This article was originally published in Current, on Monday, Sept. 21, 2009.
By Katherine Reynolds Lewis
The leadership of WNET said a federal investigation into the station's use of federal grants totaling almost $13 million is wrapping up, and the organization is financially sound.
"There was sloppiness as opposed to real wrongdoing in terms of our accounting systems, which has been addressed," said James Tisch, chairman of the WNET Board, in an interview.
The station has hired a new chief financial officer and created the position of executive director, financial control, to ensure compliance with federal grant rules, said Neal Shapiro, president.
"We have a new CFO. We have a new compliance person to make it very clear we take all these rules very seriously," Shapiro said. "The systems we've put in place, the people we've hired, will make us a stronger institution."
The federal probe, reported last week by Crain's New York Business, is looking into whether the station's use of federal grant money violated federal civil statutes and is likely to be referred to the Justice Department's civil division, according to WNET.
"The grants at issue began in 2000 and include funds provided by the National Science Foundation for the animated children's math series Cyberchase," the station said in a statement.
"WNET.org's management, as a cautionary measure, elected to slow its draw down on certain grants by adding further compliance measures so as to be certain that there will be no accounting or compliance questions going forward. WNET.org and its subsidiaries continue to receive federal grants, including from NSF for Cyberchase."
'Sloppiness,' Not Wrongdoing, Led to Probe, Says WNET Chair
Can You Believe What You Read on the Web?
This article was originally published by Parade on Sunday, June 21, 2009.
Recently, a man identifying himself as a representative of Belkin, a major technology company, offered to pay people to post five-star reviews of its products on Amazon.com. When the incident was discovered, Belkin President Mark Reynoso expressed "surprise and dismay" over "unethical practices like this," and the company took steps to have any tainted reviews removed from the site. Yet businesses do spend about $1.6 billion a year on "word-of-mouth" advertising, promoting their goods to bloggers and to people who use social-media websites like Facebook, according to the research firm PQ Media.
Now the U.S. government is considering requiring people who write about products or services on the Internet to inform readers if they received compensation.
The Federal Trade Commission expects to vote on new marketing rules this summer, which would be the first revision to its endorsement guidelines since 1980. "When you're being paid to promote a product, you usually have to disclose the relationship between you and the advertiser," says Richard Cleland, an FTC assistant director.
But even if the FTC tightens its rules, experts encourage people to remain skeptical when reading opinions posted on the Web. "Go and talk to other people you trust," says Paul Rand, president-elect of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association. “Google the authors and see what else they’ve written." If you discover that a writer only posts glowing reviews about one company's products, look for other sources of advice.
— Katherine Reynolds Lewis
So You Don't Read the Fine Print? Lose the Guilt
This article was originally published by Newhouse News Service on Tuesday, July 17, 2007.
By Katherine Reynolds Lewis
c.2007 Newhouse News Service
By reading this story, you agree that it is for information purposes only, and not a substitute for legal advice. If you are experiencing a medical emergency, put down the newspaper and dial 911.
Did you read that first paragraph closely?
Millions of Americans routinely enter into contracts without even attempting to figure out the financial and legal strings attached.
Think about the multi-page document you signed blindly before taking home your new wireless gizmo, or the Web sites where you clicked "I agree" without scrolling down. Or the 6-point-font credit card forms, the endless liability waivers at amusement parks, the tiny brochure glued to your new prescription bottle.
"Less than 20 percent of consumers make an effort to read the fine print," said Britt Beemer, chairman of America's Research Group, a Charleston, S.C., marketing firm that regularly surveys buyer behavior.
The main excuses: I won't understand the legalese. I don't have time. I can't change what the contract says, so what's the point?
This alarms consumer advocates, who say companies are using fine print to take away rights as vital as free speech and a jury trial.
But we're not going to scold. You can go home to mom for that. Instead, here's some praise: You're sensible to sign without reading at least most of the time.
FCC Auction Key for Wireless Broadband
c.2007 Newhouse News Service
Illustration by Monica Seaberry
WASHINGTON — There's about to be a land rush in telecommunications as the U.S. government auctions the only remaining airwaves suitable for nationwide, high-speed wireless Web access.
Big telephone and cable companies are jostling alongside Internet and technology entrepreneurs to control the spectrum, estimated to be worth as much as $30 billion.
"It's the biggest chunk of spectrum to come back into the public administration in a generation and it's by far the most valuable piece,'' said Ben Scott, policy director at Free Press, a Washington-based nonprofit focused on communications policy.
And it's a hot topic in Washington: House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., will explore the issues in a hearing Thursday, and the Federal Communications Commission, hoping to schedule the auction this fall, may vote on rules as early as April 25.
What's at stake? The auction winners will determine whether American homes, businesses and classrooms have access to a third "pipe'' for high-speed Internet, not to mention better reception and innovative services for mobile phones and other devices.
