The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is something of an institution in the UK, famous for his blond mop of hair and outrageous opinions. He's also been a journalist on and off for two decades, and is close to Rupert Murdoch, so it should perhaps come as no surprise that he's penned a characteristically witty defense of British newspapers. They're currently under threat of having governmental regulation imposed upon them in the wake of the UK's Leveson Inquiry, written in response to years of journalists breaking the law in search of hot stories, as Johnson acknowledges:

They have shoved their slavering snouts into the parlours of weeping widows, and by their outrageous lies they have driven the relatives of their victims to suicide. When you read Leveson in full, you are left to ponder the mystery of how people can behave like this. Are these journalists that much nastier and more cynical than the rest of the human race? Why do they seem to have got out of control? The answer is simple. The press are no nastier than anyone else; quite the reverse. On the whole, journalists are highly intelligent, amusing and frequently idealistic.

But if that is the case, how is it possible they have been shoving their slavering snouts all over the place? Johnson has a simple explanation:

for some papers the costs are becoming prohibitive. Every year, every month, they are losing ground to blogs and Twitter and Google News; every year the internet eats more destructively into the business case for old-fashioned journalism. That is at least one of the reasons why some journalists have been driven to behave so disgracefully, squawking ever louder, no matter how erroneously, in the hope of being noticed.

Yes, it's all the Internet's fault. Those poor journalists lost their otherwise robust moral compass because Big Bad Google and friends have been progressively stealing their daily bread. Of course, we've heard this narrative about Google destroying newspapers many times before. It's what publishers around the world are saying, while asking for a cut of Google's revenues. It's what Rupert Murdoch has been saying, although he still wants to be included in Google's search results.

But this whole idea is "an inverted pyramid of piffle", to use a famous phrase of Johnson's. It wasn't Google and the Internet that destroyed traditional journalism, it was the newspapers themselves by refusing to evolve as new technologies have come along that changed the relationship with the reader in significant ways. Johnson's attempt to deflect blame away from the guilty parties onto the agents of technological change is simply shabby.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Let me start off by saying that I've been a longterm Nate Silver fan, back before he was the "fivethirtyeight" guy, and when he was just some random guy whose statistical models were helping my fantasy baseball team kick ass. And let me follow that up by noting that even more than being a Nate Silver fan, I'm a huge fan of statistics in general. I think that statistics should be a required class in school and that a combination of statistics and economics (the two go hand in hand) literacy (or lack thereof) is a major problem today, leading to numerous bad policy decisions. Finally, I've never been a fan (at all) of political punditry that focuses on the "horse race" aspect of politics. So, given all that, it has certainly been fun to follow the secondary storyline from last night -- which is how Nate Silver and his statistical genius "crushed" the pundits in predicting the election -- to the point that every single major press "pundit" was flat out wrong, and it looked like Silver had a perfect crystal ball. And, given how much Silver was attacked for being a "stats guy," (or for being biased, rather than neutral) you can certainly understand why it's tempting to wish he'd do something like Whitney McNamara's mock blog post: In many ways, I agree that yesterday was the "moneyball moment" in politics, in which the prognosticators were shown to be faulty, while the number crunchers were shown to be accurate. Hell, it was a much stronger example than the Moneyball case in baseball, which never had a "victory" quite as clearly aligned with the numbers.

Of course, if you look at what's happened to baseball since "Moneyball" and the success of the first statistical analysis guys, it should be a reminder that statistical prognostication is still about the probabilities -- and not about true predictions. And this is where the "suddenly-in-awe" pundits are still getting confused. They seem to think that Silver or other statistical modelers suddenly have a magic crystal ball with which they can predict the future. But probabilities and predictions are different, and Silver himself would likely admit (and, actually, did admit) that when you're dealing in probabilities, you're still going to be completely wrong some percentage of the time (he can even tell you what percentage of the time!) Even if the probabilities show a 90% likelihood that a certain event will happen, it still means that one time out of 10, you're going to be wrong.

