Mediaboss Marketing

BEIRUT Syrian government forces took back control of an area near Damascus that provides most of the capital's water supplies after reaching a deal for rebel fighters to withdraw, pro-government media and a monitoring group said.

The Syrian army and its allies launched an offensive last month to drive insurgents from the Wadi Barada valley, which they have controlled since 2012, and to recapture a major spring and pumping station.

Syria's mainstream rebel factions are under intense pressure after losing areas they held in the northern city of Aleppo to government forces at the end of last year, and now face a fierce assault by Islamist militants elsewhere.

Wadi Barada, which lies northwest of Damascus, has become one of the fiercest battlefronts in Syria's civil war. Disruption to water supplies, including infrastructure damage, has caused acute shortages in the capital this month.

Government forces entered the village of Ain al-Fija, where the spring and pumping station are located, early on Saturday, a military media unit run by Lebanese group Hezbollah, an ally of Damascus, reported.

"The Syrian army has entered Ain al-Fija ... and raised the Syrian flag over the spring installation," a statement by the unit said, adding that the development was due to a deal reached with insurgents by which the rebels would leave the area.

Teams were preparing to enter Ain al-Fija to fix the pumping station and the army had secured control of the village, it added.

INTENSE FIGHTING

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a British-based war monitoring group, said government forces had begun moving into the spring area as rebel fighters withdrew.

Under the deal reached between the government side and local representatives, rebels hailing from outside the Wadi Barada area would leave for the northwestern province of Idlib, an insurgent stronghold, carrying light weapons, the Observatory said.

Rebels from Wadi Barada would be allowed to leave too, but could also opt to stay and serve with pro-government forces, it added.

The Syrian government has struck similar local ceasefire deals with the opposition in several western parts of the country, usually involving the transfer of rebel fighters and their families to Idlib.

The opposition has said the process amounts to forced population transfer.

Intense fighting raged for weeks in Wadi Barada, and knocked the water spring out of service in late December.

The United Nations has said "infrastructure was deliberately targeted", without saying who was responsible, leaving four million people in Damascus without safe drinking water. It warned the shortages could lead to outbreaks of waterborne disease.

Rebels and activists have said government bombardment damaged the spring. The government said insurgent groups polluted it with diesel, forcing the state to cut supplies.

Rebels in Wadi Barada had been allowing government engineers to maintain and operate the valley's pumping station. Fighters have, however, cut water supplies several times in the past to put pressure on the army not to overrun the area.

(Reporting by John Davison and Kinda Makieh in Damascus; Editing by Mark Heinrich and Helen Popper)

GENEVA The United Nations refugee agency and International Organization for Migration (IOM) called on the Trump administration on Saturday to continue offering asylum to people fleeing war and persecution, saying its resettlement program was vital.

BEIRUT Several Syrian Islamist factions including al Qaeda's former branch in the country said on Saturday they were joining forces, as clashes between jihadists and more moderate rebels raged on in northwestern areas.

ANKARA British Prime Minister Theresa May on Saturday signed a $125 million defense equipment deal with Turkey and promised to push for more trade between the NATO allies, but cautioned Ankara on human rights following last year's failed coup.

Continue reading here:
Syrian army seizes Damascus water source as rebels withdraw - pro-government media, monitor - Reuters

In Donald Trumps first few days in office, American journalists have been surprised at how rapidly the new US presidential administration began to curb their access to government. For Indian journalists, the Trump White Houses efforts to control how members of the media can engage with government sources is eerily familiar. In the weeks after the Indian prime minister Narendra Modi was elected in 2014, his administration took similar steps to reduce access to ministers and bureaucrats of various departments for members of the press and centralize communications through the office of the prime minister.

In the early stages, there is a highly centralized color to the Trump administration that echoes, in some respects, the modus operandi of the Modi regime, says Milan Vaishnav, senior associate in the South Asia program at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Not only has the White House put several agencies on notice when it comes to issuing public statements without prior approval, it has also tightly managed the transition process.

