Tony Metcalf, Editor of Free City Newspapers, Dies at 50

Tony Metcalf, the editor in chief of Metro US, the free newspaper that offers a quick read to bus and subway riders in New York, Philadelphia and Boston, particularly young working men and women who might never dream of buying a newspaper, died on Sunday in Darlington, England. He was 50.

Tony Metcalf was editor in chief of Metro US, a weekday paper.

The cause was colon cancer, said a company spokesman in New York, where Mr. Metcalf was based.

At his death, Mr. Metcalf, a newspaper veteran from Northeast England, was considered a rising star in the free-newspaper empire of Metro International, a spinoff of a Swedish media company that started its first free newspaper in Stockholm in 1995. Metro International now publishes about 100 such papers in 27 countries.

Starting in 2000 as editor of the company’s first giveaway newspaper in England, the short-lived Metro Newcastle, Mr. Metcalf was named global editor in chief in 2001 and dispatched to start similar newspapers in a dozen locations, including Toronto, Barcelona, Madrid, Paris, Hong Kong and Seoul. (All are still operating.) He was named editor of Metro US in 2008.

Mr. Metcalf worked from an established template. Metro papers are thin, colorful tabloid digests of news that are published only on weekdays and typically hawked at or near subway and bus stations. News staffs are skeletal. The pages often have wire service reports or material acquired under arrangements with CNN, as well as several magazines and Web sites.

Mr. Metcalf described the target readership as “the hard-to-reach metropolitan” â€" the young, employed city dweller who is more apt to get news online or from television. The Metro ads are mainly directed at them, and the articles can easily be read between stops, running about 300 words each. (A word count ending about here, for example.)

Metro US said that under Mr. Metcalf’s leadership, the three American dailies’ readership had grown to about one million at a time when the newspaper industry as a whole has lost vast numbers of readers.

In addition to the three major daily newspapers based in New York City, Metro’s main competition for the mass-transit audience in New York is amNew York, a free daily started by the Tribune Company in 2003 and now owned by Cablevision. (Since 2005, The New York Times Company has owned a 49 percent stake in the Metro newspaper published in Boston.)

A committed purveyor of journalistic Britishisms, Mr. Metcalf was known to egg on his overworked skeletal staff with compliments and other noncash rewards. A well-done article was “a belter” or a “bobby dazzler,” staff members said. Announcing an office party, he would say he was “planning a bit of a knees up.”

Mr. Metcalf was born on June 12, 1963, in Newton Aycliffe in the north of England and received a journalism degree from the Darlington College of Technology in the early 1980s. He went on to work as a reporter and editor at The Northern Echo, a regional newspaper, from 1987 to 2000, when he left to edit Metro Newcastle.

He left Metro International in 2004 to edit 7Days, a free newspaper in Dubai, of which he was a part owner, before returning to the company in 2008.

He is survived by his wife, Lesley; two children, Alex and Freya; and a brother and a sister.

Mr. Metcalf straddled the lines between journalism, showmanship and marketing. He wrote occasional commentaries on events like the London Olympics and the death of Margaret Thatcher, hired Alex McCord of “The Real Housewives of New York” to write a column, and recently offered readers a chance to win an iPod by “liking” Metro on Facebook.

His most animated encounter with American readers came after his decision to run a Reuters article about Europeans’ revulsion at American celebrations in 2011 over the killing of Osama bin Laden. Readers were angry and in some cases threatening.

Mr. Metcalf’s response was at first diplomatic and then stern: “Democratic states do not execute people without first going through the judicial process,” he wrote on the Metro editor’s blog. “If that process is circumvented, then you are no better than the terrorists.”

He added: “I defy you to argue with that logic.”

Seaworld’s Unusual Retort to a Critical Documentary

Sandy Huffaker for The New York Times

Kelly Flaherty Clark, a trainer at SeaWorld, and Dr. Christopher Dold, vice president of veterinary services, with orca whales at SeaWorld in San Diego. “Blackfish,” a movie about SeaWorld that opens on Friday in New York and Los Angeles, questions the wisdom of keeping orca whales in captivity.

SAN DIEGO â€" Hollywood has just cast SeaWorld as a bad guy. But SeaWorld has decided to diverge from the story line.

The orca Tilikum in “Blackfish.” Tilikum attacked and killed a trainer in 2010 and has been associated with two other deaths.

In an unusual pre-emptive strike on the documentary “Blackfish,” set for release on Friday in New York and Los Angeles by Magnolia Pictures, SeaWorld Entertainment startled the film world last weekend by sending a detailed critique of the movie to about 50 critics who were presumably about to review it. It was among the first steps in an aggressive public pushback against the film, which makes the case, sometimes with disturbing film, that orca whales in captivity suffer physical and mental distress because of confinement.

Magnolia and the film’s director, Gabriela Cowperthwaite, shot back with a point-by-point rebuttal in defense of the movie.

The exchange is now promising to test just how far a business can, or should, go in trying to disrupt the powerful negative imagery that comes with the rollout of documentary exposés. That kind of dilemma has surfaced with previous documentaries like “The Queen of Versailles,” which last year portrayed the lavish lifestyle of the real estate moguls Jackie and David Siegel, and even with narrative films like “The Social Network,” which took an unflattering look at Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg in 2010.

Businesses accused of wrongdoing in films often choose to lie low, hoping the issues will remain out of the public mainstream and eventually fade away without much fuss. That’s especially true of documentaries, which generally have small audiences.

SeaWorld, advised by the communications firm 42West, which is better known for promoting films than punching back at them, is taking the opposite approach. By midweek, the company was providing top executives and animal caretakers for interviews about the movie and its purported flaws.

It was also deliberating possible further moves, which might conceivably include informational advertising, a Web-based countercampaign or perhaps a request for some sort of access to CNN, which picked up television rights to “Blackfish” through its CNN Films unit and plans to broadcast the movie on Oct. 24.

Among other things, SeaWorld claims that “Blackfish,” which focuses on the orca Tilikum’s fatal 2010 attack on a trainer, Dawn Brancheau, exceeded the bounds of fair use by incorporating training film and other video shot by the company. The company also contends that Ms. Cowperthwaite positioned some scenes to create what SeaWorld executives see as a false implication of trouble or wrongdoing.

Asked whether SeaWorld was contemplating legal action against the film, G. Anthony Taylor, the general counsel, said decisions about any such step would have to wait until executives were able to more closely assess the movie. “Blackfish” made its debut at the Sundance Film Festival in January and has since screened at other festivals in the United States and abroad.

In a telephone interview on Wednesday, Ms. Cowperthwaite said she stood by the film and described any quarrel with its construction as an evasion of her inescapable conclusion: “Killer whales are 100 percent not suitable to captivity.”

