Northeastern’s mystery building

Not to engage in any special pleading on Northeastern University’s behalf. But I keep looking at this photo of a building used to illustrate a blog post claiming that NU has one of “The 20 Ugliest College Campuses in the USA,” and I’m convinced that it’s not at Northeastern.

I could be wrong. I’m not the most visually oriented person in the world. But I think I’m right, and commenters on Digg agree with me. If this is the best evidence they’ve got, can Northeastern truly be said to be ugly?

Mystery solved: Jim Chiavelli, editor-in-chief of the Northeastern Voice, tells me that it’s a building on the Dedham campus. My point exactly.

Heavy grading, light blogging

I’m up to my neck in end-of-semester grading, and I’m coming down with a cold. So don’t look for much fresh content this week.

I do want to call your attention to a conference held at Southern New Hampshire University last week on blogging the New Hampshire primary. We ended up talking about everything but that, but that’s OK. The New England News Forum, which sponsored the discussion, has an account here. Christine Stuart of CT News Junkie writes it up here.

Also, Robert Weisman of the Boston Globe reports that Google’s Street View will arrive in Boston today at 10 a.m. I’m figuring there’s a pretty good chance I’ll be captured coming out of the Northeastern Au Bon Pain with a medium regular.

New media conference at BU

I should have mentioned this earlier, but I’ll be spending the day at “New Media and the Marketplace of Ideas,” a conference at Boston University sponsored by BU’s College of Communication and School of Law, WBUR Radio (90.9 FM) and the law firm of Prince, Lobel, Glovsky & Tye.

The keynote speaker will be the Daily Kos‘ Markos Moulitsas Zúniga.

Here is the schedule for the day. I’m hosting a breakout session on blogging at 3:45 p.m.

Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble

Who writes the blog “Paper Economy”? I have no idea. And that is why I’m writing this item.

“Paper Economy” is billed as “A US Real Estate Bubble Blog.” Based on a post yesterday about the Boston Globe’s paean to Arlington, I’d say the blogger falls into the category of “sharp but too caustic for his own good,” which is a bulging category indeed. But his anonymity makes it difficult to judge his credibility. The offensive picture above is what he uses for his Blogger profile, accompanied by the phrase “I don’t need no stinking housing bubble!” Really.

Mr. (or Ms.) Paper Economy’s numbers seem impressive. But he writes as though Globe reporter Sacha Pfeiffer pulled her numbers out of thin air, which is clearly not the case. For instance, here is an eye-opening statistic in Pfeiffer’s piece:

As of early October, the average number of days houses sat on the market in Arlington before selling was 83, substantially less than the 146-day average for all of Eastern Massachusetts, according to the Multiple Listing Service Property Information Network.

Mr. P.E. (also known as Dimitris) does not actually challenge that number. Instead, he uses another set of MLS numbers thusly:

[L]ooking at the completed single family home sales for 2007 shows that 156 of 235 homes sold, or a whopping 66.4%, were sold UNDER LIST while only 56 homes, or 23.8%, were sold over the list price.

Taking into account the fact that Arlington has seen an average of 50% of all listed single family homes have price reductions (currently 55%), the sheer number of homes still selling under list is staggering.

Now, that’s important information, and it does run counter to the main theme in Pfeiffer’s story, which is that the good times continue to roll in Arlington. Indeed, she opens with an anecdote about a guy who recently sold his home for more than its listed price. If two-thirds of homes in Arlington are selling for less than list, as Mr. P.E.’s numbers show, then she should have included that fact.

But just as she does not deal with Mr. P.E.’s numbers, so, too, does Mr. P.E. fail to engage with Pfeiffer’s numbers showing that homes in Arlington are on the market for a much shorter period of time than in other communities. That’s a pretty good hook for Pfeiffer’s story, I’d say.

Mr. P.E. also writes:

Still further, the year-to-date median selling price for a home in Arlington is in fact $465,500, the lowest seen since 2003, according to the Warren Group NOT the $510,000 as reported in the article.

In fact, I don’t see where the Boston Globe got the $510,000 figure as it doesn’t match the median number reported for the year-to-date figure, the latest reported month or the current calendar year.

He doesn’t see where the Globe got the $510,000 figure? Hmmm … I think I’ve found it: “Among single-family houses, the median price in Arlington is $510,000, according to Warren Group, a Boston publisher of real estate data.”

Now, if you follow the link offered by Mr. P.E., you will find that it takes you to the self-same Warren Group. But he doesn’t show anything reporting that the median housing price in Arlington is $465,500. Rather, you have to register (sorry; not going to do it) and track down the information yourself.

I don’t know whether Pfeiffer did that or if, instead, she interviewed someone at the Warren Group who gave her the $510,000 figure. What I do know is that Mr. P.E. blithely asserts that she’s wrong without having any way of knowing whether her number is based on the same set of assumptions as his.

