How Agencies Are Remaking the Retail Media Market

"As agencies have moved more aggressively into the domain of commerce media, one has to wonder about the role of Amazon — specifically, how the holding companies and independent agencies setting up retail units impacted their all-important relationship with the 800-lb. gorilla of the space." (from Digiday's editorial series on the state of retail media)

Twitter Taunts NPR as State-Run Media But Won't Permit These Two Clowns to Be Tagged in Posts

NPR finally said enough is enough and did what we all want but don't have the balls to: quit Twitter. As Poynter reports, NPR, which had about 8.8 million followers on the social network, said in a statement: “We are not putting our journalism on platforms that have demonstrated an interest in undermining our credibility and the public’s understanding of our editorial independence. We are turning away from Twitter but not from our audiences and communities.” Preach. 

The World's On Fire, and It's All Trump Trump Trump

"The Arabs have decided to jack up the price of oil another 20 percent. The C.I.A. has been caught opening Sen. Humphrey's mail. There's a civil war in Angola, another one in Beirut. New York City's facing default, they've finally caught up with Patricia Hearst ... and the whole front page of the Daily News is Howard Beale." -Diana Christensen, Network

I can't help feel this way as I look at the homepages of all the news sites this morning. The Times, CNN, the Posts (Washington and New York), BBC: It's all Trump, all the time (again). And isn't that a depressing reality. The Times couldn't have put it any better when it commented "Biden has the Oval Office, but Trump has center stage." One could be forgiven for not noticing the fact that in the past day there were not one but two important elections, in Wisconsin and Chicago; Israeli police raided a mosque in Jerusalem; a tornado in Missouri caused multiple deaths and injuries; a study was released suggesting that, despite years of reports to the contrary, there are absolutely zero health benefits to the moderate consumption of alcohol; and in South Africa, a plane had to make an emergency landing because of a cobra in the cockpit. (Some headlines write themselves.) 

Does the latest Trump news warrant wall-to-wall coverage? In fact it does, considering the historical merit. Does it call for the resurrection of the Trump circus? Obviously not. But here we are, déjà vu all over again. And it's just the beginning. Which calls to mind a line from another classic movie about journalists and journalism, Broadcast News, where character Aaron Altman, watching a particularly sordid and sensationalized piece on the evening news being reported by his rival Tom Grunick, remarks to his colleagues in the newsroom, rapt by the spectacle: "Can somebody put on the news for a minute?" (Which is also how I happened to feel when I came across this Jacob Bernstein piece in the Times, on the ex-fiance of two weeks of Rupert Murdoch, which has all the news value of what I had for breakfast — which, as I'm on a diet, wasn't nearly enough. Isn't it comforting to know what an influence the National Enquirer and Inside Edition continue to have on our establishment media?

Attention Brands: If You're Not Adidas, PEZ or IKEA, Kindly Stop Unnecessarily Abbreviating Things

Some of the world's most loved brands — Adidas, IKEA, PEZ, Arby's — happen to be abbreviations. And certain companies are so iconic that they've embraced going by their initials — KFC being a famous example. It's when people unnecessarily complicate things with "abreeves" (only you fans of the dearly departed TV series "Happy Endings" will get that reference) that it gets ridiculous. I recently tuned into a webinar put together by a well-known ad agency in which the host repeatedly referred to the place by its initials. Not only had I never, in all my years covering this stuff, heard the agency referred to that way before, but as one of the letters was a "W," it actually took the presenter longer to say the abbreviation than it would have to say the actual name of the company. Generally, having "W" in a brand's identity is a horrible idea (unless you happen to be George W. Bush, aka "Dubya," which, love him or hate him, has to be one of the greatest abreeves ever). The most egregious example of such a brand fail is Weight Watchers, which changed its name a few years back to the perplexing WW. I'm still not quite getting Weight Watchers' reasoning for shortening a perfectly descriptive brand name brimming with consumer goodwill and recognizability. Of course, some acronyms are worse. Much worse. Just consider the one below. (Though having been to Sarasota myself, I'm thinking maybe it was done on purpose.)

