Saturday, 06 July 2024
USA & CANADA

USA & CANADA (857)

Latest News

Newspapers' ongoing search for subscription revenue: from paywalls to micropayments

Tuesday, 26 May 2015 00:00 Written by

It’s no mystery that newspapers are struggling to make money: between 2006 and 2014, the industry lost approximately 30 billion dollars in advertising.

In response, many news publishers have experimented with ways to increase digital advertising revenue through native advertising, or through collaborative models like the recently-announced Facebook Instant. Still, many newspapers continue to tinker with paywalls – which require readers to pay to access online content.

But are paywalls viable?

So far the record is mixed. For some publications like The New Yorker they seem to be working, while other newspapers like the Toronto Star are getting rid of them.

It’s difficult to discern the exact trajectory of this moving target – especially since reliable data on their revenues are often unavailable – but there are noticeable trends. As the paywall model continues to evolve, other revenue models are emerging, including another tactic used by news publishers: micropayments.

A brief history of paywalls

A paywall basically acts as a barrier between an internet user and a news organization’s online content. To access the content, users must purchase a digital subscription.

While most newspapers only began experimenting with this model in the past few years, a longer history traces back to The Wall Street Journal, which launched the first paywall in 1997. Despite its success, general news outlets feared that launching a paywall would reduce online readership and digital advertising revenue – a tension that continues today.

In 2009, with newspaper revenue plummeting, a lively debate erupted over the paywall model. Publications like The Guardian, The New York Times, Time Magazine and The Atlantic published op-eds debating the paywall model’s viability.

Even Mark Cuban weighed in. The renowned entrepreneur and owner of the Dallas Mavericks argued that newspapers should put their most valuable content behind a paywall and partner with cable companies to offer customers a heavily discounted digital subscription rate (such as five cents per month).

While only a handful of publications in the US had a paywall in 2009, by 2014 – largely as a response to declining revenue – over 500 daily newspapers were using one. Since then, the debate has shifted from whether paywalls could work to asking whether they are working.

The empirical record

After several years of trial and error, there have been noteworthy successes, along with failures.

In 2011 The New York Times launched their “metered” paywall, a model similar to the Financial Times'.

Metered paywalls block a reader from accessing articles once they reach a certain threshold. The New York Times initially allowed readers to access 20 articles (now it’s 10) for free each month. This model has been increasingly emulated because it is believed that only core readers, who are the most likely to purchase a digital subscription for unlimited access, will eventually be blocked from viewing more articles.

 

A metered paywall notice for the South China Times informs readers how many free articles they have remaining before they’ll have to pay a fee. Ian Kennedy/flickr, CC BY-SA

 

Meanwhile, casual readers – and the publication’s advertising dollars – are not affected. These “fly-bys” account for 93% of news websites' unique visitors, so their retention is highly valued.

Newspapers have also succeeded in asking print subscribers to pay slightly more for a digital subscription, while reducing its price if new customers will accept a Sunday paper. They’ll also allow readers to access articles found through search or social media even if they’ve exceeded their monthly limit.

The Gannett Company, whose newspapers include USA Today and The Arizona Republic, implemented metered paywalls at 78 of its newspapers. In 2013, digital subscriptions added more than $100 million in operating income.

And in 2014, digital subscriptions at the New York Times Company earned $169 million. While these substantial gains are cause for optimism, they’re tempered by the fear that paywalls may only generate a temporary boost, as subscription revenue has notably stalled at the Tribune Publishing Company and Gannett.

 

The New York Times' metered paywall has increased revenue, but is the model sustainable? Brendan McDermid/Reuters
Click to enlarge

 

On the other hand, some newspapers have decided to take down their paywall altogether. In 2013, The Dallas Morning News removed a “hard” paywall, which rarely allowed readers to access articles without a digital subscription. The Columbia Journalism Review subsequently declared that hard paywalls made sense for only “the most essential news providers” – places where readers cannot find the same information elsewhere, like The Wall Street Journal’s coverage of finance.

After a similar misstep – which was exacerbated by publishing some of their news content on a free website – the San Francisco Chronicle took down its hard paywall five months after its launch.

The Toronto Star hadn’t made such errors, but nonetheless jettisoned its paywall after growth had “plateaued” to focus on increasing digital ad revenue and readers with an improved tablet edition.

These cases notwithstanding, it’s difficult to predict whether a paywall will help or hurt a publication’s bottom line. Newspapers have generally been unwilling to publicly discuss how much revenue their paywall is generating, and how it’s impacting their audience size and advertising revenue.

Simply put: newspapers are experimenting, but they aren’t sharing the results. We only know for certain that paywalls are being implemented, that the metered model is preferred, and that the increases in subscription revenue – while substantial for some – haven’t matched losses in advertising revenue.