Unfortunately, our brains don't deal that well with probabilities. We don't think in probabilities. Because we're dealing with a (mostly) binary situation, we assume that as soon as the probabilities tilt in our favor, it means that a "win" is somehow assured, and mentally, the probabilities turn into a prediction. It's very, very difficult for our brains not to think that way.

So I'm thrilled to see statistical analysis "win" over the moronic pundit-class who thinks that "storylines" or "momentum" (or, um, the ultimate in believing in anecdotes over data, "my friends see more yard signs" for one candidate) are valid methods for prognosticating. But it seems that the press, by going on to insist that Silver and his ilk are the new magic prognosticators, are missing the point just as much as those who thought the election could be predicted by political pundits.

Statistics is a tool for highlighting the probabilities. I'm sure that Nate Silver clones are going to be appearing a lot more on TV during the next major election cycles -- and I think that's a step forward. But now it seems like some people are expecting Silver and other stats guys to be right every time. And that's going to lead to backlash, just as the "failure" of Moneyball-type analysis to always get it exactly right resulted in some backlash in baseball. There will be data analysis in future election cycles -- likely from Silver himself -- that is wrong. That's the nature of probabilities. It will happen. And, unfortunately, people will then suddenly go back to arguing the opposite: that the stats geeks were "wrong."

But, as they say in the stats world, these are small sample size issues. Believing that statistical analysis is a perfect tool for predictions based on a single election is almost (though not quite) as weak as some of the traditional political punditry methods for predictions.

Hopefully, as with baseball, after a few years, the whole idea that these are entirely separate worlds will melt away. In baseball, every team now uses detailed statistical analysis as a tool, and most seem to understand that it suggests probabilities that help them find underexploited opportunities. But no one relies on it as a crystal ball that predicts the absolute future. Hopefully we'll reach that same sort of equilibrium in political analysis as well.

Generally speaking, the press has something of an implicit agreement that they don't use underage Presidential offspring in politically tinged stories. For obvious reasons, it's considered to be a pretty cynical move. Of course, if they actually do something newsworthy, it might be a different story. This afternoon a bunch of stories started appearing, talking about how President Obama's daughter Malia was traveling in Oaxaca, Mexico as part of a trip with some classmates (and 25 secret service agents). This story was reported on by the AFP wire service, and some tied it to the fact that the State Department recently issued a travel advisory urging Americans to stay away from parts of Mexico. Not surprisingly, some picked up on this story to suggest some sort of... something. Double standard? Hypocrisy? Of course, the details suggest this really was not much of a story. If you actually read the State Department warning, it makes it clear that there is no warning in place for Oaxaca -- so this trip doesn't appear to go against that warning.

It seems likely, then, that the AFP decided to pull back the story once someone pointed that out, but the story is now rapidly disappearing from a variety of online publications (big and small), leading to questions and easy political points about how the story is being "scrubbed." Google News listed about 27 versions of the story when I looked, and later, following the links, I found almost every single one of them was flat out gone. In most cases, they were replaced with a 404 (including The Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Australian) or sometimes just redirecting people to a front page (Huffington Post and International Business Times). The only version I still found up was at TurkishPress.com, but it might not last very long.

Now, I tend to think that using the President's underage kids for a political story is generally a low blow and not particularly nice, but if there is something newsworthy happening, it should be fair game. I also think that, from the sound of it, this story got blown out of proportion by those who didn't bother to actually read the details of the destination or the State Department's specific warning which notes no problem at that destination.

But, having said all that, simply having the article disappear completely, rather than putting up a correction or an explanation of what happened, simply fuels both the conspiracy theories and the interest in the story. It's exactly the wrong way to go about dealing with the situation. There are a variety of possibilities here. The administration may have asked the press to pull the story, which would only generate more interest in the news. The AFP, upon realizing that it shouldn't have posted the story, may have issued a kill order/retraction of sorts. Or perhaps there's some other reasoning. But there are good ways to handle these situations and ways that are guaranteed to backfire. Simply making the articles disappear is pretty much guaranteed to backfire and generate more interest in the story, even if it's a total non-story. Replacing the original story with a "hey, we thought this, but we got it wrong," would have been much more effective.

