Total Pageviews

Rubio Is Losing Support Among Republican Voters

Until recently, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida had occupied something of a sweet spot in Republican politics: a favorite of the Tea Party but also trusted by the establishment wing of the G.O.P.

Mr. Rubio's embrace of comprehensive immigration reform, however, appears to have upset that delicate balance, and his support has slipped among the Republican base. The mention of his name drew boos at an anti-immigration reform Tea Party rally on Capitol Hill in mid-June, and recent public opinion surveys, taken amid the debate on immigration legislation, found his favorability rating falling and his standing in 2016 Republican primary matchups eroding.

Only two surveys, one by ABC News and The Washington Post and one by Rasmussen Reports, have tested Mr. Rubio's popularity since the Senate reached the final stages of passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Both measured double-digit drops in his net favorability rating among Republicans.

Mr. Rubio is still very popular among Republicans, just not as popular as he once was, particularly in the days after the 2012 presidential election when he became a leading Republican voice and began being discussed as a top contender in the 2016 presidential race.

Indeed, Mr. Rubio led in an average of the first few 2016 Republican primary polls released after the 2012 election, but support for him has faded in more recent 2016 primary surveys.

In the four national surveys conducted in January, an average of 20 percent of Republicans said they would support Mr. Rubio for the party's nomination in 2016. That number dropped to an average of 11 percent in the four primary polls conducted in June.

Before the Senate took up immigration reform, Mr. Rubio was largely a blank slate, upon whom both establishment Republicans and Tea Party supporters could project what they wanted (a dynamic that Barack Obama benefited from in 2008). Now Mr. Rubio has chosen a side, at least on immigration, and as long as it is a top issue in the news, Mr. Rubio may be identified more with the moderate wing of his party.

Had he stayed on the sidelines for immigration reform, Mr. Rubio's wide popularity among Republicans might have lasted longer, but it is unlikely it would have remained so high indefinitely. At some point, he would have been forced to take stands on other issues that divide the Republican establishment from the base. And if he runs for president in 2016, he will have to differentiate himself from other conservative candidates with stands on virtually every issue imaginable.

In other words, Mr. Rubio and his strategists may be playing a long game, sacrificing some support on the right they were likely to lose anyway for support in the middle. And while his stance on immigration reform has not yet earned Mr. Rubio a robust increase in his support among independents, that could still come.

Voters who are not particularly roused to either party tend to follow politics less closely than partisans and are less likely to be focusing on Mr. Rubio's role in the immigration debate. Mr. Rubio's support for immigration reform may earn the support of more moderate, unaffiliated voters once they start paying more attention to politics.

Of course, if Mr. Rubio does run for president in 2016, favoring comprehensive immigration reform might make winning the Republican nomination harder (although polls show a majority of Republican voters favor a conditional path to citizenship, primary voters tend to be more conservative than Republican voters over all). But Mr. Rubio will still be able to point to a deeply conservative record on many other issues.

And were he to emerge as the Republican nominee in 2016, his stance on immigration could help him in a general election.

Ultimately, Mr. Rubio's political talent will help determine whether he can minimize his losses on the right and maximize his gains in the middle.



Public Opinion Shifts on Security-Liberty Balance

A new Quinnipiac poll has found a significant shift in public opinion on the trade-off between civil liberties and national security. In the new survey, released on Wednesday, 45 percent of the public said they thought the government's antiterrorism policies have “gone too far in restricting the average person's civil liberties” - as compared with 40 percent who said they have “not gone far enough to adequately protect the country.”

By comparison, in a January 2010 Quinnipiac poll that posed the same question, only 25 percent of the public said the government had gone too far in restricting civil liberties, while 63 percent said it hadn't gone far enough to protect the country.

Although the shift in opinion is apparent among virtually all demographic groups, it has been somewhat more pronounced among Republicans, who may be growing more skeptical about President Obama's national security policies. Whereas, in the 2010 survey, 17 percent of Republicans said the government had gone too far to restrict civil liberties while 72 percent said it had not gone far enough to protect the country, the numbers among G.O.P. voters were nearly even in the new poll, with 41 percent saying that antiterrorism programs had gone too far and 46 percent saying they haven't gone far enough.

We generally caution against reading too much into a single poll result. But there are several reasons to think that the shift detected by the Quinnipiac poll is meaningful. First, the magnitude of the change was considerably larger than the margin of error in the poll. Second, the poll applied exactly the same question wording in both 2010 and 2013, making a direct comparison more reliable. Third, this was a well-constructed survey question, describing both the benefit (protecting the country) and the cost (restricting civil liberties) of antiterrorism programs in a balanced way.

What is less clear how much of the shift was triggered by the recent disclosures about the National Security Administration's domestic surveillance programs, as opposed to reflecting a longer-term trend in public opinion. A Fox News poll conducted in April, just after the Boston Marathon bombings but before the N.S.A. story broke, found that only 43 percent of the public was “willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism” - considerably lower than in other instances of the survey. However, Fox News had last posed this question in 2006. Either way, it seems safe to conclude that the climate of public opinion on this issue has changed considerably since the years closely following the Sept. 11 attacks.

The Quinnipiac poll also asked about Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor who disclosed details about the agency's programs to newspapers. The Quinnipiac poll, in contrast to other recent surveys, found ostensibly sympathetic views toward Mr. Snowden, with 34 percent of respondents describing him as “more of a traitor” while 55 percent said he was “more of a whistle-blower.”

Whereas I find Quinnipiac's broader question on national security to be quite meaningful, I'm not sure that the one about Mr. Snowden tells us very much. The problem is that the sympathetic response toward him in the poll may reflect a sympathetically worded question.

The poll described Mr. Snowden as “the national security consultant who released information to the media about the phone scanning program.” However, Mr. Snowden has also released information to the news media about other N.S.A. activities, such as those it has conducted in China. Some Americans may be pleased by Mr. Snowden's disclosures about how the N.S.A. conducted surveillance against U.S. citizens â€" but displeased that he has also disclosed details about its international surveillance. The Quinnipiac poll should probably have described a fuller spectrum of the information that Mr. Snowden has released.