Like Trump, Indian prime minister Narendra Modi is a larger-than-life politician who harnessed social media to speak directly to supporters, tweeting regularly and building a large following. Both leaders were criticized heavily by the media during their campaigns and had a somewhat adversarial relationship with members of the press when they assumed office. In power, both have chosen to bypass traditional media in order to control the message sent to the public.

Donald Trumps relationship with the press has many parallels to Narendra Modis approach to the media in India, says Sumit Galhotra, former senior researcher at Committee to Protect Journalists Asia program. Both leaders have exhibited an uneasiness with the media and are uncomfortable with the press playing the role of watchdog adversary.

As early as Trumps inauguration day (Jan. 20), there were signs that reporters would be given limited access to this administration. Breaking with a long-established precedent, Trump restricted access to the two official inaugural balls to pool press coverage only. Previously, official inaugural balls were open press events, which meant that any reporter could cover them, as long as they were cleared by security. On Monday, the US Environmental Protection Agency staff was told to stop communicating with the press or the public effective immediately. Employees at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Interior Department have also seen directives limiting how they communicate with the public.

In the months following Modis election in 2014, his administration took similar steps. Doordarshan News and All India Radio (AIR), both state-backed broadcasters, were immediately made the administrations favored choice for disseminating information to the public, and journalists from other outlets complained that they were kept out of the loop. AIR and Doordarshans less-combative questioning style allowed Modis government to carefully curate coverage and avoid tough questions.

Reporters in India complained that information on the new administration was hard to come by, and that government staff had stopped responding to phone calls and text messages. Throughout Modis term, journalists have been directed to the prime ministers speeches, press statements, and Twitter feed. Ministers and bureaucrats are told to avoid the media and speak only when Modi offers an official line. Some ministers are even told to refrain from speaking to journalists at all and leave it to their departments official spokesperson. What this means is, to paraphrase an old adage, that those who know do not speak, and those who speak do not know, says Vaishnav.

There has been a lot of communication from the government, but its been very top-down, N Ravi, editor of the Hindu newspaper and president of the Editors Guild of India, told Reuters. Its been a one-way street. Each month Modi records a radio show titled Mann ki Baat (Talking from the Heart) on AIR, often using his address to the nation to promote some government policy. While Indias previous prime minister was accompanied by 30 or more journalists when he travelled outside the country, Modi chose to take only nine journalists on his 2014 trip to the USmost of which were from state-funded media.

Several journalists I met with in India shared the belief that Modi was tightening the screws on the flow of information and found newsgathering was becoming more difficult. I think the same can be said of Trumps early moves in office, says Galhotra. Both Trump and Modi have attempted to create a one-directional relationship with the press: journalists should amplify their message but should not be given the space to challenge it.

One reason this tactic has been effective in both countries is that public trust in the media has eroded. In September 2016 a Gallup survey found that Americans trust in the mass media had sunk to an all-time low, with only 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. Likewise, according to a 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer, the media is the least trusted institution in India. In India, the right-wing has succeeded at denigrating the media, by labelling them presstitutes, and painting them as corrupt, says Galhotra. I see Trump and his supporters making similar attempts here at home to undermine the publics trust in the media.

In Modis India, the press has often found it hard to effectively do its job and hold government accountable. The Editors Guild of India issued a statement saying, Diminishing access to information to journalists and the media runs against the grain of democratic functioning in an age of openness, transparency, and right to information. Without access to government officials, the prime ministers Twitter feed has become a primary news source.

One news source that is fast acquiring a monopoly over the dissemination of the government newsapart from the Press Information Bureau, which is churning out press statements at an unprecedented paceis the prime minister himself, wrote journalist Dhirendra K Jha in Scroll. Modis tweets, in fact, are fast becoming the main source of news for the mediapersons in Delhi. And on Twitter and radio addresses, journalists have no opportunity to question Modi.

Several Indian journalists say they increasingly face backlash for producing journalism that questions or criticizes the Modi administration or the Bharatiya Janata Party, which is at the helm of the government currently. The environment is one in which you cant say anything against Modi, says Swati Chaturvedi, a print and TV journalist who filed a police report after receiving hundreds of threats a day. Its a systematic sort of harassment and bullying which will eventually silence a lot of people who dont have the confidence to fight back.