The Only Good Thing to Come Out of This Pandemic: The Befitting Failure of New York City's Hudson Yards

It's official: that gleaming monument to hubris known as Hudson Yards—the mega-development on the West Side that made Tenth Avenue unnavigable for years and ruined the Manhattan skyline with a bunch of ugly, dystopian towers, not to mention that rusting atrocity The Vessel—is a big fat $25 billion flop, as the Times reports. I'm sure similar, schadenfreude-stoked stories were written in the 1930s when the Empire State Building opened just in time for the Great Depression and sat half empty for years, but Hudson Yards is uniquely ill-timed, maybe even irredeemably cursed, as the pandemic has shuttered its marquee tenants (most notably Dallas import Neiman Marcus—as if the city didn't already have a surplus of homegrown retailers selling a bunch of overpriced stuff nobody can afford), while even that suicide-inviting, stairway-to-nowhere monstrosity that is its centerpiece has been mothballed. And the residents of the city are stuck with a hideous heap of hulking, deserted junk whose main purpose seems to be blocking the afternoon sun along the Hudson. Just think of what that $25 billion (and the many millions more in tax breaks and infrastructure projects devoted to the debacle) might've done to revamp New York's neighborhoods that are actually in need, or to help fight the virus that has devastated the city, or to provide affordable housing for working and middle class people who've been priced out of the borough. Meanwhile, don't worry about the developer, Steve Ross, and his merry band of capitalist thieves—they can always dry their tears with $100 bills and the eviction orders of all those widows and orphans.

Would Walter Cronkite Have an Instagram Account?

If you are a working journalist, as I am, you could be forgiven for wanting to off yourself daily for being reminded by other reporters of what a complete failure you are.

Let me say upfront that I have enjoyed the spoils of my career, of which there have been many. I've been honored to rub elbows with famous journalists and other bold-faced names. I've attended the Oscars, talked at the Cannes ad festival, and partied at the Tribeca Film Festival. I've gone on TV to talk about this or that on occasion. I've had celebrity writers pick fights with me, some of them public — among them Salman Rushdie and the late Jimmy Breslin. Those were a lot of fun.

But I never saw myself as the story. How naive of me.

Professors, albeit brilliant ones, who like to write about current events are now being classified not just as journalists but as superstar journalists. Consider Ben Smith's puff piece on Heather Cox Richardson in the Times this week. Richardson teaches American history at Boston College and has built an impressive following on Facebook and the newsletter platform Substack. She is a wonderful writer and teacher. What she does not do is journalism, which she is the first to admit. 

That doesn't stop Smith from hyperventilating that she's the future of our trade. He writes:

Dr. Richardson's focus on straightforward explanations to a mass audience comes as much of the American media is going in the opposite direction, driven by the incentives of subscription economics that push newspapers, magazines, and cable channels alike toward super-serving subscribers, making you feel as if you're on the right team, part of the right faction, at least a member of the right community. She's not the only one to have realized that a lot of people feel left out of the media conversation.

Richardson herself figures she has drawn so much attention (and so much success; her Substack account pulls down $1 million a year, Smith estimates) because she makes readers come away feeling "smarter, not dumber." Not only is that an incredibly arrogant thing to admit, but it's an insult to every committed journalist out there fighting to reveal some truth on this bleak mortal coil. (I do not include the bottom feeders among them. See: the New York Post.) If the public is too bored by what most of us toil to report, if they feel "dumber" after consuming our stuff, then may I suggest that the fault lies with the easily distracted, garbage-clogged lizard brain and its need (nay, craving) for quick and easy explanations. It requires some focus, after all, to absorb that characterized by even a suggestion of complexity. Or at least they have to assume some of the blame, as I see it.

The medium may make us "stars." That's not a new phenomenon. Consider H.L. Mencken, Nellie Bly, Martha Gellhorn, Hunter S. Thompson, Walter Winchell, Walter Cronkite, Walter Lippman, and other people who may or may not be named Walter. But doesn't it strike you as somewhat ludicrous that any of these people would have had newsletters on Substack or Medium? Or, Twitter accounts? If they'd been around in his time, no doubt Suetonius would've been active on Instagram and have had a personal stylist and book agent.

Let us consider this piece by McKay Coppins in the current issue of The Atlantic. Ask yourself: who is the subject of this story? 

Tragedy and disaster have always been the stuff that journalism careers are made of. But the Trump era has been especially rewarding to a certain class of Washington reporter. As the White House beat became the biggest story in the world, once-obscure correspondents were recast in the popular imagination as resistance heroes fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. They were showered with book deals, speaking gigs, and hundreds of thousands of Twitter followers. They got glow-ups to accompany their new cable-news contracts, and those glow-ups were covered in glossy magazines. Along the way, many of them adapted their journalism to cover an unusually mendacious and corrupt president (much to the delight of their new fan bases). As the story draws to an end, the reporters who got famous fighting with Trump are facing a question: What do we do now?