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, who made approximately $23 million last year, apparently doesn't like the press picking on the salaries at big banks like his. So, he's telling them that they're the ones who are overpaid. To be fair, the context is that he's mocking reporters for focusing on the compensation ratio statistic that some have brought up in questioning how much banks pay their employees, by noting that the same ratio -- which he rightfully calls a "stupid ratio" -- doesn't necessarily look good for the newspaper industry either. Of course, most journalists just buzz right by that context and point out how ridiculous it looks for Dimon to complain about how much journalists make, coming from where he's sitting:

Dimon himself took home roughly $23 million in 2011, about the same as the year before, according to Bloomberg. Compare that to newspaper reporters, who earn an average salary of $43,780 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or between $20,000 and $60,000 per year according to Payscale.

For fun, let's just compare a bit more. The average reporter at The New York Times earns about $93,000 per year, according to Glassdoor.com. The New York Times Company reported an operating profit of $56.7 million in 2011.

Dimon's salary not only dwarfs that of us media-folk; he's also making millions more than most of his employees. The average JPMorgan employee made $341,552 last year, according to Bloomberg News.

The key point, here, is really that if you're trying to convince the press to stop focusing on stories about reasonable employee pay, you probably should not then directly state that their pay is "just damned outrageous," while then defending bank employee payments by saying, "We are going to pay competitively.... We need top talent, you cannot run this business on second-rate talent." The implication that the press gets from that -- perhaps on purpose -- is that the media shouldn't pay competitively, doesn't need top talent, and can run its business on second-rate talent. Some might argue that's already the case... but it's unlikely to get those "second-rate" reporters to drop the issue...

In the last few days, we've seen an extraordinary wave of announcements by governments in Europe, particularly its eastern part, that they would not be ratifying ACTA immediately. That sequence of events, culminating in today's news that Germany, too, would be holding off, has suddenly made lots of people sit up and take notice.

But even against that tumultuous background, few of us would have expected that two of the most serious business publications in Europe, The Economist and Financial Times, would both go much further than simply noting the problems the treaty now faces, and declare that ACTA is pretty much dead.

Under the headline "ACTA up", The Economist says: "Protests across Europe may kill an anti-piracy treaty", and points out: "Internet activists used to be dismissed as a bunch of hairy mouse-clickers with little clout. Not any more."

The Financial Times' headline is "Latest pact on internet piracy set to be derailed", and the post makes an explicit connection with SOPA and PIPA:

A controversial international trade agreement, which campaigners fear would restrict internet freedom looks likely to be delayed or scrapped, the latest in a string of measures planned to combat online piracy to falter in the face of co-ordinated protests.

It also offers some interesting thoughts on why the ACTA revolt has been so strong in eastern Europe:

The issue has stirred up deep passions there, where access to the internet is seen as one of the rewards of belonging to a democratic society. Illegal downloading is also popular, in part because those societies are poorer than those in western Europe, and in part because many content providers have made it difficult for central Europeans to buy music and films legally online.

Finally, it has a fascinating comment from David Martin, the new European Parliament rapporteur on ACTA, who took over after Kader Arif resigned in protest at the way ACTA had been negotiated. Martin says he wants to "canvas views broadly", and to get an opinion from the European Court of Justice on whether ACTA is compatible with the European Union's current laws. As result of this approach, he says:

"Realistically, if we go down this route we are looking at a vote in the spring of 2013," he warns.