We might be looking at one of the most illiberal periods for the media operating in India, with the government indulging in a form of unilateral messaging and many media outlets surrendering their irreverence in favor of adulatory reporting, wrote journalist Nidhi Dutt.

Meanwhile, prime minister Modi plans to set up a new journalism university, modelled on Beijings massive government-run Communication University of China, to train thousands of journalists in government propaganda.

It remains to be seen if Trumps administration will change course in the coming months; it has already backtracked on some of its media-related directives. For example, vice-president Mike Pence had said that the administration was considering getting rid of the press briefing room in the White House and moving reporters to a larger venue elsewhere on the complex. Though Pence framed this as a way to make room for more journalists, it has raised alarm bells in the media. Last week, in an interview with Fox and Friends, Trump said, The press went crazy, so I said, Lets not move it.

Go here to see the original:
Modi's success silencing the media in India sets a dangerous precedent for the free press in Trump's America - Quartz

An apologist of the President and a public official who gets paid by taxpayers money, Andanar is embarking on a dangerous path of propaganda and media control

Published 5:36 PM, January 26, 2017

Updated 11:53 AM, January 27, 2017

MANCAVE. Communications Secretary Martin Andanar launches his Martin's Mancave Lifecast on January 7, 2017. Andanar's Facebook page

MANILA, Philippines Ever heard of Martins Mancave Lifecast? Its a podcast on Facebook that features no less than the Secretary of the Presidential Communications Office (PCO), Martin Andanar.

The former commentator of Aksyon TV and anchor of TV5s Aksyon sa Umaga, Andanar hosted his first podcast under the Duterte administration on a Saturday evening, January 7, and titled it, Leni Leaks: Truth or Lies?

The maiden podcast of the Cabinet secretary under the new government amplified a supposedly explosive discovery by bloggers about an alleged plan to oust President Rodrigo Duterte.

As of the afternoon of Thursday, January 26, the episode had garnered over 774,000 views and shared over 13,000 times. The numbers are quite impressive for a first episode that ran for over 50 minutes and featured interviews with two bloggers who are avid supporters of Duterte Sass Rogando Sasot and Rey Joseph (RJ) Nieto, who, until only a few weeks ago, was known as the anonymous Thinking Pinoy. Andanar ended that episode with a short interview with National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr.

Early on, after Duterte won as president, the first thing that Andanar asked the Malacaang Press Corps (MPC) officers was if bloggers like "Thinking Pinoy" could be accredited as members of the press corps. Clear about the distinction between the role of the press and that of pro-Duterte bloggers, the officers said no.

An apologist of the President and a public official who gets paid by taxpayers money, Andanar is embarking on a dangerous path of propaganda and media control.

As articulated by media theorist Manuel Castells, propaganda and media control refers to the fabrication and diffusion of messages that distort facts and induce misinformation for the purpose of advancing government interests, and involves the censorship of any message deemed to undermine these interests, if necessary by criminalizing unhindered communication and prosecuting the messenger.

Palace insiders said that, starting September 2016, money was released to groups that had maintained an online presence in support of the President. The same insiders said some of these groups are identified with Andanar.

Platform of legitimacy

Through his resurrected Martins Mancave with Lifecast attached to the brand to give the podcast a new name on Facebook the Cabinet secretary provides the two bloggers with a platform and grants them legitimacy, both as attack dogs out to intimidate journalists and as sources of alarmist information.

This shrewd artificial online boost spread like wild fire the message about the supposed plot to oust Duterte. It rattled the social media sphere of Duterte followers and generated a lot of anger about the supposed grand conspiracy.

Andanar justified his decision to discuss #LeniLeaks in his podcast, saying that the administration does not welcome any destabilization attempts and is against methods to advance such destabilization interests kung totoo man (if they are true).

It was Sasot who first posted about #LeniLeaks on Twitter in the evening of January 5. She followed up with a Facebook post afternoon of January 6, detailing the message of United States-based Loida Nicolas Lewis in a Yahoogroup about how to defend the Vice President from criticism and defeated vice presidential candidate Bongbong Marcos: The only way to fight this evil plot to unseat Vice President Leni Robredo is to ask Duterte to Resign.