“For 40 years, they were the message,” she said, referring to SeaWorld. “I think it’s O.K. to let an 80-minute movie” have its moment.

Since 1965, SeaWorld has kept and displayed dozens of orcas in parks here, in Orlando, Fla., and elsewhere. According to Mr. Taylor and other executives, at least 10 million people a year view some of the 29 whales now held. SeaWorld executives say that without access to the whales â€" which are now bred at the parks, rather than captured wild â€" humans would be denied a connection to large, intelligent animals with which many feel a bond.

“We’re deeply transformed by them, the killer whale is an animal that does that,” said Dr. Christopher Dold, SeaWorld’s vice president of veterinary services, who spoke at the company’s San Diego park on Wednesday.

Dr. Dold, Mr. Taylor and others point out that only one trainer has died in a whale encounter at SeaWorld parks, though Tilikum has been associated with three deaths. One of those was at another park, and one involved a man who somehow wound up in his tank at night.

On watching “Blackfish,” Kelly Flaherty Clark, who works with Tilikum as the curator of trainers at SeaWorld’s Orlando park, said she was stunned by the presentation of her testimony at an Occupational Safety and Health Administration hearing, at which SeaWorld was cited for violating trainer safety â€" claiming it was selective in a way that did not accurately represent her views.

“We sleep and breathe care of animals,” said Ms. Clark.

The White House Is Not a Metronome

In a series of articles last week, the writer Megan McArdle asserted that Republicans have about a 75 percent chance of winning the White House in 2016. “Mostly, the White House flips back and forth like a metronome,” she wrote. “Voters just get tired after eight years.”

As other commentators, like Henry Farrell, have pointed out, one can find almost any pattern in presidential results if one looks hard enough. By manipulating the definition of incumbency, the time frame that one examines or the measure of success (e.g., the popular vote or the Electoral College), or by selectively excluding “outliers” or exceptional cases, the potential for cherry-picking and overfitting is high. (In layman’s terms, an overfit statistical model is one that is engineered to match idiosyncratic circumstances in past data, but which is not an accurate picture and makes poor predictions as a result.)

But let’s evaluate a relatively simple version of Ms. McArdle’s claim. What has happened, historically, after the same party has controlled the White House for exactly eight consecutive years?

Since the Republican Party first nominated a presidential candidate in the election of 1856, ushering in the modern two-party system, this circumstance has occurred either 11 or 12 times. The ambiguous case is in 1868. Abraham Lincoln, the great Republican president, had been assassinated and was succeeded by Andrew Johnson, his vice president, who is variously defined as a Democrat; as a member of the National Union Party, which Lincoln temporarily established in 1864; or as having no party affiliation.

Excluding 1868, the incumbent party has won the popular vote in 5 of these 11 cases, and the Electoral College in 4 of the 11 cases. Including 1868, when Ulysses S. Grant won a third consecutive election for Republicans but directly succeeded Johnson rather than Lincoln, the incumbent party’s track record improves to 6-of-12 in the popular vote and 5-of-12 in the Electoral College.

Depending on your definition, then, the incumbent party’s success rate in these elections has been anywhere from 36 percent (4 out of 11) to 50 percent (6 out of 12). Perhaps you could argue that Republicans’ odds of winning in 2016 are slightly better than 50 percent on this basis, but claiming that their odds are as good as 75 percent, as Ms. McArdle does, doesn’t seem to have any justification in this evidence.

However, as Jonathan Bernstein writes, looking at wins and losses in such a binary way is probably not the best way to evaluate the evidence. Many United States elections, as in 2000 and 1960, have essentially been ties, where the most minor variations in the flow of the campaign might have changed the winner of the Electoral College or popular vote. With this in mind, it is better to examine margins of victory.

Incidentally, this is close to a universal principle of statistical analysis. It’s almost always more robust to evaluate the margin by which a given outcome occurs than to look at the variable as black or white, win or loss, hit or miss, on or off.

If we look at these elections by the margin of victory in the popular vote, we see either four or five clear wins for the incumbent party (depending on whether 1868 is counted; the unambiguous cases are 1904, 1928, 1940 and 1988), three clear losses (1860, 1920 and 2008) and four elections (1960, 1968, 1976 and 2000) that were very close. On average, the incumbent party won the popular vote by 0.7 percentage points if 1868 is excluded or 1.1 percentage points if it is included.

Alternatively, we can measure the incumbent party’s margin of victory in the Electoral College. On average, excluding 1868, the incumbent party has won the Electoral College by a margin of 3.8 percent (as a share of the available electors), which is the equivalent of winning today’s Electoral College 279-259. If 1868 is included, the incumbent party’s average Electoral College margin improves slightly to 7.3 percent, roughly the equivalent of a 289-249 win today.

My point is not that the incumbent party actually has an advantage after two consecutive terms in office. (Some statistical models assume that it does, which I regard as just as questionable a claim as Ms. McArdle’s.) Instead, I’d make the more modest assertion that its odds of winning a third term are, on first approximation, 50-50.

This contrasts with cases in which the incumbent party has won just one consecutive term in office. In those cases, since 1856, the incumbent party has won the popular vote in 14 of 18 elections and the Electoral College in 13 of 18, and its average margin of victory in the popular vote has been 8.5 percentage points.

This helps to put President Obama’s win last year into context. How did he manage to be re-elected despite a below-average economy? Well, Mr. Obama’s margin of victory was also below average compared with the most similar incumbents in the past. If the average first-term incumbent wins by eight or nine percentage points, you can have quite a few things go wrong and still win by some margin.

What about when a party has won three or more consecutive elections and seeks yet another term? If Ms. McArdle’s fatigue hypothesis is correct, we might expect the incumbent party to do exceptionally poorly in these cases. (If eight years are enough to tire out voters, then 12 or 16 or 20 certainly ought to be.)

However, the incumbent party’s track record in such cases is not all that bad, historically. Republicans won six consecutive elections from 1860 to 1880 (with some caveats: Lincoln’s term was interrupted, and Rutherford B. Hayes won the Electoral College in 1876 despite losing the popular vote). Democrats won five consecutive elections from 1932 to 1948. On average, the incumbent party has lost the popular vote in these cases, but only by 1.3 percentage points â€" essentially a tossup.

On first approximation, then, presidential election results have resembled a random walk, with the important exception that an incumbent party has had a significant advantage when it has held exactly one term in office. I am suspicious of the patterns that people claim to identify beyond that, which may reflect the human bias toward detecting signal in random noise.

That’s not to say there are no further complications.

