Mediaboss Marketing

Snell Advanced Media has announce the launch of SAM VIBE, its new real-time news and sports production solution. SAM VIBE has the fastest workflows to enable a single team to create and deliver high quality news and sports content to social media, the web and TV. SAM VIBE combines the agility of SAMs sQ Servers with the flexibility of standard IT storage for a fully scalable platform. The solution is to be demonstrated on SAMs NAB booth SL1805.

In todays media driven world, where mobile devices are increasingly used for content consumption, the ability to turn news stories and programmes around quickly, and from a single production team, is essential for competitive advantage. Not only that, but user-generated news content is now part of the production fabric, and SAM VIBE allows input from any device to reach multiple destinations first.

Neil Maycock, EVP and General Manager, Media Software Solutions at SAM commented: In the past decade mobile devices, such as smartphones and tablets, have revolutionized the way consumers view content. Watching TV, especially news and sports, has evolved from a fixed pastime into an on-the-go, mobile occurrence where consumers are in control. The challenge for content providers is to meet this demand for content anywhere while keeping quality at a premium. SAM VIBE facilitates this by offering a flexible, cost-effective system that delivers a tightly integrated single platform approach to creating and distributing content rapidly so that it reaches every screen first. This is truly a modern platform for efficient news delivery.

The SAM VIBE realtime production solution is a scalable combination of media storage, production tools, and a fully customizable workflow engine. The solution utilizes standard IT storage and SAMs sQ servers and is governed by the VIBE Core, a unified orchestration layer, which manages and controls media wherever it resides. All content is stored and maintained in its original format. Packaging and delivery is fully automated for consistent, high-quality output.

SAM VIBE offers three types of user interfaces:

Creative applications a choice of SAMs Rio editor or Adobe Premiere;

Browser-based editing the SAM Go! editor for use in the studio or anywhere with an Internet connection

PAM (production asset management) tools including ingest, media management and publishing control.

Maycock adds: We built SAM VIBE for the speed of the web and based on the technology of the web so that it delivers a unique combination of high production value and editorial intelligence. With this breakthrough solution, our customers get a unified system that places any content in front of their audience rapidly and reliably anytime and anywhere.

See the original post:
SAM introduces new solution to deliver news to social media, web and TV - Sports Video Group

Speaker: No media control, panel only recommending suggestions The Hindu Toning down his earlier stand, Legislative Assembly Speaker K.B. Koliwad on Thursday said the House panel recently constituted to bring out regulations for the media will only suggest recommendations after studying prevailing conditions rather than ...

Go here to see the original:
Speaker: No media control, panel only recommending suggestions - The Hindu

Illustration: Jim Cooke/ FMG

Not so long ago, Nick Denton used to boast that Gawker Media was the last true beachhead of independent media in America. How quickly things change. Does independent media even mean anything, any more? Did it ever?

Today, we are owned by Univision, a multibillion-dollar international media company controlled by a partnership of private equity firms. There is nothing wrong with that, per se. But whatever independent media means, it is not that. Then again, perhaps it is not anything.

Independent media is not as easy as it sounds. Can a media company be independent if its shares are bought and sold on the stock exchange (like the New York Times)? Is a company with predatory private equity (Univision) or hedge fund or venture capital investors (Vice, Buzzfeed) really independent in a meaningful way? Is it more independent to be completely owned by a single rich guy (like Gawker Media was, or the Washington Post is), insulated from competing whims of investors but subject to the singular whims of a mercurial all-powerful owner? How about when the rich guy gets tired of losing money (The New Republic), or gets old and cranky (Harpers), or passes his leadership position off to his wastrel kid (Rolling Stone)?

I wont keep you waiting: The answer is no. True financial independence in the media is almost impossible to find. The closest model is probably enterprising do-gooder publications that beg their own readers and foundations for monetary support (Mother Jones, The Nation), although this model tends to reward more ponderous and self-conscious WE DO PUBLIC SERVICE journalism, rather than outlets that leaven their do-gooderism with less noble but more enjoyable content. Unless you are a very rich person who self-publishes your own thoughts on your own fully owned platform, you are beholden to someone.

