Twitter U.K. cracks down after threats against women

Twitter will get tougher on cyber abuse in the United Kingdom.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

There has been a lot of pressure on the social networking site to increase these measures after several female members of parliament and female journalists were the targets of misogynistic, bomb and rape threats.

Twitter's U.K. arm announced Saturday that it updated its rules section to clarify that abusive behavior is not tolerated.

Related: Why I'm quitting social media

In a blog post, Twitter reiterated that an in-tweet report button is available on Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) devices, so that users can report abusive behavior directly from a tweet rather than going through the help center. This button will be available for Androids and on Twitter.com next month.

Twitter also said that it is adding more staff to handle abuse reports, and will use promoted tweets to bring more attention to the issue.

The calls for Twitter to take action grew particularly loud in the wake of hateful tweets from Twitter "trolls" against British activist Caroline Criado-Perez, who had successfully campaigned to get a woman on British bank notes. The Bank of England announced that novelist Jane Austen's face will appear on £10 notes in its next design update.

British Member of Parliament Stella Creasy was also threatened after she voiced support for Criado-Perez. Some female journalists also received bomb threats via Twitter messages.

After the Twitter attacks, more than 126,000 people signed a Change.Org petition calling on the site to take a zero tolerance policy on abuse and make it easier for users to report incidents.

"We need Twitter to recognize that it's current reporting system is below required standards," the petition said. "Women standing up to abuse should not fear having their accounts canceled because Twitter fails to see the issue at hand."

Twitter responded by saying it has been listening to the feedback over the last week on how it can make rules clear and make reporting abuse easier.

First Published: August 4, 2013: 11:28 AM ET

12.08 | 0 komentar | Read More

BRIC markets left in the dust

Political unrest and slowing economies have sent investors fleeing the BRICS.

HONG KONG (CNNMoney)

Brazil's Bovespa index has been among the world's worst, losing a fifth of its value since January.

The Shanghai Composite is down 12%, Russia's Micex is 7% lower and Mumbai's Sensex has declined by 1%.

"I would say the BRICs are going through a period of indigestion or perhaps a bit of a hangover," said Sean Darby, chief global equity strategist at Jefferies. "Sometimes the quality of growth produced by rapid development means that subsequent periods aren't all that great."

At the same time, markets in the United States, Japan and Europe have gone gangbusters, with many rebounding to levels not seen since before the 2008 financial crisis.

Related story: Emerging markets lose a step

Ex-Goldman economic guru Jim O'Neill coined the BRIC acronym in 2001 as a handy way of referring to what he figured were the world's top four emerging economies. Keying off the prediction, asset managers crafted investment strategies based on on the idea that rapid economic growth would translate into robust equity returns.

O'Neill was right -- the BRICs have delivered sustained growth, and now account for about 20% of world economic output. And for awhile, BRIC equity funds did extremely well. But pity the investor who thought it would last.

The iShares MSCI BRIC ETF (BKF), which includes top companies in all four markets, is down 14% this year, and 27% over the past five. Outflows from BRIC markets in recent months suggest many investors have given up and taken their money elsewhere.

There aren't many reasons to be optimistic, considering the significant challenges facing BRIC economies. At the moment, it looks like other emerging markets are in a better position to expand more rapidly.

"All of the BRIC economies have structural problems which are likely to prevent significant rebounds in the next couple of years," analysts at Capital Economics recently wrote. "Instead, the turnaround in growth that we expect to see in the emerging world will be driven by the smaller [non-BRIC] economies."

Related: China launches audit as debt worries grow

In China, GDP growth could drop below 7.5% this year as the government seeks to implement structural reforms. Brazil, meanwhile, has been hit hard by political unrest, and the real has come under pressure. Russia's economy had a bad second quarter as investment slowed and export demand dried up.

Despite a tough political environment and stagnant growth, India's economy might have the best prospects of the bunch.

The U.S. Federal Reserve has also thrown a wrench into emerging market investment strategies.

The Fed has bought some $3 trillion worth of assets since it launched quantitative easing in 2008. Much of that money found its way into stocks in developing economies as investors ventured into riskier assets.

When Fed chief Ben Bernanke suggested in May that the bank could soon pull back on those purchases, investors freaked. According to data from HSBC, stocks around the world fell 9% over the next four weeks, while emerging markets lost 16%.