One major question, for instance, is whether the one-term incumbency advantage pertains to the president himself or to his party. The evidence in Congressional elections, for what it’s worth, mostly points toward the incumbent himself mattering. When an elected incumbent retires from the Senate in a swing state, for instance, the odds of his party’s winning the next election are roughly 50-50 â€" not much better (as would be the case if there were residual benefits for the incumbent’s party even after the incumbent himself retired) and not much worse (as might be the case if voters were fatigued by having the same party in office).

Also, appointed senators have a fairly poor track record compared with elected incumbents. Perhaps Congressional voting is not quite the same as presidential voting, but the data set is a lot more robust (with hundreds and hundreds of cases as opposed to a couple dozen), so it is worth some consideration â€" and it, too, points to 50-50 as the right baseline in an open-seat election.

Thinking carefully about these baseline tendencies is important, because in some ways the 2016 election will be unprecedented.

What do I mean?

Presuming that Mr. Obama serves out the remaining three and a half years of his term, he will be only the fifth president prevented by the 22nd Amendment from seeking further terms in office. The other four cases were Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1960, Ronald Reagan in 1988, Bill Clinton in 2000 and George W. Bush in 2008. Those four elections resulted in one clear loss for the incumbent party (2008), one clear win (1988) and two very close elections. But these are only four cases and so do not tell us much one way or the other.

It might be said that there was a de facto two-term limit before there was a constitutional one â€" in other words, that presidents almost always respected the two-term precedent that George Washington established. In that case, we could also look to cases where a president voluntarily retired after two consecutive terms as precedents for 2016.

But this is not really true. From the late 19th century through the ratification of the 22nd Amendment in 1951, many presidents who were able to run for a third term showed some interest in one.

Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for and won third and fourth terms. Grant sought a third term (although not a third consecutive one) in 1880 and was nearly nominated before Republicans chose James A. Garfield instead on the 36th ballot. Woodrow Wilson, some historians now claim, was interested in a third term, but Democrats weren’t interested in nominating him. Theodore Roosevelt ran for a third term in 1912, although as a member of the Progressive Party rather than the Republican Party. Harry Truman, who was exempt from the 22nd Amendment, initially sought a third term in 1952 but withdrew after the New Hampshire primary.

These distinctions matter because, unless a president is legally prevented from running for a third term, there are selection effects to which ones decide to do so. Popular presidents might seek and win another nomination, while unpopular ones might retire or be rejected by their party. It could be that voters react differently to parties seeking third terms in the era of the 22nd Amendment than they did in the years before it, and that the incumbent party’s batting average will wind up being meaningfully higher or lower than 50 percent in the long run. But we have little empirical evidence for this yet.

Instead, some humility is called for when interpreting the evidence. On the eve of an election â€" when the polls have become very reliable, and we know the identities of the candidates and something about the state of the economy and the mood of the country â€" it is possible to make relatively bold and precise forecasts about the outcome. But none of this applies three and a half years in advance.

Vivendi Declined SoftBank’s Lucrative Offer for Universal

Vivendi, the French media and telecommunications conglomerate, rejected an $8.5 billion cash bid from SoftBank for the Universal Music Group, even though it represented a premium of at least $2 billion more than some analysts’ estimates of Universal Music’s value, according to a person briefed on the offer.

SoftBank, a Japanese phone carrier, made its bid to Vivendi’s board about three months ago, according to this person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Spokesmen for Vivendi and Universal declined to comment, and representatives of SoftBank could not be reached Thursday afternoon. The news of the offer was previously reported by The Financial Times.

Vivendi has been under pressure from shareholders to sell assets or split, and while the company has tried to refocus itself around its media divisions, which include Universal, the video game company Activision Blizzard and the film and television company Canal Plus Group, it has had difficulty selling off telecoms. Vivendi canceled the sale of GVT, its Brazilian telecommunications unit, after failing to find a satisfactory price, and it is in the midst of selling its majority share of Maroc Telecom to Emirates Telecommunications, known as Etisalat.

SoftBank is buying Sprint Nextel for $21.6 billion, a deal that has been approved by Sprint’s shareholders but still needs the blessing of the Federal Communications Commission.

The bid for Universal underscores the attractiveness of large music and media catalogs in the digital age, even as record companies struggle to replace revenue from lost CD sales. Consumers are increasingly turning for their entertainment to streaming services like Spotify and Netflix, which sell access to music or movies and rely on licensing deals with media companies.

Universal is the world’s largest music company, with hundreds of artists including Kanye West and U2. In late 2011 it paid $1.9 billion for the recorded music assets of EMI, although European regulators demanded that Universal sell about a third of EMI, along with other assets; this month Vivendi reported that those sales raised about $850 million.

Last year Universal had $6 billion in revenue, and $694 million in earnings before interest, taxes and amortization.

The bid for Universal also comes as Sony faces pressure from Daniel S. Loeb, an American hedge fund mogul, to sell its entertainment arm, which includes Sony Music Entertainment, Universal’s biggest competitor. So far Sony has rebuffed those demands.

Analysts expressed disappointment that Vivendi’s board did not accept SoftBank’s offer. Allan C. Nichols, a telecommunications analyst at Morningstar, valued Universal at about $5.8 billion after its EMI deal closed last year; Sanford C. Bernstein & Company’s estimate is $6.3 billion. “I think it’s crazy to have had that size offer and not taken it,” Mr. Nichols said. “It’s a shame for shareholders.”

Another Rowling Mystery Solved: Behind the Tweet That Identified Her

It was the literary leak heard around the world: a little-read detective novel called “The Cuckoo’s Calling,” by the debut author Robert Galbraith, was actually written by J. K. Rowling, one of the best-known authors in the world.

Now a law firm in London has sheepishly admitted that it was responsible.

Russells, a firm known for its work in the entertainment industry, said on Thursday that one of its partners, Chris Gossage, had told his wife’s best friend that the book, published in April, was actually written by Ms. Rowling.

That friend, Judith Callegari, revealed the information to a columnist for The Sunday Times of London in a Twitter exchange last week, then promptly deleted her tweets.

After doing its own investigation, The Sunday Times confronted Ms. Rowling with its findings, and she admitted to writing the book under a pseudonym. The newspaper published an article on Sunday identifying Ms. Rowling as the author.

But until Thursday, it remained a secret who was actually behind the leak of her identity.

In a statement released on Thursday, the law firm apologized “unreservedly” for the slip, explaining that Mr. Gossage had disclosed the information.

“Whilst accepting his own culpability, the disclosure was made in confidence to someone he trusted implicitly,” the statement said. “On becoming aware of the circumstances, we immediately notified J. K. Rowling’s agent. We can confirm that this leak was not part of any marketing plan and that neither J. K. Rowling, her agent nor publishers were in any way involved.”

When reached by telephone, John Reid, a partner at Russells, declined to comment further.

