Message from Michael -- World Internet Stats -- September 20, 2010

Message From Michael                                 

                                                                                                                        September 20, 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

      CRUNCHING THE NUMBERS

      STILL NOT GETTING IT

      THE FAME OF FLAME

      WEB AWARDS – BOY SCOUTS AND SYMPHONIES

 

 

      CRUNCHING THE NUMBERS:  One out of every four Internet users in the WORLD (26.5%) is a Facebook subscriber.  More than half of all the Internet users in North America (56%) and in the region of Oceania/ Australia (54.5%) are Facebook subscribers.  A third of all the users in Europe (34.1%), Latin America (35%) and the Caribbean (39%) are Facebook subscribers.  In the Middle East it’s one out of every five (18.5%), one out of every seven in Africa (15.9%); and one out of every ten in Asia (11.3%).  All this according to Internet World Stats, which says the worldwide Internet population will soon reach 2 Billion; As of the end of August it was 1,970,837,003.  Don’t you wonder about those three?  Anyway, that is out of a worldwide general population that is soon to reach 7 Billion.  Europe, with 162.1 Million Facebook users, has the most subscribers, ahead of North America (149.1 Million).  Asia comes in third (93.6 Million).  Of course, you have to keep in mind that Internet penetration in general in the Asian area is low (21.6%), but that with 3.8 Billion of the world population, the potential growth is enormous.

Now, for the rest of the story… or at least a little perspective.  Yahoo, which seems to hardly get any mention in the new media mashups and musings, claims 622 Million unique visitors each month and revenues of $6.5 Billion.  So, if you do the math – as in 622M is more than Facebook’s 500 M – Yahoo has one out of every three Internet users worldwide (31.5%), which certainly justifies its claim as “the world’s most visited home page.”   On top of that, TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington reports that Yahoo’s ‘chief product officer, Blake Irving, has set a goal of One Billion unique visitors and $10 Billion in revenue.  But (isn’t there always a ‘but’), the numbers, despite sounding like hard facts, are always subject to some interpretation, and different sources cite different numbers.  For example, according to Google’s Double Click Ad Planner, which tracks the top 1,000 websites, Facebook has 540 Million unique visitors (and a reach of 34.8%) while YouTube has 490 Million (and a reach of 31.4%) and Yahoo has 450 Million (and 28.8%).  Meanwhile Google CEO Eric Schmidt has announced plans for the launch of Google Me, a social networking site that they say is not a social networking site.  Which, in a way, it isn’t.  Several media observers, including Arrington, Chris Crum of WebProNews, and Nick O’Neil at AllFacebook, say Google is going to build on all of its products to produce an ‘activity stream’ that links it all together under the semi-recently launched Google Buzz.  Just list out the Google products and you can see what that means – YouTube, of course; plus Picassa, Blogger, AdWords, AdSense, DoubleClick, Android, Chrome, Google TV (recently announced – and a whole story in itself.) To say nothing of its cloud of apps, including documents, calendar, and the list goes on and on.

      STILL NOT GETTING IT:  The Pew Research Center report on news consumption still has me baffled.  Not the report, but the reaction that some how it’s good news.  When you look at the charts (Yes, I actually look at the charts), “time spent with the news” is actually flat or down since 2004 across all age groups.  That’s important because 2004 was when Online news use was first added to the Pew’s People and the Press reports.  There was a significant increase in news uses from 2002 to 2004, presumably because of the addition of the Online news measurement, from an additional seven minutes for those aged 18 to 29, 13 minutes for those 30 to 39, 17 minutes for those in the 40 to 49 group and 11 minutes for those 50 to 64.  Even those 65-plus added another seven minutes.  But since then, from 2004 to 2010, it has been flat or down.  A flat 45 minutes from 2004 to 2010 for 18 to 29 year olds; Down from 70 to 68 for 30 to 39; Up a minute from 73 to 74 for the 40 to 49 year olds; Down a minute for 50 to 64 year olds and down five minutes for the 65-plus crowd.  Print newspapers take the biggest whack during that time – down seven minutes – the same time that Online news (including newspaper websites) was up.  And the bottomline – from 2004 to 2010, “time spent with the news yesterday” is down two minutes from 72 minutes to 70 minutes.  So, explain to me how that’s good news.  In the end, it still raises the question (in my mind, at least) as to whether news is Integral or Incidental to the American people.      