That's right: the subject is the journalist, naturally — not the POTUS, not the executive residence, not the republic, but the exalted reporter. As Albert Brooks's correspondent in the still-holds-up 80s film "Broadcast News" put it: "Yes, let's not forget, we are the real story here."

I wrote in this forum awhile back on how annoying these reporters are who lament not having Trump to cover anymore because they'll be "bored." To them I say, get a new job. I hear Substack is looking for fresh, new voices. Maybe they'll even pay for your stylist?

I'm Still Grieving Simple, Elegant Grey, Hating on AKQA

Ad agencies are in the business of selling stuff with simple brand names and easy to understand messages — just not when it comes to themselves. As Ad Age reports, agency names have become seriously whack. I swear I think they used alphabet soup to come up with some of these: dentsumcgarrybowen, Muh-tay-zik / Hof-fer (which used to be the somehow even worse M/H VCCP), and what used to be good old reliable Grey getting swallowed up into something called AKQA Group. (If you ask me, AKQA kinda sucked as a name even before the merger. Who in the business of brand marketing would ever decide that AKQA is a better name than simple, elegant and storied Grey?) Remember when the idea was to make things simpler, not as impossible to make sense of as the Zodiac killer's cipher?

LGBTQ+-Themed 'Love Calls Back' Picks Up Ad Prize

I swear I don't do p.r. for these guys. But I can't help it if the Association of National Advertisers keeps doing newsworthy (or in this case, blog-worthy) stuff. 

Earlier this week, I wrote about the trade group's members selecting "pivot" as the Word of the Year. Now, they've selected the winners of their Multicultural Excellence Awards of 2020—and it was a good year for the agency McCann. 

ANA's Best in Show recognized what, for my money, was one of the best campaigns of the last couple of years: McCann's "Love Calls Back," for Verizon and PFLAG. The work was already recognized with awards like The One Show's Bronze Pencil and the Shorty Social Good Award.

The cornerstone of the campaign, which was launched last year and ran across all Verizon's channels, was a moving, four-minute film featuring LGBTQ+ people reconnecting and reconciling over the phone with family members who'd previously rejected them for their sexual identity. Verizon's exec vp and CMO Diego Scotti said the campaign was "grounded in Verizon's commitment to diversity and inclusion in our creative."  

McCann was also the grand prize winner in the LGBTQ+ category, for its work for Mastercard. And, McCann and Mastercard were recognized with the grand prize in the experiential marketing category.

In a killer year, it's good to have something to celebrate, and there was certainly a lot of terrific creative worthy of celebration. With that in mind (drumroll, and shameless plug), watch this space for two of my own advertising awards competitions, recognizing the Best Ads of 2020 and the Best Holiday Ads of the year. (They're not Lions—but hey, you gotta start somewhere.)

Let's Do the Pivot: Marketers Pick the Word of the Year

It was the year that everybody quarantined, masked up and tried like hell to not give up hope. But for marketers, it was the year of the pivot. 

The Association of National Advertisers has announced that "pivot" is its Word of the Year for 2020. Other popular terms it beat out: "virtual," "agility" and "resiliency."

Since 2014, the ANA has surveyed its members to identify the word most resonant with marketers. Nearly 300 members responded to an online survey this month.

Of course, pivot is a well-worn cliché of the business world. It was even the title of a 2016 book by former Google exec Jenny Blake. It also happens to be the name of a Canadian charter airline, a brand of mountain bikes, a defunct cable channel, and an Indianapolis ad agency. But perhaps never before has the theme of pivoting been so meaningful to so many in the global business community than in this year of COVID-19, a collapsing economy and demands for social justice. 

