It's always been good American sport to bash the media, yet we keep coming back to journalists to let us know what is happening. How could we pontificate about the woeful media if we haven't first been educated by those we are so quick to attack?

I seem to have emerged as a lonely defender of today's media, arguing the accomplishments of today's reporters and editors far outweighs the occasional case of plagiarism or bias; recently I've made that case, fruitlessly, to diplomats and high school students.

Lately I've seen still more evidence that "old" media is on its way out. I'll admit, the newspaper industry needs to do a better job of focusing on new delivery methods for its content; The Economist has some good thoughts on that subject. But it's one thing to criticize a business model, quite another to criticize long-standing methods of gathering and reporting news. That's why these two examples of "new" media got under my skin.

Oh brother, I have heard some pretty silly censorship tales in my time, but this one is a real doozy. Last week, U.K. telecom and media regulator Ofcom announced that, in the wake of an investigation prompted by the anonymous viewer's complaint, it had pressured the children's cable TV channel Boomerang to edit out scenes in two "Tom & Jerry" cartoons that were deemed to glamorize or condone smoking. "We note that, in 'Tom and Jerry', smoking usually appears in a stylised manner and is frequently not condoned," reported Ofcom.

I hate to get ahead of myself with irrational exuberance, but my primary takeaway from the Aspen Summit is that there is a possible consensus that the FTC might be the appropriate institution for addressing the net neutrality issue, and broadband competition policy more generally. FTC Chairman Majoras highlighted the conference by announcing the Internet Access task force. Dick Notebaert echoed Chairman Majoras's call for the FTC to take a leadership role in the broadband market. Even my friends at Google appear inclined to consider an FTC-centric role for the net neutrality issue.
To the extent that the Summit helped forward the FTC as the rule of law regulator for the broadband marketplace, and forward the DACA approach toward regulation of the communications marketplace, I would rather audaciously submit it was a success.

FTC Chairman Majoras's announcement of an Internet Access task force is a welcome turn toward rule of law and rigor being brought to the communications sector. Chairman Majoras's full speech can be found here, and it sounds welcome cautionary notes about rushing headlong into Internet regulation.
Letting the FTC do it would be a signal accomplishment toward treating the issue of net neutrality and other competition policy issues surrounding broadband in a principled, economic analysis-driven manner. If only the parties to the net neutrality struggle would lay down their lobbying budgets and ad campaigns, and embrace the FTC as the proper institutional regulator. Fat chance.

The Aspen Summit kicked off last night with an address by FCC Commissioner Adelstein, who got 3 out of 4 issues right in his quite engaging speech. I say that teasingly, because the Commissioner's speech once again reaffirmed that digital issues do not necessarily break down along neat Democratic/Republican political lines. Commissioner Adelstein addressed four topics, urging less regulation on three. On multicast must-carry, cable a la carte mandates and indecency regulation, the Commissioner urged caution, restraint and reliance on markets rather than regulation. Despite these laudable positions, the Commissioner remains steadfast in his defense of media ownership regulation. Nonetheless, not a bad opening batting average where he and PFF fellows agree on 3 of 4 major FCC issues.

Tom Lenard and I are very excited that the FCC has begun and inquiry into reverse auctions as a means to distribute universal service. Though it is very far from being realized, just asking the question is a bold step in the face of the political economy realities of the universal service system. In addition, the questions of auction design and rules are very delicate and subtle. Despite all the political and practical hurdles, this is a worthy discussion to be having as we ponder how to get rural America high quality, low cost, advanced communications systems.

Well, it isn't exactly a heroic ride off into the sunset with the background of the Monument Valley (yes, I've watched John Ford westerns far too many times), but next week marks the end of my tenure as President of PFF.
I am humbled by the well wishes from those with whom I often disagree, Professor Lessig and Jeff Pulver. Even more, I owe thanks to the many colleagues and friends I have made these past years. DC is a place where cynicism can easily thrive, but there are also many thoughtful, principled folks who are struggling for the right answers within the often disspiriting insititutional situation.
I do think we did some things of real value while I was at PFF -- the Digital Age Communications Act, the Institute for Regulatory Law & Economics, the founding of the Center for Digital Media Freedom and the blossoming of IPCentral.info, to name just a few. These programs, and the dedicated folks who make them possible at PFF, will continue to thrive and grow. The cynics' eyes will roll, but I have been privileged to work with wonderful colleagues whose devotion to human liberty is complete and unfailing. Though there are practical imperatives for any institution, the think tank world is really a place for dippy idealists who believe that ideas matter.
With this reverie going on way too long, I think I'll go watch the Searchers again.
I am not going far -- just to the less managerially taxing role of Senior Adjunct Fellow. In the meantime, look me up in my new gig here, where we'll try and change the face of regulatory, competition and IP law from the inside out (cynical snickers welcome here).

The Utopian world painted by commons advocates -- one of open-source production driven not by commercial ambition but rather by desire for peer acclaim and satisfaction from making a contribution -- is infectious, in part because one can find slivers of evidence of it in society. Volunteerism, after all, is fairly common in the modern world, and we are all better off as a result. But is it reasonable to expect that volunteerism can supplant professional work? Should it?

I ask because a volunteer group I participate in is facing this conundrum.

I was listening to an interesting piece on NPR the last night entitled "Does Age Quash Our Spirit of Adventure?" The piece featured a neuroscientist who had been studying why it is that humans (indeed, all mammals) have an innate tendency to lose their willingness to try new things after a certain point in their lives. He called this our "adventure window." The neuroscientist came to study this phenomenon after growing increasingly annoyed with his young male research assistant, who would come to work every day of the week listening to something new and quite different than the day before. Meanwhile, the much older neuroscience professor lamented the fact that he had been listening to the same Bob Marley tape seemingly forever.

Why is it, the neuroscientist wondered, that our willingness to try new things (our "adventure window") fades rapidly after a certain point in life? Unfortunately, science can't provide us with all the answers here, but his research and that of others suggests that there exists something deep within our psyche that relishes novelty and experimentation when we are young, but firmly rejects it as we grow older. To use a more common phrase: We grow set in our ways. And what's most interesting, this neuroscientist unearthed research on other mammals (like baboons) which suggests that this is a common phenomenon throughout nature. A group of older baboons transported to new surroundings, for example, will typically refuse to try new foods they find, whereas their young will be willing to sample everything in sight.

OK, this is all quite interesting but what does all of this have to do with radio formats?

The president of Iran, the guy who squared off against Mike Wallace, has a blog. Click on the flag somewhat resembling a U.S. one to get the English version. He writes longer entries than Adam Thierer!

Tip of the hat to MarketWatch's Frank Barnako.