      THE FLAME OF FAME:  When Lady Gaga proclaimed two years ago in her debut album, Fame, that she was “in it for the fame,” not even she could have predicted how famous she would become.  Website FameCount declared her the most famous musician, and most famous everything, worldwide, based on social networking reports.  She has more than 18.2 Million Facebook fans, more than 6.3 Million Twitter followers and nearly 350 Thousand YouTube subscribers.  But taking a lyric from Fame, the Musical, pop star and musical icon Michael Jackson has proved that you can “live forever” if you get enough fame.  He actually has more Facebook fans (20.1 Million) and more YouTube subscribers (550 Thousand) than Lady Gaga.  Where she beats him is in Twitter followers – not surprisingly since he’s dead.  Actually it’s surprising he has any followers, but he does – 226 Thousand to be exact.   The second most popular musician, and social network star, worldwide?  Who else?  Justin Bieber, with 11.6 Million Facebook fans, 6.3 Million Twitter followers and nearly 770 Thousand YouTube subscribers. 

Next in line in terms of musicians is Taylor Swift (10.4 Million Facebook fans, 4.2 Million Twitter followers and 474 Thousand YouTube Subscribers.)  After that it’s Michael Jackson at #4, followed by Britney Spears at #5, with 4.5 Million Facebook fans, nearly 6 Million Twitter followers and 212 Thousand YouTube subscribers.  Then, it’s Katy Perry, Eminem, Shakira, Ashley Tisdale, and rounding out the top ten, Linkin Park. 

Next in line in terms of social network stars in general (after Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber) is President Barack Obama with 13.6 Million Facebook fans, 5.4 Million Twitter followers and 195 Thousand YouTube subscribers.  But the big winner in terms of Facebook fans, and number four worldwide, is Texas Hold’em Poker with nearly 24 Million fans, but ‘only’ 152 Thousand Twitter followers and only One Thousand YouTube subscribers.  After that, it’s back to Taylor Swift, Michael Jackson, and Britney Spears, with Ashton Kutcher coming in at #8 (5.4 Million fans, 5.8 Million followers and 10 Thousand subscribers); Selena Gomez at #9 and Facebook itself as number ten.

      COCKTAIL CHATTER – WEB AWARDS.  I hate these kind of lead lines, but I’m going to use it anyway – what do Catholic Boy Scouts in Connecticut and the Royal Albert Hall in London have in common?  They are both winners in the Web Marketing Association’s 2010 WebAwards. Boy Scout Troop 175 of Simsbury won in the advocacy category while the Royal Albert Hall won in the arts category.  They are just some of the many, and I do mean many, websites to be cited.  There were at least four, and often more, levels of winners in 100 categories, and although the sheer number of winners would seem to be worthy of sarcasm, I will refrain, because they are still interesting.  Some highlights – The National Geographic Channel won for Best TV Website; the Mendoza School of Business at Notre Dame won for Best University website (although there were 15 winners altogether in this category); This I Believe won in the radio category, which is doubly impressive because it was the only winner in that category; PRNewswire won for Best PR Website; the USANetwork won for Best Broadcasting site; Pictela which is a ‘brand content platform’ won for Best Media Website; and the Cincinnati Enquirer won for Best Newspaper website.  Anyway, you get the picture.  Visit the site (webaward.org)for yourself.  And when I get a few hours to kill (yeah, right), I’ll go through and list some interesting sites in my next Message for you to visit.         

      SUBSCRIPTIONS:  We encourage people to pass on copies of Message from Michael.  But if you would like to get your own copy, you can subscribe by sending an e-mail to Michael@MediaConsultant.tv with the word “subscribe-MM” in the subject line.  If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, e-mail Michael@MediaConsultant.tv with the word “unsubscribe-MM” in the subject line. Also, back issues of MfM are available at the website, media-consultant.blogspot.com.  You can reach me directly at Michael@MediaConsultant.tv.

 

Message from Michael -- News Consumption Report -- September 15,2010

Message From Michael                                 

                                                                                                                        September 15, 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

   PEW BIENNIAL REPORT ON NEWS CONSUMPTION

 

 

THE OLD HALF FULL OR HALF EMPTY QUESTION:  Or to use the other hackneyed expression – I have some good news and I have some bad news.  From the Pew Research Center’s People and the Press report on news consumption which they produce every two years.  The good news is that Americans are spending more time ‘with the news’ than they have since the mid-1990’s – 70 minutes on average a day.  Or so say the report authors.  According to them, news over digital platforms is ‘more than making up’ for what the report says are ‘modest declines’ in traditional media.  As to the bad news… well, let me count the ways.