The future of paywalls

Paywalls may work as a partial solution for finding new revenue streams but the search for a better subscription model continues. In March, two new models involving “micropayments” – in which readers pay a small fee (roughly 25 cents) to read a single article – made headlines.

First, The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal signed up to the news aggregator Blendle. Following the so-called iTunes model, this Dutch startup allows readers in the Netherlands to make micropayments to access individual newspaper and magazine articles from a variety of publications.

By hosting a variety of news publishers, both individual publishers and Blendle are hoping that individuals will be more likely to use micropayments. Think of iTunes: while an individual might not sign up to use iTunes if it were just for one record company, the fact that the largest companies are using iTunes makes listeners more likely to use the service and for companies to profit from it.

On the other hand, a newspaper could try to “cut out the middle man” and use micropayments on their own website. Indeed, Winnipeg Free Press, a Canadian newspaper, recently announced plans to use micropayments on their own website, making it the first North American newspaper to do so. Free Press editor Paul Samyn explained the novel decision by noting that while newspapers have had some success with paywalls, “their ability to grow paid digital subscriptions appears to have either stalled or only grown marginally.”

The micropayment model has critics – as do paywalls in general.

Unfortunately, whether any subscription model can convince consumers to pay enough to sustain the journalism that a healthy democracy requires remains an open question.

Since the future of commercially viable journalism hangs in the balance, the stakes are considerable. More research is needed (and more data needs to be made publicly available). And conversations should continue about what the future of digital journalism – including noncommercial models – should look like in a democratic society.

 

 

Authors:  Alex T. Williams; PhD Student in Communications at University of Pennsylvania   and Assistant Professor of Communication at University of Pennsylvania

credit link:  https://theconversation.com/newspapers-ongoing-search-for-subscription-revenue-from-paywalls-to-micropayments-40726 <img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/40726/count.gif" width="1" />

 

The article was originally published on The Conversation (www.conversation.com) and is republished with permission granted to www.oasesnews.com


 

Fast-track overcomes key hurdle, but obstacles remain as trade deals hang in balance

Tuesday, 26 May 2015 00:00 Written by

After the Senate’s refusal to pass trade promotion authority (TPA) on May 12, some trade advocates feared that President Obama’s ongoing commercial negotiations with Asia and Europe would die a slow death.

Yesterday’s narrow vote in the Senate to close debate on TPA – a key hurdle to final passage – promises to lift their spirits considerably, as it likely guarantees passage of the bill within the next few days, ahead of the Memorial Day recess.

The vote was interesting because it didn’t follow the expected pattern of hyper-partisanship in Congress. Rather, it pitted a Democratic president and most Republican lawmakers against the bulk of the president’s own party.

Supporters of TPA needed a relatively small number of pro-trade Democrats to tip the scales toward Obama’s trade agenda, and they achieved that through a last-minute bargain over the future of the controversial Export-Import Bank.

While the vote signaled an important victory for TPA’s proponents, more challenges remain before the president can pop open the champagne, both in the Senate and next month in the House. If ultimately passed, TPA would guarantee that international trade agreements negotiated by the president would receive an up-or-down vote by Congress with no amendments.

Without TPA, America’s high-stakes negotiations with 11 other countries including Australia and Japan to create the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and with the European Union to create the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) would probably be unachievable.

That’s because foreign trade ministers are skittish about Congressional amendments that could upset the delicate balance of international bargains that they consider already settled.

More hurdles remain

Of course, there is still a long way to go before the final passage of TPA, including from lawmakers in other TPP participant countries such as Australia. So what hurdles still confront the president and trade supporters in Congress?

First, the Senate must vote on several controversial amendments to TPA. One of these, which is adamantly opposed by President Obama and pro-trade lawmakers, would seek to curb protectionist currency manipulation by America’s trading partners.

Supporters of TPP fear that a Congressional requirement to negotiate penalties for currency manipulation could cause the other 11 countries to balk at a final agreement. Whether or not such dire predictions are true, there is no question that adding currency manipulation to the TPP agenda could slow down the talks considerably.

In any case, once TPA passes the Senate, it must still be approved by the House. This could prove tricky, because Democratic opposition in that body is firmly entrenched. Interestingly, Democratic skeptics are also joined by some Tea Party Republicans who say that TPA would give the president too much power.

At the same time, as Georgia State University’s Jeffrey Lazarus points out, the more centralized procedures in the House make the ultimate outcome there more dependent on the Republican leadership than it is in the Senate. With a firm commitment of support from Speaker John Boehner, the bill has a reasonable chance of approval.

What’s next for TPP?