The central bank punted in its latest meeting, and did not provide any hints about plans to wind down its stimulus efforts.

"I would say that this has to play itself out," Darby said. "It was a seismic shock, but we haven't seen any of the tectonic plates actually move yet. A lot of these markets will have difficulty."

First Published: August 4, 2013: 6:24 PM ET

12.08 | 0 komentar | Read More

Female economists: Pick Janet, but leave gender out of it!

Only 17 of 177 central bank heads around the world are women. Female economists surveyed by CNNMoney would like to see Janet Yellen become number 18 . (Scroll to bottom of story for all 17 names)

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

Earlier this week, we sent a questionnaire to 100 female economists in academia and the private sector, several who have worked with Larry Summers and Yellen in the past. We asked them to choose: Which of these two top contenders is their preferred candidate for Federal Reserve chair?

Also, will gender have anything to do with the decision? A woman has never led the Federal Reserve, and worldwide, only 17 of 177 central bank leaders are women, according to the Central Bank Directory.

In order to encourage candid responses, we also gave the economists the option to remain anonymous.

Of the 45 economists who responded to our survey, 38 said Yellen should get the job, and one wrote-in that she would like former Fed chair Paul Volcker to return to the post. The remaining six participants declined to make a recommendation, with some noting they felt both Yellen and Summers were qualified for the job.

However, not one economist threw their full support behind Summers alone.

"Yellen is the most qualified candidate. If she doesn't become Fed chair it will be, in part, because she is a woman," said one respondent. "I don't think it would be because of overt discrimination. Rather, there is more subtle bias -- she is not a friend of the decision makers; a woman who is not aggressive is perceived as weak, whereas a man who is not aggressive is perceived as a thoughtful consensus builder."

Yellen, 66, currently serves as vice-chair of the Federal Reserve Board, and previously served as president of the San Francisco Fed. She has a Ph.D in economics from Yale and vast academic experience at the University of California, Berkeley. Plus, she served a two-year stint as the chairwoman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers,

But she is not as well connected to the White House as Summers, who was Treasury Secretary under President Clinton and also the head of President Obama's National Economic Council. Several economists we surveyed perceived this as a big hurdle for Yellen.

Related: Fed's Yellen wants return to 'prudent risk-taking'

Summers, 58, has his Ph.D. from Harvard. In addition to having Treasury Secretary on his resume, he is also well-known for being president of Harvard University (did you see "The Social Network?") and as one of the architects behind President Obama's 2009 stimulus package.

Of the 38 economists who said Yellen should get the job, 10 said they thought President Obama would nominate Summers.

"The old boys will make the call, and I think they will pick their insider," one survey participant said.

But many of the economists we surveyed stressed that Yellen is the better candidate because she has more relevant monetary policy experience.

Whereas Summers spent most of his career focused on fiscal policy, Yellen was number-two in command, as the Fed launched unprecedented policies to stimulate the economy. She has also led the Fed's recent efforts to increase its transparency.

Yellen is largely known as a Fed "dove," meaning she favors keeping interest rates low as a way to stimulate the economy and promote job growth. Fed watchers generally expect that she would continue Bernanke's policies, and therefore, she represents continuity for the Fed.

"Yellen is a qualified monetary economist with significant experience within the Fed system. Her appointment is less likely to rock markets in the transition period," said one survey participant.

Summers' position on monetary policy is not quite as well known, but he has recently made critical comments about the Fed's bond-buying program, known as quantitative easing.

FORTUNE: Investors who love QE should fear Larry Summers

Respondents also said they thought Yellen would be a better consensus-builder within the Fed, whereas a few expressed concerns about Summers' tendency to "put his foot in his mouth" and "poor reputation for not being a team player."

"Summers is likely to be the brightest person in whatever room he finds himself, but that does not mean he would be a good Fed chairman," one said.

We also asked a few questions about gender, since it has been such a hot-button issue.

The responses were strong. Most said the focus on gender wasn't fair to Yellen, whose credentials should stand on their own.

"Gender is not a valid part of the conversation, and it's sort of embarrassing that there is so much focus on it rather than on the substantial differences between Yellen and Summers," said Jodi Beggs, a lecturer at Northeastern University and blogger behind Economists Do It With Models.

