Happy New Year from Citizen

Only 19 more days...

Citizen to the New York Times: You're Fired

Yesterday I did something I thought I'd never do. I cancelled my subscription to the New York Times.

I've been a regular, satisfied Times reader for about 15 of my 36 years. Some think the publication is biased. I'll leave that debate for another post, except to say that all news outlets have unavoidable biases of which all citizens must be mindful. I love the Times because it covers the world in a way few other publications are willing or able to: with outstanding journalists who can think and report as well as they write. From US politics to foreign affairs, sports, literature and the arts, the Times extracts previously unavailable information, presents it smartly and analyzes it in depth.

So why am I canceling my subscription?

One simple reason: I no longer care to read the printed newspaper. Between my desktop computers at work and home, a laptop and an iPhone, I can read everything that's in the folded-broadsheet version of the Times and then some — including some good blogs and other web-only content produced by Times journalists. And I can do that without paying for a subscription to the print edition. Given the choice between a bulky newspaper that must be carried around, stored and recycled (and which costs money to buy) and a free, ultra-portable and more comprehensive publication, it's pretty easy to make up one's mind.

But for me, this wasn't a purely rational, Adam Smith-style economic decision. Before switching careers about a year ago to work on Wall Street, I spent 13 immensely rewarding years as a print journalist. I started at a newspaper, a small daily in a rust-belt city outside of New York, before moving into financial journalism as a writer and editor, first for weekly trade newsletters and then a monthly glossy magazine. I didn't always like the work, particularly near the end, but I loved the craft of print journalism and the role it played in the world. I loved the thrill of getting a scoop, the buzz and the colorful characters in a newsroom. I loved seeing my byline in print and getting phone calls from readers (even the angry ones). I loved meeting new people and learning about new things every day. I loved helping people learn about the world and being a watchdog for citizens. I loved newspapers. Even when I no longer wrote for one, I read them religiously: the Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the Financial Times.

Still, I couldn't ignore the power of the Rational Economic Man inside me. And a few months ago I took the first step toward a life without newspapers. First, the Journal print subscription went. Then the Times on weekdays. No more trekking down my front walk in the bleary predawn to fetch the papers before heading to the train station. No more stuffing them in my briefcase and struggling to read them while sandwiched between ornery commuters in packed rail cars. No more watching them fill my recycling bins and dreading the stacking, tying and hauling out to the curb every two weeks. On my morning train my iPhone delivered e-mail alerts with all the headlines from each day's Journal, and the New York Times iPhone application let me read everything I would have read in the print edition and more — all on a palm-sized device.

My reading experience had improved. My pocketbook had gotten bigger. My life had grown simpler. Nothing was stopping me from going all the way and cutting out the gargantuan Saturday and Sunday Times print editions.

So now I am newspaperless, and I think I am happy. My only concern is for the future of the news.

Putting out a first-rate newspaper is not cheap. Most importantly, the companies that own newspapers need to pay the salaries of skilled journalists who know how to extract information from reticent sources, recognize what's news and what isn't, put it into the proper context and packaging, and convey it with clear, powerful writing. If I don't pay for it, and you don't pay for it, and our kids don't pay for it, who will? And if no one does, will it cease to exist?

When I called to cancel my subscription the operator practically pleaded with me to stay on, offering all manner of discounts and trial periods. I just didn't want the actual paper showing up at my door anymore. But I'd pay to read it online, provided the price wasn't exorbitant. Unfortunately for the Times, it does not offer such an option.

Because its website is free, the Times is in a worse position than other publications, such as the Journal and the FT, which require online subscriptions. Most newspaper revenue comes from advertising, but subscriptions provide a nice cushion of about 10-15% of revenues. That cushion used to be stable. Now it is disappearing. And advertising is not necessarily as plentiful and profitable for publishers on the Web as it is in print. Advertisers can take advantage of technologies, developed by companies such as Google, that target ads to certain Web users by placing them on blogs and other niche destinations instead of on general news sites.

I don't know what the answer to this problem is. But I know that it's a problem. We need a healthy, aggressive press for our democracy to function properly. And for too long, trends in our society have made the news media sicker and softer. Perhaps non-profit groups like ProPublica, which operates a fantastic investigative reporting site, provide an example of what the future might look like. Until that new model develops, citizens have little choice but to seek the best available information, wherever it resides — on paper or online.

Mark Teixeira and America

I am a New York Yankees fan. 

For much of the past decade, that has meant enduring incessant whining from fans of other teams about how the Yankees spoil baseball by outspending every other team to acquire the best available players. Many of these complaints come with appeals to institute a salary cap in the interest of fairness. 

What on Earth does this have to do with public affairs? Stay with me, I'm getting there. 

Quite often the same friends of mine who argued for salary caps, luxury taxes and other forms of socialism in professional sports held firmly right-wing political views. In their minds, government was always wrong and the private, unfettered market always right — unless the private market kept their team behind the Yankees in the standings. 

Today a Met fan I know, brimming with hateful inferiority over the latest Yankee free-agent conquest (all-star first baseman Mark Teixeira) challenged me to explain why in baseball I'm a proponent of the rich getting richer (his words) but in politics I support more progressive policies. 

Well, that's pretty easy. Government and business are separate spheres. Professional sports are part of the business world, not of government. Pro teams are for-profit enterprises, not participants in some idyllic Olympiad. And for-profit companies are free to choose different strategies to maximize profits. Some focus less on the quality of the product or service they provide and more on minimizing costs. Think Wal-Mart. Others stress quality above all else, betting that consumers will happily absorb the increased costs of making the world's best products. Apple Computer and BMW fit into this category. Some plow profits back into the company to fuel future growth and others distribute the bulk of profits to shareholders. 