The percentage of people who only ‘graze’ for news, getting their news ‘from time to time’ has increased every time the report has been made, until now more than half (57%) say that’s how they get their news.  Nearly two thirds of the public (62%) and three quarters of identified Internet users (76%) ‘happen across news’ while actually online for other reasons.  The percentage of people who regularly seek news, or more accurately, go looking for it at regular times has declined steadily over the last four years, until now a little more than a third (38%) actually make time for news.  And even though the percentage of people with TiVo’s and DVR’s has increased to almost half (45%) from a third (35%) two years ago, only a quarter (24%) use it to record the news – about the same as the last survey (22%).  A third of the news-consuming people (31%) use search engines to get their news.  That’s double the percentage of four years ago (14%) and up significantly from the last survey two years ago (19%). 

 

Want more?  Only one out of seven (14%) of the 3,000-plus people surveyed could answer four basic news questions correctly.  Even more disturbing, one out of seven (15%) got all four questions wrong.  The worst offenders?  No, my skeptical-liberal friends, not Fox news watchers.  They actually did better than average.  The worst offenders are the people watching the network evening news and the network morning ‘news’ shows.  Morning show watchers were in fact more likely to get them all wrong (13%) than all right (9%).  And the partisanship that people decry in Washington politics is showing up even more in people’s choice of media.  For example, here is the one factoid that is both semi-amusing and telling.  The percentage of people who identify themselves as conservative Republicans and who say they enjoy watching the news “a lot” has remained roughly steady at 58% since the last time the survey was done in 2008.  The percentage of people who identify themselves as liberal Democrats and who say they enjoy watching the news “a lot” has dropped a whopping 22 points from 67% last time to 45% now.  But, not so amusing, back to the ‘bad news’ theme -- the percentage of people in general who enjoy watching the news “a lot” has dropped seven points from 52% to 45%, and that drop is across all demographics.    

 

Somehow in all this, Center Director Tom Rosenstiel with the Project for Excellence in Journalism sees a silver lining.  He argues in a commentary at the end of the report that we’re entering a new phase in news consumption where people are not just replacing the old technologies with new but using the new technologies in new ways.  He notes that use of traditional media has stabilized or “declined only slightly” in the last few years. Traditional media (newspapers, television, radio) account for 57 minutes of that 70 minutes spent each day.  It’s online news use that has added the other 13 minutes.  Specifically, out of that total 70 minutes a day – 32 is spent with TV news, 15 with radio, 13 online and 10 with newspapers.  Rosenstiel makes the point that people go to the different media sources and media platforms for different reasons.  He cites a report earlier this year by the center which made the point that the media is now ‘portable, personalized and participatory.’  He says that while “the medium may not quite be the message… the medium does make a difference (and that) different platforms serve us differently.”

 

But if you’re in newspapers, the glass is definitely half empty.  If you’re in television, the glass is maybe half full.  If you’re CNN, the glass is a sippy cup with a leak in it.  The percentage of people who say they read a newspaper yesterday has dropped to a third (31%) which the report says is the lowest percentage in two decades.  As disturbing as that may be to my newspaper brethren, what is probably more disturbing is that the percentage of total newspaper readership (meaning both print and online) has dropped to 37%, from 39% two years ago and 43% four years ago.  But what may cause the lovers of ink-stained dead wood to want to curl up in the fetal position is that the percentage of people under 50 using the print version has dropped by half – from 29% to 15%.  For my television brethren, the news is definitely better with the percentage of people watching TV news yesterday holding steady at 58% -- a percentage that has held steady for a decade.  Add to that, people spend more time with television news – 55 minutes, compared to 38 minutes online and 37 minutes with a newspaper.  So, crank up the promo machine – more people spend more time watching news on television than any other medium.