Catherine Mann, professor of global finance at Brandeis University, agreed that gender should not play a role in the decision. She thinks Yellen is a better candidate for the job than Summers because of her research-focused background.

Other respondents criticized the media for even mentioning the gender issue.

"Media coverage of this in recent days has substantially raised my blood pressure. Please, write about this responsibly!" one said, adding "when a woman DOES rise to near the top of the profession and is considered for a high-level position, there will be a contingent that immediately begins to claim she is only in the top pool because she is a woman. This is exactly what is happening now to Dr. Yellen."

Related: Fed dissenter Esther George argues for tapering QE3

But the focus on Yellen's gender is part of a bigger issue. Women are greatly outnumbered by men in the field of economics.

Only about a third of new economics Ph.Ds are women, according to the American Economic Association, but the disparity starts even earlier, in undergraduate education. In the top 100 universities, there are 2.5 male economics majors per female econ major, notes Claudia Goldin, Harvard economist and president of the American Economic Association.

"If women are poorly represented in economics in the labor market it is largely because they do not major in the field," she said. "You can't easily make a Shakespeare expert or a gene splicer into an economist."

But if Janet Yellen becomes the most powerful central banker in the world, perhaps more young women will decide to pursue a career in economics?

Earlier this year, I asked Yellen about why more women aren't rising in the field, to which she replied:

"At the highest levels of central banking, there are very few women," she said. "But I am pleased that the representation of women is increasing a lot at other levels... I really think this is something that's going to increase over time, and it's time for that to happen."

First Published: August 4, 2013: 5:08 PM ET

12.08 | 0 komentar | Read More

Does college still pay off?

Michael Crow wants people to see how a school's graduates fare in the job market.

(Money Magazine)

Does college still pay off?

Changes in college funding

Here's how much costs have risen since 2002 -- and how much funding has fallen.

	Public colleges	Private colleges
Funding per student	-23%
Sticker price	36%	22%
Cost after aid	31%	7%

Notes: All data in 2012 dollars. Sticker price is published tuition, fees, and room and board before receiving financial aid. Sources: State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, College Board, Census Bureau

Our calculations and those of economists say the return on investment for a college education, in terms of additional earnings, is about 12% per year over your lifetime. The answer is unequivocally yes.

But a lot of people worry that the math has changed. This generation faces higher tuition and much higher debt.

That's very important. People say, "The system has changed -- and why did it change for me?"

We have had a perfect storm. The recession greatly accelerated a decrease in public investment in higher education -- at least in terms of direct support for schools. Match that with the inability of most schools to control their costs.

And then, while families have always been willing to borrow for college, their wealth has significantly deteriorated. All those things at the same time are a shock, and colleges haven't adjusted. We need to.

Related: How much will college really cost?

Are we pushing too many kids toward college? For in-state students, four years at Arizona State, all expenses included, is about $100,000. It's easily twice that at private schools. There are good jobs that require technical skills but not four years of college.

First, those prices are sticker prices. Our average in-state tuition is $3,800 a year.

Everybody's not being pushed to college. First, we have to get everybody through high school, and we can't even do that yet.

If we could get 40% of the high school grad population up to some level of technical training, that would be fantastic. And then maybe get 40% to the university level. That's what we need based on the job profiles of the future. Everybody doesn't need to go to college. We do need a broad set of career paths.

You say that colleges need to adjust to new economic realities. What's ASU done to control cost?

In our teaching of freshman math, we have found a way to dramatically improve outcomes while reducing our costs over 50%. We've been able to do this with an "adaptive learning" technology -- software that guides students through assignments customized to their learning style. We grew the university by 25,000 students -- didn't expand the faculty -- all by injecting technology.

Related: Get the financial aid you need

To a parent that might sound like an impersonal campus with giant lectures.

It's not giant lectures. The technology is being applied to those classes where it is valuable, where we have an outcome superior to the professor-on-a-stage model. We offer 16,000 individual courses; a large proportion are under 20 people.

Students majoring in the sciences get much of college's payoff. Should parents of English majors worry?

If the college does its job well, your child will emerge as someone capable of learning any new subject. Parents and other people tend to look to the past and think that you need to get a certain kind of degree to get a certain kind of job. But you don't know what the changes are going to be.