It was also Sasot who recently equated the punishment of fake news with the punishment of people who write fiction, generating a wave of criticism and negative reactions. Faraway in The Netherlands, she openly cursed Rapplers Palace reporter Pia Ranada for her story on #LeniLeaks. Sasots post has since been taken down.

SASOT. Blogger Sass Rogando Sasot curses Rappler's Pia Ranada. Screenshot of Sasot's Facebook Live video.

Nieto, on the other hand, also recently repeatedly cursed from Singapore the MPC for their statement calling out Andanar.

The MPC accredited journalists assigned to cover the Palace said in their statement that they were disturbed by the propensity of the officials of this administration to blame the media whenever the inflammatory statements of the President stir controversy or draw flak. Andanar had accused the MPC of misreporting Dutertes statements on martial law.

Not content with his curses, Nieto flashed the dirty finger repeatedly during his 13-minute rant. Nasaan ang Malacaang Press Corps? Nakatambay kayo sa hotel o nagsa-shopping kayo sa Orchard Road. Puro kayo inutil, mga putang ina nyo. Wag kayo umarte na kay-iinam. Wala naman kayong ginawa sa Singapore kundi mamasyal. O, yan ba loyal sa Filipino people?

(Wheres the Malacaang Press Corps? Standing by the hotel or shopping on Orchard Road. Youre all useless, sons of bitches. Dont act as if youre all good. You didnt do anything in Singapore but to shop. Is that what you call loyal to the Filipino people?)

REY JOSEPH NIETO. The face behind Thinking Pinoy. Screenshot of his Facebook Live video.

He reported that only he and a handful of others were at a hotel lobby in Singapore waiting to ambush-interview officials. However, this is not how the media works and gathers news. Journalists do not base their stories solely on officialdom but countless other sources, depending on issues they are pursuing and monitoring. Ambush-interviews likewise do not yield the best of stories because officials tend to give answers on the fly.

Nieto threatened the press corps that when he sees them in Russia during a presidential visit, he would be reporting on what they will be doing.

It is these types of disseminators of information whom Andanar, the Presidents communications secretary, has chosen to promote.

Boosts and failure

During his podcast, Andanar built up Sasot and Nieto, then known as the anonymous Thinking Pinoy, and referred to them as internet superstar bloggers.

Donning headphones and doing the interviews, Andanar made it easy for viewers on Facebook to forget he is an official of the Palace and no longer a broadcaster.

Instead of using government resources at his disposal to establish the veracity of #LeniLeaks through solid intelligence information from other agencies of government, Andanar chose the two partisan bloggers as his sources.

After Sasot and Nieto failed to create enough splash the first time around, Andanar got them as interviewees on January 7 to shed light on #LeniLeaks which, he said, had gone viral.

Yet our data analysis of posts related to #LeniLeaks from January 5-15, 2017, showed that before January 7, the issue had not created enough buzz. The podcast on January 7, a Saturday, however, boosted the message and prompted a lot of shares as seen by the spike on that day (see chart below).

Perhaps because it was a weekend or because not enough traction was created, the number of posts dropped not long after.

The next attempt to sustain interest came the following day on January 8, a Sunday, via a second episode of the podcast, leading up to the January 9 Cabinet meeting, where Andanar said the #LeniLeaks issue would be brought up.

The second episode, however, got much lesser viewership. As of afternoon of January 26, it had 98,000 views and over 1,100 shares. The numbers were much lower compared to the over 774,000 views and over 13,000 shares of the first episode.

Evidently, the posts got their first stimulus on January 7 and hit an apex close to the day of the Cabinet meeting itself. When the issue was ignored by the Cabinet because of more compelling issues they had to discuss, the number of posts dropped dramatically, more visibly by January 10.

Despite occasional spurts, interest in #LeniLeaks subsided not long after, more clearly by January 11 onwards. The posts, however, prompted a lot of comments that peaked on January 8, then started tapering by January 11 (see chart below).

In the comments section, some of those who posted were impatient about updates on the issue. Unfortunately, the revelations of Andanars sources were found to be inadequate to merit a probe by the justice department.