 

As to the CNN glass, well… Everybody is already familiar with the ratings picture – with Fox scoring higher, although as I’ve pointed out several times, CNN wins the online ratings war by an even larger margin than Fox wins the TV ratings war.  But there has been a role reversal in people who call themselves regular viewers.  A decade ago, CNN could claim the lead, with 21% saying they are regular viewers versus 17% for Fox.  In the last four surveys it’s been a dead heat, but in the latest survey Fox has the lead, with 23% saying they are regular viewers versus 18% for CNN.  But that’s not the worst of it for CNN.  It’s seen a drop in the news viewers under 30, a decline in the heavier-than-normal-news viewers over 50 and, although it may not be a demographic they want, Fox also has a substantial lead in the way-way-way-heavier news viewers over 65 – 30% to CNN’s 21%.  It gets worse… well, for CNN, not Fox.  Republican viewership for Fox has increased to 40% from 36% in the 2008 survey which was a presidential election year.  That has helped Fox maintain its audience size while CNN, which once had as many Republican viewers as Fox, continues to see a decline in these viewers.  Both networks have seen a decline in Democratic viewership – six points for Fox but eight points for CNN.  And Independents are going away from CNN and to Fox.    

 

And, oh, yes, that idea CNN recently embraced of getting controversial personalities to bolster its viewership – Piers Morgan replacing Larry King.  Let me point out another factoid from the report.  That 23% of Fox viewers who are regular viewers is more than double the percentage of people who identify themselves as regular viewers of Bill O’Reilly (10%), more than triple the percentage who identify themselves as regular viewers of Glenn Beck (7%) and four times Sean Hannity (6%).  What is far and away CNN’s strength (a little positive for my CNN friends) is that two thirds (64%) of its regular viewers turn to it for the latest headlines.  That’s the highest of any news sources, including the network evening news (59%) and Fox (44%).  And if you appreciate a little black humor (depending on your point of view), a fourth (24%) of Beck’s viewers say they turn to him because of his ‘in depth reporting’ and a fifth of O’Reilly’s regular audience (20%) and Sean Hannity’s regular audience (21%) turn to them for the same reason – in depth reporting.  That is more than their own network (Fox – 11%) and CNN (10%) and equal to or more than NPR (20%), Sunday Talk shows (19%) and news magazines (23%), but lower than the Wall Street Journal (37%) and New York Times (33%).

 

Another – oh, yes, moment.  The New York Times also has the dubious distinction of being the only news source in the survey in which a greater percentage (21%) “believe almost nothing” it reports as “believe all or most” of what it reports (20%).  Here’s another promo moment for one news organization.  The most credible news source in the survey? – 60 Minutes with a third (33%) believing all or most of what its correspondents tell us and only a tenth (11%) believing almost nothing.  Local TV news can claim the #2 spot with 29% believing all or most of what they report, but more importantly maybe, only 8% saying they believe almost nothing.    That was the lowest score – or best score, depending on how you phrase it – of any news source.  CNN (29%) and NPR (28%) are in the same believability range and the same ‘un-believability’ range (13% and 16%).  The ‘daily newspaper’ had a much lower ‘believe all’ rating (21%) than local news and a much higher ‘believe nothing’ rating (14%).  And Fox was slightly, and not statistically significantly, behind CNN in ‘believe all’ (27%) and the same in ‘believe nothing’ (22%).  It should be noted that the partisanship cited earlier is further reinforced by the believability scale of Republicans and Fox (41% believe most) and Democrats and CNN (40% believe most).

                                                                                                                                                                                      

About half of Americans (52%) say they see a lot of bias in news coverage with Republicans (62%) seeing more bias than Democrats (47%) or Independents (53%).  And most Americans (57%) see some news sources as more trustworthy, but a breakdown of the numbers, again show partisanship driving that as much as journalism, it seems.  Most Americans (62%) also say they prefer to get news from sources that don’t have a particular point of view, as opposed to the quarter (25%) who say they want news that shares their point of view.  And, yet again, partisan political views play into the perceptions.  For example, almost as many people watching Hardball watch it because it shares their point of view (44%) as want it to have no particular point of view (45%).  Hannity’s show is in the same range (40% shared point of view versus 45% no particular point of view); Beck (39% shared and 46% not); Rachel Maddow (40% and 46%).

