Showing posts with label Silicon Valley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Silicon Valley. Show all posts

Monday, January 16, 2017

Book Review: Bulletins from Dallas: Reporting the JFK Assassination

Before he takes the oath of office, President-elect Donald Trump should read Bill Sanderson’s outstanding book, Bulletins from Dallas, about how the country’s two leading wire services covered President John F. Kennedy’s assassination.  Silicon Valley titans Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Larry Page (no relation to this reviewer) and Sergey Brin could stand to read it, too. 

After calling CNN “fake news” last week, Trump could use a tutorial about how reporters go about their jobs.  It’s not always pleasant – it might even take down our most sacred institutions or a favorite person – but that’s how the business operates.  At its best, it covers events and people without fear or favor and always with accuracy, balance and fairness.  Silicon Valley’s leaders could also use the book so they can discern which news is fake and which is real.

In this day and age of fake news websites and, recently, a network news anchor gone rogue, I’m sure it’s difficult to believe that two news wire services, The Associated Press and United Press International, once competed ferociously to not only get the news first but to first get it right.

The physical beating UPI White House Correspondent Merriman Smith took at the hands of his competitor, an AP reporter, is UPI lore and is vividly recounted by Sanderson, a New York Post editor, detailing how President Kennedy’s assassination was reported by the two wire services shortly after shots were fired across Dallas’s Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963.

Sitting in the front seat of what was called the wire service car, with easy access to its radio phone, Smith quickly called UPI’s Dallas bureau once gunfire rang out, dictating details as the car followed the presidential limousine to Parkland Hospital, where Kennedy died. 

Realizing Smith was hogging the phone, the AP reporter, Jack Bell, punched Smith numerous times to get it back.  His pummeling didn’t work and a story about the shots crossed UPI’s wire before the car carrying the two reporters arrived at the hospital.  There’s even speculation Smith knocked the car’s phone out of order so UPI could maintain its increasing minute by minute lead in reporting the assassination’s details.

Nearly an hour before the White House announced Kennedy’s death, UPI did something out of the ordinary, quoting a Secret Service agent – the famous Clint Hill – that the president was dead by the time he arrived at the hospital.  UPI officially announced Kennedy’s death, based on a statement by White House Deputy Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff, at 1:35 p.m. CST, and the AP followed two minutes later.

In the arena of wire service journalism, where every second and minute mattered, that was similar to losing the Super Bowl 100 - 0.  In other words, the AP was resoundingly defeated. 

UPI and AP clients, at the time, included hundreds of newspapers around the world, along with numerous television and radio stations.  They demanded accurate and fast reporting.  If they took both wire services, they often compared their reports for accuracy, speed, even writing style.

On that fateful day, most Americans didn’t realize what Smith, Bell and their cohorts were enduring to provide an accurate account of Kennedy’s death.  Instead, they saw the news delivered by the man considered the country’s most trusted news source, CBS News Anchor Walter Cronkite, who spent his early years working for UPI’s predecessor, The United Press.

Like his fellow Unipresser, a term used to describe those who worked or were previously employed at UP or UPI, Cronkite was ahead of his television news competitors.  He was a man of great integrity and feared reporting Kennedy’s death until it was confirmed, knowing an erroneous report of such magnitude would ruin if not end his career.

That value is lost today.  NBC News Anchor Brian Williams was caught fudging the truth about his time covering the early days of the Iraq War in 2003.  The New York Times had its own issues with Jayson Blair, a reporter caught making up stories.  More recently, Rolling Stone magazine in 2014 reported a rape at the University of Virginia that never happened.

And while the news industry might want to be smug over Trump’s callouts of what’s fake news, it would be better served to remember that some of this problem starts with us.

Sanderson’s book traces Smith’s life from his youth in Georgia up through covering six presidents, from Franklin Roosevelt to Richard Nixon.  He was a media star in his own right, writing stories for leading magazines and even appearing on television’s “The Tonight Show.”  Sanderson also shows that Smith was a Washington insider, perhaps too friendly with the presidents he covered, especially Lyndon Johnson.

The problem with today’s technology is that anyone can be a “reporter”.  But instead of having an editor review, correct and ask questions about stories before they’re published or broadcast, anyone can write a blog, publish a video, or post on Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat or Instagram and rarely be corrected or stopped, unless, perhaps, they say something libelous or they’re publishing an act of terrorism.  In other words, we’re in the era of fake news, deliberately or not.

