Mediaboss Marketing

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan Media censorship is nothing new in Pakistan, where military dictators come and go. But newly proposed rules to ban TV programming deemed against the national interest spring from an unlikely source: a civilian government that has prided itself on inching the country toward democracy over the past four years.

The proposals were issued last month by a media regulatory body that says it is responding to public complaints about an explosion of increasingly shrill, fact-twisting and privacy-invading cable news shows. But the draft measures also take pointed aim at coverage that criticizes the organs of the state or undermines Pakistans solidarity as an independent and sovereign country.

Graphic

The two countries are allies but their relationship has been plagued by mistrust over the last 50 years.

Besides condemning the restrictions as impossibly vague, some foes of censorship see the powerful hand of Pakistans military behind them. Any ban on purported anti-state news would extend to coverage of the secessionist movement in Baluchistan, a province where the army and internal intelligence agencies are accused of extrajudicial killings of nationalists.

Last week the interior minister, Rehman Malik, asked cable news channels to stop booking Baluch separatist leaders on talk shows, saying the rebels were spreading propaganda about forced disappearances.

Government officials say the proposed restrictions are not meant to intimidate or impose censorship on the media but are instead intended to prod the raucous TV news industry to regulate itself.

You have to define certain rules for their own betterment, Firdous Ashiq Awan, the minister of information and broadcasting, said in an interview. Its not that government wants it; the whole nation wants it. There must be some rules and regulations.

The prospect of such government intrusion unnerves free-speech advocates, who have watched an emboldened media take on civilian as well as military leaders in recent years. The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, which operates under the information minister, contends that its proposals are benign, but the agency has the power to punish alleged violations by imposing fines and pulling broadcast licenses.

The governments goal is not to educate the media or the public, said Hamza Farooq, a Karachi journalist who has worked at CNBC Pakistan and Geo TV, a leading broadcaster. They are just trying to pressure the media.

Continued here:
Pakistan proposes curbs on raucous media

Web censors got their signals crossed in China and Denmark this week.

Users at an Internet cafe in Beijing last May. (LIU JIN - AFP/GETTY IMAGES) A supposed glitch in Chinas Great Firewall on Tuesday allowed Internet users in the country to access Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google+ for a brief time until the sites were blocked again, Reuters reported. Chinese netizens flooded President Obama'sGoogle+ page with comments, many asking the president to fight for human rights in China.

In Denmark, however, Internet freedom went in the other direction. Danish police said a human errorcaused thousands of Web sites to be blocked in the country on Thursday, including Google and Facebook, reported file-sharing news site Torrentfreak. Users who tried to access those sites got a message saying Denmarks High Tech Crime Unit had blocked the page because the user had offered child pornography. The problem was reportedly fixed several hours later.

Web censorship, a hot topic around the world, is becoming harder for governments to enforce.

In India, Internet companies recently refused a government request to screen and remove what it deemed offensive contentrelated to political leaders and religious figures.

During Irans partial Internet blackout last month, Iranians used proxy servers10 times more than they had in 2010.

And when China suffered a major train crash last July, government censors forced the media to stopreporting online about what had gone wrong but users on Weibo, Chinas Twitter, soon filled the news gap.

According to Googles Transparency Report for the first half of 2011, democracies and authoritarian governments alike made repeated requests to Google to remove certain online content from its services. Sometimes, the government believed the content was a threat to national security. Other times, the reason given was defamation or government criticism.

Related reading:

Web censorship moves to democracies

Read the original post:
In China, Denmark, glitches in Web censorship confuse users

* New media (Berlin: 4NM.BE - news) watchdog does not mean more censorship-report

* New council to cover all media platforms

* Wider reviews on media convergence, ownership under way (Adds detail)

CANBERRA, March 2 (Reuters) - An Australian inquiry sparked by concerns about journalistic practices at Rupert Murdoch's News Corp on Friday recommended a new body to set and enforce standards across the country's tightly owned media.

The inquiry was launched following Murdoch's News of the World phone hacking scandal in Britain and after criticism by some politicians of biased coverage by Murdoch newspapers of the Australia government.

Australian media is among the world's most concentrated, with Murdoch's News Ltd controlling some 70 percent of the country's newspaper ownership. Murdoch's main newspaper rival in of Australia is the Fairfax Media Group.