As always, I have only skimmed the surface of the report – 145 pages condensed to less than 2,000 words.  So, yes, we will have more in a future Message.  I should also note that much of the thrust of the report is on the ‘new media’ aspects of news consumption.  That is what Rosenstiel focuses on and why he sees some upside.  I have focused on news use in general, but believability and credibility in particular.  So, there are still questions of how people are integrating the different platforms into their news lives.  All those different sources translates into the fact that four out of five people (83%) get news “as part of their daily lives.”  That’s the good news.  But a fifth (17%) told the survey takers that they got “no news” yesterday.  That percentage has been pretty consistent over the years.  But when you look at the younger audience, the percentage gets more dramatic.  A quarter (27%) of those under 30 got “no news” yesterday and nearly a third (31%) of those between the ages of 18 and 24 got “no news” yesterday.  So, yes, I still question whether the report indicates a different use of different news sources or a declining use of different information sources.  Or, put another way, it is a question of whether news is being integrated into their lives or whether news is important to their lives.  As the cliché goes… stay tuned.

                    

      SUBSCRIPTIONS:  We encourage people to pass on copies of Message from Michael.  But if you would like to get your own copy, you can subscribe by sending an e-mail to Michael@MediaConsultant.tv with the word “subscribe-MM” in the subject line.  If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, e-mail Michael@MediaConsultant.tv with the word “unsubscribe-MM” in the subject line. Also, back issues of MfM are available at the website, media-consultant.blogspot.com.  You can reach me directly at Michael@MediaConsultant.tv.

 

Message from Michael - Cyber Attacks - September 7, 2010

Message From Michael                                 

                                                                                                                        September 7, 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

      ATTACK FROM WITHIN AND WITHOUT

      AMERICA’S MOST WANTED CYBER ATTACKER

      THE MULTI-MEDIA HUMANITARIAN

      COCKTAIL CHATTER – PORN AND NIRVANA

 

 

      ATTACK FROM WITHIN AND WITHOUT:  Military and civilian Internet Networks in the U.S. are “probed thousands of times and scanned millions of times”…  every day.   Not only that, but “adversaries” have acquired “thousands of files” from the Internet Networks of the U.S., its Allies and its industry partners, including weapons blueprints, operational plans and surveillance data.  Sounds like the rantings of some paranoid cyber-survivalist, doesn’t it?  Actually the source of these statements is the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, William J. Lynn III, writing in Foreign Relations, the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations which bills itself as a non-partisan, independent think tank.  Lynn says the U.S. military’s global communications comprise more than 15,000 networks, with 7 Million computing devices maintained by 90,000 people at hundreds of locations in dozens of countries.  Yet, he says, “a dozen determined computer programmers” could threaten that whole network.  And that’s what makes the war in “cyberspace” even scarier than the military’s traditional defense objectives of “air, sea and land.”  Heck, we thought it was scary when ‘outer space’ was added to the military objectives.  It no longer takes an expensive Stealth fighter or aircraft carrier to attack the U.S.  Add to that the fact that a missile comes with a “return address”; a computer virus does not, so you’re not sure who attacked you.  Plus, he says, because the Internet was designed to be collaborative, expandable and innovative, the issues of security and identity management were low priorities, so that means offense has the upper hand.  Just to make it even more complicated for U.S. security, he notes that the military commands are dependent on “civilian infrastructures” (universities and contractors) that are also subject to attack.  And to make it even more complicated still, a cyber-attack on power grids, transportation networks or financial systems could be as devastating as an attack on military targets.  As an added twist, “rogue code” can be written into software as it is being developed or “kill switches” and “hidden backdoors” can be written into computer chips as they are being made. 

That is why, he says, it’s so important to develop a cyber defense that crosses military and civilian lines as well as national and corporate boundaries. The Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, DARPA, (Yes, the people who brought you the Internet) is developing something called the National Cyber Range, which in essence will allow the military to do combat exercises in cyberspace just like they do with ships and planes. The agency recently awarded contracts to Lockheed Martin and John Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Laboratory.  Meanwhile NATO has just released its NATO 2020 which address the cyber security issue as well as others which, as the Brookings Institute puts it in their analysis, recognizes that “in an increasingly globalized world… security threats are often unconventional in nature and transnational in scope.”      

The funny factoid that Lynn cites that isn’t so funny is that it takes the Pentagon 81 months to make a new computer system operational after it is first funded.  Based on Moore’s Law on the growth of computing power, that means by the time the system is delivered, it is four generations behind the state of the art.  And to add yet another twist to all this, Lynn makes the point that the U.S. has only 4.5% of the World population, and with mammoth-population countries like China and India training more and more computer proficient scientists, just amassing trained cyber-professionals is not enough.

