Mediaboss Marketing

The Public Relations Department's latest arrangement to have all mainstream TV stations cover a different minister during next week's mobile cabinet meeting will turn the broadcast media into the government's publicists. This may be a one-off "request" but it sets alarm bells ringing about the regime's directives on how the media should work and be regulated.

On Wednesday, the department's acting director-general, Sansern Kaewkamnerd, requested cooperation from the TV channels to provide sufficient publicity for all ministers during their field trips to several northeastern provinces next week. His request secured the commitment from 16 TV channels, each of which has been assigned to cover one minister. His department also makes a copy of ministerial "scoops" available for each outlet.

Lt Gen Sansern, also a government spokesperson, asked journalists and editors at a Wednesday meeting to immediately pick a different minister each. While he described it as "cooperation", working journalists see it as interfering in what and how the broadcast media should report.

From next week, the Thai TV audience will be forced to watch a series of "scoops" about the ministers on state-run NBT produced by different channels. One story per minister. No diversity. This arrangement is no different from asking them to cooperate in spreading government propaganda.

Lt Gen Sansern complained the media have focused exclusively on Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha during previous trips to the provinces, overlooking the work of ministers. But this rationale does not hold water: If officials do something of note, the media will cover it.

As the government's lead publicist, he should have offered the media tantalising details about what ministers plan to do during their upcoming trip, and let journalists decide how or whether they want to cover them. If certain ministers are known for their hard work and recognised for their leadership and vision, they will make headlines. The reason why they have not received sufficient coverage should speak for itself.

Lt Gen Sansern's vision of how the media should operate reflects the controlling nature of the military regime and Thai bureaucracy. This is more worrying as a bill on media regulation, proposed by the now-defunct National Reform Steering Assembly, is yet to be approved by the government. The bill has been criticised for paving the way for tightened state control of the press as it proposes a new national council to regulate the media.

If approved, high-ranking state officials will serve in the council during the five-year transitional period following next year's general election.

Lt Gen Sansern should be reminded that whatever "cooperation" these TV channels provide, this must not become the norm for how the media coverage of government affairs is governed.

By restricting the activities of politicians and activists, the regime has already gained leverage in influencing the public because the media can only cover what public figures are allowed to do. In fact, the National Council for Peace and Order's daily TV programmes, including Gen Prayut's weekly talk, which is aired on all TV channels, have given the government a tool to promote its policies.

The politically divided Thai society does not need one-sided information fed by such state-run programmes, which should have been scrapped long ago.

Respecting diversity in terms of content and news sources will keep the audience sufficiently informed and help forge understanding and tolerance in society.

Lt Gen Sansern's request for cooperation in this context need not be revisited. If it pops up again the public should prepare for a diet of state propaganda, not news, from the media.

Visit link:
'Cooperation' as control - Bangkok Post

The time is 1980. The place is the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn in New York City. The man is 18-year-old Colin Warner. Its a familiar scenario. An unarmed black man is walking through his own neighborhood, minding his business, when, within the blink of an eye, his whole life changes. Police officers pull up, tires screeching, and Warner is alarmed and confused because hes being arrested. And, immediately, were faced with one of Americas harshest truths: Black men (and men of color) are often deemed guilty until proved innocent. And, often, no one is trying to prove that black men are innocent.

Warner is brought into the precinct and basically told that hes murdered a man. And Warner has no say in his own fate. There are no choices for him to make as the officers try to make him confess, which Warner never does because he didnt do it. But the guttural pleas of innocence from Warners lips fall on deaf ears.

The film Crown Heights forces the viewer to face Americas demonsracism, a crooked justice system and the dehumanization of prisonersall in one emotional ride. The knot in my stomach ached for a teenage Colin (Lakeith Stanfield) having to face mental and physical anguish in prison, knowing he was an innocent man.

From the arresting officers to the prosecutors to the prison guards and Warners own legal counsel, the movie takes us down a long, frustrating road of something were mostly all aware: a system that doesnt work for people who cant defend themselves. And its usually people of color, namely black men, just like Colin Warner, who cannot defend themselves.

Crown Heights shows you that clear evidence doesnt even implicate Warner. But the evils of law enforcement are determined to finger him and make him pay for the crime. And as a viewer, youre left wondering why, even though youre fully aware of the dangers and circumstances of racism.

I just thought they would be fair, Warners mom says at one point in the film.

We all have the hope that the justice system will actually bring forth justice, even though we know better. We all held our breath, waiting to hear that George Zimmerman, Michael Dunn, or Blane Salamoni and Howie Lake were all found guilty of murder.

And even though you know Warners fate, you still hold your breath when the judge reluctantly reads the verdict.

Most prisoners know deep down they put themselves here. I dont have that comfort. Colin Warner (Lakeith Stanfield)

But perhaps the biggest star of this entire film isnt a person at allits Warners support system in the form of his longest and dearest friend, Carl King (Nnamdi Asomugha).

As soon as he hears about the arrest, King is at the precinct to bail his friend out, only to be told that he has been denied bail. This will be the beginning of a 21-year battle King willingly takes on to help his friend see freedom again.

How long would it take for you to lose hope? I know that I am a good friend, but to have a dedication like Kings and stick with Warner through 21 infuriating years of rejected justice is just a level of friendship Im not so sure Id have been able to reach.

At one point, even Warner is over the constant disappointment and he chastises King for being there for him and begs him to stop. But King (Asomugha) counters with: Its not just about you. Its bigger than that. It could be me in here. Sometimes I feel like it is me.