As Sanderson opines, “The Internet made news faster (but) we ... gained four minutes (and) lost a lot more.”  (page 212) 

The changed habits of today’s news consumers – taking in more information online – hasn’t helped the newspaper business.  It resulted in fewer advertising dollars and fewer reporters, Sanderson writes.  In 2000, newspaper newsrooms employed 56,200 editors, reporters, photographers and support staff.  It’s down to 32,900 as of 2016. 

This decrease isn’t just compromising the news business.  It’s also harming the country.  It’s hard to believe the nation’s depleted newsrooms didn’t contribute to some of the reporting prior to the November 8th election predicting Hillary Clinton winning the presidency.  An election involving 50 states cannot be covered from the newsroom.  Reporters need to be on the ground, finding out what the citizenry is thinking about those who would lead them.

Only now are the editors at The Times and The Boston Globe discovering states like Iowa and Wisconsin and sending reporters there.  From reading the stories, you might think they were covering foreign countries.

The news business and the United States were fortunate to have Merriman Smith and certainly a UPI which covered politicians and events across the globe as the world’s largest, independently owned news wire service. 

The wire services have suffered many setbacks since the early 1960s.  UPI is much smaller, nothing like it was twenty or thirty years ago, having been sold a few times.  It’s owned by News World Communications, a media entity founded by the Unification Church.  The AP suffers the same woes as the media industry it serves, seeing its revenues decline nearly 25 percent from their peak in 2008.

Sanderson’s book is very well sourced, and he told me both AP and UPI cooperated with him on the book.  He also said AP’s archivists worry about how UPI is maintaining its archives.  Maybe there’s a deal to be done there, with UPI allowing AP to manage and store their archives.

Smith’s life ended in tragedy in 1970 with a self-inflicted pistol shot.  He’s buried at Arlington National Cemetery.  It’s a fitting tribute to him.  The man who stood for everything journalism holds near and dear – getting the story right – lays with America’s heroes, including his son, Albert, killed in 1966 while serving in the Army in Vietnam.

(Publishing details:  Bulletins from Dallas:  Reporting the JFK Assassination, Bill Sanderson.  New York:  Skyhorse Publishing, November 1, 2016)



-30-

About me, the reviewer:  I’m a freelance reporter in Massachusetts and worked for UPI between 1984 and 1987, in Washington, Dallas, and Philadelphia.  I’m also the co-author, with Philip L. Kilbride, of Plural Marriage for Our Times:  A Reinvented Option? 2nd Edition, Santa Barbara, CA:  Praeger Publishers, 2012.  My dad, Bob Page, was UPI’s general manager between 1975 and 1980.  He spent 20 years at UPI, from 1960 to 1980.

Link to my book:


AP staff cuts: 


AP 2015 annual revenues:


BusinessInsider.com on a fake “mommy” blog:


Cisco on fake blogs:


Pew report on the U.S. newspaper industry:


Arlington National Cemetery obituary of Merriman Smith’s son:


The New York Times story about Rolling Stone magazine’s fake rape story at the University of Virginia:


The New York Times story about Jayson Blair:



The New York Times story about early voting leading to a Hillary Clinton presidential victory:



Sunday, May 26, 2013

Tumblr says Google is worth $4.2 trillion


Barron’s story about Yahoo’s acquisition of tumblr fuels fears
and reservations about Silicon Valley valuations, especially
compared to ones that are grounded in reality.

To be clear, this is not meant as a knock against Barron’s reporting.
It’s outstanding, as usual.

What’s disturbing is the $1.1 billion price Yahoo paid for tumblr,
a company that received more than $125 million in venture funding
but has only produced $13 million in revenue, Barron’s reported.

The metric used for valuating Yahoo’s price for tumblr is about 84.62
times the micro-blogging website’s annual revenue. 

While tumblr may bring a unique advantage to Yahoo, what hasn’t
been made clear in any of the reporting is whether tumblr’s
technology is so proprietary it can’t be duplicated.

Tumblr, then, in many ways, is a glimpse of how venture capitalists
value website start-ups; but this euphoria or, if you prefer, valuations
far beyond reality, cannot last.