Through her publicist, Ms. Rowling released a statement saying that she was “disappointed.”

“A tiny number of people knew my pseudonym and it has not been pleasant to wonder for days how a woman whom I had never heard of prior to Sunday night could have found out something that many of my oldest friends did not know,” she said. “I had assumed that I could expect total confidentiality from Russells, a reputable professional firm and I feel very angry that my trust turned out to be misplaced.”

Senate Control in 2014 Increasingly Looks Like a Tossup

This weekend's announcement by the former governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, that he would not seek that state's Democratic nomination for Senate represents the latest in a series of favorable developments for Republicans as they seek control of the chamber.

The G.O.P.'s task will not be easy: the party holds 46 seats in the Senate, and the number will very probably be cut to 45 after a special election in New Jersey later this year. That means that they would need to win a net of six contests from Democrats in order to control 51 seats and overcome Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s tiebreaking vote. Two years ago at this time, Republicans faced what seemed to be a promising environment and could have won the Senate by gaining a net of three seats from Democrats and winning the presidency. Instead, Mitt Romney lost to President Obama, and the G.O.P. lost a net of two Senate seats.

But Montana along with West Virginia and South Dakota - two other red states where an incumbent Democrat has retired and where the Democrats have not identified a strong candidate to replace them â€" gives Republicans a running start. Republicans could then win three more seats from among red states like Louisiana and Arkansas, where vulnerable Democratic incumbents are on the ballot, or they could take aim at two purple states, Iowa and Michigan, where Democrats have retired. More opportunities could also come into play if the national environment becomes more favorable to Republicans (such as because of a further slide in Mr. Obama's approval ratings). Meanwhile, while Kentucky and Georgia are possibly vulnerable, Republicans have few seats of their own to defend; unlike in 2012, they can focus almost entirely on playing offense.

A race-by-race analysis of the Senate, in fact, suggests that Republicans might now be close to even-money to win control of the chamber after next year's elections. Our best guess, after assigning probabilities of the likelihood of a G.O.P. pickup in each state, is that Republicans will end up with somewhere between 50 and 51 Senate seats after 2014, putting them right on the threshold of a majority.

The chart below reflects our current overview of the Senate landscape, including the probability estimates. (The estimates are not based strictly on a formula but instead are best guesses, accounting for the partisan lean of each state, the quality of the prospective candidates, and approval-rating or polling data to the extent that it might be informative.) When we last conducted this exercise in February, our projection was for Republicans to win between 49 and 50 Senate seats, meaning that their standing has improved by about one seat since then.

What follows is a series of comments on the most critical races, or those where there has been significant news since February. The races are listed in order of the contests that look strongest for Democrats to those where Republican chances are strongest.

Massachusetts. Although the Democrats' position has become more vulnerable over all, one state where they have less reason to worry is Massachusetts, where Representative Edward J. Markey defeated the Republican Gabriel Gomez by 10 percentage points in a special election in June. The special election reflected reasonably favorable circumstances for Republicans relative to the usual (very difficult) ones in Massachusetts â€" an extremely low turnout, and a Democratic candidate who had survived a tough primary. But Republicans did not come particularly close to winning, and November's environment will be no easier for the G.O.P. as Mr. Markey will have gained experience as the incumbent and turnout will probably be high because of a governor's election.

New Jersey. This seat is currently held by a Republican - Jeffrey Chiesa, the former state attorney general who was appointed to the seat by Gov. Chris Christie after the death of the Democratic incumbent Frank R. Lautenberg. However, it is likely to revert to Democratic control later this year, as the timing of the October special election (and current polling) suggests that Republicans will not nominate a viable opponent against the likely Democratic nominee, Mayor Cory Booker of Newark. Although Republicans could regroup to nominate a stronger candidate in 2014, when the special election winner will stand for re-election, a candidate like Mr. Booker will have gained more experience by that time, as well as the financial advantage that comes with being an incumbent.

Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Oregon. These states fall into the “likely Democratic” category, where Democratic odds of holding the seats vary between about 75 percent and 85 percent, in our view. They consist of two purple states, Colorado and New Hampshire, where a reasonably popular Democratic incumbent is running, and two others, Minnesota and Oregon, where the Democratic incumbent's numbers are more mixed but which are somewhat blue-leaning. In each state, Republicans have had trouble recruiting top-tier challengers. To make the races competitive, Republicans would probably need at least two things to go well: first, a stronger G.O.P. challenger; and second, either a shift in the national political environment toward Republicans or some other circumstance (such as a controversial vote or an ethics problem) that made the incumbents more vulnerable. At this early stage of the election cycle, either is possible in each state, and if it were to occur in one or more of these states the Republican path to a Senate majority would be more robust. But these races will gradually drift toward Democrats absent such changes in the landscape.

Michigan and Iowa. These are states where Democratic incumbents have retired, but where Democrats retain an edge in candidate strength. The G.O.P. avoided their worst-case scenario in Iowa after Representative Steve King declined to run for the seat there, as Mr. King would likely have been far too conservative to win a statewide race. But Republicans have nevertheless had trouble identifying strong candidates to run in Iowa, whereas Democratic Representative Bruce Braley could win his primary easily and conserve money for the general election. In Michigan, the G.O.P.'s list of potential candidates is slightly better, but their strongest potential candidate, Representative Mike Rogers, has decided not to run - and Michigan has become somewhat blue-leaning in races for federal office.

Alaska. Alaska is more idiosyncratic than its reliably Republican results in presidential elections might imply, and the Democratic incumbent, Mark Begich, is faring reasonably well in head-to-head polls. A good Republican nominee could nevertheless turn the race into a true tossup - but the G.O.P. could also nominate Joe Miller or former Gov. Sarah Palin, both of whom are now quite unpopular among voters statewide. The Republican primary outcomes in Alaska, Iowa and Michigan will thus go a long way toward determining whether the G.O.P.'s path to a Senate majority is a narrow or wider one.

North Carolina. North Carolina is the closest thing to the tipping point state in the Senate battle. If Republicans avoid losing any of their own seats (other than New Jersey), and win the races that favor them in Montana, West Virginia and South Dakota and the tossup races in Louisiana and Arkansas, then North Carolina would represent their best option to go from a 50-50 tie to a 51-49 Senate majority. Republicans have also not yet identified a top-tier challenger in North Carolina. But the approval ratings of the Democratic incumbent, Kay Hagan, are no better than break-even, which means that a merely decent Republican nominee could make the race very competitive. Although North Carolina is increasingly purple in presidential election years, the coalition of African-Ameri cans and college-aged voters that Democrats depend upon to win races in the state is less likely to turn out for midterm elections.