As for TPP itself, negotiations seem to be drawing to a close, and President Obama, if armed with TPA, could set the agreement before Congress quite soon. It seems likely that, if TPA garners enough votes from Congress to pass, the Trans-Pacific Partnership also stands a good chance of getting its stamp of approval later this year.

While US agreement is of course critical for the ultimate implementation of TPP, the other 11 signatories have their own processes for domestic ratification. In some countries, centralized institutions or one-party dominance make rapid approval likely, while in others, political hurdles remain. The skepticism of Australia’s opposition Labor Party and other members of Parliament, for example, may slow its ratification.

In the final analysis, today’s vote on TPA is significant only insofar as it increases the chances that Congress will eventually back TPP and TTIP. Together, these agreements would build much deeper economic links between the United States and economies in Europe and Asia that represent a considerable proportion of global output and trade.

If implemented, they could have a profound effect on all of the economies involved. For that reason, citizens of all signatory countries should keep a close eye on how this issue evolves.


 

Author:  Charles Hankla;  Associate Professor of Political Science at Georgia State University

credit link:  https://theconversation.com/fast-track-overcomes-key-hurdle-but-obstacles-remain-as-trade-deals-hang-in-balance-42221  <img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/42221/count.gif" width="1" />

The article was originally published on The Conversation (www.conversation.com) and is republished with permission granted to www.oasesnews.com


Sitting on a scoop: the story behind the V-E headlines of May 1945

Tuesday, 26 May 2015 00:00 Written by

There’s quite a story behind the story of the end of the fighting in World War II in Europe. As we observe another Memorial Day, it is worth remembering the events of that busy May of 1945, when the Allies achieved victory in Europe.

While much fighting remained to be done in the Pacific, by early May, the military leaders of the Allied forces could see that Germany’s defeat was at hand. So, the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF) command selected 17 correspondents from the world’s press and flew them to Reims, France, to witness the German surrender on behalf of the rest of the press corps and the people of the world.

There were very few Americans in the group. The ones who were there represented the big wire services and syndicates. In fact, not a single reporter representing a US newspaper was present.

According to the Allied military commanders, the news was to be embargoed, and the reporters were coerced into accepting a deal. In exchange for access to the event, they had to agree to hold the news until the Army said they could release it.

On the flight from Paris to Reims, the SHAEF press officer declared: “I pledge each one of you on his honor as a correspondent and as an assimilated officer of the United States Army not to communicate [the news] until it is released on the order of the Public Relations Director of SHAEF.”

V-E Day headline Public Domain

It remains unclear what constitutes an “agreement” under such conditions – what were the correspondents supposed to do ? Get up and walk out of an airplane? – but they proceeded to witness the ceremony.

The surrender by the German high command came in the early hours of May 7. Ordinarily, you might expect that the surrender would touch off immediate celebrations.

Not so fast.

The press officer announced that orders had come “from a high political level” to impose a news blackout until 8 pm the next day, when the news would be announced simultaneously in Paris, London, Moscow and Washington. (Turned out, Stalin was insisting on the delay so he could make a show in Berlin.)

In other words, all the correspondents who had been eyewitnesses would lose their scoops. Instead, some desk-bound rewrite man or editor would get all the glory. The reporters protested to the SHAEF press officer, but to no avail. The political leaders had decided.

Ed Kennedy’s biography

 

Among the press corps, one of the most upset was Edward Kennedy  – not the late Democratic senator from Massachusetts but a man by the same name who was the chief correspondent in Europe for the Associated Press (AP). Bear in mind, Kennedy was in a special position. He had been burned earlier in the war when he cooperated with military brass. In 1943, Kennedy had agreed to suppress a story about Gen. George Patton and had been scooped by someone else. (I describe the incident in my book Covering America.)

Kennedy also knew that his account of the German surrender could probably reach more people on the planet more swiftly than any other news agency or government, since the AP supplied news stories to thousands of newspapers, radio stations and other customers worldwide. He knew, too, that the AP – then and now – thrives on being first and that AP correspondents had gone to great lengths to be first to deliver the news.

Besides, he figured, no embargo on such a momentous story could hold for that long. (Nor, perhaps, should it.)

He was still fuming when the correspondents were marched back onto the military plane. They were flown from Reims to Paris. Still, the world knew nothing of the surrender. Still, soldiers in Europe kept shooting at each other.

When the press contingent landed, Boyd Lewis of United Press got into the first jeep from the airport to the Hotel Scribe in Paris, which had been serving as the outpost for most of the press corps. When Lewis got to the press center, he tried to tie up all the available telegraph outlets. Next in line was James Kilgallen of the International News Service, who had beaten Kennedy to the hotel by throwing his portable typewriter at Kennedy’s legs, slowing him down.