At some point, Silicon Valley industry directors and executives will
sober up, realizing Wall Street values these start-ups for far less than
the venture capitalists searching for the next greatest fool to pay
a price that's far beyond reasonable for the company they’ve invested
in and helped build.

The tumblr acquisition shows that venture capitalists, their investors
and the start-up’s employees are the winners.  The shareholders
of the acquiring company, based on what happened to Yahoo’s
stock last week, are the losers. 

If the metrics for valuating tumblr are used with Yahoo or with the
Silicon Valley’s standard-bearer of the health of the technology
industry, Google, then these two companies are worth far more,
at least by venture capitalist standards, than Wall Street says.

For example, Yahoo, during 2012, produced about $4.9 billion
in revenue; its market capitalization is about $30 billion, which is
just over six times the company’s annual revenue, a metric far
less than what it paid for tumblr.

But if tumblr’s recent value – based on the price for which it was
just purchased – is applied to Yahoo, then Yahoo should be worth
about $422 billion. 

For that matter, Google, which produced about $50 billion in 2012,
should be worth about $4.2 trillion and yet the search engine’s market
capitalization is but a humble $290 billion, just under six times
annual revenue.

Facebook, the most recent Silicon Valley player to go public,
produced $5 billion in revenue in 2012 and has a market
capitalization of $60 billion, or 12 times revenue; applying the
tumblr valuation, the social media website should be worth $422 billion.

Based on the reality of Wall Street – around six times annual
revenue – Yahoo shouldn’t have bid more than $80 million for tumblr.

How long venture capitalists can secure the kind of valuations that
tumblr just received is hard to say.  How long Silicon Valley executives
want to be the fools of venture capitalists is also difficult to predict.

But anyone who’s ever followed valuations and traditional 
economics knows prices cannot remain this high forever.  At some
point, the rubber meets the road.

Monday, May 05, 2008

New Social Networking Site -- Funded & Thriving

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. – The newest social networking website comes with a whole new twist: Instead of encouraging its members to connect with friends and professional acquaintances, this one wants its members to list their enemies.

FuckYouIHateYou.com, funded by Silicon Valley venture capital firm Alliance Capital, claims more than 10,000 members and another 1,000,000 enemies. 

“Unlike your average LinkedIn member, our members aren’t full of shit,” said James Lee, the 24-year-old website's chief executive. 

“The average member of our site has around 100 enemies and they hate each and every one of them – with a passion,” Lee added. “Let’s face it, no one who connects with someone on LinkedIn or any of those other social sites really wants to be someone’s friend. It’s just a place for frenemies to meet.

“Our members are honest," he continued. "If they say they hate you, they really hate you."

Lee, who started FuckYouIHateYou.com during his freshman year at Stanford University, says that members of his site just list their enemies. 

“There’s none of this b.s. like asking for permission to be someone’s enemy. Our members just list them -- done deal!” 

Members can view one another’s enemy list, he said, to make sure they’re hating “the right people.”

“If you and another member have someone you hate in common, that’s even better,” said Lee. 

When told that his site sounded like another version of President Richard Nixon’s enemy list, Lee, looking confused, asked, “When was he president?” 

Members of FuckYouIHateYou.com are encouraged to increase their enemies list as fast as possible.

“The member who lists the most enemies any given week can win prizes, trips, even a car,” said FuckYouIHateYou.com’s membership vice president Toby Benwick. 

The perfect people to list as enemies, Lee said, include “anyone who ever dissed you or anyone you refer to as an ‘ex’. That could be an ex-girlfriend, ex-wife, ex-husband, ex-boyfriend, ex-lover, ex-employee. Ex-bosses are always good, too."

Members are encouraged to post pictures and video clips of the people they hate.

“Our staff always does a round of high fives if a member’s enemy dies,” said Benwick. “That’s just the coolest.” 

Membership to the website is free. Advertisers on the website include divorce attorneys and various hate groups, including the Ku Klux Klan. Not to be outdone, the Nation of Islam is considering what Benwick describes as a “huge” sponsorship opportunity on the site as are the country's leading political parties.

Benwick said some of the site’s members and their selected enemies are scheduled to make special appearances on daytime television talk shows. 

“We look forward to our first smack down with the FuckYouIHateYou.com people,” said Jerry Springer.