Advertising: Campaign Redefines Running as a Social Activity

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



Leaked Report Cites Pakistan\'s Failings Before U.S. Killed Bin Laden

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



Chinese Journalist Is Released on Bail

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



Chief Leaves Barnes & Noble After Losses on E-Readers

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



Quito Journal: In Ecuador, a Magazine\'s Death Comes Amid Questions

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



Arthur Rosenthal, Academic Book Publisher, Dies at 93

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



National Book Foundation Names 3 Board Members

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



HBO to Produce Documentary on Gay Marriage Legal Fight

HBO to Produce Documentary on Gay Marriage Legal Fight

Drew Angerer for The New York Times

HBO plans to air a documentary from filmmakers who had behind-the-scenes access to the legal team led by David Boies, left, and Theodore B. Olson that challenged California's ban on same-sex marriage.

LOS ANGELES - HBO on Tuesday announced a documentary film project that will chronicle the court battle to overturn California's ban on same-sex marriage.

HBO said that two directors, Ben Cotner and Ryan White, have for years had exclusive behind-the-scenes access to the legal team that argued the recent Supreme Court case over Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative that banned gay marriage in the state. The Supreme Court late last month declined to rule on the case, effectively ending the ban.

The still-untitled documentary will be completed by the end of the year and make its debut on HBO sometime next year. Michael Lombardo, HBO's programming president, in a statement called the movie “the story of a modern-day American revolution” and said it was intended to be “the film of record on this landmark case.”

Mr. Cotner, a first-time director, and Mr. White, known for the documentary “Good Ol' Freda,” about the woman who served as secretary to the Beatles, gained access to the Proposition 8 legal team â€" led by the liberal David Boies and conservative Theodore B. Olson â€" through the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the nonprofit group that brought the challenge.

“Their willingness to give us such amazing access speaks to how confident they were about where history would end up,” Mr. Cotner said in a telephone interview.

The documentary will also tell the story of the couples behind the case. “I've always said that the best evidence in this case is to hear our clients tell their stories,” Mr. Olson said in a statement.

Opponents of same-sex marriage succeeded in blocking video coverage of the case as it made its way through lower courts. “But they cannot block this documentary,” Mr. Boies said in a statement.

A version of this article appeared in print on July 10, 2013, on page C3 of the New York edition with the headline: HBO Sets Documentary On Marriage Court Battle.

Legendary Entertainment Said to Be Near Deal to Move to Universal

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



HBO to Produce Documentary on Gay Marriage Legal Fight

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



After Four Years, Lowe Agency Gets a New U.S. Partner

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



Returning to Daytime TV, Vieira Will Host Talk Show

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



Journalist Assassinated in Violent Russian Republic

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



New Editor Says Village Voice Is Healthier Than It\'s Been in Years

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



Senator Seeks F.C.C. Review of WWOR-TV\'s License

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



Advertising: A Contest From Target With a High-Tech Twist

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



Fork in the Road for Barnes & Noble

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



Conservative Voice Goes From ‘View\' to Fox News

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



Parliament Asks Murdoch to Discuss Hacking

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



Austin Goodrich, Spy Who Posed as Journalist, Dies at 87

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account '

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more '



Fallout From Apple\'s Loss on E-Books

Fallout From Apple's Loss on E-Books

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Apple's app for electronic books is displayed on an iPad.

For Apple, the words of Steven P. Jobs were often used to win negotiations. But after his death, they have proved damaging.

Document

A federal judge on Wednesday said that some of Mr. Jobs's words helped persuade her that Apple had violated antitrust law in conspiring with publishers to raise prices of e-books. Although it appears unlikely that the ruling will have an immediate effect on the book-buying public, it could affect how Apple cuts deals with media companies that provide the music, books and movies that help make its iPhones and iPads compelling.

Charles E. Elder, an antitrust lawyer at Irell & Manella, said that the ruling could lead Apple and other technology companies negotiating with media companies to “proceed with extreme caution” to avoid any appearance of collusion.

On Wednesday, Apple continued to assert it had done nothing wrong, and said it would appeal the decision. A trial to determine damages will follow.

“Apple did not conspire to fix e-book pricing and we will continue to fight against these false accusations,” Tom Neumayr, an Apple spokesman, said. “When we introduced the iBookstore in 2010, we gave customers more choice, injecting much needed innovation and competition into the market, breaking Amazon's monopolistic grip on the publishing industry.”

In her ruling, Denise L. Cote of United States District Court in Manhattan said Apple had taken advantage of the publishers' “fear of and frustration” over Amazon.com's control of e-book pricing, and the tight window of opportunity in the weeks leading up to the iPad's introduction in 2010, to get the publishers to agree to its terms. “Apple seized the moment and brilliantly played its hand,” she wrote.

Five major publishers had also been named in the suit, but they all settled before the trial. Apple continued to fight the charges despite what increasingly looked like uphill odds. Publicly, the company said it refused to settle as a matter of principle because it had done nothing wrong.

The Justice Department said the judge's decision was a victory for people who buy e-books.

“Companies cannot ignore the antitrust laws when they believe it is in their economic self-interest to do so,” the Justice Department said in a statement. “This decision by the court is a critical step in undoing the harm caused by Apple's illegal actions.”

The main reason e-book prices will probably not move sharply in the near term is that the publishers who settled are operating under the settlement's terms, which prohibit publishers from restricting a retailer's ability to discount books.

“The changes to the industry have already happened,” said Mike Shatzkin, the founder and chief executive of the Idea Logical Company, a publishing consultant.

Since those settlements have gone into effect, prices on many newly released and best-selling e-books have gone down. One New York Times best-seller, “And the Mountains Echoed,” by Khaled Hosseini, is sold on Amazon.com for $10.99. But other e-books seem to have held closer to presettlement prices: “The Ocean at the End of the Lane,” by Neil Gaiman, is listed for $12.80 on Amazon.com.

The antitrust suit underscored the turmoil in the book industry as readers shift from ink and paper to electronic devices like tablets and smartphones, where they can buy books with the push of a button. The publishers want to embrace new media, but they are also trying to protect their profits and retain control of their businesses.

A recent survey of the publishing industry revealed that in the United States, e-books account for 20 percent of publishers' revenue, more than $3 billion, up from 15 percent the year before. Amazon.com dominates the e-book market.