Many state schools have gotten very selective. You say that's a mistake.

There's a belief that a school is better because it accepts fewer people. A public university should be measured only on the quality of its graduates and the impact of those graduates on society. That's it.

But lots of parents want prestige.

If parents are looking for status upon admission, well, that's one thing. We're saying, "Let's look at achievement upon exit."

Can I compare colleges now, based on that information?

It's hard. Most rankings are based on exclusivity. You see some efforts: The Chinese have a measure of world universities based only on outputs. But I think we're a ways away.

What should I be able to see?

You should have access to things like the number of academic honors kids receive. What percentage go on to graduate school? How rapidly are they employed, by field or major? Graduation rates -- but graduation rates by family income.

Do colleges want this data out?

I don't know that they fight against having that information. I think many administrators are focused on overtaking the schools just ahead of them on the status hierarchy. Right now you don't do that based on output but by exclusion.

About graduation rates: Only 57% of ASU students graduate in six years.

If a student goes to ASU and then graduates somewhere else, that number counts them as a non-graduate. We have a calculation that puts us in the mid-60s.

Related: Congress OKs cheaper student loans

If you take only kids from higher-income families, nearly all will graduate. Having a more diverse class -- more kids working while in college, more first-generation college students -- affects graduation rates. Our goal is a 75% graduation rate, the rate for public research universities admitting only the top 10% of a high school class.

What if kids maybe aren't ready for college? Should they take a year off?

I'm not big on delay. Between 17 and 24 is a critical stage in brain development. I might say, "Go to community college for a year."

Even then, kids who are qualified for a four-year school and who go to community colleges don't graduate at a high rate. If your kid wants to go on to a university, he or she should get onto a pathway program.

These programs tell students, "Take certain classes, perform at a certain level, and engage with university advisers." If they do all of that, they'll move to the university automatically.

Are the new free online courses going to change how college works?

They're very powerful for enhancing what we do and lowering costs. But we won't have students sitting at home watching Princeton professors talk on their laptops. That's not an education. There's a science-fiction world where rich kids and brilliant kids actually interact with people called professors, and everybody else just learns from a computer. That would be a social disaster.

First Published: August 2, 2013: 4:52 PM ET

12.08 | 0 komentar | Read More

Time Warner Cable blacks outs CBS stations for millions as fee spat continues

CBS's summer hit "Under the Dome" is one of many shows some Time Warner Cable customers lost access to Friday as a result of the companies' dispute.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

The cable provider blacked out CBS stations in a number of cities on Friday after the two companies failed to resolve their disagreement over transmission fees by the 5 p.m. deadline they had set. CBS said it was the first time in its history that it had been dropped from a cable system over a business dispute.

The roughly 3 million customers affected are in New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Detroit and Pittsburgh. Those are the cities where CBS (CBS, Fortune 500) owns the affiliates that carry the network. In other markets, CBS is carried on stations with different owners.

Time Warner Cable customers nationwide have also lost access to the premium cable networks Showtime, The Movie Channel and The Smithsonian Channel, which are also owned by CBS.

The negotiation deadline had been extended on a number of previous occasions since the former contract expired on June 30. But on Friday, Time Warner Cable (TWC, Fortune 500) said CBS "has refused to have a productive discussion."

"It's become clear that no matter how much time we give them, they're not willing to come to reasonable terms," TWC spokesman Eric Mangan said in a statement. "We thank our customers for their patience and support as we continue to fight hard to keep their prices down."

Related: The 6 longest TV blackout wars

CBS (CBS, Fortune 500) said Time Warner Cable "has conducted negotiations in a combative and non-productive spirit, indulging in pointless brinksmanship and distorted public positioning."

"What CBS seeks, and what we always have sought from the beginning, is fair compensation for the most-watched television network with the most popular content in the world," the company said. "We hope and believe this period of darkness will be short and that we can all get back to the business of providing the best entertainment, news and sports to the Time Warner Cable customers we both serve."

Mangan said Friday evening that negotiations are "ongoing."

Time Warner Cable has claimed that CBS is demanding too high a rate -- 600% more than what the cable provider has to pay for the network's programming in other parts of the country. In those areas, Time Warner Cable negotiates with local CBS affiliates that are not owned outright by the network.