Here's some of what members of ANA's Global CMO Growth Council had to say about pivoting in 2020:

"We pivoted from physical experiences to digital experiences. We call this Priceless at Home. Brand-building never stops. It's not just advertising — it's a collective result of all the activities a company does that drives a brand, in good times and in not-so-good times. -Raja Rajamannar, CMO, Mastercard

"When the pandemic began, we started with a message focused on availability. We then pivoted to a more emotional message, celebrating that people were still enjoying our food, but in this new socially distanced world. ... Through all of this, we've let the consumer guide our messaging." -Morgan Flatley, senior vp and chief marketing and digital customer experience officer, McDonald's

"Everything has changed. In general, marketers should be focused on saying and doing things that are immediately useful to their customers. In a crisis, you connect by helping in a meaningful way." -Norman DeGreve, CMO, CVS Health

Previous ANA Words of the Year were "personalization," "artificial intelligence" and "programmatic."

After a year like this, one can only wonder what the Word of the Year for 2021 will be. 

Dr. Fauci One of People Magazine's 'People of the Year'

In the bleakest year ever, People magazine gives us a little hope with its annual "People of the Year" issue, featuring the heroic Dr. Anthony Fauci on the cover. Dr. Fauci — who since the pandemic hit has been demonized at every turn by the torch-wielding, anti-science crowd — is, nonetheless, a true profile in courage. Not to throw shade at other honorees like George Clooney or Selena Gomez, but we will will always have Hollywood stars to look up to. On the other hand, a dedicated public servant like Dr. Fauci — up against impossible odds and holding our collective well-being in his hands — only comes along every so often. Kudos to People for making this light in the darkness in human form the year's sexiest cover boy.

I Don't Eat Chick-fil-A, I Don't Shop at Hobby Lobby, And I No Longer Consume Rupert Murdoch's Media

"Hi. I used to be a respected journalist."

I used to think I could visit the New York Post website to indulge in the gossip of Page Six or check out my horoscope without feeling I was actually supporting Rupert Murdoch's evil media empire. But like sneaking the occasional Chick-fil-A sandwich when nobody's looking and, thus, actively supporting a right wing racket, I'm afraid my conscience has got the best of me. 

The Post and Fox News Channel are helping to destroy American democracy (or what's left of it) as they continue to give credence to Donald Trump's claims of widespread voter fraud. The latest example was yesterday's criminally dishonest interview with Trump by once-respected financial journalist Maria Bartiromo, one of Fox's stars. Actually, it wasn't so much an interview (Trump's first since Election Day) as it was blatant propaganda posing as journalism. Vox writer Aaron Rupar wrote on Twitter that Bartiromo is "basically a North Korean news anchor now." In fact, Bartiromo became a trending topic on the social media platform. Everybody's talking about her debacle, in which she supported every dubious statement to come out of Trump's lying mouth — and as usual, there were many, many of them.

The judgment among Bartiromo's peers has been especially harsh, and deservedly so. The media are expert at eating their own, and they wasted no time trashing her embarrassing performance. "Maria Bartiromo's phenomenal flop," went the headline in The Washington Post. "A smorgasbord of disinformation," reported Vox. "This is propaganda," tweeted a CNN personality. 

Of course, were Fox an actual news organization, Bartiromo would be dismissed at once for not only lobbing softballs at a lying liar of a president but for egging him on. "The facts are on your side," she told him — without actually reporting any facts — in what will no doubt become a defining line in Bartiromo's righteous ignominy. 

The thing is, I suppose we should all be used to the joke that is Murdoch's tabloid world by now. No serious person takes anything they read in the Post or that they see on Fox News seriously. I had convinced myself that tuning in on occasion, just for a glimpse of the trainwreck, was permissible, seeing, after all, that I am in the business of writing about advertisers and the media they support. 

But like a Chick-fil-A sandwich, I just can't stomach it anymore.

The writer, famous liberal and heroine of mine Fran Lebowitz once admitted to being a regular watcher of Fox News, noting the importance of keeping up with what the other side is saying. "And believe me," Fran said, "it's much worse than you think."

It simply cannot get any lower than Bartiromo's pathetic suck-up moment with Trump, which served to not only destroy whatever was left of her credibility (her move from CNBC to Fox was the first step) but to further poison the minds of gullible Americans who actually believe Trump when he claims the election was stolen from him. 

So, goodbye Page Six. So long, Bartiromo. I don't shop at Hobby Lobby, I don't admire the films of Leni Riefenstahl, and I will no longer consume any media owned by Murdoch — destroyer of democracies and of souls. You'll just have to get your news about his loathsome empire from some other source. 

So We're Not Traveling to Family This Thanksgiving, But the Real Question Is: What Time Do We Eat?