The outcome will probably inflict some damage to Apple's reputation. The judge's decision casts Apple as a cold and manipulative bully whose actions have harmed consumers, contrary to the way the company markets itself, as a maker of products that improve people's lives.

A version of this article appeared in print on July 11, 2013, on page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Fallout From Apple's Loss on E-Books .

Advertising: Promotions Celebrate Those Willing to Just Get Up and Go

Promotions Celebrate Those Willing to Just Get Up and Go

WHILE not generally appreciated by bankers or crossing guards, impulsiveness is highly valued by marketers, who encourage spur-of-the-moment purchases. And separate stunts this week by Heineken and Hilton Worldwide are rewarding consumers for spontaneity with far-flung trips - but only if they depart with little or no forethought.

Greg Vosits, a student, put off a planned trip to Austria when he won a trip from Heineken.

On Tuesday, Heineken appeared in Terminal 8 of the Kennedy International Airport in Queens for “Departure Roulette,” and asked travelers to abandon itineraries and instead leave for free trips to unknown destinations.

Greg Vosits, a doctoral student in educational psychology at the University of Connecticut, arrived at J.F.K. on Tuesday for a 5:15 p.m. flight to Vienna. Mr. Vosits, 25, who was born in Austria and moved to the United States when he was 8, was planning a six-week visit with his grandparents and extended family.

But Heineken changed his mind. “I had no idea where in the world I would be traveling,” Mr. Vosits said. “I was definitely on the fence, but decided to go with the flow.”

Mr. Vosits pushed the button on a game-show-worthy display and learned he would be headed to Cyprus on a 9:55 p.m. flight. Heineken booked him a hotel room for two nights and gave him $2,000 to cover expenses.

Although Heineken generally is awarding round-trip flights from J.F.K., for Mr. Vosits it arranged a flight from Cyprus to Vienna on Friday, and from Vienna back to New York on Aug. 25, when he had planned to return.

“I'm going to rent a scooter and go up and down the coast,” said Mr. Vosits as he waited for his flight. “Hopefully I'll meet some pretty girls.”

No stranger to the brand, Mr. Vosits said he once toured the Heineken brewery in Amsterdam. “But I prefer Beck's, actually,” he said.

Heineken, which will return to J.F.K on Thursday, expects to send five to eight travelers to destinations like Reykjavik, Iceland, and Ulan Bator, Mongolia.

The stunt is part of a broader international advertising and marketing effort by Heineken that highlights travel and adventure, including a commercial, “The Voyage,” about a traveler's misadventures at an outdoor celebration in India, and “Dropped,” a Web series in which young men agree to depart for an unknown city and fish-out-of-water high jinks ensue.

The Wieden & Kennedy Amsterdam office produced the commercial and Web series, while its New York office conceived and produced Departure Roulette, with Edelman handling public relations for Heineken.

Belen Pamukoff, a Heineken brand director, said that the overall approach was to appeal to men 25 to 34, what is often called the millennial generation, the primary target for brand. Fifty-five percent of men who drink most often drink beer, compared with 23 percent of women. For wine, it is roughly the inverse, which is preferred by 52 percent of women and 20 percent of men, according to a 2012 Gallup poll.

“Millennial consumers want challenges, they want to be explorers,” said Ms. Pamukoff. “We need to connect and be relevant and talk about their passion points, which are travel and music.”

Heineken represents 14.8 percent of the imported beer market by sales volume and 2 percent of the overall beer market, according to the Beverage Information Group, which tracks the alcohol market. Heineken spent $76.8 million on advertising in the United States in 2012, according to Kantar Media, a unit of WPP.

Also on Thursday, Hilton HHonors, the loyalty program for Hilton Worldwide hotel brands, will also be coordinating its own travel-related stunt, “Travel is Calling You,” in Chicago. A golden rotary phone on a table in a pedestrian plaza will ring intermittently, and some who answer will be offered a weekend trip to Miami - provided they can both depart the next day and find a travel partner.

Chris Pagnozzi, a Chicago comedian, will be on the other end of the line, and when participants accept the offer, salsa dancers will perform and a pedicab will pedal the winners to a nearby AT&T store. There, they will receive an iPad Mini as well as smaller beach-related gifts like flip-flops and a towel. Four winners and their guests will fly on a chartered plane to Miami, where they will stay at Hilton Bentley Miami/South Beach with $1,000 in spending money.

Hilton is declining to reveal the exact location of the promotion because its intention is to elicit spontaneous reactions rather than attract prize seekers. The stunt was conceived of and will be produced by Edelman, which also handles public relations for Hilton. Video of the event will be posted online on July 18.

As with Heineken, the Hilton HHonors stunt is tied to an annual summer promotion, called “Great Getaway,” for all 10 Hilton Worldwide brands, which along with Hilton Hotels include Embassy Suites, Doubletree by Hilton, Waldorf-Astoria Hotels and Resorts and Hampton Inn. Hilton Worldwide spent a combined $69 million to advertise domestically in 2012, according to Kantar Media.

In conjunction with the Chicago stunt, Hilton is releasing results of a survey about travel-related spontaneity: 80 percent of respondents said that if offered a free weekend vacation that required leaving instantly, they would go.

Nancy Deck, vice president for full-service brand marketing for Hilton Worldwide, said the effort was meant to encourage travelers who may already take elaborate international trips to consider more seat-of-the-pants excursions.

“We're advocates for travel and travelers and we believe life is too short to plan just one annual vacation,” Ms. Deck said. “We want to encourage people to enrich their lives and take several weekend getaways throughout the year.”

A version of this article appeared in print on July 11, 2013, on page B6 of the New York edition with the headline: Promotions Celebrate Those Willing to Just Get Up and Go .

To Cut Taxes, Tribune Is to Split Into Broadcasting and Publishing Units

To Cut Taxes, Tribune Is to Split Into Broadcasting and Publishing Units

David McNew/Getty Images

The Los Angeles Times and other Tribune papers will be part of Tribune Publishing Company.

The Tribune Company's decision to divide itself into separate broadcast and publishing companies may help avoid a big tax bill, but the split does not address the bigger problem facing newspaper executives: buyers just do not want to spend on print.

