The Briggs - Media Control
Lyrics: What are you willing to fight? Are you afraid that you just might Find something that you #39;re afraid of And run away in fright Well I ain #39;t gonna take it anymore (What do you say?)...
By: TheBriggsMusic
More here:
The Briggs - Media Control - Video
By Seva Gunitsky March 30 at 9:15 AM
The following is a guest post from Universityof Toronto political scientistSeva Gunitsky. It is related to his research for a recent article published at Perspectives on Politics, and which has been ungated (made available for free) to readers of The Monkey Cage.
*****
Since its euphoric beginnings, the Arab Spring has followed a path all too familiar to scholars of democracy: from hope to doubt to disappointment. The role of social media as a way to foster democracy, which first came to the fore in the Arab Spring, has followed a similar painful trajectory. Initially welcomed as a democratic panacea, social media has increasingly come to be seen as a mixed blessing a potentially useful tool that can nevertheless be blocked and sidelined by clever tyrants. The most recent research suggests that in some cases, social media may actually help dictators, so long as they put up sufficient barriers to contrary views.
But what are the actual mechanisms through which autocrats can subvert social media for their own purposes? In a recent article (ungated), I document the co-option of social media by governments in Russia, China, and the Middle East, and find four different ways in which they have begun to use social media to prolong their rule. These methods go beyond simple censorship in which rulers block or suppress the flow of information. Instead, social media is increasingly being used to actually boost regime stability and strength, transforming it from an obstacle to government rule into another potential tool of regime resilience.
First, social media is becoming a safe and relatively cheap way for rulers to discover the private grievances and policy preferences of their people. This information is extremely valuable but usually remains hidden the absence of free expression and the suppression of public dissent means that autocrats often lack a clear idea of what their citizens are thinking. And since people in autocracies tend to falsify their private views, rulers often cannot anticipate moments when silent miseries transform into vocal protests. (This was one of the reasons, argued Timur Kuran, that East European despots were caught off-guard by the revolutions that swept the region in 1989.)As Chinas president Hu Jintao told The Peoples Daily, the Internet is an important channel for us to understand the concerns of the public and assemble the wisdom of the public. And Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny observed that the Putin regime uses the Internet as a focus group to find out theconcerns and desires of ordinary Russians. In this way, social media allows autocrats to get amuch clearer view of peoples real opinions and therefore anticipate potential unrest without prying open the larger marketplace of ideas
Second, social media is a reliable way to gauge the effectiveness of local officials, who are often unaccountable to their constituencies. Since they usually operate through opaque and byzantine institutions, the central government often knows little about the competence and popularity of their local representatives, who have every reason to lie about their performance. In the absence of unfettered expression and free elections, these local elites can govern with relative impunity, creating the potential for corruption and local discontent that undermines the legitimacy of the regime as a whole. By allowing citizens to call attention to local problems, social media offers a way to hold these officials accountable, both to the public and to their bosses. Cracking down on local corruption in turn makes the central government appear more responsive, increasing its effectiveness and legitimacy. Xiao Chiang, editor of the blog China Digital Times, has argued that outrage on social media is sometimes the only channel for party officials to get honest feedback about their local apparatchiks.
Third, social media provides an effective way to reach out to the regimes supporters. Just asopposition leaders use social media to mobilize protesters, regimes can use it to organize and rally their own domestic allies military or business elites, but also regular citizens motivated by patriotism or ideology. Few regimes exist without some public legitimacy; domestic support for the government in Russia or China, for example, is not just a phantom artifact of oppression, but reflects real popularity derived from economic performance, nationalism, or anti-Western ideology. Leaders in such regimes can draw upon social networks to maintain and strengthen connections with these supporters. If the authorities do not like what is happening on the internet there is only one way of resisting, Putin said in 2011, suggesting that the Internet should be used as a resource to collect a larger amount of supporters.
Finally, social media offers a convenient way to shape the contours of public discourse among the public at large. Governments have always used mass media newspapers, radio, and TV to disseminate regime-friendly propaganda. Social media, however, has the added benefit of being inherently decentralized, interactive, and non-hierarchical, and can thus more easily avoid the appearance of artifice. Incumbent rulers can employ it to disseminate propaganda in a more efficient way, and to shape online discourse in a more precise and subtle manner.Two years ago, for example, a factory for internet trolls, with apparent links to a Kremlin-sponsored youth group, was set up on the outskirts of St. Petersburg. Its employees are expected to produce approximately 100 posts per day, pouring scorn on the West and Russian opposition leaders while praising Russias culture and political leaders all without explicitly identifying themselves as pro-Putin supporters.