Arkansas. We had this race rated as “lean Democratic” in February on the basis of reasonably strong approval ratings for Mark Pryor, the Democratic incumbent, despite an otherwise difficult environment in the state. However, a poll that came out since then shows middling numbers for Mr. Pryor, with 41.5 percent of voters approving of his job performance against 35 percent disapproving. Mr. Pryor is a savvier politician than the former Democratic senator, Blanche Lincoln, and he is unlikely to face a serious primary challenge, as Ms. Lincoln did in 2010. But Ms. Lincoln lost her race for re-election by more than 20 percentage points, so Mr. Pryor will have to avoid several of her mistakes to hold on to his seat.

Louisiana. This race also rates as a true tossup, as it did in February. The most likely Republican nominee, Representative Bill Cassidy, has an extremely conservative voting record, while the Democratic incumbent, Mary Landrieu, has a moderate one that could partially offset the state's strong Republican lean. But Ms. Landrieu will need to maintain her distance from President Obama while at the same time getting a strong turnout in New Orleans, where her bother Mitch Landrieu is mayor - a difficult balance.

Montana. The decision of Mr. Schweitzer not to enter the race leaves wide-open primary fields in both parties. However, we have Republicans as roughly three-to-one favorites based on the state's overall partisan lean. Although Democrats have had somewhat more success in statewide races in Montana than in contests for the presidency - their incumbent senator, Jon Tester, survived a tough re-election race last year - Republicans now have the best-qualified potential candidate in Marc Racicot, the former governor.

Kentucky. Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, has only break-even approval ratings, and Democrats got one of their better potential recruits in Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Kentucky secretary of state. Although some early polls show a relatively close race, the fundamentals favor Mr. McConnell as Kentucky has become very red-leaning and as he is likely to have a strong fund-raising edge. One factor helping Ms. Grimes is the lack of other credible pickup opportunities for Democrats, which could mean that more Democratic money will be directed toward her race. Still, she will have to run a pitch-perfect campaign to win in such a conservative state in a midterm year.

Georgia. This is something of an overlooked pickup opportunity for Democrats. While Democrats have yet to identify a strong candidate, a number of the Republican ones are extremely conservative, Tea Party-backed candidates who could be vulnerable in the suburban counties around Atlanta and Augusta that make up the swing regions of Georgia. Nor is Georgia as conservative as Kentucky - although as in North Carolina, Democrats depend on African-Americans and young voters to make the state more purple, groups that may not turn out for the midterms.

Maine. Senator Susan Collins, the popular and moderate Republican incumbent, has clarified her plans to run for re-election, which reduces the risk to Republicans of losing a seat. We give Democrats a small, residual chance of a pickup here - about 10 percent - because if Ms. Collins loses in a primary, or has a change of plans, the race would instantly go to favoring Democrats. But she will be an overwhelming favorite if she stands on next November's ballot.

South Dakota and West Virginia. These are red states where Democratic incumbents are retiring - and where some of the more viable Democratic alternatives, like former Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota - have declined to run. Meanwhile, Republicans have very strong recruits in both states in the form of Representative Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia; and Mike Rounds, the former South Dakota governor. Democrats have had more success in Congressional races in both of these states than in presidential contests, and they might stand a decent chance to retain these seats with a candidate-quality edge. But the combination of a conservative electorate, a very strong G.O.P. nominee and an underqualified Democratic one will make their chances very slim. In addition, our research does not find much evidence for a ca rry-over effect or afterglow from incumbency once the incumbent retires; now that Senators John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Tim Johnson of South Dakota are leaving politics, they won't provide much in the way of electoral benefit to Democrats. Add all these factors up, and we don't see much justification for describing these races as tossups or as merely “leaning” toward Republicans, as some other forecasters have them: they are pretty safe bets to be Republican pickups.

Nebraska. Republicans suffered a recruiting blow in Nebraska when the popular Gov. Dave Heineman said he would not run in the Senate race. But Mr. Heineman's decision improves Democrats' chances only to slim from none. In 2012, Democrats nominated an extremely qualified candidate in Bob Kerrey, the former senator and governor, while Republicans had a middling one in Deb Fischer, the state senator - but Ms. Fischer won overwhelmingly.

***

Let me close with our usual reminder: the fact that the battle for Senate control appears to be very close right now does not guarantee that it will end up that way. Although Senate races behave more idiosyncratically than some other types of contests - local factors and candidate quality play an important role - one party has won the vast majority of tossup races in each of the past four election cycles.

In a strong Republican year, the G.O.P. could win all of the tossup and “lean Democratic” seats and pick up one of the “likely Democratic” seats like New Hampshire, which would give them a net gain of nine seats and leave them with a 55-45 majority in the chamber. In a strong Democratic year, the party could lose only West Virginia and South Dakota â€" and pick up New Jersey and one of Kentucky and Georgia â€" and hold their current 54-46 edge. It is therefore important to watch macro-level indicators â€" especially Mr. Obama's approval ratings, the generic Congressional ballot and major economic measures â€" in addition to following the recruitment and polling in individual states.

It is equally important to look for early indications of whether G.O.P. primary voters will be more tolerant of moderate and “main street” Republicans than they were in 2010 and 2012. A strong set of Republican nominees could give the party as many as a dozen credible opportunities to pick up the seats they need â€" whereas a weaker series of candidates could require them to win almost all of the races that remained competitive after the primaries.

This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: July 15, 2013

A previous version of this post wrongly identified the "tipping point state," the 2014 race most likely to decide who controls the Senate. According to FiveThirtyEight estimates, North Carolina, not Alaska, currently represents the Republican Party's sixth best opportunity for picking up a seat (the G.O.P. needs six seats to gain the majority).

A version of this article appeared in print on 07/16/2013, on page A13 of the NewYork edition with the headline: G.O.P. Sees Promise of Senate Control, but It Has Been There Before.

Beautiful Minds

In The Times's Sunday Book Review, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver reviewed “The Boy Who Loved Math” by Deborah Heiligman and “On a Beam of Light” by Jennifer Berne, two children's books about youth and mathematics. “Together,” he wrote, “the books constitute something of an It Gets Better Project for mathematically precocious children, offering the same sort of affirmation that is now being given to gay and lesbian adolescents.”
Read more.

In Public Opinion on Abortion, Few Absolutes

For decades, both sides in the abortion debate have tried to say that public opinion was already on their side and only becoming more so.

Advocates for abortion rights have pointed to polls showing that a majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. Abortion opponents have cited polls showing that a majority considers life to begin at conception â€" and opposes abortion access in many cases.