What is actually being insinuated by places that declare their journalistic independence, then, is editorial independencethe idea that they answer to no one but the truth. But this assessment always includes a degree of fantasy. The same credible media outlets that spend their days following the money to report on the web of power and influence in the business or politics world will proclaim themselves free of any such outside influence from whichever money person sits atop their own pile of funding. Bullshit. This does not mean, as simpletons often shout, that Carlos Slim is dictating coverage in the New York Times, or that Jeff Bezos is secretly seeing to it that the Washington Post runs fawning stories about Amazon. For publications that want to be seen as mainstream, raw political ideology is too crude an instrument. The influence of money in the media is more often expressed by defining the boundaries of a news outlets conception of what news is. It is the insidious, unspoken self-censorship that causes an editor to turn down a story not because it is bad or wrong but because its just not what we do here. Whether the root of this self-censorship is fear of losing advertisers, or fear of pissing off the boss, or fear of offending someone that you might run into at a party later this year, or just a deeply internalized and ill-understood sense of what is and is not respectable, the effect is the same. The New York Times, which answers to the most establishment of establishment families, and Breitbart, which answers to an unhinged right-wing hedge funder, draw their boxes of acceptability in different places, but they both have boxes. The near-impossibility of true independence in journalism is expressed not by what is published, but by what is not published.

All the news thats fit to print is not the same as All the news. The gulf between those two concepts represents the black hole that would be filled by a wide variety of independent media outlets in a perfect world. The tougher the economic climate of the media industry is, the less free money is sloshing around to grow all the fun new publications that should be filling in the gaps. And all money comes with a price. You may have a varied media diet. You may read publications that are large, and small, and print, and online, and serious, and wild, and sober, and fun. But it is very unlikely that you read many publications that are independent. Dont let them sell you too hard on that idea. It sounds nice, but it may kill you.

See the article here:
What Is Independent Media? - Fusion

According to data from the Peace Indexs monthly poll which was published today, a majority of the Israeli public believes that through legislative changes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is leading, he is attempting to deepen his control over the media and is not trying to change it to be more balanced. A significant majority believes even more so that the government has no right interfering with public broadcasting content.

Israeli politicians claims that a majority of the Israeli public does not understand the significance regarding the Israeli Broadcasting Corporation controversy have been reinforced by Tel Aviv University and the Israel Democracy Institutes monthly Peace Index, which was published this morning (Tuesday). 53% of the Jewish public and 60% of the Arab public answered no when asked if they understood what the controversy was regarding the Israeli Broadcasting Corporation between those in support of establishing it and those against it.

The monthly poll also asked respondents about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus motives to introduce changes within the media. In this case, a majority of 61% of the Jewish public and 84.5% of the Arab public believe that the desire to strengthen his political control over the Israeli media is what motivated Netanyahus actions.

Follow JerusalemOnline Twitter page and stay up to date with the latest news

Among the Jewish public, a majority who associate themselves as center-left on the political spectrum believe in this idea, whereas only half of those who consider themselves to be right-wing believe this. However, only 28.5% among the Jewish public and 15.5% among the Arab public believe that the desire to make the media in Israel more balanced and of better quality is what motivated Netanyahu.

When the respondents were asked if the government has the right to interfere with public broadcasting content even if the government is funding it, a majority (60% within the Jewish public and 69% in the Arab public) answered no.

Signup to receive the most important news events of the day

Found mistakes in this report? - Click Here

Main Newscast

World News

Middle East

World News

World News

Middle East

Military

Israel News

Middle East

World News

World News

Israel News

Israel News

Israel News

Main Newscast

World News

Israel News

Military

Culture

Israel News

World News

Israel News

Politics

Politics

Read the rest here:
Peace Index: Majority of Israeli public believes Netanyahu wants control over media - JerusalemOnline

The director of Fiji's Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission Ashwin Raj says it's time to think about laws to regulate racist hate speech on social media.

Ashwin Raj, chair of Fiji's media authority MIDA Photo: RNZI/Republika

Mr Raj warned it could descend into violence if left unchecked particularly ahead of next year's election.

Mr Raj who was speaking to FBC TV's 4 The Record programme said racial stereotyping was flourishing on social media.

He said prominent people and politicians in Fiji are what he called 'trash talking' people via sites like Facebook.

He agreed it was a tough ask to monitor thousands of social media posts but he said Germany was thinking it through and it was time to see how other jurisdictions are dealing with the issue.

Mr Raj said a first start would be looking at the Facebook page of "one particular political party" where hate speech he said was "freely flourishing."

He said the state was internationally and constitutionally legally obligated to ensure that racial discrimination was prohibited.

"We need to start thinking about how we're going to regulate our conduct on social media without producing a chilling effect," said Mr Raj.

"Fiji is made out to be this country which is always throttling freedom of expression. Nobody wants to talk about racism, nobody wants to talk about the fact that people use the freedom of expression argument to actually justify racist practices."

Read the rest here:
Regulations to control social media mooted in Fiji | Radio New ... - Radio New Zealand