Kennedy was beside himself. Then he heard that SHAEF had ordered German radio to announce the surrender. Kennedy went to the censors and announced that he was breaking the embargo. Using a telephone, he called the AP bureau in London and dictated the following lead:

REIMS, France, May 7_Germany surrendered unconditionally to the Western Allies and the Soviet Union at 2:41 am French time today.

The surrender took place at a little red schoolhouse that is the headquarters of Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower…..

 

Kennedy couldn’t sit on his scoop. Public domain

 

Within minutes, the news was flashed to the world, and wild celebrations began, marking V-E Day.

At SHAEF, the top brass were furious and suspended AP filing facilities throughout Europe.

The rest of the press corps was furious, too. More than 50 correspondents signed a protest to SHAEF Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower, calling Kennedy’s action “the most disgraceful, deliberate and unethical double cross in the history of journalism.”

AP’s president apologized to the nation. AP executives told Kennedy he could keep his job if he admitted he had done wrong. He wouldn’t, and he was fired. (Three years ago, the AP formally apologized to Kennedy, who died in a car crash in 1963.)

What might seem amazing today  – aside from the lack of cell phones and other forms of instant global communication that we now take for granted –  is how unanimously the correspondents fell in line with the military.

Today, I daresay, US reporters would be at least split about the ethics of holding off on reporting something they knew to be both true and life-saving.

Two weeks later, writing in The New Yorker on May 19, AJ Liebling, the great World War II reporter and press critic, took up the issue of Kennedy’s firing in his column “The Wayward Press. Liebling’s take:

The great row over Edward Kennedy’s Associated Press story of the signing of the German surrender at Reims served to point up the truth that if you are smart enough you can kick yourself in the pants, grab yourself by the back of the collar, and throw yourself out on the sidewalk. This is an axiom that I hope will be taught to future students of journalism as Liebling’s Law.

Liebling’s media criticism continued:

I do not think that Kennedy imperiled the lives of any Allied soldiers by sending the story, as some of his critics have charged. He probably saved a few, because by withholding the announcement of an armistice you prolong the shooting, and, conversely, by announcing it promptly you make the shooting stop. Moreover, the Germans had broadcast the news of the armistice several hours before Kennedy’s story appeared on the streets of New York… The thing that has caused the most hard feeling is that Kennedy broke a “combination,” which means that he sent out a story after all the correspondents on the assignment had agreed not to. But the old-fashioned “combination” was an agreement freely reached among reporters and not a pledge imposed upon the whole group by somebody outside it.

In my journalism classes at Boston University, I teach “Liebling’s Law” as a cautionary tale about what can happen when news organizations get too cozy with governments and forget to put their audiences first. Seventy years later, it’s a lesson worth remembering.

 

Author: Professor of Journalism at Boston University

credit link:  https://theconversation.com/sitting-on-a-scoop-the-story-behind-the-v-e-headlines-of-may-1945-42081 <img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/42081/count.gif" width="1" />

The article was originally published on The Conversation (www.conversation.com) and is republished with permission granted to www.oasesnews.com



Tanishq Abraham, 11, Graduates From California College With 3 Degrees

Monday, 25 May 2015 00:00 Written by

 

Absolutely amazing. A young boy by the name of Tanishq Abraham graduated from college at a very early age. But that isn’t the only remarkable thing about this story, he graduated with not one, but three degrees!

Tanishq Abraham has done something truly amazing. Not only did he graduate on May 20 from college at only 11-years-old, but he took home three degrees. He is now the youngest person to graduate from American River College in Sacramento, California.

 

Tanishq Abraham: Boy Graduates From California College Multiple Degrees

Tanishq is quite the overachiever. He didn’t earn just one associates degree from American River College — he earned three! One just so happens to be in math and physical science, another in general science and one in language studies, according to NBC. Sounds exhausting, but wow, what an accomplishment!

“Even in kindergarten he was pretty ahead, a few years ahead — and then it just went from there,” Tanishq’s mom, a veterinarian, told KCRA.

Tanishq added that his graduation wasn’t “much of a big thing for me”, and told the outlet, “I just followed my passion”.

 

One of the best parts of Tanishq’s graduation was his college graduation cap. The boy wrote his favorite Toy Story quote on the top of the cap, “2 Infinity and Beyond.” We love it!

Tanishq Shares His Future Plans

Tanishq is so adorable, he was so excited for his big accomplishment that he shared the news on his Twitter account on May 21. Not only does he plan on being a doctor, but he also is aiming high and wants to win the Nobel Prize! We have zero doubts that he won’t accomplish his mission.


