Recessions, like wars, accelerate history. Just as the credit crunch, which has annihilated the US automobile industry, will probably hasten the mass transition to the electric car, so the same downturn has whipped up a perfect storm for the information sector: declining advertising revenue and plummeting sales for the newspaper industry.
As many, including myself, have complacently observed, books are crisis-proof. World War II, we like to say, proved to be the making of Penguin. In none of the subsequent postwar downturns did publishing suffer. And now ... the latest bookselling figures from the US and UK suggest that once again books are riding out the storm. Phew.
But does this not perhaps smack too much of Voltaire’s Dr Pangloss? The crisis in newspapers, especially in the US, must surely begin to sponsor anxious second thoughts. After all, books and newspapers are in the same business of delivering information. The May issue of Vanity Fair contains a fascinating profile of Arthur Sulzberger Jr, the youthful publisher of the New York Times, and heir to the Sulzberger family’s historic ownership of a fine US institution.
It’s a sobering piece. Ten years ago, Sulzberger and his newspaper appeared to be masters of the media universe, riding high. So confident was he of the future that he commissioned a state-of-the-art Renzo Piano office building for the Times that was to be the visible expression of its supremacy.
And where is the New York Times now? Today, the paper is in debt to a Mexican tycoon, the company’s shares are classed as junk bonds and for the first time ever, sensible people are questioning the newspaper’s survival.
A lot of this has to do with the slump in US newspaper advertising. But that’s not the whole story. Where the parable of the New York Times should give book publishing’s senior executives pause for thought is in the speed with which decline, in the shape of news-stand sales being obliterated by online browsing, has overtaken a once-confident institution and plunged it into crisis.
The Internet revolution, which has brought low so many US newspapers, from Seattle to Chicago, must surely threaten conventional book publishing. Agreed: New books in copyright are very different animals from daily newspapers. Elsewhere, however, there are alarming parallels between newspapers and publishing. Both, essentially, have given away their all-important content for nothing: newspapers through online services, books through the mass digitization of the contents of the world’s greatest copyright libraries in the “Google initiative.” Both have found it difficult to think laterally, or even creatively, about the immense power mobilized by organizations like Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo.
Even new titles are vulnerable to the Kindle and the e-book. You may say, as people often do, that you have never seen anyone reading an e-book on the tube or the bus. Fair enough. But in any big US city today, you will find hundreds of younger readers in bars and coffee shops happily immersed in their Kindle or its equivalent. No question: Books are facing their “iPod moment.”
More alarming still, the Free Culture Movement and its silky advocates have begun to open up to scrutiny the holy grail of literary copyright, asserting a new legitimacy for the idea of “the public domain.” It is now feasible that within no time at all the copyright conventions by which publishers live and die will soon have the contemporary relevance of a papyrus.
If you think I’m exaggerating the power of the Internet giants, consider the April 13 report of a sobering tale from Amazon and its attempt to make its lists more “family friendly.” Overnight, a bunch of attentive West Coast readers noticed that Amazon had de-listed a number of gay writers, making their work a new category of un-book.
At the click of a mouse in Amazon HQ, it was no longer possible to buy works by EM Forster or Annie Proulx, among many others, including Jeanette Winterson’s Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit. An Amazon spokesperson said this was just a “glitch,” a weasel word with frightening implications. As well as hinting at a more sinister agenda, this episode also demonstrated the awesome power and irresponsibility of online bookselling. Book publishers sometimes claim, in Arthur Sulzberger’s fateful words, to be “platform agnostic.” But when the “platform” has the power to make or break, they should check their digital watches. It’s five minutes to midnight.
Taiwan might just give up. That’s the argument Simon Shuster made in The Atlantic’s October issue. The US is unreliable, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leadership is aligned with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and Taiwan does not have the military capability to defend itself in a prolonged war without help. What hope does Taiwan have? Quite a bit more, in fact, than Shuster lets on. Shuster points to genuine problems. The first Donald Trump administration had a mostly positive record on Taiwan policy. It regularized the arms sales process, enhanced the military-to-military relationship, and treated Taiwan more like a normal
A Facebook post by Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) earlier this month achieved record levels of engagement — although perhaps inadvertently. In it, he attacked Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator and Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen (沈伯洋) for an op-ed published in 2014 discussing drug harm reduction policies. In attempting to stir up fear with talk of community centers, drugs and needles, Chiang’s comment section exploded. More than 100,000 comments poured in within the first two hours; more than 330,000 after the first 12; and more than 400,000 by noon the following day. Rather embarrassingly, many commenters made a point
Last year, Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) turned the Double Ten National Day ceremony into a platform for grievances against the government. Yesterday, standing before the president and foreign dignitaries, he warned against Taiwan becoming a “false democracy, in reality a dictatorship.” Then he called for unity. Democratic leaders must tolerate criticism, even on ceremonial occasions, but Han misused his position and a national celebration to insinuate that Taiwan’s elected president was steering the country toward dictatorship and cast himself as a statesman offering reconciliation. Han asked how Taiwan’s security should be examined, using a medical analogy. If he insists on playing
Southeast Asian food delivery platform Grab Holdings Ltd in March applied to acquire Delivery Hero SE’s Foodpanda operations in Taiwan, with the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) scheduled to announce its decision on Oct. 27. On the surface, the deal is a business merger — but in substance, it involves personal data, national geospatial information and digital sovereignty. It cannot be assessed solely in terms of market share and price competition. Grab has extensive and long-standing connections to Chinese capital. In 2015, Chinese ride-hailing firm Didi Chuxing and China Investment Corp, a sovereign wealth fund, invested in Grab. Grab invested in Chinese autonomous-driving
RSS