The FT quotes an unnamed diplomat who suggests that this delay may "give enough time for the post-SOPA venom to clear," so that governments can quietly ratify ACTA in their national parliaments and in Brussels next year. It sounds like a clever ploy -- let protesters tire themselves out, then push through ACTA -- but on the basis of the strength of feeling that's manifested itself in Europe recently, I wouldn't bet on it working.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

It appears that more people in the mainstream press are beginning to recognize just how horrible the SOPA/E-PARASITE bill is when you look at the details. Over at Time Magazine's Techland blog, there's a post by Jerry Brito, saying that it's a "cure" that is "worse than the disease." The post notes that it won't do much to actually stop infringement, beyond at the margin, but the costs of doing so are quite a lot -- especially as the State Department is trying to convince others around the globe not to regulate the internet:

At a moment when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is urging world governments to keep their hands off the Internet, creating a blacklist would send the wrong message. And not just to China or Iran, which already engage in DNS filtering, but to liberal democracies that might want to block information they find naughty. Imagine if the U.K. created a blacklist of American newspapers that its courts found violated celebrities' privacy? Or what if France blocked American sites it believed contained hate speech? We forget, but those countries don't have a First Amendment.

It's good to see the mainstream press recognizing that this isn't just a fight about "foreign rogue sites" as the entertainment industry would have you believe -- but about massive regulation of the internet and free speech.

It's been unfortunate that the mainstream press hasn't really spent much time digging into the actual details of the text of the E-PARASITE/SOPA bill, and just how awful it is. At best, some of them have done a "well, the tech industry is worried about it" kind of piece, without actually looking at the details. Thankfully, some in the press really are digging in. James Temple, at the SF Chronicle, has an excellent and detailed piece about how SOPA would do more to "stop online innovation" than it would ever do to stop online "piracy." Just a snippet:

There are lots of concerns here, including the amount of discretion it hands to the attorney general. But another big worry is that blocking the domain name for one infringing site (say, latviablogging.com/counterfeitrolexes) could prevent access to thousands of innocent ones also hosted under that domain (like latviablogging.com/motherscookierecipes).

"It is inevitable that there will be bad behavior on any site that has thousands and thousands of dedicated subsections," said Dane Jasper, CEO of Santa Rosa Internet service provider Sonic.net. Cutting off the entire site's traffic and funds amounts to an "Internet death penalty" without a trial, he said.

It also highlights the ridiculous broad drafting and confusing language in the bill -- something SOPA/E-PARASITE defenders still refuse to admit. The worst of the worst is in the definition of what constitutes "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property." The dreadful drafting is going to lead to massive lawsuits:

This section of the bill appears to apply to both U.S.-based sites and foreign ones, or even a portion of a site, if it's "dedicated to theft of U.S. property." One of the key definitions of that is if a site "is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" of infringement. Public Knowledge, a Washington, D.C., public interest group, helpfully boiled down that clumsy legalese to: "lacking sufficient zeal to prevent copyright infringement."

In other words, it would place the responsibility for detecting and policing infringement onto the site itself, rather than content owners, as required under the DMCA.

"There's really not much question that this bill is designed to do an end run around the DMCA," said Corynne McSherry, intellectual property director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group in San Francisco. "What has been affirmed by court after court is that service providers do not have to affirmatively police infringement. That's a good thing because it's a terrible burden to put on a service provider."

The thing that gets me is that if defenders of this bill were intellectually honest, they'd just admit that they were, in fact, trying to change the DMCA, and have a conversation on that point. So far, only Rep. Bob Goodlatte has been intellectually honest enough to admit that's the case. However, others in our comments and on other sites keep insisting that the bill is "narrowly drafted" just to impact the worst of the worst. Anyone who reads the plain (if convoluted) text of the bill knows that's simply not true. A "narrowly drafted" bill does not impact pretty much every internet property, like SOPA does.

You don't quite expect to see this sort of thing on a mainstream press source, but ABC, down in Australia, has a feature piece entitled, The case for piracy, which sounds quite similar to many of the things we tend to talk about. It argues that the old school opinion that "piracy bad, copyright good" may not be particularly accurate -- and, in fact, it could be argued that "copyright owners" are in many ways their own worst enemies. If you think that sounds like the same thing we've been saying for over a decade, then you're correct -- but you probably haven't seen something like this show up in the mainstream press.

Much of the article focuses on how various industries abuse copyright to do anti-consumer activities, and how infringement is often the only way around it -- even for people who want to pay. The article also covers the recording industry's own suicidal tendencies.