A new study suggests that while far fewer of us plan to fly on an airplane to see relatives this Thanksgiving because of the pandemic, many of us are still planning to go home — we're just driving there instead. 

Despite experts like CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta urging the public to sit out family gatherings this year as the Covid-19 virus spikes across much of the country, the number of us planning to travel altogether in the coming days is only about 10 percent lower than last year, according to a study for AAA as reported by Statista. While air travel is projected to be off by almost 50%, highway traffic is likely to be off by only about 4%. 

The data can be read, says Statista, as Americans "forgoing long-distance travel because of Covid-19 but still keen to visit friends and family who live short or medium distances away." Despite how you get there or who you're spending your holiday with, Thanksgiving gatherings carry "an inherent risk of infection," according to experts, who advise those who are planning events to keep them small and preferably keep them outdoors. And as sad as it sounds, keep grandma at home this year.

Anecdotally, I can share that among my friends, family and associates, those who have been cautious all along during this pandemic are (big surprise) also being judicious about Thanksgiving plans. Many people I've talked to are, as experts suggest, keeping their gatherings small or foregoing the holiday altogether this year. (Same goes for Christmas.) Of course, I try to not surround myself with people who aren't smart, well-informed and personally responsible. 

Some may debate skipping Thanksgiving or whether to risk inviting grandma, but one thing we can all agree on is, this is the one day of the year when it is socially acceptable to gorge oneself (come to think of it, in America that's any other day, too). The question: What time do you serve the traditional Thanksgiving feast, and when do you think most of your fellow Americans set the table? 

Statista reports that the overwhelming majority of households (42%) serve between 1-3 p.m., while the second most popular feeding time is late afternoon, or 4-5 p.m. (29%). 

What's for dinner? Turkey (duh) is served by 81% of consumers, with 64% whipping up mashed potatoes. 

(Putting on my eating pants now.)

Another White Christmas in the Marketing Department

A diversity reality check appears to be the perfect gift for corporate America this holiday season.

For years the industry has vowed to make marketing leadership ranks more representative, yet a mere 12 percent of top marketing jobs today are held by nonwhite executives, according to a new survey by the ANA. 

Progress continues to be made, the association announced during the first day of its annual Multicultural Marketing & Diversity Conference — just not enough.

While people of color continue to fight to achieve parity, women have fared far better — and in fact, now dominate top marketing jobs. According to ANA, of 870 member corporations, 52 percent of marketing bosses are female, up from 47 percent last year and 45 percent the year prior. "At the senior leadership level, female representation is now likely at an all-time high," the group said.

Some progress is being made among minority groups, as Ad Age reported, with companies including Coca-Cola Co., Citi, Kellogg, Calvin Klein, Peloton, Vice Media and Amazon Prime Video/Amazon Studios naming nonwhite execs to top marketing posts in recent months. 

The World Is Watching: Checking the Front Pages

Whether Trump Wins or Loses, We're All Lost

Raise your hand if you'd like to read another opinion piece about the 2020 presidential election. Anybody? Thought so. At this point, surely just about everything's been said and written that can be, and just about everybody, from both sides or neither side, seems prepared for a win, loss or, yes, even a draw. (One thing we all have in common: We'll all be glad when it's flipping done.)

I don't cover politics, therefore I feel under no pressure to strain and persuade you that I am that nonexistent thing: free of bias. Nor do I even feel obligated to come off as fair or balanced. Such a quaint journalistic notion as trying to report without smirking, shaking one's head in disbelief or schadenfreude most definitely went the way of the blue dress, the housing bubble, the ascent of Pravda II: Fox News (which famously, laughingly appropriated the once-noble and meaningful standard of the newsman and newswoman, "Fair and Balanced," as its brand slogan, making it forever unusable again among actual journalists) and, finally, the entire presidency of one Donald J. Trump: noted real estate con man, philanderer, TV star, proud member of the heretofore little-known Orange race, marathon tweeter of late-night grievances.

So what in the heavens have I got to say? Just this. Whether Trump wins or loses next Tuesday, I've a feeling we will all continue to be lost — not as individuals, perhaps, but as a country. If he wins, well, that outcome certainly speaks for itself. But if he loses, it means that anywhere from one-third to forty-something percent of Americans still love him, still approve of him, still want him, after all he's done, to be in charge of Brand USA. Others have made that point, and still more will continue to make it. Because it's the true takeaway, and as such, it bears repeating, and repeating. 