As with so many other areas this blog covers, abortion is one in which selective readings of the polls can seem to prove opposite conclusions. After writing about abortion and public opinion in Sunday's Times â€" arguing that the issue does not benefit Democrats as much as other high-profile subjects, like immigration, guns, taxes and same-sex marriage â€" I wanted to dig more deeply into the polls and their trend lines. For all the assertions that advocates make about public opinion, I think that a few consistent messages emerge.

The main one is that most Americans support abortion access with some significant restrictions. If you were going to craft a law based strictly on public opinion, it would permit abortion in the first trimester (first 12 weeks) of pregnancy and in cases involving rape, incest or threats to the mother's health. The law, however, would substantially restrict abortion after the first trimester in many other cases.

Gallup

Intriguingly, such a policy would be similar to the laws in several European countries, like France, where abortions are widely available in the first trimester and restricted afterward. It would also be consistent with much of Roe v Wade.

In perhaps its most famous decision of the last 50 years, the court overturned a Texas law criminalizing abortion, by a 7-2 vote. The justices found that the right to privacy required women to have access to abortions but that the state also had an interest in restricting abortion, to protect “both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life.” The decision tried to balance these interests by allowing different restrictions depending on trimester. (A later Supreme Court decision changed the standard to emphasize viability.)

When arguing that public opinion supports broad abortion rights, advocates often point to polls showing strong support for Roe. And they are right about that polling. A January 2013 poll by Gallup was typical: 53 percent of respondents said they did not want the court to overturn “its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion,” and only 29 percent did want it overturned.

I don't imagine that most people who receive a phone call asking their opinion about Roe know the fine details of the decision when they answer the question. But it is worth noting that the strong support for Roe does not necessarily conflict with the strong reservations Americans express about unrestricted abortion access. Roe distinguished among the different stages of pregnancy and different developmental stages of fetuses.

About one in four Americans says they support abortion without restrictions, most polls show. Somewhat fewer Americans â€" typically about one in five, though it ranges from one in four to one in eight, depending on the poll â€" oppose abortion in nearly all cases. The rest of the country â€" roughly 50 percent of it â€" supports abortion in some circumstances and not others.

Pew's polls (PDF), including this one from October 2012, show this pattern:

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

The New York Times/CBS Poll uses a different framework, but the results are consistent. These results are from February 2013:

The New York Times

The Gallup results are also consistent:

As Gallup's historical chart shows, opinion on abortion has not shifted in a major way over the years. (It also does not vary much by sex, with women as divided as men on the issue.) But if one side has any slight sway on the trends, it is the anti-abortion campaigners' side. Twenty years ago, the share of Americans saying abortion should always be legal was more than twice as high as the share saying it should never be legal. Since the mid-1990s, the share of Americans who consider themselves as abortion rights advocates (or “pro-choice” in the poll's available answers) has also declined:

On abortion, as with almost any issue, short poll questions and answers do not capture the full complexity of people's views. The standard Gallup questions about trimesters do not mention exceptions, for instance. And although a recent National Journal poll may seem on the surface to suggest that a plurality of Americans support the restrictions that the Texas Legislature passed last weekend, the bill includes details ­- no exceptions for rape or incest, the effective closing of most of the state's clinics ­- that most Americans would quite likely oppose. On the flip side, some people who oppose a broad abortion ban after 20 weeks of pregnancy also oppose abortion access in some instances, like, for example, for economic reasons or in cases when prenatal screening shows the fetus to have a nonfatal condition.

But be wary of analysts who try to take this complexity argument too far. It's true that any snapshot of public opinion from a poll is imperfect. It is not true that if you scratch only under poll results deeply enough, you will discover the American people actually take a clear side on abortion. By any objective measure, the country is conflicted.

Advertising: Eye on Emerging Markets, Firm Invests in Start-Up

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 '

The Quiet Force Behind DreamWorks

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 '

Campaign Spotlight: New Ads for Warhol Museum Offer Different Look at Summer

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 '

The Public Editor: Making Sense of a Sensational Case

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 '

Jenny McCarthy to Join ‘The View\' on ABC

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 '

Media Decoder: Film Academy Adds Board Members as It Prepares to Pick a Leader

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 '

ABC\'s ‘Scandal\' to Be Quickly Syndicated on BET

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 '

Zimmerman Verdict Drew 10 Million to Cable TV 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 '

Advertising: Antidrug Campaign, Lacking Federal Funds, Turns to Social Media

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: After the ‘Crying Indian,\' Keep America Beautiful Starts a New Campaign

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 '

Rowling Book Skyrockets to Instant Hit

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 '

From Sundance Institute, a New Minifestival for Los Angeles

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 '

Netflix Dominates Speculation Over Emmy Awards

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 '

Google Said to Weigh Supplying TV Channels

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 '

Olbermann Will Return to ESPN

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 '

Filmmakers Embrace Reality, on the High Seas and Beyond

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 '

Rainn Wilson of ‘The Office\' Will Write Book

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 '

Shake-Up at Turner Broadcasting, as Chief Executive Will Depart

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 '

With Contrition in His Voice, Olbermann Returns to ESPN

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 '

CVS and Walgreens Ban an Issue of Rolling Stone

The chain stores CVS/Pharmacy and Walgreens said on Wednesday that they would not sell the latest issue of Rolling Stone, which features a cover photo that some critics and Massachusetts politicians say glamorizes the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

The stores cite a cover image of the man accused in the Boston Marathon bombings.

It was explicitly the cover image, a photo of Mr. Tsarnaev that he used online, which shows him with long hair and a trim mustache and in an Armani Exchange shirt - not the lengthy article inside - that has drawn criticism. Over the day, those objections gathered momentum, aided by social media.

Both CVS and Walgreens made their announcements on Twitter; their messages were passed on hundreds of times.

The cover of Rolling Stone has long been a sign for rock stars, celebrities and even politicians that they have arrived, and the sight of the bombing suspect receiving similar treatment has provoked strong reaction, especially from the Boston area.

By the afternoon, Mayor Thomas M. Menino had sent a letter to the publisher of Rolling Stone, Jann S. Wenner, objecting that the cover “rewards a terrorist with celebrity treatment.” And Gov. Deval L. Patrick of Massachusetts, responding to a question from reporters, said: “I haven't read it, but I understand the substance of the article is not objectionable. It's apparently pretty good reporting. But the cover is out of taste, I think.”

The bombings on April 15, which Mr. Tsarnaev is accused of carrying out with his brother, Tamerlan, killed three people and wounded more than 260 near the finish line of the race.

Mr. Tsarnaev pleaded not guilty to 30 federal charges contained in a sweeping terrorism indictment.

Another chain, Tedeschi Food Shops, which is based in New England, also said it would not carry the issue, dated Aug. 1, explaining on its Facebook page that while the company “supports the need to share the news with everyone,” it “cannot support actions that serve to glorify the evil actions of anyone.”