China Used Ebola Crisis For Systematic Pillaging Of W. Africa Fisheries, Greenpeace Says

Thursday, 21 May 2015 00:00 Written by

Chinese fishing companies are engaged in systematic pillaging of West African fisheries on a huge scale, according to a new report from Greenpeace, which also says the companies took advantage of weak and chaotic governance resulting from last year’s Ebola outbreak in the region.

A two-year investigation by the environmental group Greenpeace found that four Chinese fishing companies, including state-owned China National Fisheries Corporation, carried out persistent “illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities and gross tonnage fraud” in West Africa.

In the most recent cases, the Greenpeace ship My Esperanza documented 16 illegal fishing activities by 12 Chinese vessels in Guinea’s exclusive economic zone in October and November 2014, while the Ebola outbreak was raging and countries in the region were unable to monitor their waters.

“While China extended a hand in friendship during the Ebola outbreak, rogue Chinese companies were unlawfully exploiting West Africa’s marine environment, taking advantage of weak enforcement and supervision from local and Chinese authorities to the detriment of local fishermen and the environment,” said Rashid Kang, head of Greenpeace East Asia’s China Ocean Campaign.

“Unless the government reins in this element of rogue companies they will seriously jeopardize what the Chinese government calls its mutually beneficial partnership with west Africa.”

The number of Chinese fishing vessels in Africa has grown from 13 in 1985 to 462 in 2013, accounting for a fifth of China’s entire long-range fishing fleet. Greenpeace says Chinese companies are the worst offenders when it comes to illegal fishing in the region.

As well as fishing in prohibited areas, Chinese fishing companies systematically under-declare gross tonnage of their vessels, allowing them to evade licensing fees and operate in areas where large boats are forbidden.

The majority of these boats are bottom trawlers, which use one of the most destructive fishing techniques.

Ironically, China is taking steps to eliminate some of the most environmentally damaging fishing practices in its own waters.

Faced with more competition and stricter rules at home, Chinese fishing companies are looking further afield. The lack of rigorous fisheries management and enforcement in West Africa have made it an attractive destination for large Chinese companies with the resources to send boats to distant waters.

“If China wants to be a genuine friend of Africa, it should follow the path of the E.U.’s Common Fisheries Policy, which is slowly rectifying the E.U.’s own history of irresponsible fishing in the region,” said Ahmed Diame, Greenpeace Africa Ocean Campaigner.

China’s Ministry of Agriculture, which regulates Chinese fishing at home and abroad, and China National Fisheries Corp, the largest of the four Chinese companies identified in the Greenpeace report, declined to comment.

“That is nonsense, what evidence do they have? This sort of thing is rare, the controls are strict and there could be sanctions,” said Zhang Hua, general manager of Dalian Bo Yuan Overseas Fishing Corp, one of the four companies named in the voluminous Greenpeace report. The report included detailed evidence and records of their illegal fishing activity.

Two other companies, Dalian Lian Run and Shandong Overseas Fisheries Development, could not be reached for comment. Dalian Lian Run was punished in July 2013 by China’s Ministry of Agriculture for illegal fishing activities in Guinea.

- See more at: http://afkinsider.com/96667/china-used-ebola-crisis-for-systematic-pillaging-of-w-africa-fisheries-greenpeace-says/#sthash.lrBfP7yl.dpuf

Group wants Air Force General court-martialed for giving God credit

Monday, 18 May 2015 00:00 Written by

 

An Air Force General who recently spoke about how God has guided his career should be court-martialed, a civil liberties group has said.

In a speech at a National Day of Prayer Task Force event on May 7, Maj. Gen. Craig Olson credited God for his accomplishments in the military, and refered to himself as a “redeemed believer in Christ.”

The Air Force Times reports that the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has taken issue with Olson’s remarks, is calling for the two-star general to be court-martialed and “aggressively and very visibly brought to justice for his unforgivable crimes and transgressions.”

The group authored a letter to Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Walsh, arguing that Olson’s speech violates rules within the Air Force, which prohibits airmen from endorsing a particular faith or belief.

The letter, posted on the group’s website, begins, “This demand letter is sent to you on behalf of countless members of the United States Air Force who are utterly disgusted and shocked by the brazenly illicit and wholly unconstitutional, fundamentalist Christian proselytizing recently perpetrated, on international television (“GOD TV”), and streaming all over the Internet and in full military uniform, by USAF Major General Craig S. Olson on Thursday, May 7, 2015 during a VERY public speech for a private Christian organization (The “National Day of Prayer Task Force”: NDPTF) headed up by Focus on the Family founder, Dr. James Dobson’s, wife Shirley Dobson.”

The group, which believes that the American flag and the U.S. Constitution are the only religious symbol and scripture, respectively, for those who serve in the military, also wants other service members who helped Olson to be investigated and punished “to the full extent of military law.”

