, we have an “improved means to an unimproved end.” For those blinded by their faith in new
technologies, they are so enamored with their tools (means) that they rarely contemplate whether the ends are
improved. They assume it, but never contemplate.
So what I set out to do in my essays is explain the other side of the Faustian bargain. Our trade publications
should be promoting this dialectic. But they are too busy promoting the thesis to be interested with the harmful
side of the bargain. After all, our trade publications owe their existence to interests promoting media and

technology. Audiences spend ad dollars and fill trade show space. This is only one reason I have never been
asked to speak at an industry event. They rather have Mephistopheles extolling the virtues of technology rather
than our hubris.
Our industry is chock full of hubris. How, other than hubris, do you explain Google’s Eric Schmidt’s words
when he said, “we will be able to predict what someone will search for before they search for it”? Even if it
were possible, what are the hazards or costs? How much data on us would be necessary to fulfill this promise?
And what costs to our privacy and personal freedom is at risk? How might this information be transferred to a
government increasingly interested in our every thought?
So as we move into 2012, yours truly hopefully will strike a more humble pose yet still determined to provide a
clarion call to explore how our media and technologies have another, yes darker side. I am no Luddite and
believe we should not eschew technology reflexively. We just should not accept it reflexively. Let’s use our
media and technology wisely. Otherwise, we will be the ones used.
Have a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year.
Has Google’s Empire Passed Its Zenith?
Published 12/8/10
“Google’s a complete f-ing mess on the inside. A total f-ing trainwreck. They don’t talk to each other.
They fight constantly. A lot is being pissed away. In three or four years you’ll be looking back at this
company and wondering what happened.”
- Peter Kafka quoting a Valley insider
On November 20th 2010, one of the great scholars of the past 50 years died. His name was Chalmers Johnson.
Beloved by paleoconservatives and progressives alike, this third generation Navy scholar chronicled the decline
of empires and specifically how and why the American Empire was crumbling.
Johnson did this through a trilogy of books, the last of the three entitled Nemesis: The Last Days of the
American Republic. And whereas Johnson doesn’t address the Google situation per se, if we pay attention to the
themes he writes about we will see how and why the Google Empire may be past its zenith and in decline.
So what are the telltale signs of an empire in decline?
Hubris
“There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris.”
- McGeorge Bundy
Google burst onto the scene with the motto “do no evil” (as opposed to “do only good”). But has that attitude

sustained itself? Witness Eric Schmidt touting the latest Google algorithm as able to predict what people will
search for before they search for it. Not only is this pure hubris, it is 100% “bull Schmidt”.
One report has Google penetrating 85% of the Internet’s websites. How does Google treat its publishers?
Arrogant disdain could be one way to describe it. Complete opacity rules the day as it is up to Google alone to
decide what publishers get for their clicks, irrespective of the percentage split between them. Publishers were
content to settle for Google’s imperial droppings as long as the bills got paid, but most publishers agree that
these droppings have become smaller and smaller — with only imperial Google’s profits increasing.
As the lone online search superpower (sorry, Bing, you don’t qualify), Google does what it wants when it wants
— pure imperial hubris.
But Google’s haughtiness towards publishers PALES in comparison to its attitude toward the great unwashed
(that’s you and me). Its behavioral targeting imperative hinges on the complete stalking of our every virtual
move. Every click and search is chronicled in the quest to monitor our behavior for economic gain.
And all of this information is a short subpoena away from being handed over to a government ever more
inclined to monitor and track its own citizens. In fact, the government abandoned its Carnivore program in favor
of having the private sector do its bidding.
Below is how Eric Schmidt dismisses privacy with all the casual disregard of Marie Antoinette suggesting that
we eat cake:
“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first
place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do
retain this information for some time, and it’s important, for example that we are all subject in the
United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the
authorities.”
- Eric Schmidt, December 2009
Simply stated, Google’s view of privacy is a prime example of unbridled arrogance and a blatant disregard for
anything espoused either in the Bill of Rights to our Constitution or in their own pledge to do no harm.
Overreach
“It’s the inevitable price of imperial arrogance making leaders feel invulnerable till they no longer are,
and it’s too late.”
- Stephen Lendman