The independent report, released by the Australian government, called for a "News Media Council" to set media standards and handle complaints made by the public.

"The establishment of a council is not about increasing the power of government or about imposing some form of censorship," the report said.

"It is about making the news media more accountable to those covered in the news, and to the public generally."

It recommended that the new body cover news and current affairs coverage on all platforms, print, online, radio and television, replacing the Australian Press council which only handles complaints against print media.

Follow this link:
UPDATE 1-Australian media inquiry recommends new watchdog

* New media (Berlin: 4NM.BE - news) watchdog does not mean more censorship-report

* New council would cover all media platforms

* Murdoch's News Ltd rejects watchdog recommendation

* Wider reviews on media convergence, ownership under way (Updates with more detail, News Ltd and political reaction)

CANBERRA, March 2 (Reuters) - An Australian inquiry sparked by concerns about journalistic practices at Rupert Murdoch's News Corp on Friday recommended a new government-funded body to set and enforce standards across the country's tightly owned media.

Murdoch's local arm News Ltd immediately rejected the recommendation for a "News Media Council" which could force media to uphold journalistic ethics and issue an apology, correction or retraction, or grant a person right of reply.

The inquiry was launched following Murdoch's News of the World phone hacking scandal in Britain and after criticism by some politicians of biased coverage by Murdoch newspapers of the Australia government.

Australian media is among the world's most concentrated, with Murdoch's News Ltd controlling some 70 percent of its newspaper ownership. Murdoch's main newspaper rival in Australia is the Fairfax Media Group.

The independent report, released by the government, called for a News Media Council to set media standards and handle complaints made by the public.

"The establishment of a council is not about increasing the power of government or about imposing some form of censorship," the report said.

Original post:
UPDATE 2-Murdoch-sparked media inquiry recommends new Australian watchdog

The Bovee University Center hosted the fourth Speak Up, Speak Out forum Wednesday night, titled R They Watching U? Technology, Surveillance, Censorship & Privacy Rights.

This event brought together Central Michigan University students and staff to discuss Internet interaction, censorship and awareness to what truly stays private on the web.

SUSO opened its event with nearly 20 minutes of video clips introducing SOPA and PIPA, bills recently introduced in Congress to stop Internet piracy, along with new ways to track individuals breaking the law. These clips were then turned over to the SUSO panel and student audience to discuss online behaviors and control.

These are complex topics, said Justin Smith, assistant professor of sociology. We should be questioning to what extent do schools and universities and the criminal justice system punish folks for their online behavior; we should be at least questioning the rules that are being created. Some of them might be better than others.

Amanda Garrison, member of the forum panel and professor of sociology, said that she took a lot with her from Wednesdays event.

When it comes down to am I going to pay, even if I dont have to after hearing this I dont want people who do clerical work to lose their job, so its something that I have to consider, Garrison said.

Besides illegal music downloads and the threats of cyber bullying, the Internet works against us in one major way: Terms and conditions, panel members stressed.When setting up accounts on any social network site, the final step is usually to agree the terms and conditions issued by each network. Most turn a blind eye to the 20-page document, scrolling to the bottom of the page and clicking the accept button, with no idea of what they have actually agreed to.

Finance and law professor, Ken Sanney, broke down the information stated within the terms and conditions, using the example of senior pictures. Sanney said that, as seniors in high school, everyone is eager to post their senior pictures online. These pictures are professionally taken and, most likely, the rights are still owned by the photographer.

Because of the terms and conditions box, social networking users sign over use of their pictures to sites like Facebook, who can then use them at their disposal. If Facebook decides to use one of these senior pictures for advertisement, the photographer who owns the pictures rights can sue Facebook, who can turn right around and sue whoever posted the picture in the first place. This is just one example of censorship hidden within terms and conditions.

Im not trying to scare the students, I was trying to engage them and make them think, Sanney said. I do know that some students are harmed by what they place online. If you look at Facebook, it looks like a museum of your life. They are trying to create that air of your life. There is good and bad of it, each of us just has to weigh the cost with the benefit.

Read more:
Students, faculty debate Internet copyright, censorship at Speak Up, Speak Out forum