After the Tribune Company splits into separate broadcast and publishing companies, executives will still face the question of the lagging print business.

Months after Tribune announced it was exploring opportunities for its newspapers, including The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune, the company instead said on Wednesday that it would spin them off into a separate entity called the Tribune Publishing Company. In doing so, Tribune followed the example of Time Warner and News Corporation, which also recently announced spinoffs of their publishing businesses, even though print properties are the backbone of their companies.

“These companies were built on print. These guys are walking away from decades-long legacies. This is a big moment,” said Alan D. Mutter, a newspaper consultant who writes the blog Reflections of a Newsosaur. “It's like everybody is saying, ‘We're out.' ”

By spinning off the newspapers instead of selling them, Tribune avoids the tax consequences of a sale in the near term while still allowing the company, now led by Peter Liguori, a longtime broadcasting executive, to focus its efforts on television, including 19 local stations that it acquired for $2.7 billion at the beginning of the month.

In making the announcement, Mr. Liguori said that “the separation is designed to allow each company to maximize its flexibility and competitiveness in a rapidly changing media environment.”

The spinoff of the newspapers leaves Tribune as largely a broadcasting company, which will include 42 local television stations and interests in the Food Network,Web sites like Classified Ventures and CareerBuilder and its real estate holdings, including the Tribune Tower in Chicago.

The new publishing company, which will have its own board and leadership, will include the Los Angeles and Chicago papers along with The Baltimore Sun, The Sun Sentinel in Florida, The Orlando Sentinel, The Hartford Courant and The Morning Call in Pennsylvania. The newspapers' operational tie-ins with Tribune's digital sites, a valuable part of the enterprise, will remain intact after the split.

The publishing side of Tribune actually had higher revenue than the broadcasting side in 2012 - $2 billion compared with $1.14 billion. But according to Ken Doctor, a newspaper analyst, publishing revenue at Tribune has dropped 51 percent from 2005 and 2011, mirroring the halving of revenue in the rest of the industry. The newspapers have had deep editorial cuts and a loss of luster after a debt-laden purchase by Sam Zell in 2007. In February, Tribune announced that it had hired Evercore Partners and JPMorgan Chase to look into the sale of its newspapers. Several bidders expressed interest, including Charles and David Koch, the conservative billionaires; Aaron Kushner, the owner of The Orange County Register; and a group led by Eli Broad, the Los Angeles billionaire. But the efforts to sell have proceeded slowly, and the financial deal books that generally precede a sale have yet to go out.

The spinoff does not preclude a quick sale of the newspapers, but because the necessary filings will take months to prepare and be followed by putting together a new board and leadership for the publishing enterprise, Tribune's decision could push any sale further down the road.

Robert Willens, a longtime tax analyst who runs the firm Robert Willens L.L.C., said that Tribune could avoid roughly $250 million in taxes on the sale of its newspapers, which have been valued at roughly $623 million, by creating a separate company. He added that for the deal to pass muster with the Internal Revenue Service, Tribune just has to show that it has not had discussions over price with potential buyers for two years before the creation of the new company.

“People do spinoffs all the time for the purpose of avoiding taxes,” said Mr. Willens. “That's the beauty of a spinoff. It permanently avoids the tax that would be payable on a more straightforward or conventional disposal of the business.”

The company, he noted, is already grappling with a $190 million tax bill, plus 20 percent penalty, on its sale of the Long Island newspaper Newsday to Cablevision in 2008. In its most recent earnings report, Tribune Company said that it also might have to pay an extra $225 million in taxes after the I.R.S. finishes auditing the company's 2009 tax return over a sale of the Chicago Cubs baseball team.

A version of this article appeared in print on July 11, 2013, on page B5 of the New York edition with the headline: To Cut Taxes, Tribune Is to Split Into Broadcasting and Publishing Units .

E-Book Ruling Gives Amazon an Advantage

E-Book Ruling Gives Amazon an Advantage

Reed Saxon/Associated Press

Jeff Bezos, chief of Amazon, introducing new models of the company's Kindle e-readers in 2012.

Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, loves disrupting markets. In that regard, he must be having a delightful summer. The book business, once so mired in the past it seemed part of the antiques trade, is up for grabs.

Document

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that Apple had illegally conspired with five of the six biggest publishers to try to raise prices in the budding e-books market.

The decision came two days after Barnes & Noble lost its chief executive and said it would not appoint another, signaling that the biggest chain of physical bookstores could be immediately broken up.

The verdict in the Apple case might have been a foregone conclusion, telegraphed by the judge herself, but it emphatically underlined how the traditional players in the book business have been upended. Only Amazon, led by Mr. Bezos, seems to have a plan. He is executing it with a skill that infuriates his competitors and rewards his stockholders.

“We're at a moment when cultural power is passing to new gatekeepers,” said Joe Esposito, a publishing consultant. “Heaven forbid that we should have the government telling our entrepreneurs what to do, but there is a social policy issue here. We don't want the companies to become a black hole that absorbs all light except their own.”

The Apple case, which was brought by the Justice Department, will have little immediate impact on the selling of books. The publishers settled long ago, protesting they had done nothing wrong but saying they could not afford to fight the government. But it might be a long time before they try to take charge of their fate again in such a bold fashion. Drawing the attention of the government once was bad enough; twice could be a disaster.

“The Department of Justice has unwittingly caused further consolidation in the industry at a time when consolidation is not necessarily a good thing,” said Mark Coker, the chief executive of Smashwords, an e-book distributor. “If you want a vibrant ecosystem of multiple publishers, multiple publishing methods and multiple successful retailers in 5, 20 or 50 years, we took a step backwards this week.”

Some in publishing suspected that Amazon had prompted the government to file its suit. The retailer has denied it, but it still emerged the big winner. While Apple will be punished - damages are yet to be decided - and the publishers were chastened, Amazon is left free to exert its dominance over e-books - even as it gains market share with physical books. The retailer declined to comment on Wednesday.

“Amazon is not in most of the headlines, but all of the big events in the book world are about Amazon,” said Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild. “If the publishers colluded, it was to blunt Amazon's dominance. Barnes & Noble's troubles may stem from a misstep with its Nook tablets, just as Borders' bankruptcy might have been hastened by management mistakes, but its precarious position is that of any rent-paying retailer facing a deep-pocketed virtual competitor.”