Even in the case of a Biden win, a considerable chunk of the electorate, regardless of the election's results, will still think that entertainment and outrageous statements and coddling dictators and flipping off the military and pissing on rather than holding up the least among us (you know, like that dude Jesus who so many of Trump's followers claim to also worship taught mankind back in the day) are more acceptable and qualifying in a leader than brains, sober judgment, a steady hand and what used to be known as common human decency. 

We are a country populated by a frightening number of people who prefer a reality show clown posing as president versus an actual, capable, reliable leader. Again, many have made the point; again, it's impossible to repeat it too much. It is, frankly, still shocking to imagine, even after four years in which you'd think we'd all have become inured.

I have been a New Yorker for three decades, but lately I've been reading about the South, where I grew up, and my home state of Tennessee's shameful role in that dark blip in U.S. history known as the Civil War. (That Tennessee happened to be the last state to join the Confederacy, something many of its residents are fond of pointing out, does make it one whit less culpable, any less on the wrong side of history, or any less damned.) It may seem like ancient times, but the truth is, it really wasn't all that long ago, and what I have come to realize, as so many of you have, is that "we the people" haven't really changed that much over the last 150 years. During Civil War times, there were proud racists (there still are — just check out Fox News's prime-time lineup) and rabid secessionists (ditto — have you visited one of those gated communities full of tacky McMansions on a golf course lately? United Colors of Benetton they're not), but for the most part there were just sleepy little sheep: uninformed, uneducated, unmotivated, simply going along, drifting toward the gaping maw of oblivion (sound familiar?). 

Next week, the citizenry has a shot at turning away from ugliness and restoring our status as that fabled "shining beacon" of the world. 

And if it doesn't? 

Well, I reckon we had a good run, and we will thus retain our status, for four more years, as the world's most infuriating, tiresome and totally implausible reality show. I just hate to think what the finale will be.

David Letterman and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Both Decide to Go as the Unabomber This Halloween

Time Replaces Cover Logo for First Time, Says VOTE, While New York Mag Cover Sports "I Voted" Stickers

It's refreshing to know there's still a first time for things, especially things created by journalists. 

In an unprecedented move, Time magazine has replaced its cover logo, instead urging readers in that familiar space and typeface to VOTE. The accompanying cover art, of a woman wearing a scarf to cover her nose and mouth, is by the estimable Shepard Fairey.

Time's editor in chief and CEO Edward Felsenthal explains the decision to change up the cover this week:

Few events will shape the world to come more than the result of the upcoming U.S. presidential election. ... To mark this historic moment, arguably as consequential a decision as any of us has ever made at the ballot box, we have for the first time in our nearly 100-year history replaced our logo on the cover of our U.S. edition with the imperative for all of us to exercise the right to vote. ... We stand at a rare moment, one that will separate history into before and after for generations. It is the kind of moment in which readers across the country and around the world have always turned to TIME. We thank you for doing so now.

The editor's note is followed by a discreet button for ordering a print issue of your very own — meaning they intend to take full advantage of monetizing this historic moment in presidential politics, and journalism. And you know what? Good for them. Journalism today, notably print journalism, depends on fresh ideas and financial health. Here's to more of both, no matter what comes to pass on November 3rd.

... And in another burst of creativity from the newsstand ...

The cover of New York magazine's October 26 issue will feature a series of peel-off "I Voted" stickers, in partnership with the organization I Am A Voter and created by an assemblage of 48 artists including Shepard Fairey, Barbara Kruger and Laurie Simmons. The magazine explained that millions of Americans are voting by mail, therefore missing out on those little adhesive testaments to doing their public duty typically handed out at the polls. There will be four different covers, each with 12 stickers — enough for readers to wear a different one daily through Election Day. Here's a sneak peek:

Sue the Messenger: Trump's DOJ Goes After Big Tech

The Trump administration has followed through on a promised war against big tech, suing Google over alleged antitrust activities because its ad platform and search tool happen to be more popular by far than anybody else's. Eleven states joined the feds in the suit.

"If the government does not enforce the antitrust laws to enable competition," the deputy attorney general said in a lofty statement this morning, "we could lose the next wave of innovation ... and Americans may never get to see the next Google." I am about as sure that this is about advancing innovation as I am that it's just coincidence the 11 states also suing happen to be red states, and that the lawsuit was filed exactly 2 weeks before Election Day. 