So what does all this mean for the future of democracy?
Read more:
Monkey Cage: Social media helps dictators, not just protesters
George Barda: Media control and reclaiming our dreams
OccupyRupertMurdoch talk by George Barda, member of Occupy Democracy.
By: Tarpaulin Simon
See original here:
George Barda: Media control and reclaiming our dreams - Video
March 28, 2015
Thegovernment is said to be planning to use the ruse of NationalAction Plan (NAP) to clamp down on the electronic media. Accordingto reports, discussions are under way to amend the PakistanElectronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) Act, 2007, empoweringthe Authority to control the coverage of terrorist attacks as well as any coverage that appears to glorify terrorism or terrorists. The broadcast streams of television channels airing 'objectionable' or 'unwanted' content are to be blocked by delinking them from the Paksat satellite. If such an amendment comes to pass it would constitute a nasty and unacceptable attack by an elected government on the freedom of expression. It is not for any entity (Pemra, supposed to be an independent body, remains under government control) to try and tell journalists what to report or not to report. As regard the issue of covering terrorism, after some initial hiccups the media has evolved its own code of ethics, deciding to avoid showing blood and gore as well as airing programmes that could fall within the description of glorification of terrorists. If any lacunae remains that should be removed through an informal debate and discussion with the electronic media's representative body rather than imposing censorship.
The Pemra Act, dating back to General Pervez Musharraf's era, already contains some controversial provisions, such as that the authority could prohibit broadcast media or a distribution service from airing any programme "if it is of the opinion that such particular programme or advertisement is against the ideology of Pakistan." First and foremost, it militates against the very concept of freedom of expression. A substantial body of option in this country holds that there is no such thing as the ideology of Pakistan, and that the term, introduced by the military ruler General Yahya khan's information minister General Sher Ali Khan, entered the national discourse at least two-and-a-half decades after the creation of Pakistan. Second, the term has no standard definition on which anyone sitting in a Pemra office can base his/her opinion to punish a TV channel for violation. This particular provision needs to be struck down.
The law also authorises Pemra to ban any broadcast if in the Authority's opinion it is "likely to create hatred among the people or is prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order or is likely to disturb public peace and tranquillity or endangers national security." These are basic rules of responsible behaviour, and form part of the statute book. All must observe them. There is no need, however, to pick on the TV channels in this particular regard. For, the media's rights are not any different from other sections of society; it is entitled to the same freedoms as other members of society - no less, no more. Hence instead of taking any errant TV channel off air, violators can be taken to court to be held to account under the normal laws of the land. It makes no sense to enact media-specific laws; in the present situation, even a constitutional amendment. The government would be well-advised to disabuse itself of the idea of resorting to arbitrary action against TV channels by bringing up NAP.
Visit link:
Attempt to muzzle the media | Business Recorder
DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Research and Markets (http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/9ql8fm/using_video_for) has announced the addition of the "Using Video for Content Monetization and Channel Control" report to their offering.
While deploying an online video ecosystem, if revenue growth is the key objective, there are three areas in which companies typically use digital media: content monetization, channel control, and customer conversion. These are all concerned with building top-line sales, either through the sale of the digital media itself or by using the digital media to increase the sale of any product, physical or digital.
Any company with digital audio or video that has intrinsic value should be building a digital media strategy to sell, or monetize that content over the Internet. Consequently, most media and entertainment vendors operating today are looking to augment their existing distribution channels with the Internet.
When it comes to deploying an online video ecosystem, if revenue is the objective, there are three areas in which many companies use digital media: content monetization, channel control, and customer conversion. These are all concerned with building top-line sales, either through the sale of the digital media itself or by using the digital media to increase the sale of any product, physical or digital.
Any company with digital audio or video that has intrinsic value should be building a digital media strategy to sell, or monetize that content over the Internet. The nature of digital media is that it does not degrade over time and that an infinite number of copies can be made from an original without affecting the quality of the original.
The nature of the Internet is that any point can be accessed by another point, that it is pervasive and redundant, and that it is quickly becoming more akin to a utility resource like natural gas and electricity than a jumble of technologies. When combined, digital media plus the Internet means that an audio or video file with intrinsic value could be sold and delivered directly to anyone in the world with an Internet connection more potential customers than could ever fit into even the largest of retail stores.
For more information visit http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/9ql8fm/using_video_for
Excerpt from:
Research and Markets: Using Video for Content Monetization and Channel Control 2015