Last week, Penguin and Random House officially merged, creating a publishing behemoth that might be able to determine its future rather than suffer the fate of Barnes & Noble, a once-swaggering entity that now seems adrift. Random House was not a target of the Justice Department; Penguin was.

Penguin and Random House were innovators who made paperbacks into a disruptive force in the 1940s and '50s. They were the Amazons of their era, making the traditional book business deeply uneasy. No less an authority than George Orwell thought paperbacks were of so much better value than hardbacks that they spelled the ruination of publishing and bookselling. “The cheaper books become,” he wrote, “the less money is spent on books.”

Orwell was wrong, but the same arguments are being made against Amazon and e-books today. Amazon executives are not much for public debate, but they argue that all this disruption will ultimately give more money to more authors and make more books more widely available to more people at cheaper prices, and who could argue with any of that?

This was not a prospect that many on Wednesday were putting much faith in.

Amazon, its detractors argue, is not a nonprofit or public trust but a hard-nosed company whose investors hope will make lots of money someday soon. It shares closed Wednesday at $292.33, a record.

“The Justice Department's guns seem pointed in the wrong direction,” Mr. Aiken said.

But the more pressing concern for the industry is the fate of Barnes & Noble. When Borders collapsed two years ago, analysts said there was an unexpected consequence to the loss of 400 stores: the e-book growth rate began to taper off, as readers could no longer examine new titles before ordering them from Amazon.

E-books, in other words, were not a magical technology that could shed all the existing infrastructure of publishing. They needed the existing ecosystem.

“If all of those corporate outlets vanish, there is suddenly a hell of a lot less space devoted to showcasing a large number of titles,” said J. B. Dickey, owner of the Seattle Mystery Bookshop. “We'll probably see a continuing shrinking in print runs, maybe fewer titles published, fewer authors published and the New York houses retreating into the known best-sellers. Which means more novice and midlist authors scrambling to find a way to stay in print and more authors self-publishing their print books - or more likely releasing their works as e-files.”

All of that sounds dire. Perhaps the only consolation for those who fear the power of Amazon is the knowledge that all companies eventually peak, no matter how unlikely that seems when they are in the ascendance.

Mr. Esposito, the consultant, remembered that 30 years ago there was a book called “The Media Monopoly,” which worried about the excessive power of the Gannett chain of newspapers as well as the three major television networks.

“The book reads almost quaint now,” Mr. Esposito said.

A version of this article appeared in print on July 11, 2013, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: E-Book Ruling Gives Amazon An Advantage.

Soldier\'s Lawyers Rest Case With a Defense of WikiLeaks\' Journalistic Role

Soldier's Lawyers Rest Case With a Defense of WikiLeaks' Journalistic Role

FORT MEADE, Md. - The defense in the court-martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning rested its case Wednesday with a Harvard law professor testifying that WikiLeaks performed a legitimate journalistic function when Private Manning gave it vast archives of secret government files.

The professor, Yochai Benkler, who wrote a widely cited academic article about WikiLeaks and the evolution of watchdog journalism in the Internet era, testified that at the time of Private Manning's leaks the group had established itself as playing a reputable and valuable journalistic role by publishing documents about corporate misconduct and government corruption around the world.

“It's a clear, distinct component of what in the history of journalism we see as high points,” he said, “where journalists are able to come in and say, here's a system operating in a way that is obscure to the public, and now we're able to shine the light. That's what WikiLeaks showed how to do for the network public sphere.”

A defense lawyer, David Coombs, called Mr. Benkler as an expert witness in an effort to undercut charges that Private Manning's confessed leaking was not merely illegal but called for more severe charges like “wanton” misconduct and “aiding the enemy,” the latter of which could result in a life sentence.

After Mr. Benkler completed his testimony, Mr. Coombs told the judge, Col. Denise Lind, that the defense was resting after three days. The prosecution, by contrast, took five weeks to present its case.

Colonel Lind asked Private Manning - who during the pretrial phase had read a lengthy statement confessing to most of the leaking with which he had been charged and explaining his motivations - to verify that he had chosen not to testify in his defense.

“That's correct, Your Honor,” he replied.

It is not clear whether the defense will seek to put on a rebuttal case before closing arguments. The trial will resume next week.

Mr. Benkler's testimony briefly shifted the focus back to WikiLeaks, which in 2010 enjoyed fame and endured criticism over the leaks of hundreds of thousands of secret United States military and diplomatic files. The trial has served to emphasize that Private Manning was the real catalyst for the leaks.

A prosecutor, Capt. Joe Morrow, asked Mr. Benkler whether he agreed that the release of documents in bulk was not journalism. Mr. Benkler disagreed, however. Sometimes, he said, a database holds important information even though no single document is newsworthy by itself.

As an example, he cited an analysis by the group Iraq Body Count of the logs of Iraq war incidents, which Private Manning leaked, that suggested there had been far higher civilian casualties than officials had estimated.

Mr. Benkler has written opinion articles criticizing the severe charges leveled against Private Manning as a threat to investigative journalism.

Tracing the history of WikiLeaks' activities, Mr. Benkler said it had initially encountered skepticism over the authenticity of the documents it published. Then, he said, after it had published dozens of documents without having to retract any, it was increasingly accepted as a legitimate journalistic player. The third phase, he said, came after it began publishing the files Private Manning provided.

American government officials and lawmakers began denouncing the organization. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., for example, called its leader, Julian Assange, a “high-tech terrorist,” and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, said it might have “blood on its hands,” although Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates later conceded that some of the reaction had been “overwrought.”

But such claims were amplified, Mr. Benkler noted, by commentators on Fox News and in the Weekly Standard, among other outlets, who sharply criticized WikiLeaks. Its journalistic reputation was also undercut by two prominent articles published by The New York Times - an opinion column by Thomas L. Friedman and a lengthy first-person magazine article by Bill Keller, the paper's executive editor at the time - portraying the group as anarchists and “a secretive cadre of antisecrecy vigilantes.”