And it is us, all of us. Mass incarceration and wrongful imprisonment affect us all. People go to jail more than 11 million times every year. Many of them are criminals, yes, but not everyone fits into the same mold.

Colin Warners story is one of many, and thats what made me sad leaving the theater. While hes now free and able to champion for others falsely accused, the fact that people like him even exist makes you feel like this country is never going to value people of color in a way that humanizes us.

See the original post:
Crown Heights Exposes a Very Common American Problem: Wrongful Conviction - The Root

Karnataka Bank has ventured into the social media by opening its official pages in social networking sites, namely, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube. Bank Managing Director and CEO M.S. Mahabaleshwara unveiled the official social handles at a function held at banks headquarters here on Wednesday. The official social media handle of the bank is @karnatakabank on Twitter and Facebook.

Mr. Mahabaleshwara said social media networks changed the way people interact with each other. The younger generation is well connected with social media networks. It tends to communicate anything on social media be it positive or negative. The bank has ventured into social media to leverage on its benefits and in pursuit of engaging the customers as well as well-wishers around the activities of the bank. Customers can connect to the bank instantly through social media, he said and urged customers to get connected with the bank through official pages/ handles in social media for updates and innovations of the bank.

Continued here:
Karnataka Bank forays into social networking sites - The Hindu

Recent news of Bitcoin going over $4,300 has a lot of people talking. Blockchain disruption has seen a major shift this year in the eyes of the mainstream, from a weird basement project to something that they literally can't take their hands (and wallets) off of. People from all walks of life are getting involved either in buying cryptocurrency or supporting various blockchain projects (Ethereum, NEO, Bitcoin, Siacoin, and others) aimed at disrupting old, centralized industries.

One of those industries or business models ripe and primed for disruption is social networks themselves. The same small number of players have been at it for over a decade now, with only a few exceptions. The power and control is centralized in just a few hands.

One of the issues, which most people don't realize, is that social networks essentially own all of your photos, content, and data when you post to them. You, the user, get nothing and these social networks continue to get bigger and bigger by riding off the backs of users giving away rights to their content. They are centralized in every way, literally decide what you will see and not see through their algorithms on your feed, and completely lack transparency. To me, this sounds like something ripe for disruption.

Social networks are currently the opposite of decentralized. They are controlled from the top down by large companies and their CEOs. And in almost all cases, in addition to giving away the rights to your data, they are also recording every single keystroke you make anywhere on their platforms.

Indorse, a new platform based on Ethereum, is creating a truly decentralized professional social network. On this platform, you own all your data and get paid directly for contributions. This solves the two major issues surrounding social networks:

First, nobody wants to create amazing content only to essentially sign away their rights to the social networks. You want to instead own all of your data, and actually get paid for it. Indorse empowers you and allows you to retain your rights instead of taking away those rights as a content creator.

Secondly, Indorse (who is currently running its ICO) physically pays you in tokens for helping them build the platform, rather than giving you nothing. On a side note, it's actually quite incredible that up until this point nobody has stopped and questioned the fact that the social networks make all this money and you, the user, literally do all the work. Instead of paying users for their content and traffic, they literally charge you to run ads to your own audience that you built. When you think about it in this regard, it's clear why this needs disruption.

Does this make sense? You build the business for them, they own all your rights and data, and they make all the money. Clearly not. Now that a company like Indorse is coming along, it solves these issues and puts the power back in the hands of the people. This is literally a picture-perfect business and industry primed for disruption through blockchain technology and the set of principles the community stands for.

On top of solving all of these major issues in the social-networking space, it will force some of the big players to adapt or die. The beauty of platforms like Indorse utilizing blockchain is that it forces change the same way Uber forced the taxi industry to change. At first, they tried to squash it and make it sound like some weird sci-fi alternate reality that was decades away, but then when it actually happened, they had to react or become obsolete.

Before getting involved in any cryptocurrency or ICO, you should do your own research. Nothing in this article should be considered investment advice.

View post:
Blockchain Is Now Aiming to Disrupt Social Networks in a Major Way - Inc.com

The Tor Project has reiterated its absolutist commitment to free speech, saying that even though Daily Stormer recently moved to a Tor onion service, the organization wont do anything to stop the "hate-spewing website."

Various online services have begun to re-evaluate their willingness to do business with sites that publish obviously vile content in the wake of last weekends violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Earlier in the week, Google removed the Gab app on the Google Play store, andSquarespace said it would disablesome of the offensive sites that it hosts as identified as hateful by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Most famously within the tech world, Daily Stormer itself was recently booted from CloudFlares CDN service after the company had initially said it would not do so.

As Steph, a member of the Tor organization, wrote in aThursday blog post:

We are disgusted, angered, and appalled by everything these racists stand for and do. We feel this way any time the Tor network and software are used for vile purposes. But we can't build free and open source tools that protect journalists, human rights activists, and ordinary people around the world if we also control who uses those tools. Tor is designed to defend human rights and privacy by preventing anyone from censoring things, even us.

Ironically, the Tor software has been designed and written by a diverse team including people of many religions, races, gender identities, sexual orientations, and points on the (legitimate, non-Nazi) political spectrum. We are everything they claim to despise. And we work every day to defend the human rights they oppose.

For years, Tor has enabled various obviously illegal websites, ranging fromunderground drug marketplaces, including the recently shutteredAlphaBay,to child porn sites. However, the network also provides similar anonymization tools for innocuous websites likeProPublica, a news organization, andDuckDuckGo, a search engine.

Link:
Tor can't build free and open source tools and stop racists from using them - Ars Technica