The magazine published a note atop the article that began: “Our hearts go out to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, and our thoughts are always with them and their families.” After defending the article, which was written by the investigative reporter Janet Reitman, as fitting the magazine's tradition of serious journalism, the editors try to turn some of the criticism on its head.

“The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens,” they wrote.

Ms. Reitman reported the article over the last two months, Rolling Stone said, interviewing childhood and high school friends, teachers, neighbors and law enforcement officials. The result, the magazine says, is “a riveting and heartbreaking account of how a charming kid with a bright future became a monster.”

Ms. Reitman, who declined to comment when reached via e-mail, responded on Twitter before the full article was posted online, to a friend writing in support, “It's kind of astonishing. No one has even read it yet!”

A version of this article appeared in print on July 18, 2013, on page B8 of the New York edition with the headline: CVS and Walgreens Ban An Issue of Rolling Stone.

Advertising: Apple\'s Move Into TV Relies on Cooperation With Industry Leaders

Pushing the Right Buttons

Apple's Move Into TV Relies on Cooperation With Industry Leaders

An app lets users stream Sky News through Apple TV, giving the network access to viewers without dealing with cable providers.

When Apple wanted to revolutionize cellphones, it held hands with AT&T. The partners fought endlessly, but the public loved the finished product: the iPhone.

Now, as Apple tries to reimagine television, it is taking the partnership route again, collaborating with distributors like Time Warner Cable and programmers like the Walt Disney Company on apps that might eliminate the unpleasant parts of TV watching, like bothersome set-top boxes or clunky remote controls.

Apple's broader strategy - what its chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, recently called its “grand vision” for television - remains shrouded in secrecy, as everything Apple-related tends to be. Some analysts continue to predict, as they have for years, that the company will someday come out with a full-blown television set.

Whether or not an iTV ever materializes, the company's more modest steps, like improving the $100 Apple TV box that 13 million households now have and adding access to cable channels through the box, suggest that its strategy stands in stark contrast to Google's, which is contemplating an Internet cable service that would compete directly with distributors like Comcast and Time Warner Cable.

Reports emerged earlier this week that Google has held talks with several channel owners about licensing channels for such a service, but no content deals are within reach.

Apple weighed something similar years ago, but its executives concluded that it should work with the industry's powerful incumbents, rather than against them.

“Apple's probably going to have greater access to content by deciding to cooperate,” said Natalie Clayton, who oversees digital video research for Frank N. Magid Associates.

Case in point, Apple last month turned on HBO and ESPN apps for Apple TV owners, much to the delight of all involved. But those work only for people who have an existing cable or satellite subscription.

Coming next is an app from Time Warner Cable, allowing some of the company's 12 million subscribers to watch live and on-demand shows without a separate set-top box. The app will effectively add an Apple layer on top of the TV screen, providing what its proponents say is a programming guide that is far superior to anything offered by Time Warner.

Apple has talked in-depth with other big distributors about similar apps, according to people involved in the talks. Its intent is to collect a fee from distributors in exchange for enhancing their television service and in that way, theoretically, make subscribers more likely to keep paying for cable.

“They're trying to apply their software expertise, their user interface expertise,” one of the people said. (The people, both at distributors and programmers, insisted on anonymity because they said public comments would interfere with the private talks with Apple.)

Apple has sought support from programmers as well. It has proposed, for instance, an ad-skipping technology that would compensate networks for the skipped ads by charging users. While the idea is far-fetched, it intrigued some of the channel owners who were briefed about it and excited Apple followers when it was first reported by the technology writer Jessica Lessin earlier this week.

For Apple, further moves into television could neutralize some of the skepticism about the company's future since the death of Steve Jobs in 2011. Investor concerns that the company might not have another iPhone- or iPad-level innovation on the way have dragged down its stock price, which topped $700 for the first time last September, but has recently hovered closer to $400.

For the time being, Apple TV is a small part of its business - something best suited to “hobbyists,” as Mr. Cook put it at the D: All Things Digital conference in May. At that time, he hinted at the opportunity Apple saw in the living room, calling traditional TV watching “not an experience that I think many people love” and “too much like 10 or 20 years ago.”

It is easy to see how Apple could help. Products like Apple TV and Roku, which connect TVs to the Internet's wealth of streaming content, have proliferated because the set-top boxes that cable companies supply have not kept up with shifts in consumer behavior. But the streaming boxes remain a somewhat niche technology.

Apple could choose to market its box more heavily, especially as competition heats up from Amazon and other companies. Or it could eliminate the need for any box at all by building its own TV set. Reports this week that Apple may acquire PrimeSense, a maker of motion-sensing technology that could be used to control a TV without a physical remote, prompted a new round of guessing about that.

In Apple's partnership approach, some see the company placing a multitude of bets, recognizing that television could evolve in any number of ways.

Through Apple TV, it is simultaneously supporting established distributors and programmers as well as a parallel universe of streaming TV, as represented by Netflix, Hulu and Amazon.

Last month, in a little-noticed move, the company approved an app for Sky News, the British-based cable news channel. Sky could already be streamed live free on the Web, but by creating an app for Apple TV, the channel gained access to the television sets in 13 million homes without the need for complex negotiations with cable companies.

The Sky News app is free, but the software that powers it, from a company called 1 Mainstream, also allows for à la carte subscriptions.

Asked about the implications of the app, Rajeev Raman, the chief executive of 1 Mainstream, said: “It's a learning year for Apple. And it's a learning year for all of us, to say, O.K., what really does work?”

In effect the app is a more direct route to consumers for Sky News. Bloomberg TV, already available on cable, tried something similar earlier this year by cutting a carriage deal with Aereo, the streaming service backed by Barry Diller. But Aereo is antagonistic toward networks and existing distributors; Apple, at least for now, is positioning itself as a friend.

A version of this article appeared in print on July 18, 2013, on page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Pushing The Right Buttons.

As Legal Battle Continues, N.C.A.A. Ends Tie With Electronic Arts

For years, the N.C.A.A. heard concerns that the video games bearing its name and logo infringed on the rights of student-athletes. The animated avatars often bore a resemblance to actual players, with similar attributes and physical characteristics, even the same jersey numbers.

But N.C.A.A. executives dismissed the criticism and did not limit the game's maker, Electronic Arts, from producing as realistic an experience as possible, for fear of losing the lucrative contract.

On Wednesday, however, the N.C.A.A. became the one to sever ties, announcing that it would not renew its contract with E.A. next year. The decision is perhaps the biggest real-world development in a more than four-year-old legal battle focused on the rights of college athletes on how their likenesses can be used and what, if any, compensation they should receive.