At the same time, Mr. Benkler said, many other news organizations were inaccurately reporting that WikiLeaks had put online 250,000 cables, even though at that point it had published only 272 cables that were chosen and simultaneously published by the traditional news organizations that had obtained advance access to them. WikiLeaks did ultimately release all the cables, though it blamed an editor at The Guardian for inadvertently revealing a password that made their release inevitable.

But despite the criticism WikiLeaks has endured, Mr. Benkler said the model it had developed was likely to endure.

“WikiLeaks may fail in the future because of all these events, but the model of some form of decentralized leaking, that is secure technologically and allows for collaboration among different media in different countries, that's going to survive, and somebody else will build it,” he said. “But WikiLeaks played that critical role of that particular critical component of what muckraking and investigative journalism has always done.”

A version of this article appeared in print on July 11, 2013, on page A18 of the New York edition with the headline: Soldier's Lawyers Rest Case With a Defense of WikiLeaks' Journalistic Role.

Soldier’s Lawyers Rest Case With a Defense of WikiLeaks’ Journalistic Role

Soldier’s Lawyers Rest Case With a Defense of WikiLeaks’ Journalistic Role

FORT MEADE, Md. â€" The defense in the court-martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning rested its case Wednesday with a Harvard law professor testifying that WikiLeaks performed a legitimate journalistic function when Private Manning gave it vast archives of secret government files.

The professor, Yochai Benkler, who wrote a widely cited academic article about WikiLeaks and the evolution of watchdog journalism in the Internet era, testified that at the time of Private Manning’s leaks the group had established itself as playing a reputable and valuable journalistic role by publishing documents about corporate misconduct and government corruption around the world.

“It’s a clear, distinct component of what in the history of journalism we see as high points,” he said, “where journalists are able to come in and say, here’s a system operating in a way that is obscure to the public, and now we’re able to shine the light. That’s what WikiLeaks showed how to do for the network public sphere.”

A defense lawyer, David Coombs, called Mr. Benkler as an expert witness in an effort to undercut charges that Private Manning’s confessed leaking was not merely illegal but called for more severe charges like “wanton” misconduct and “aiding the enemy,” the latter of which could result in a life sentence.

After Mr. Benkler completed his testimony, Mr. Coombs told the judge, Col. Denise Lind, that the defense was resting after three days. The prosecution, by contrast, took five weeks to present its case.

Colonel Lind asked Private Manning â€" who during the pretrial phase had read a lengthy statement confessing to most of the leaking with which he had been charged and explaining his motivations â€" to verify that he had chosen not to testify in his defense.

“That’s correct, Your Honor,” he replied.

It is not clear whether the defense will seek to put on a rebuttal case before closing arguments. The trial will resume next week.

Mr. Benkler’s testimony briefly shifted the focus back to WikiLeaks, which in 2010 enjoyed fame and endured criticism over the leaks of hundreds of thousands of secret United States military and diplomatic files. The trial has served to emphasize that Private Manning was the real catalyst for the leaks.

A prosecutor, Capt. Joe Morrow, asked Mr. Benkler whether he agreed that the release of documents in bulk was not journalism. Mr. Benkler disagreed, however. Sometimes, he said, a database holds important information even though no single document is newsworthy by itself.

As an example, he cited an analysis by the group Iraq Body Count of the logs of Iraq war incidents, which Private Manning leaked, that suggested there had been far higher civilian casualties than officials had estimated.

Mr. Benkler has written opinion articles criticizing the severe charges leveled against Private Manning as a threat to investigative journalism.

Tracing the history of WikiLeaks’ activities, Mr. Benkler said it had initially encountered skepticism over the authenticity of the documents it published. Then, he said, after it had published dozens of documents without having to retract any, it was increasingly accepted as a legitimate journalistic player. The third phase, he said, came after it began publishing the files Private Manning provided.

American government officials and lawmakers began denouncing the organization. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., for example, called its leader, Julian Assange, a “high-tech terrorist,” and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, said it might have “blood on its hands,” although Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates later conceded that some of the reaction had been “overwrought.”

But such claims were amplified, Mr. Benkler noted, by commentators on Fox News and in the Weekly Standard, among other outlets, who sharply criticized WikiLeaks. Its journalistic reputation was also undercut by two prominent articles published by The New York Times â€" an opinion column by Thomas L. Friedman and a lengthy first-person magazine article by Bill Keller, the paper’s executive editor at the time â€" portraying the group as anarchists and “a secretive cadre of antisecrecy vigilantes.”

At the same time, Mr. Benkler said, many other news organizations were inaccurately reporting that WikiLeaks had put online 250,000 cables, even though at that point it had published only 272 cables that were chosen and simultaneously published by the traditional news organizations that had obtained advance access to them. WikiLeaks did ultimately release all the cables, though it blamed an editor at The Guardian for inadvertently revealing a password that made their release inevitable.

But despite the criticism WikiLeaks has endured, Mr. Benkler said the model it had developed was likely to endure.

“WikiLeaks may fail in the future because of all these events, but the model of some form of decentralized leaking, that is secure technologically and allows for collaboration among different media in different countries, that’s going to survive, and somebody else will build it,” he said. “But WikiLeaks played that critical role of that particular critical component of what muckraking and investigative journalism has always done.”

A version of this article appeared in print on July 11, 2013, on page A18 of the New York edition with the headline: Soldier’s Lawyers Rest Case With a Defense of WikiLeaks’ Journalistic Role.

E-Book Ruling Gives Amazon an Advantage

E-Book Ruling Gives Amazon an Advantage

Reed Saxon/Associated Press

Jeff Bezos, chief of Amazon, introducing new models of the company’s Kindle e-readers in 2012.

Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, loves disrupting markets. In that regard, he must be having a delightful summer. The book business, once so mired in the past it seemed part of the antiques trade, is up for grabs.

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that Apple had illegally conspired with five of the six biggest publishers to try to raise prices in the budding e-books market.

The decision came two days after Barnes & Noble lost its chief executive and said it would not appoint another, signaling that the biggest chain of physical bookstores could be immediately broken up.

The verdict in the Apple case might have been a foregone conclusion, telegraphed by the judge herself, but it emphatically underlined how the traditional players in the book business have been upended. Only Amazon, led by Mr. Bezos, seems to have a plan. He is executing it with a skill that infuriates his competitors and rewards his stockholders.