      AMERICA’S MOST WANTED CYBER-ATTACKER:  And probably fair to say, most unheard of.  At least by me.  Remember those ‘dozen determined programmers’ mentioned earlier?  Well, Gary McKinnon, is one of them.  The U.S. government has been trying for eight years to convince the U.K. government to turn over the Scottish man who American officials say hacked into 97 military and NASA computers.  McKinnon, meanwhile, admits he hacked into the computers but says he was only looking for evidence that the U.S. was covering up information about UFO’s and “free energy suppression” which is a conspiracy theory/belief that special interest groups (aka oil companies) are suppressing technology that would reshape current methods of generating electricity.  McKinnon’s case actually came up recently in the meeting between President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron.  The new Prime Minister has called for a re-examination of the U.K.’s extradition policy and, in particular, the U.S.’s extradition request which has been argued all the way to the House of Lords.  Until that news conference, probably most Americans had never heard of McKinnon, and most probably still haven’t although it has gotten extensive coverage overseas.  U.S. officials say that, among other things, McKinnon deleted U.S. Navy weapons logs and did $800,000 worth of damage.  Website freegary.org.uk says McKinnon, who suffers from Asperger’s disease,  should be tried in a British court.  I should note that although, as always, I have gone to multiple sources for this story, I should credit Clark Boyd, technology correspondent for The World, for getting my attention on this.  As a footnote to this, McKinnon was found out because he forgot the time difference between the U.K. and U.S.  and started running a computer in the U.S. while the user was sitting in front of it – watching his cursor move.

      THE MULTI-MEDIA HUMANITARIAN:  His name is David Kobia, and Technology Review recently named him its humanitarian of the year for the development of Ushahidi – “software that helps populations cope with crises.”   Regular readers of the message will remember this being first mentioned as a tool to map the violence occurring after the presidential election in Kobia’s native Kenya using reports from ordinary people.  As tough as that was, the huge test for Ushahidi (which means ‘testimony’ in Swahili) came with the crisis in Haiti which, as the citation notes, tracked “reports of human misery on a vast scale” – 25,000 text messages and 4.5 Million Twitters in one month.  Kobia is one of Technology Review’s 35 – innovators under the age of 35.  Others include Avi Muchnik who created Aviary, a cloud-based multi-media editing software that allows you to do everything from tweak a photograph to compose a complex multitrack musical arrangement.  David Karp created Tumblr, “a platform that keeps bloggers blogging”  Kati London created Area/Code which teaches “real world skills through games.”  Anyway, you get the idea.  You can see the full list of not-so-whipper whippersnappers at http://www.technologyreview.com/tr35.              

      COCKTAIL CHATTER:  A Czechoslovakian-based antivirus company says the idea that pornographic sites are more infected than other sites is not true.  The company, Avast, says that for every adult domain they found infected, there were 99 other domains with “legitimate content” that were also infected.  Website thenewnewinternet.com cites, for example, an Avast search in the U.K., which showed there were more infected domains with the word “London” in them than there were with the word “sex.”  The CTO of the company was quick to add in the report that “we are not recommending people to start searching for erotic content.”

The incoming college class of 2014 was born when Ross Perot was warning about a giant sucking sound and Bill Clinton was apologizing for pain in his marriage.  The annual analysis of the mindset of the incoming students by Beloit College was created by two professors there to remind faculty of dated references such as the fact that these students have never written in cursive and never twisted a coiled handset wire around their wrist while talking on the phone.  For them, Russia has never aimed nukes at the U.S., but China has always been an economic threat.  Clint Eastwood has always been a director.  Woody Allen has always been with Soon-Yi Previn.  John McEnroe has never played professional tennis, but Leno and Letterman have always traded insults on late night TV.  American companies have always done business in Vietnam, and Russians and Americans have always been living together in space.  Korean cars have always been on American highways, and Honda has always been a major competitor at the Indianapolis 500.  Food has always been irradiated and toothpaste tubes have always stood on their caps.  And Nirvana has always been on the classic oldies station.  The full list of 75 items can be found at the Beloit.edu/ mindset website.                       

      SUBSCRIPTIONS:  We encourage people to pass on copies of Message from Michael.  But if you would like to get your own copy, you can subscribe by sending an e-mail to Michael@MediaConsultant.tv with the word “subscribe-MM” in the subject line.  If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, e-mail Michael@MediaConsultant.tv with the word “unsubscribe-MM” in the subject line. Also, back issues of MfM are available at the website, media-consultant.blogspot.com.  You can reach me directly at Michael@MediaConsultant.tv.