As I said earlier, Mr. P.E. seems pretty sharp. His post is not without value. But at the root of his screed is his belief that the Globe is in the tank to the real-estate business. Are newspapers dependent on real-estate advertising? Oh, my. Of course they are. But there’s a long, long leap from understanding that obvious fact to believing that Pfeiffer would write a story claiming real estate in Arlington is hot when it’s really cold.

Mr. P.E. goes so far as to demand “a complete retraction” of what he calls Pfeiffer’s “fictitious article.” He even includes Globe editor Marty Baron’s e-mail address. And you should definitely check out his response to an e-mail Baron sent him. I recommend decaf.

Mr. P.E. may know his stuff. As he points out, his posts have been featured at the Motley Fool and TheStreet.com, among other financial sites. But his anonymity, the picture he uses and his assumption of ill will on the Globe’s part undermine his case to the vanishing point.

The corporate Internet

I have an essay up on ThePhoenix.com on how the democratic, grassroots, participatory media that the Internet has enabled is threatened by efforts by giant telecommunications companies to control the next-generation Net for their own, profit-driven purposes. An excerpt:

The Internet is the single greatest threat to corporate dominance of the media since the industrial model was established a century and a half ago. It would be naïve to think that these corporations wouldn’t fight back. In so doing, they are embracing (as Neil Postman predicted they would) not the strategy of Orwell’s 1984, but of Huxley’s Brave New World. By ensuring that all the latest, richest, coolest content is on the new, high-speed, corporate-controlled Net, they’ll deprive the independent sites of the oxygen they need to survive. And we’ll be so overloaded with entertainment that we won’t care.

Google ads and “the long tail”

Does Lou Ureneck really think the little guys whose ads have popped up on his Web site about fishing in Greece would otherwise be taking out ads in newspapers? The Boston University journalism department chair writes about this in an op-ed piece for the Boston Globe:

[T]hose little Google ads that are popping on my website are chipping — more like hacking — away at newspapers by cutting into their revenue streams. A newspaper spends an enormous amount of money on its newsroom and production plants to bring me my morning paper. It needs that revenue to operate.

Google, on the other hand, spends not a dime on the collection of news. Its business, in part, is based on aggregating the work of others — or getting a cut from the advertising that appears on the websites of others. It’s a brilliant business model. No wonder it has a market capitalization of $160 billion.

In a sense, I am contributing to problems of newspapers by jumping into Web publishing and accepting advertising. Is this fair? Well, fair or not, it clearly is inevitable.

In fact, Ureneck’s site, and the advertising that appears on it, are examples of “the long tail,” an economics concept popularized in an article and book by Wired editor Chris Anderson. The long tail refers to tiny transactions that are too inefficient for anyone to bother with in a mass-market environment, but that become worthwhile as the cost of making those transactions goes down. The idea is that the Internet has reduced that cost nearly to zero.

An example of this is the limited number of books and CDs even a large retailer like Borders or Barnes & Noble can carry, versus the much larger selection offered by a virtual retailer like Amazon.com. But even Amazon is a mass marketer compared to hundreds and thousands of smaller sites. As the long tail lengthens, the size of the mass market might shrink (which is Ureneck’s concern.) But it’s not going to go away by any means.

As for Google and the news business, well, that’s been the subject of uneasy conversations for some time now. Late this past spring, Washington Post journalist-turned-UC Berkeley professor Neil Henry got his cookies toasted for seeming not to understand that Google News actually drives users to news organizations’ Web sites (and their advertising) — thus making, not costing, them money.

Ureneck asserts that Google “spends not a dime on the collection of news.” True, but as of last week, the company now intends to spend many dimes so that others can collect news: It’s subscribing to the Associated Press and other news services, and is featuring their full content on its Google News site. (Yahoo! News has been doing that since the beginning.)

If you think Google has been getting something of a free ride, then maybe you’ll see that as good news. But Poynter’s Amy Gahran cites a Forbes article that notes this “could diminish Internet traffic to newspaper and broadcast companies’ Web sites where those stories and photos are also found — a development that could reduce those companies’ revenue from online advertising.”

It’s all very complicated.

L’affaire Skube

I took a pass on the imbroglio over Michael Skube’s stunningly uninformed Los Angeles Times column on the shortcomings of bloggers, other than posting a brief comment on Jay Rosen’s PressThink blog. So if you’re unfamiliar with what I’m talking about, I recommend Dan Gillmor’s wrapup, a nice summary with all the links. Skube’s interaction with Josh Marshall is mind-blowing.

Let me repeat what I said on PressThink. There’s only one way to complete the sentence “All blogs are …” And that is this: “All blogs are published on the Internet.” Anything else is an intellectually dishonest generalization.