“We’re at a moment when cultural power is passing to new gatekeepers,” said Joe Esposito, a publishing consultant. “Heaven forbid that we should have the government telling our entrepreneurs what to do, but there is a social policy issue here. We don’t want the companies to become a black hole that absorbs all light except their own.”

The Apple case, which was brought by the Justice Department, will have little immediate impact on the selling of books. The publishers settled long ago, protesting they had done nothing wrong but saying they could not afford to fight the government. But it might be a long time before they try to take charge of their fate again in such a bold fashion. Drawing the attention of the government once was bad enough; twice could be a disaster.

“The Department of Justice has unwittingly caused further consolidation in the industry at a time when consolidation is not necessarily a good thing,” said Mark Coker, the chief executive of Smashwords, an e-book distributor. “If you want a vibrant ecosystem of multiple publishers, multiple publishing methods and multiple successful retailers in 5, 20 or 50 years, we took a step backwards this week.”

Some in publishing suspected that Amazon had prompted the government to file its suit. The retailer has denied it, but it still emerged the big winner. While Apple will be punished â€" damages are yet to be decided â€" and the publishers were chastened, Amazon is left free to exert its dominance over e-books â€" even as it gains market share with physical books. The retailer declined to comment on Wednesday.

“Amazon is not in most of the headlines, but all of the big events in the book world are about Amazon,” said Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild. “If the publishers colluded, it was to blunt Amazon’s dominance. Barnes & Noble’s troubles may stem from a misstep with its Nook tablets, just as Borders’ bankruptcy might have been hastened by management mistakes, but its precarious position is that of any rent-paying retailer facing a deep-pocketed virtual competitor.”

Last week, Penguin and Random House officially merged, creating a publishing behemoth that might be able to determine its future rather than suffer the fate of Barnes & Noble, a once-swaggering entity that now seems adrift. Random House was not a target of the Justice Department; Penguin was.

Penguin and Random House were innovators who made paperbacks into a disruptive force in the 1940s and ’50s. They were the Amazons of their era, making the traditional book business deeply uneasy. No less an authority than George Orwell thought paperbacks were of so much better value than hardbacks that they spelled the ruination of publishing and bookselling. “The cheaper books become,” he wrote, “the less money is spent on books.”

Orwell was wrong, but the same arguments are being made against Amazon and e-books today. Amazon executives are not much for public debate, but they argue that all this disruption will ultimately give more money to more authors and make more books more widely available to more people at cheaper prices, and who could argue with any of that?

This was not a prospect that many on Wednesday were putting much faith in.

Amazon, its detractors argue, is not a nonprofit or public trust but a hard-nosed company whose investors hope will make lots of money someday soon. It shares closed Wednesday at $292.33, a record.

“The Justice Department’s guns seem pointed in the wrong direction,” Mr. Aiken said.

But the more pressing concern for the industry is the fate of Barnes & Noble. When Borders collapsed two years ago, analysts said there was an unexpected consequence to the loss of 400 stores: the e-book growth rate began to taper off, as readers could no longer examine new titles before ordering them from Amazon.

E-books, in other words, were not a magical technology that could shed all the existing infrastructure of publishing. They needed the existing ecosystem.

“If all of those corporate outlets vanish, there is suddenly a hell of a lot less space devoted to showcasing a large number of titles,” said J. B. Dickey, owner of the Seattle Mystery Bookshop. “We’ll probably see a continuing shrinking in print runs, maybe fewer titles published, fewer authors published and the New York houses retreating into the known best-sellers. Which means more novice and midlist authors scrambling to find a way to stay in print and more authors self-publishing their print books â€" or more likely releasing their works as e-files.”

All of that sounds dire. Perhaps the only consolation for those who fear the power of Amazon is the knowledge that all companies eventually peak, no matter how unlikely that seems when they are in the ascendance.

Mr. Esposito, the consultant, remembered that 30 years ago there was a book called “The Media Monopoly,” which worried about the excessive power of the Gannett chain of newspapers as well as the three major television networks.

“The book reads almost quaint now,” Mr. Esposito said.



Advertising: Promotions Celebrate Those Willing to Just Get Up and Go

Promotions Celebrate Those Willing to Just Get Up and Go

WHILE not generally appreciated by bankers or crossing guards, impulsiveness is highly valued by marketers, who encourage spur-of-the-moment purchases. And separate stunts this week by Heineken and Hilton Worldwide are rewarding consumers for spontaneity with far-flung trips â€" but only if they depart with little or no forethought.

Greg Vosits, a student, put off a planned trip to Austria when he won a trip from Heineken.

On Tuesday, Heineken appeared in Terminal 8 of the Kennedy International Airport in Queens for “Departure Roulette,” and asked travelers to abandon itineraries and instead leave for free trips to unknown destinations.

Greg Vosits, a doctoral student in educational psychology at the University of Connecticut, arrived at J.F.K. on Tuesday for a 5:15 p.m. flight to Vienna. Mr. Vosits, 25, who was born in Austria and moved to the United States when he was 8, was planning a six-week visit with his grandparents and extended family.

But Heineken changed his mind. “I had no idea where in the world I would be traveling,” Mr. Vosits said. “I was definitely on the fence, but decided to go with the flow.”

Mr. Vosits pushed the button on a game-show-worthy display and learned he would be headed to Cyprus on a 9:55 p.m. flight. Heineken booked him a hotel room for two nights and gave him $2,000 to cover expenses.

Although Heineken generally is awarding round-trip flights from J.F.K., for Mr. Vosits it arranged a flight from Cyprus to Vienna on Friday, and from Vienna back to New York on Aug. 25, when he had planned to return.

“I’m going to rent a scooter and go up and down the coast,” said Mr. Vosits as he waited for his flight. “Hopefully I’ll meet some pretty girls.”

No stranger to the brand, Mr. Vosits said he once toured the Heineken brewery in Amsterdam. “But I prefer Beck’s, actually,” he said.

Heineken, which will return to J.F.K on Thursday, expects to send five to eight travelers to destinations like Reykjavik, Iceland, and Ulan Bator, Mongolia.