As CNET reports, the DOJ's action was controversial even within the department: "Some of the attorneys were concerned the aggressive timeline ... was to ensure the Trump administration gets credit for taking on a big tech company." 

But there's more. Yesterday, Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows went on morning television to warn that there will be still more lawsuits against the tech giants, namely social media companies, which the president and his cronies have repeatedly accused of bias against Republicans — their latest fury being that the Twitter accounts of those aiming to spread the New York Post's widely debunked report on Joe Biden's son were either censored or frozen. (More than 50 former intelligence officials have signed a letter casting doubt on the veracity of that story, maintaining it has all the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign.)

By the way, the best part of Meadows' appearance on "Fox & Friends" was when he played free press advocate:

"They're now starting to censor, actually, reporters. That's a dangerous place for them to go when they're the arbiter of what they deem to be the truth."

And what the media is deeming to be the truth at the moment is the work of thousands of pollsters and oddsmakers predicting an overwhelming Biden victory on Nov. 3. If that comes to pass, expect all the noise about the evils of big tech, and the rest of Trump's personal vendettas masked as righteous crusades on behalf of the "people," to get drowned out by the sound of all those leather wingtips and low-heel pumps bolting for the exits. 

What If the Polls Are Wrong (Again) and Trump Wins?

MSNBC's Steve Kornacki makes us want to believe. But should we?

Why do we (meaning we in the media) continue to put so much stock in polls? As journalist Linda Ellerbee wrote in her excellent and inexplicably out-of-print memoir "And So It Goes: Adventures in Television" back in the 80s, "Ask yourself: If polling is so accurate, then why are there so many companies doing it?" 

Two weeks ahead of Election Day, virtually every poll shows Biden beating Trump in terms of the popular vote. Meanwhile, the dreaded swing states (that is, the only places in this "democracy" where your vote seems to actually make a difference) continue to swing wildly. In other words, remember 2016? Let's not break out the bubbly quite yet. 

Check out what Munr Kazmir writes in Medium's Dialogue & Discourse:

Polling is not reality. The polls showing Biden polling higher than Donald Trump, which are giving Democrats a dangerous dose of overconfidence, are often based on tiny sample sizes of 500 people. ... Things have changed since polling was a gold standard of accuracy, if indeed it ever really was one, which it wasn't. Polling is a representation of people willing to be polled."

Florida, as always, makes for a good study of the inherent flaws of divining the tastes of the American public, presidential or otherwise. As of this morning, FiveThirtyEight, an aggregation of hundreds of polls generating tens of thousands of potential outcomes, put Biden nearly 4 points ahead of Trump. Meanwhile, USA Today reports today that the numbers in the state are now favoring Trump. It's enough to make your head hurt. 

Then, there's Robert Cahaly, chief polster of the Trafalgar Group, the only major polling organization that correctly predicted Trump's victories in Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016. As Kyle Smith writes in National Review, Cahaly predicts this time around that Trump will also take Michigan, in addition to Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona and Texas. (This, despite the fact that a number of news orgs have already put Michigan, North Carolina and Arizona in the "safe" column for Biden.) Cahaly projects another ultimate win for Trump, with 280 electoral votes.

Pollsters reassure us that they properly identified the trouble with their crystal ball gazing last time around and have now "fixed" those problems. But what if they haven't? What if they're spectacularly wrong again? And the bigger question, again: Why do the media continue to worship at the altar of pollsters, people who are devoted to the patently absurd enterprise of predicting human behavior? 

If the polls fail us yet again, you can bet one thing: It won't mean that one fewer player will be doing polling four years from now.

Stop Trying to Apply Deeper, Intellectual Meaning to Dolly — She's Already Much Smarter Than You Are

This week's issue of The New Yorker features, by way of a review of the book "She Come by It Natural: Dolly Parton and the Women Who Lived Her Songs" by Sarah Smarsh, yet another highbrow attempt to divine deeper meaning from the simple pleasure that is Ms. Parton (although there is nothing simple about her). As Susan Sontag once said regarding art criticism, some things should be allowed to simply exist. Dolly — a national treasure and kick-ass woman who speaks for herself, through her charity, her humanity and, of course, her own words and music — is one of those things that need not be analyzed to death by a bunch of overeducated, pseudo-intellectual city folk. Kindly leave her out of your cerebral circle jerk.