The suit, filed by the former U.C.L.A. basketball player Ed O'Bannon, could change the landscape of college athletics by requiring that student-athletes receive a share of revenue from video games and broadcast rights.

The N.C.A.A. has mounted a vigorous legal defense in the case and maintained Wednesday that it “has never licensed the use of current student-athlete names, images or likenesses to E.A.,” which is also a defendant in the case.

The N.C.A.A. cautioned that its decision not to renew the video game contract should not be seen as a signal that it would back away from its legal stand.

“We are confident in our legal position regarding the use of our trademarks in video games,” the N.C.A.A. said. “But given the current business climate and costs of litigation, we determined participating in this game is not in the best interests of the N.C.A.A.”

The N.C.A.A. said that universities licensed their own trademarks for the video game, meaning it could live on without the association's name on it. The universities “will have to independently decide whether to continue those business arrangements in the future,” the N.C.A.A. said.

Many universities license their rights through Collegiate Licensing Company, which is also a defendant in the case.

O'Bannon's legal team saw the N.C.A.A.'s move as “arrogant, petty, and punitive,” saying it “undermined” its position “by unilaterally” ending the relationship with E.A.

“Rather than share any proceeds from the use of the likeness and names of players in the E.A. game, they bite their nose to spite their face and hurt the players and the consumers,” said Michael Hausfeld, O'Bannon's lawyer.

Stacey Osburn, a spokeswoman for the N.C.A.A., said, “This decision and the N.C.A.A.'s business relationship with E.A. only pertained to the N.C.A.A. logo and name.”

“Student-athletes were never a part of this relationship, and plaintiffs' attorneys know it,” she said, adding that the N.C.A.A. was paid $545,000 annually, which she said was used to support student-athletes.

E.A. has denied any wrongdoing in the case.

A federal judge in Oakland, Calif., is considering whether to allow the case to proceed as a class action, potentially making way for thousands of college athletes past and present to join the case. The judge, Claudia Wilken, heard arguments on the class-action motion last month.

The case file includes e-mails in which N.C.A.A. executives discussed concerns that the video games were “too close to reality.” In 2003, one executive warned another in an e-mail to “be cautious” about addressing such issues because “any more ‘watering down' of the video games will likely move the manufacturers to cease operations with us.”

Robert Boland, a sports law professor at New York University, said the move could signal a fracture between the N.C.A.A. and E.A.

“You say that in a normal course of business, almost no one would give up the video game, and certainly E.A. is the biggest” game maker in the genre, Boland said. “But from a legal standpoint, it looks like the N.C.A.A. has determined that maybe this isn't a place it should be in.”

Sonny Vaccaro, a former sports marketing executive and a longtime critic of the N.C.A.A., who originally put O'Bannon in touch with his lawyers in this case, said Wednesday's announcement was “a big victory for college athletes” and evidence that the lawsuit was “starting to gain some traction in the world we live in.”

“I'm very happy because I see it as the N.C.A.A. starting to get the feeling that there can be changes in the future,” Vaccaro said.

The N.C.A.A. said that NCAA Football 2014, which was released this month, would be the last to include the organization's name and logo. It said it announced its decision now, well in advance of the contract expiring next June, to give E.A. time to plan for next year.

“I'm sure gamers are wondering what this means,” Andrew Wilson, the executive vice president of E.A. Sports, said in a statement. “This is simple: E.A. Sports will continue to develop and publish college football games, but we will no longer include the N.C.A.A. names and marks.

“Our relationship with the Collegiate Licensing Company is strong, and we are already working on a new game for next-generation consoles which will launch next year and feature the college teams, leagues and all the innovation fans expect from E.A. Sports.”

A version of this article appeared in print on July 18, 2013, on page B12 of the New York edition with the headline: N.C.A.A. Ends Its Tie With a Game Maker.

Lindy Hess, Who Trained Many for Publishing Industry, Dies at 63

Lindy Hess, who as director of the Columbia Publishing Course transformed an antiquated training program into an influential part of the publishing world, died on Saturday at her home in Cambridge, Mass. She was 63.

Linda Hess helped shape the publishing industry by training a good percentage of its new recruits in an intensive six-week summer course.

The cause was lung cancer, said her sister, Elizabeth Hess.

For more than two decades, Ms. Hess helped shape the publishing industry by training a good percentage of its new recruits in an intensive six-week summer course and by acting as an industry matchmaker.

“Lindy was the greatest employment agent the publishing industry has ever seen,” said the literary agent Ed Victor. “She would get jobs for a staggering number of her students.”

Notable graduates of the course include Jordan Pavlin, vice president and executive editor at Alfred A. Knopf; Molly Stern, the senior vice president and publisher of Crown Publishers and Broadway Books; and David Granger, editor in chief of Esquire magazine.

The course was established in 1947 at Radcliffe College in Cambridge (and originally called the Radcliffe Publishing Course) as a summer program in which recent college graduates were taught the basics of book and magazine editing, design, production and publicity.

By the time Ms. Hess took over the course, however, the consensus was that it had lost touch with the industry and its major players. Ms. Hess, who had worked her way up in publishing, was well connected. She arrived with a prodigious Rolodex under her arm and set about inviting many industry leaders to Cambridge to lecture to the students.

Among the speakers were the industry veterans and former New Yorker editors Robert Gottlieb and Tina Brown, and William Shinker, the president and publisher of Gotham Books.

“We all schlepped up there for her,” Mr. Victor said.

Her biggest innovation was to turn the program into a kind of boot camp. Students put together mock publishing houses, acquiring books, making deals with agents and then editing, designing and marketing the books.

The course moved to the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in 2001 and changed its name.

Ms. Hess sometimes persuaded publishing executives not just to lecture but also to teach for a week.

“I can say no to anybody,” said Nan Graham, the publisher of Scribner. “But I couldn't say no to Lindy.”

Linda Ann Hess was born on April 1, 1950, in Manhattan, where she attended the Spence School. She graduated from Wheaton College in Norton, Mass., with a bachelor's degree in English, in 1972.

Alfred A. Knopf hired her the same year to work as secretary to Mr. Victor and Judith Jones, the cookbook editor. She rose through the publishing ranks and became editorial director of Dolphin books, a division of Doubleday, in 1978.

In a business with its share of rivalries and tensions, sometimes hiding beneath clenched-teeth cordiality, Ms. Hess seldom made enemies. And with her multiple contacts in the industry, she made it her mission to find the right job for each student.

“She had a sixth sense about which student would fit well with which person in publishing,” Mr. Shinker said.

In addition to her sister, Ms. Hess is survived by her husband, Dr. William S. Appleton; a son, Samuel Appleton; a daughter, Eliza Hannah Appleton; and a brother, Mortimer Henry Hess III.