Rather than give customers what they wanted publishers threw every toy they had out of the pram and hit the litigation button. One example saw the recording industry sue a 12-year old girl and won $2000. From her point of view she was simply using a free service on the internet that all her friends were using and discussing. One wonders how happy the recording industry was with its $2000 payout. Over the years industry bodies have spent far more money suing people than they recouped through the courts.

One of the main reasons we all have anti-piracy slogans embedded in our brains is because the music industry chose to try and protect its existing market and revenue streams at all costs and marginalise and vilify those who didn't want to conform to the harsh new rules being set.

It really is a fantastic piece. Kudos to ABC for running it, and to writer Nick Ross for publishing such an article.

We've been noticing that the mainstream press has really been speaking up about the broken patent system lately. It was mostly kicked off by the excellent This American Life story about just how broken our patent system is, and that seems to have thrown open the floodgates. So, suddenly an issue that was generally discussed mainly by entrepreneurs and geeks was suddenly showing up all over the place. Last week we noticed stories in both the NY Times and the Economist calling out the dreadful problems of the patent system.

And now we've got two more mainstream publications going further down that road. First up, is The Guardian, which focuses mainly on software patents in explaining how the system is really broken and wondering why the government isn't fixing anything:

Patents were supposed to protect innovation. Now they risk throttling it. Such acquisitions may drag technology companies ever further from their original core competences. Academic research by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society has found that software patents have provided no net benefit to the software industry, let alone to society as a whole. Tragically, because so many corporations which formerly opposed software patents have now joined the system, an effective solution will be harder to find. Once again consumers are pitted against the corporations. Where are the regulators when they are needed?

A much bigger deal, however, is that the Washington Post has a story by Pulitzer-prize winning business and economics columnist Steven Pearlstein, explaining how the patent system is completely broken and the patent reform going through Congress right now won't fix the real problems (he's actually a bit generous in thinking it will fix some of the problems). The piece is a giant condemnation of a broken patent system:

Silly me. I thought the purpose of patents was to spur innovation by giving people who invent something the exclusive use of their innovation for a limited time.

There’s still some of that. But out in Silicon Valley, patents have become the competitive weapon of choice, used by high-tech giants to bludgeon rivals and crush upstarts.

It turns out that the more patents you have, the more likely it is that you can extort exorbitant royalties from people who might have easily come up with the same idea or the same feature that you did but never thought to patent it. And the more patents you have, the more your competitor wants so he can retaliate with a patent suit of his own, claiming that it was you who stole the ideas from him.

In other words, it’s an arms race to buy as many patents as possible, bidding up the price of patents without anyone gaining a permanent competitive advantage. Like all such races, this one involves a huge waste of time, talent and capital, not only in the race to buy patents but in trying to win a patent on every half-baked notion that anyone thinks up.

Instead of spurring innovation and entrepreneurship, patents are being used by companies, venture capitalists and their cynical lawyers to stifle and discourage them.

Pearlstein is someone that folks in DC actually read, which means that our elected officials are hopefully reading this. Will it make some in Congress finally wake up and realize that the patent system is really, really broken, and the patent reform bill they're discussing does little to address the real problems? It would be nice, but it seems unlikely.

Jeff Sonderman points us to the odd statement put out by Hilary Clinton and the State Department for World Press Freedom Day, in which she praises the internet for making info easier to share and for holding governments accountable:

We have all witnessed the power that this surge in connectivity can have in shaping society and holding governments accountable. New media empowers individuals around the world to share information and express opinions in ways unimaginable just ten years ago.

Even as we celebrate innovations that make information easier to share, we are reminded that in many places around the world, journalists are still targeted for harassment and abuse, and are sometimes killed. Today, we remember that journalism is a calling of everyday heroes. We must continue to stand up for those who speak out in perilous circumstances as they pursue, record, and report the truth.

And yet, all of this is occurring at the same time that the State Department has continued to condemn Wikileaks and has supported the treatment of folks like Bradley Manning. He doesn't qualify as someone who decided to "speak out in perilous circumstances" as he tried to "pursue, record and report the truth?"