During Olson’s 23-minute talk, the Air Force Times reports, Olson spoke of “flying complex aircraft; doing complex nuclear missions — I have no ability to do that. God enabled me to do that.”

“He put me in charge of failing programs worth billions of dollars,” Olson said. “I have no ability to do that, no training to do that. God did that. He sent me to Iraq to negotiate foreign military sales deals through an Arabic interpreter. I have no ability to do that. I was not trained to do that. God did all of that.”

At the end of his speech, Olson asked those in attendance to pray for Defence Department leaders and troops preparing to be deployed.

Olson is the program executive officer at Hanscom Air Force Base in Massachusetts, where he is responsible for more than 2,200 personnel, according to the U.S. Air Force website. He was commissioned in 1982 following graduation from the U.S. Air Force Academy and has extensive operational, flight test and acquisition experience.

•Text courtesy of Fox News. Photo shows Maj. Gen. Craig Olson.

 

Source News Express


When the US president is a commencement speaker, the number of years in office matters

Saturday, 16 May 2015 00:00 Written by

Who is the audience for the commencement address? Penn State, CC BY-NC

 

 

It’s commencement season again. Some universities bring in famous people for honorary degrees. Some stick to the old standby of a speaker chosen from among the graduates. And some go political – choosing a candidate or an elected official.

Every year, one or two schools get to hear from the president of the United States. When the news comes that the president is coming to speak at a university’s commencement ceremonies, the reaction is often mixed.

Predictably, some students and families will protest the presence on campus of a leader with whom they vehemently disagree. Also expected are the reactions of others who are thrilled to have a president they like, on such an important day.

Regardless of the reaction leading up to the speech, the remarks of US presidents are often something to be remembered by those in attendance and by a broader audience.

What will the president say?

The speeches often have a very different tone depending on the timing of the remarks. Early on in a presidency, the speeches often sound a lot like a stump speech, focused more on the audience outside the stadium than within. Toward the end of a second term, however, presidents tend to focus more on legacy building and reflection.

After 20 years of working in and around politics and communications, I’ve started an academic career teaching strategic political communication and public relations. I’m studying the content of presidential commencement speeches – how they’ve changed, what they’re meant to accomplish and how they evolve throughout a presidency.

I’m learning there is a cadence to the life cycle of a two-term president’s commencement addresses that’s surprisingly similar.

Early first-term commencement addresses by presidents (from the mid-1970s to present day) tend to focus more on politics and policy and less on the graduates themselves.

When President Jimmy Carter spoke to graduates of the University of Notre Dame in 1977, the speech focused on foreign policy. He said, “…I want to speak to you today about the strands that connect our actions overseas with our essential character as a nation.”

In his remarks, he built on the messages of his inaugural address, saying, “I’ve tried to make these premises clear to the American people since last January. Let me review what we have been doing and discuss what we intend to do.”

In my review of the transcript of his remarks, the graduates themselves were referenced directly in the first 476 words of the speech and again in his final 15 words of the 3,197-word speech. But the entire middle section of his remarks – fully 85% of his speech – focused on advancing Carter’s foreign policy goals and accomplishments.

 

Speeches by presidents in their first term tend to focus on policy. Graduates image via www.shutterstock.com

 

Similarly, when President George H W Bush addressed Texas A&M University in 1989, the focus was primarily on the Soviet Union and the sunset of the Cold War.

He prefaced his policy section to graduates by saying:

“We are reminded that no generation can escape history. Parents, we share a fervent desire for our children and their children to know a better world, a safer world. And students, your parents and grandparents have lived through a world war and helped America rebuild the world…and today I would like to use this joyous and solemn occasion to speak to you and to the rest of the country about our relations with the Soviet Union.”

He then spoke for the remainder of his address – 80% of the remarks – about his priorities and plans to address global issues.

Speeches by President Ronald Reagan, President Bill Clinton, President George W Bush, and President Barack Obama early in their presidencies also kept to the “policy/agenda” message strategy.

Address changes in the second term

On the other end of the spectrum, presidents nearing the end of their time in office often bring a more reflective, graduate-centric approach to the remarks, while also solidifying their legacies. If new presidents focus on the “commander-in-chief” part of their jobs, presidents toward the end of their careers seem to relish the role of “wisdom imparter,” with a dash of legacy building thrown in.

For instance, President Reagan, in remarks at the US Coast Guard Academy commencement ceremony in 1988, spoke about the Coast Guard, its members

and its successes for 45% of the speech

.

The 1982 speech of President Reagan

 

He devoted 55% of the speech to reminding the audience of his administration’s work on addressing the nation’s drug problem and its progress in relations with Moscow.