Propaganda

In his January 24 Facebook Live interview with Duterte supporter "Maharlika" in Los Angeles, Andanar said the possibility of bloggers being accredited to cover the Palace is "very bright." The unspoken rule is that they should support the Duterte presidency and dish out only "constructive information."

In that interview, Andanar said a certain Carlos Munda, who runs the pro-Duterte MindaVote page, has already been given access by the PCO to its newsfeed. He said it's really a matter of creating a "new system" to include bloggers in the news feed of the Palace.

For Andanar, whether in Malacaang or in his man cave, the distinction between journalists and bloggers, as well as news and propaganda, are all a blur. with Paige Occeola and Pia Ranada/Rappler.com

Read more here:
Inside Martin Andanar's man cave - Rappler

What is to be done when something negative from an employee shows up on Facebook about you or your business?

As the use of social media has grown in the past decade and emerged as a powerful means of communication, employers have struggled to keep up with the use of this communications tool by employees. Some issues, such as the ability of employers to restrict employees use of social media at work and on equipment provided by the employer, or restrictions on posts that divulge confidential information, are straightforward. However, questions about social media restrictions become murkier when employers act to restrict employees off-duty and off-site use of social media, or seek to punish employees for posts that the employer determines are disloyal or reflect adversely on the employer.

For public employers who are bound by the First Amendment, restricting their employees use of social media may violate free speech rights. This is particularly true if the content posted relates to matters of public concern and if the employer does not have an adequate justification for restricting the employees use of social media that outweighs the interest of the employees.

Private employers are not constrained by the First Amendment, but they are also not free to impose carte blanche restrictions on social media use. Federal law protects employees from discipline for engaging in concerted activities that are protected by the National Labor Relations Act, which includes discussing issues related to working conditions, terms of employment, compensation and other complaints or concerns about their employment.

Beginning in 2012, the National Labor Relations Board issued decisions regarding challenged discipline arising out of the use of social media. The NLRB has held employers liable for disciplining employees for using social media to communicate with others about the conditions of their employment or for criticizing their employer regarding management.

For instance, in a 2014 case, the NLRB held that two employees were improperly terminated for criticizing their employer regarding his mishandling of tax issues, even where the social media posts used derogatory language directed at specific supervisors.

It should be noted, however, that not all posts on social media are protected. Posts that do not involve other employees, which do not relate to protected issues such as terms of employment, working conditions or other aspects of employment, or that are malicious or reckless would not likely be protected. In addition, posts criticizing the product or service provided by the employeras opposed to the terms or conditions of employmentwould not likely be protected.

The NLRB has also issued guidance addressing the permissible scope of social media policies adopted by employers. The guidance, consisting of reports issued in 2011 and 2012, stressed that employer policies should not be so sweeping that they prohibit the kinds of activity protected by federal labor law, such as the discussion of wages or working conditions among employees.

In one case, the NLRB found a policy stating employee posts must be completely accurate and not misleading was vague and overly broad, as it imposed a stricter requirement for employee communications about protected activity than imposed by federal law. In another case, the NLRB found a policy provision stating that when in doubt, do not post to be improper, and further determined that directing employees to seek advice with the employer before posting was overly restrictive.

Undoubtedly, the use of social media has and will continue to create challenges for employers attempting to balance the interests of the employer-company with the rights of employees to engage in protected activities. Employers can take a step in the right direction to address these challenges by 1. creating social media policies that clearly describe the types of employment-related posts that protected by law and therefore are not prohibited; and 2. engaging counsel early and often when considering employee discipline related to social media use.

Aaron M. Glasgow is a partner at Isaac Wiles (Columbus, Ohio) who counsels businesses in day-to-day operations, including employment matters. He may be reached at (614) 221-2121 or by email at aglasgow@isaacwiles.com.

Original post:
Guest Blog: What Employers Can and Can't Control When It Comes to Employees' Social Media Accounts - Columbus CEO

Deutsche Welle

5 big corporations control the global grain trade | All media content ... Deutsche Welle 5 big corporations have a great deal of influence over global food systems and over the lives of farmers and consumers throughout the world. and more »

Follow this link:
5 big corporations control the global grain trade | All media content ... - Deutsche Welle