The stunt is part of a broader international advertising and marketing effort by Heineken that highlights travel and adventure, including a commercial, “The Voyage,” about a traveler’s misadventures at an outdoor celebration in India, and “Dropped,” a Web series in which young men agree to depart for an unknown city and fish-out-of-water high jinks ensue.

The Wieden & Kennedy Amsterdam office produced the commercial and Web series, while its New York office conceived and produced Departure Roulette, with Edelman handling public relations for Heineken.

Belen Pamukoff, a Heineken brand director, said that the overall approach was to appeal to men 25 to 34, what is often called the millennial generation, the primary target for brand. Fifty-five percent of men who drink most often drink beer, compared with 23 percent of women. For wine, it is roughly the inverse, which is preferred by 52 percent of women and 20 percent of men, according to a 2012 Gallup poll.

“Millennial consumers want challenges, they want to be explorers,” said Ms. Pamukoff. “We need to connect and be relevant and talk about their passion points, which are travel and music.”

Heineken represents 14.8 percent of the imported beer market by sales volume and 2 percent of the overall beer market, according to the Beverage Information Group, which tracks the alcohol market. Heineken spent $76.8 million on advertising in the United States in 2012, according to Kantar Media, a unit of WPP.

Also on Thursday, Hilton HHonors, the loyalty program for Hilton Worldwide hotel brands, will also be coordinating its own travel-related stunt, “Travel is Calling You,” in Chicago. A golden rotary phone on a table in a pedestrian plaza will ring intermittently, and some who answer will be offered a weekend trip to Miami â€" provided they can both depart the next day and find a travel partner.

Chris Pagnozzi, a Chicago comedian, will be on the other end of the line, and when participants accept the offer, salsa dancers will perform and a pedicab will pedal the winners to a nearby AT&T store. There, they will receive an iPad Mini as well as smaller beach-related gifts like flip-flops and a towel. Four winners and their guests will fly on a chartered plane to Miami, where they will stay at Hilton Bentley Miami/South Beach with $1,000 in spending money.

Hilton is declining to reveal the exact location of the promotion because its intention is to elicit spontaneous reactions rather than attract prize seekers. The stunt was conceived of and will be produced by Edelman, which also handles public relations for Hilton. Video of the event will be posted online on July 18.

As with Heineken, the Hilton HHonors stunt is tied to an annual summer promotion, called “Great Getaway,” for all 10 Hilton Worldwide brands, which along with Hilton Hotels include Embassy Suites, Doubletree by Hilton, Waldorf-Astoria Hotels and Resorts and Hampton Inn. Hilton Worldwide spent a combined $69 million to advertise domestically in 2012, according to Kantar Media.

In conjunction with the Chicago stunt, Hilton is releasing results of a survey about travel-related spontaneity: 80 percent of respondents said that if offered a free weekend vacation that required leaving instantly, they would go.

Nancy Deck, vice president for full-service brand marketing for Hilton Worldwide, said the effort was meant to encourage travelers who may already take elaborate international trips to consider more seat-of-the-pants excursions.

“We’re advocates for travel and travelers and we believe life is too short to plan just one annual vacation,” Ms. Deck said. “We want to encourage people to enrich their lives and take several weekend getaways throughout the year.”



Public Opinion Shifts on Security-Liberty Balance

A new Quinnipiac poll has found a significant shift in public opinion on the trade-off between civil liberties and national security. In the new survey, released on Wednesday, 45 percent of the public said they thought the government’s antiterrorism policies have “gone too far in restricting the average person’s civil liberties” â€" as compared with 40 percent who said they have “not gone far enough to adequately protect the country.”

By comparison, in a January 2010 Quinnipiac poll that posed the same question, only 25 percent of the public said the government had gone too far in restricting civil liberties, while 63 percent said it hadn’t gone far enough to protect the country.

Although the shift in opinion is apparent among virtually all demographic groups, it has been somewhat more pronounced among Republicans, who may be growing more skeptical about President Obama’s national security policies. Whereas, in the 2010 survey, 17 percent of Republicans said the government had gone too far to restrict civil liberties while 72 percent said it had not gone far enough to protect the country, the numbers among G.O.P. voters were nearly even in the new poll, with 41 percent saying that antiterrorism programs had gone too far and 46 percent saying they haven’t gone far enough.

We generally caution against reading too much into a single poll result. But there are several reasons to think that the shift detected by the Quinnipiac poll is meaningful. First, the magnitude of the change was considerably larger than the margin of error in the poll. Second, the poll applied exactly the same question wording in both 2010 and 2013, making a direct comparison more reliable. Third, this was a well-constructed survey question, describing both the benefit (protecting the country) and the cost (restricting civil liberties) of antiterrorism programs in a balanced way.

What is less clear how much of the shift was triggered by the recent disclosures about the National Security Administration’s domestic surveillance programs, as opposed to reflecting a longer-term trend in public opinion. A Fox News poll conducted in April, just after the Boston Marathon bombings but before the N.S.A. story broke, found that only 43 percent of the public was “willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism” â€" considerably lower than in other instances of the survey. However, Fox News had last posed this question in 2006. Either way, it seems safe to conclude that the climate of public opinion on this issue has changed considerably since the years closely following the Sept. 11 attacks.

The Quinnipiac poll also asked about Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor who disclosed details about the agency’s programs to newspapers. The Quinnipiac poll, in contrast to other recent surveys, found ostensibly sympathetic views toward Mr. Snowden, with 34 percent of respondents describing him as “more of a traitor” while 55 percent said he was “more of a whistle-blower.”

Whereas I find Quinnipiac’s broader question on national security to be quite meaningful, I’m not sure that the one about Mr. Snowden tells us very much. The problem is that the sympathetic response toward him in the poll may reflect a sympathetically worded question.

The poll described Mr. Snowden as “the national security consultant who released information to the media about the phone scanning program.” However, Mr. Snowden has also released information to the news media about other N.S.A. activities, such as those it has conducted in China. Some Americans may be pleased by Mr. Snowden’s disclosures about how the N.S.A. conducted surveillance against U.S. citizens - but displeased that he has also disclosed details about its international surveillance. The Quinnipiac poll should probably have described a fuller spectrum of the information that Mr. Snowden has released.