In his remarks at Miami Dade College in 2007, President George W Bush remarked extensively on the successes of the class of 2007 and told stories of the graduates themselves.

He used these stories, including that of immigrant Gwen Belfon, a single mother from Trinidad and Tobago, to highlight his administration’s work on immigration reform. He said she and other graduates were helping to “…maintain the promise of the United States of America,” which “…requires that we remain an open and welcoming society.”

Bush said, “Over the years, America’s ability to assimilate new immigrants has set us apart from other nations.” He used the opportunity to push Congress to advance his legislation in service to this “promise” of America.

Address to the graduates

In a commencement address at Notre Dame in 2009, Barack Obama continued his push for cooperation and unity - a message he had made a centerpiece of his campaign. He said:

“Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and greater understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.”

This emphasis on unity was especially noteworthy due to controversy surrounding Obama’s position on abortion and his speech to the Catholic university.

With President Obama’s second term wrapping up next year, the commencement addresses he gives between now and 2016 are likely to focus on the graduates themselves and the world they’ll be entering. Remarks on May 10, 2015, in South Dakota have proven this to be true so far.

President Obama’s 2015 commencement speech

 

President Obama’s message to graduates of Lake Area Technical Institute in Watertown, South Dakota, was much more reflective in tone and focused more on the graduates themselves. He shared stories of graduates in attendance, and said,

“So that’s why I came here today – to this little tiny school, in this little tiny town. I didn’t come here to inspire you. I came here because you, the graduates, inspire me. That’s why I came here.”

He also used the occasion to tout his administration’s proposal for free community college tuition for all Americans, saying,

“So as a country, we can’t afford to let any striving American be priced out of the education they need to get ahead. For everybody willing to work for it, we need to make two years of community college as free and universal as high school is today. It’s the right thing to do.”

President Obama has one more graduation season left. If past is prologue, we’ll hear more reflection and less stump speech from this commander-in-chief, too.

 

Author:  Jennifer Glover Konfrst:  Assistant Professor of Public Relations at Drake University

The article was originally published on The Conversation (www.conversation.com) and is republished with permission granted to www.oasesnews.com

credit link:  https://theconversation.com/when-the-us-president-is-a-commencement-speaker-the-number-of-years-in-office-matters-41480                         <img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/41480/count.gif" width="1" />      
 


Iran nuclear deal should boost economy, yet unknowns remain

Friday, 15 May 2015 00:00 Written by

The framework nuclear agreement that was announced earlier this month by Iran and the so-called P5+1 calls for a substantial rollback in the country’s nuclear program in return for a lifting of sanctions.

While no specific time table was mentioned, the preliminary agreement calls for the suspension and then lifting of international sanctions once the International Atomic Energy Agency has verified Iran’s compliance with ongoing restrictions on its nuclear activities.

The removal of sanctions, in other words, will take place in stages and will serve as the main incentive for Iran to fulfill its obligations. As interpreted by the US, the sanctions will be suspended and P5+1 will be able to reintroduce them if it determines that Iran is in violation of the agreements. (The P5+1 is made up of permanent UN Security Council members US, UK, France, Russia and China plus Germany.)

Despite being conditional and taking place in several phases, the lifting of sanctions will be a major relief for Iran’s economy and it is the main reason for the immediate display of joy and celebration by Iranians in the streets of Tehran immediately after the deal’s announcement.

But given the preliminary nature of the accord, it raises many questions about its impact. How significant will that relief on Iran’s economy be and when will it actually take place? How will the deal affect business investment, particularly among US oil companies that are certainly eager to get involved with the world’s fourth-largest oil reserves? And what will be the impact of a final agreement, if reached, in June?

 

Some details of the remain to be determined. Reuters
Click to enlarge

 

The sting of sanctions

There is no denying that the most recent sanctions imposed in 2010 have taken a significant toll on Iran’s economy, with even government officials repeatedly acknowledging their adverse effects.

Iran’s economy has fallen bellow its potential by 15% to 20% as a result, while oil exports have dropped in half to a little more than one million barrels a day, costing the government tens of billions of dollars a year in revenue. The sanctions also made it difficult for Iran to repatriate much of its oil export revenues from Asian countries such as Japan and China, which are still allowed to buy its crude.

Beyond the oil industry, the sanctions also disrupted a wide range of export and import activities, causing severe disruptions to the manufacturing sector. Many foreign firms that were involved in joint ventures with Iranian firms in manufacturing and construction projects were forced to withdraw.

Together, these pressures caused unemployment and inflation rates to soar to record levels in recent years.