In baseball, the Yankees are like Apple and BMW, investing in quality and future growth. Many other teams — the Oaklands, Milwaukees, Kansas Citys and Minnesotas of the league — are more like Wal-Mart, preferring to slash operating costs and channel profits into the owners' pockets. As is the case with other businesses, there is no guarantee than any given strategy will succeed. Other teams, like the Mets and Orioles, also are among the highest in payroll because they try to employ the same approach that the Yankees do. They're just not quite as good at it. One exception would be the Red Sox, who long have been the #2 or #3 payroll team and, as much as it pains me to admit it, have been far more successful in the past few years than the Bronx Bombers. Indeed, the Yankees' failure to win the World Series since 2001 is perhaps the most powerful proof that the whiners' theory is fatally flawed. 

The point is that sports is a business. And in business, you don't see Apple deciding to pay a luxury tax on the iPhone so that the poor slobs at Research In Motion and Hewlett-Packard have a chance at first place, too. Yet that's precisely what the Yankees do, year-in and year-out, under baseball's welfare system. 

Now, what about government? History has shown us that a completely unfettered market, characterized by rational actors pursuing self-interest above public interest, will eventually cause widespread public damage. That is precisely what has happened over the past year with the housing bubble and the global financial crisis. The lesson to be learned here is that sparing, thoughtful doses of government intervention in the private market are necessary to prevent capitalism, the greatest system ever devised for allocating resources among humankind, from eating itself.  

Socialistic intervention with the functioning of the private market is most definitely not warranted, however, in the absence of such a threat to the general public. Simply penalizing the most successful competitor in an industry so that the also-rans can get their turn at first place is not just stupid, it's un-American. 

Sorry, Mets fans.   

Blagojevich. Blecchh.

If "Blagojevic" sounds like something your 2-year-old might say after a mouthful of Brussels sprouts, well, the little one might be on to something. 

That's because what Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois today stands accused of doing is truly disgusting. The US Attorney from the Northern District of Illinois this morning released a 76-page complaint charging the governor with, among other things, attempting to sell president-elect Barack Obama's now-vacant seat in the US Senate for half a million dollars. 

Under Illinois law, the governor has the sole power to appoint someone to serve the balance of Obama's term. And Blagojevich (pronounced bluh-GOY-uh-vich) allegedly sought to milk that power for all it was worth, and then some. According to the New York Times, federal prosecutors taped the governor telling associates that he intended to use the power of the appointment to "make money" — specifically, about "250,000 to 300,000 a year." In addition to soliciting an outright bribe of $500,000 from someone referred to in the federal complaint only as "Candidate 5." Blagojevich is accused of trying to get candidates for the seat to appoint him and his wife to various paid positions on corporate and non-profit boards. You can read the full complaint here. 

Predictably, this is not Blagojevich's first run-in with the law. He and members of his administration are the subject of a long-running federal inquiry into influence peddling and corruption, according to news reports. And, like so many others who abuse the public trust, he originally won election to office as a reformer of corruption. 

Too often our politics, and media coverage of it, is awash in manufactured scandal. This is the genuine article. I'm thankful Blagojevich got caught. And I hope and expect that the president-elect will roundly condemn his fellow Illinois Democrat. 

Obama Tarts Himself Up for the DNC

So it was really cool how Barack Obama harnessed the power of the Internet to help propel his underdog presidential campaign all the way to the White House. Kind of like a political version of mass email marketing. Wait a minute, mass email marketing? Is it too late to activate my spam filter?

Let me explain. As a supporter of the campaign, I received frequent emails from it, updating me on campaign strategy, new advertisements and Obama's policy positions. That was fun and interesting. Most of the emails also asked for money, which was somewhat annoying but ultimately bearable because that's what political campaigns do, especially nationwide ones. 

Now that he is the President-elect the emails keep comin'. 

Sometimes, that's a good thing. Yesterday morning I got a message regarding the announcement of Obama's national security team. As I wrote earlier this month, Obama seems intent on continuing his use of digital media as president. That should help all of us be more engaged in public affairs. 

But sometimes it's not such a good thing. Like earlier today, when I received the following note: 

Citizen (They actually used my real name, but...)--

This holiday season, celebrate the historic accomplishment of our movement for change. Treat yourself or a loved one to a limited edition Obama fleece jacket.

Make a donation of $50 or more right now and get an official Obama fleece to mark an amazing year:

[PHOTO OF REALLY CHEESY ROYAL BLUE FLEECE JACKETS WITH THE OBAMA "O" ON THE LEFT CHEST]

Items purchased by December 15th are guaranteed to be delivered before December 25th.

When you make your donation, you'll be supporting the Democratic National Committee. The resources they invested in the 50-state organizing strategy made this movement possible -- help us build for future victories together.

Share this amazing moment with your friends and family. Thanks to supporters like you, we all have the opportunity to bring real change to America.

Get your holiday Obama fleece today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/fleece

Thank you,

Obama for America

Now, I suppose I should have expected this sort of thing. But it just doesn't sit well with me. I supported a candidate, not a party. I guess you can't blame Obama for trying to pay back the DNC for its support during the campaign. Still, I hope this is the last email of its kind. Besides the fact that no one with even the faintest fashion sense would dream of actually wearing one of these positively ghastly garments — I wish I could find a way to paste the picture in this post, but think intramural team meets Dharma Initiative and you'll get the picture — this is not the kind of thing that a sitting president (well, almost sitting president) should be doing. All I can think of is Bill Clinton and the Lincoln Bedroom. 

I don't think we're actually headed down that road again. 

At least I hope we're not. 

Meantime, that spam filter is on standby.