Mediaboss Marketing

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

While imperative to the protection of critical infrastructure, securing portable media devices is not easily done

According to research performed by Lloyds of London insurer, Aegis London, in the first half of the 2013 fiscal year, the US Department of Homeland Securitys Industrial Control SystemsComputer Emergency Readiness Team responded to more than 200 incidents, 53% of which were in the energy and utility sector, and many of them sponsored by states such as China.

Efforts to improve the security of critical infrastructure systems like nuclear power plants and water treatment facilities have accelerated at a rapid rate since the issuance of US Executive Order 13636, 'Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity', on February 12, 2013.

As attacks become more sophisticated and digital control systems increase in complexity and levels of automation, it is increasingly difficult to prevent threats from impacting the operation of critical infrastructure. As a security measure, most critical infrastructure systems are air-gapped, or isolated from external networks.

> See also: Data security - 9 tips for senior managers

Because of this, portable media is a primary vector for cyber-attack; it is often the only way to transport files to and from secure areas. As key attack vectors for malware, it is extremely important that extra attention is placed on securing the portable media devices that are brought in and out of a secure facility.

While imperative to the protection of critical infrastructure, securing portable media devices is not easily done, and there are many requirements that can impact the portable media security policies for operators of critical infrastructure. In many cases, there is no single source for an organisations portable media security policy, and individual facilities may require unique security policies.

Security balancing act

When making decisions about security policies for a critical infrastructure facility, the costs of implementing a stricter policy need to be weighed against the potential costs that could result from the failure of a weaker policy. The solution for each organisation will vary based on the requirements necessary to meet their security and business objectives.

Increases in digital security rarely come without a corresponding increase in operating costs. These costs include purchasing a security solution, implementing this security solution, and finally managing and maintaining the solution. Initial costs often include the physical infrastructure necessary to deploy the solution, such as servers, kiosks and networks, as well as the consulting services that are often required to implement the solution correctly.

Go here to see the original:
How to pin down tricky portable media in your security policy

By Neil J. Rubenking

These days, before trying a new restaurant, movie, or concert venue, you probably check relevant social media sites first, to see what other people are saying about it. The free Web of Trust service aims to give you that same experience as you wander the Web. Web of Trust goes beyond simple vote-counting with an algorithm that incorporates user reputation, and it pulls in data from third-party blacklists as well. You can even use it for a degree of parental control, though it won't replace a dedicated parental control utility.

When I first reviewed Web of Trust over five years ago, it was still relatively new. I reported that its 5 million users had rated over 23 million websites. The service has matured quite a bit, and now has over 130 million users, or at least, over 130 million downloads, and a correspondingly larger reach in terms of rated websites.

Links Rated To start using Web of Trust, just navigate to the company's website. You'll find there's a big button to install the add-on for the browser you're using. Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera, and Safari are supported, on Windows, Mac OS, or Linux. If you use multiple browsers, you'll want to install Web of Trust for each.

The add-on marks up links in popular search engines and social networking sitesnearly three dozen sites all told. You'll find it's active in expected locations like Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and Twitter, but it also supports international sites including Yandex, Baidu, and Wirtualna Polska Szukaj. Like SiteAdvisor (included in McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 and other McAfee products), Web of Trust marks safe links with a green icon and dangerous ones with a red icon. For example, if your friend posts an article on Facebook, and the link might lead somewhere fishy, Web of Trust puts a red icon next to it.Iffy sites get marked yellow, and as-yet-unrated ones get a gray icon with a question mark. You can hover over the icon for more detail, or click for Web of Trust's full analysis page.

There's one important difference between SiteAdvisor and Web of Trust. SiteAdvisor's Web crawlers perform various analyses of websites, noting, among other things, whether the site hosts malware, sends spam to visitors, or links to bad sites. Web of Trust primarily relies on its millions of users to define site reputation, though it does pull in data from some third-party sources, among them SURBL and PhishTank.

The floating detail box conveys a lot of information visually. Two colored rings indicate the site's reputation level for overall trustworthiness and for child safety. A crowd of people-shaped icons serves to give you an idea of how many have rated the site. In addition, you get a summary of reasons for the sites rating, for example, "malware or viruses."

The full detail page lets you know if any third-party data went into the rating, anddisplays any reviews left by users. Other useful data include the site's popularity and ranking, the geolocation of its server, and links to whois information about the site.

Here's an interesting twist. For those with color vision deficiency, Web of Trust can be configured to flag sites using easily-distinguished black-and-white icons. The red-yellow-green sliders on the site rating page change to use colors that are clearly distinct even for those who don't perceive certain color ranges.

Sites Blocking Options By default, Web of Trust always shows site reputation icons for links on supported search and social media sites. You can set it to only show icons for problematic sites, or skip the icons completely.

See the article here:
Web of Trust

Media companies may take a huge leap of faith into a new phase of the Digital Age, or at least if everything goes according to Facebooks plan they will, The New York Times reported this week. Over recent months, the social media giant has been holding closed-door discussions with at least half a dozen media mammoths such as The New York Times, BuzzFeed, and National Geographic, etching out the details of a proposed plan to host news content inside Facebook, instead of making users go to an external site.

The plan has been touted as a sure-fire way to streamline user experience by allowing links to load more quickly and letting users avoid the pesky ads that make news consumption cumbersome.

But some media observers are skeptical, saying it could destroy incentives for journalistic integrity and prevent small publishers from reaching their audience.

The companys [Facebooks] news feed algorithm is an increasingly important news filter, particularly for younger 'millennials.' That means any deeper partnerships with media groups to host their stories could be controversial, with publishers that do not sign up likely to complain vociferously if Facebooks algorithm penalises their stories as a result, wrote Stuart Dredge for the Guardian.

The ability of small publishers to reach their audience has already diminished even without the preferential treatment that Facebooks potential media collaborators could receive. In 2012, Facebook announced that organic page reach was just 16 percent. In other words, a single article posted by a news organization probably appeared in only 16 percent of the organization's followers' news feeds. By February 2014, that number had declined to 6.15 percent, and by January 2015, organic reach was practically nonexistent, the tech website Dazeinfo.com reported.

In such [a] scenario, if Facebook ties up with a bunch of leading publishers and hosts their news content, those publishers who are already facing warmth due to the fall of organic reach, will become more distressed, wrote Dazeinfo research analyst Pritha Bose.

Even for media giants, the proposed change has been characterized as a leap of faith. Most media companies are accustomed to driving traffic back to their own sites and collecting their own data on users, not to mention ad revenue. While BuzzFeed has pioneered a policy of spreading content outside its site, The New York Times uses a subscription model that accounts for a growing percentage of its revenue. Ad revenue sharing plans for the new deal with Facebook would still need to be hashed out and solidified, anonymous sources confirmed to The New York Times.

Nevertheless, some analysts say that Facebooks ability to reach a vast audience may make it worth the risk. Facebook currently has more than 1.3 billion active monthly users, about a fifth of the worlds population, and already has become the leading source of traffic for many digital publishers.

It [a media company] would have to weigh the benefits of reaching Facebooks users and the ad revenue that comes with them against the prospect of giving away its content and losing the clicks on its own site that would instead stay within Facebook, The New York Times reported.

But while Facebook has little experience participating in revenue sharing with content providers, it has been experimenting with revenue sharing options. Some of these experiments, one of which prioritizes video hosted on Facebook over other content, could be an example of what the future will hold.

More here:
Facebook woos media giants: Will social media control the future of news? (+video)