Uncertain timing, limited impact

The framework agreement lacked a fixed timetable for the removal of these sanctions, creating some uncertainty about when Iran’s economy might start to feel the real benefit. But since their removal is linked to Iran’s compliance with the restrictions on its nuclear program, it also acts as an incentive for quick compliance.

The agreement requires Iran to suspend the operation of a large number of enrichment facilities, something that can be easily accomplished, and other modifications to its nuclear program have already been implemented during the 18 months of negotiations.

While we won’t see a significant effect until after a final accord is reached within three months, we should begin to witness a number of important though limited changes begin to take place.

Jockeying for pole position

First off, it is very unlikely that any sanctions will be suspended or scaled back before the June 30 deadline. During this three-month period, while intense talks are underway over the final details, corporate executives and other economic players will be watching carefully to see if the deal can be protected against its domestic opponents in both countries. Still, we will likely begin to see a sharp increase in business negotiations and preparations for projects that can be launched after specific sanctions are suspended.

The lifting of the SWIFT ban and other financial sanctions, for example, will open up a large volume of trade between Iranian businesses and their international partners in Europe and Asia. Sanctions enacted three years ago prohibited Iran’s banks from using SWIFT, the financial messaging system that transmits and tracks international transactions.

Major international corporations such as France’s Renault and Chinese shipping firm COSCO that had suspended operations in Iran for fear of heavy financial penalties will prepare to return. Even if it may be some time before they can, companies will be jostling to regain their market presence ahead of the economic boom that is likely to follow the actual lifting of sanctions.

Iran has already prepared a large number of projects in its oil and natural gas industry to attract foreign investment. These projects include the the South Pars Gas Fields in the Persian Gulf and the Azadegan oil field in South Western Iran. Some of the largest European and Chinese oil and gas companies such as Total, Eni and SINOPEC would be among the long list of firms that are likely to compete for investment opportunities in Iran.

Internal investment

Equally significant, we should witness an increase in domestic investment and a shift from hording foreign currency to productive investments by a large number of Iranian households.

Despite all the uncertainties, Iranian businesses and households already anticipate that Iran’s oil revenues will increase as a result of the deal and the country will be able to repatriate a large amount of financial assets that were blocked because of the sanctions. While there are no official statistics on the total value of these blocked resources, it is estimated to be around $100 billion. The sums will become available to Iran as soon as the SWIFT sanctions are lifted.

Injection of all this cash back into the economy will help stabilize the exchange rate, and many households may try to anticipate this by dumping their dollars and euros in favor of the Iranian rial. That should enable Iran’s central bank to strengthen the national currency, which has lost 60% of its value versus the dollar over the past five years.

So far, the Tehran hard currency exchange market has not reacted much to the framework agreement. Iran’s stock market, however, has enjoyed a significant gain, which indicates optimism about business environment in the months ahead. The main index has surged 7% since the deal was announced.

Three months of business lobbying

During this three-month waiting period, we are also likely to witness an intense lobbying effort by Iran’s business community in support of the agreement. This business lobby will strengthen the Rouhani government against hardline opponents of the deal among conservative factions of the ruling regime.

Iran’s business community, especially the traditional bazaar merchants, have enjoyed good relations with the ruling Islamic clerics and will be able to make their voiced heard in the halls of power. They are likely to be joined by the industrialists and manufacturers, who are set to benefit from the reduction of tensions with the international community.

Some business interests in the US might also voice support for the agreement. But the Obama administration will need to manage the removal of sanctions in a manner that does not put American companies at a disadvantage compared with Asian and European ones for access to Iran’s trade and investment market.

US governments for more than 30 years have barred American companies from doing business with Iran, placing far more pressure on them than others simply because it has more regulatory control over them. So a key question US firms will be asking is whether the schedule for removal of sanctions according to the final agreement will give international rivals any advantage.

Well aware of the lobbying power of these businesses, particularly the US energy conglomerates, Iran has actively invited Western oil companies to invest in its oil and gas sector. If President Barack Obama can find a way to put US businesses on an equal (or better) footing than their foreign competitors, they are likely to help ensure a final deal has Congressional support.

With this in mind, the Iranians seen celebrating in the streets should have reason to feel joyful as there’s a good chance their many years of economic isolation are near an end.

 

Author:  ; Professor of the Economics of the Middle East at the Crown Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis University

 

The article was originally published on The Conversation (www.conversation.com) and is republished with permission granted to www.oasesnews.com

credit link:  https://theconversation.com/iran-nuclear-deal-should-boost-economy-yet-unknowns-remain-39770 <img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/39770/count.gif" width="1" />

 

 


News Letter

Subscribe our Email News Letter to get Instant Update at anytime

About Oases News

OASES News is a News Agency with the central idea of diseminating credible, evidence-based, impeccable news and activities without stripping all technicalities involved in news reporting.