CBS says the 600% figure is inaccurate, but has declined to provide more specifics. It said its requests "are far more reasonable and well in line with what the industry is paying for content."

The two sides are very likely to reach a deal at some point, especially if the dispute threatens NFL broadcasts scheduled to air on CBS later this year.

"In the end, of course, an agreement will be reached," CBS said earlier this week.

CNNMoney's Charles Riley and Melanie Hicken contributed reporting.

First Published: August 2, 2013: 5:53 PM ET

12.08 | 0 komentar | Read More

Newsweek sold to all-digital news company

Newsweek, which abandoned its print edition at the end of 2012, has been sold to IBT Media by IAC.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

IAC, (IACI) another online media company, sold Newsweek for an undisclosed sum, IBT Media announced Saturday.

The Daily Beast, the IAC site that operates Newsweek, announced last October that it would abandon the magazine's print edition at the end of 2012 and run the content strictly online. Tina Brown, the editor-in-chief of both Newsweek and The Daily Beast, said at the time that the growing use of tablet computers by readers, combined with continued weakness in print advertising, forced the decision.

IBT said Saturday it will take control of Newsweek's content 60 days after completion of the deal, which is expected "in the coming days."

"We believe in the Newsweek brand and look forward to growing it, fully transformed to the digital age," said Etienne Uzac, IBT Media's CEO in a statement. "We respect the brand's long history of delivering high-quality, impactful journalism and believe this aligns well with IBT Media's culture and mission."

New York-based IBT Media's other online properties include International Business Times, Latin Times and Medical Daily.

Related: Time Inc. taps veteran executive Joe Ripp as CEO.

For most of its 80-year history, Newsweek was owned by the Washington Post (WPO) (WPO). But the Post sold the magazine to audio industry pioneer Sidney Harman in August 2010. It was merged with The Daily Beast in a deal finalized in February 2011, creating a joint venture that was half-owned by IAC. IAC/Interactive took a controlling interest in the joint venture in 2012.

IAC says it has more than 150 online properties, including The Daily Beast, Ask.com, Match.com and Vimeo.

The print edition of Newsweek was a long-time archrival of Time. Time is published by Time Inc., a partner in CNNMoney with its fellow Time Warner Inc. (TWX, Fortune 500)unit CNN.

--CNNMoney's Chris isidore contributed to this report.

First Published: August 3, 2013: 7:39 PM ET

12.08 | 0 komentar | Read More

Blackout deadline looms in CBS-Time Warner Cable fight

Summer hit "Under the Dome" is one of many shows some Time Warner Cable customers would lose access to if a deal isn't reached.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

The two companies have until 5 p.m. ET Friday to find a solution in their disagreement over the transmission fee that Time Warner Cable (TWC, Fortune 500) pays to run CBS-owned stations, including network affiliates in major cities. A failure to resolve the dispute threatens millions of cable subscribers with a CBS blackout.

The deadline has already been extended on a number of occasions since the former contract expired on June 30. Time Warner Cable spokesman Eric Mangan said Friday that "negotiations are continuing," declining to comment further.

Spokespeople for CBS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The 3 million customers affected by these talks are mostly in New York, Los Angeles and Dallas, but subscribers in Chicago, Boston, Pittsburgh, Detroit and Denver are also at risk. Those are the cities where CBS (CBS, Fortune 500) owns the affiliates that carry the network. In other markets, CBS is carried on stations with other owners.

Related: The 6 longest TV blackout wars

Time Warner Cable customers nationwide also stand to lose access to the premium cable network Showtime, which is also owned by CBS.

Time Warner Cable has claimed that CBS is demanding too high a rate -- 600% more than what the cable provider has to pay for the network's programming in other parts of the country. In those areas, Time Warner Cable negotiates with local CBS affiliates that are not owned outright by the network.

CBS had been running TV commercials warning customers in the affected cities that "Time Warner Cable is threatening to hold your favorite shows hostage."

Time Warner Cable and CBS are very likely to reach a deal at some point -- especially if the dispute threatens NFL broadcasts scheduled to air on CBS later this year. The question is whether consumers will be forced to endure a blackout.

CNNMoney's James O'Toole contributed reporting.

First Published: August 2, 2013: 12:28 PM ET

12.09 | 0 komentar | Read More