Mediaboss Marketing

How are social media affecting citizen participation in the digital age?

Is the Internet giving Montrealers a greater voice in decision-making, or accentuating the digital divide between people with access to communication technologies and those without?

About 300 people addressed those questions Friday at Wikicit, a public forum held at the Montreal Science Centre in the Old Port. The event was organized by the Office de consultation publique de Montral (OCPM) and brought together representatives of government, universities, the private sector and community groups.

Digital leaders like Frank Escoubs of Montreal-based Imagination for People (www.imaginationforpeople.org) and Carl Skelton of New Yorks Gotham Innovation Greenhouse (gothaminnovationgreenhouse.com) described how new technology is being harnessed to empower citizens to shape public policy.

The Gazette asked OCPM Secretary-General Luc Doray why the consultation agency organized the event:

Doray: For the past two or three years, weve realized that citizen participation through the Web and social media like Facebook is increasing dramatically. For example, weve gone from 500 to 4,800 Facebook likes in less than two years. Its an explosion.

Basically, social and digital media pose a number of questions for which we didnt have answers. So we said if we dont have the answer, lets bring together people with similar interests and concerns to ours, so together we can find answers to these complex questions.

Q: What questions does the growing popularity of social media raise?

Doray: Are we losing control over the debate? Because basically, on Twitter, people are having a debate between themselves.

I remember when we held consultations on Griffintown in January 2012. There was a meeting with maybe 300 people in the room, some of whom were tweeting. So within the meeting that was going on, they were having a second discussion. It was interesting, but at the same time it was beyond our control. It was a parallel debate.

View original post here:
Wikicit looks at how social media are shaping public policy

Top 20 Deutsche/German Single Itunes Charts - Februar 2014
Introsong: "Honorebel ft. Pitbull - Seize The Night" --------Deutsch/German-------- Dies ist ein Mix aus den Deutschen Single Charts von Media Control ...

By: MyZimeCharts

Continue reading here:
Top 20 Deutsche/German Single & Itunes Charts - Februar 2014 - Video

General News of Friday, 28 February 2014

Source: radioxyzonline.com

Prof Agyeman Badu Akosa has proposed a political season of just six months before any general election in Ghana.

He said outside the 6-month political window, the National Media Commission (NMC) and the National Communications Authority (NCA) must craft measures to control political discussions and writings in the electronic and print media.

Discussions with the National Media Commission and Communications Authority would agree on what percentage space would be allotted to politics during the off-season. Political debates on purely partisan bases would be given very low coverage. However, discussions and politically divergent views on the state of the nation address and budget presentations shall be encouraged and supported, Prof Akosa said.

The former Ghana Health Service Director General made the suggestion when he delivered the final of a three-day commemorative lecture in honour of the late J.B. Danquah.

Mr Chairman, the political season shall be declared six months to the general elections. It is only then that the national newspapers and even the private electronic and print media will be expected to give any prominence in their programming schedule to national politics, he proposed.

He said programmes of political parties before the political season is opened will be given very low coverage in the print and electronic media.

Prof Akosa therefore suggested that political parties find other ways and mechanisms of reaching their target; their rank and file in their local campaigns and dissemination of information during the off-season.

Continue reading here:
NMC, NCA must control media coverage of politics after elections - Akosa

Published February 27, 2014

FoxNews.com

June 26, 2008 file A customer inspects a 9mm handgun at Rink's Gun and Sport in the Chicago, suburb of Lockport, Illinois

A forthcoming study is challenging claims, repeated over and over in the media, that federal restrictions effectively froze gun research over the last two decades.

The Crime Prevention Research Center study examined how a 1996 decision by Congress to strip funding for firearms research actually impacted the world of academia. To hear national media outlets tell it, the decision led to a drought in research from 1996 to 2013 -- when such funding was once again allowed. Stories from The Washington Post, NBC News, Reuters and other outlets all have claimed that Washington, with the backing of the National Rifle Association, basically banned gun studies during that period.

Far from it, the study claims. Federal funding declined, but research either remained constant or even increased, the authors wrote.

The study shows the number of firearms-related journal articles published every year, after hitting 69 in 1996, rarely dipped below 60 and even spiked to 121 last year.

The report challenges not only the media narrative but also the notion that researchers need a constant flow of federal money in order to thrive.

CPRCs study takes it as a given that researchers always want more funding, but suggests that even without federal funds, academics are spending more time on these projects. It also points to a rise in private research funding.

Federally funded gun research was originally restricted through an amendment to Centers for Disease Control funding in 1996. Lawmakers, and the NRA, at the time voiced concern the money could be used to specifically promote gun control.

Continue reading here:
Study challenges narrative on frozen firearms research- OPINION: Don't believe media mistruths about guns

Published February 27, 2014

FoxNews.com

June 26, 2008 file A customer inspects a 9mm handgun at Rink's Gun and Sport in the Chicago, suburb of Lockport, Illinois

A forthcoming study is challenging claims, repeated over and over in the media, that federal restrictions effectively froze gun research over the last two decades.

The Crime Prevention Research Center study examined how a 1996 decision by Congress to strip funding for firearms research actually impacted the world of academia. To hear national media outlets tell it, the decision led to a drought in research from 1996 to 2013 -- when such funding was once again allowed. Stories from The Washington Post, NBC News, Reuters and other outlets all have claimed that Washington, with the backing of the National Rifle Association, basically banned gun studies during that period.

Far from it, the study claims. Federal funding declined, but research either remained constant or even increased, the authors wrote.

The study shows the number of firearms-related journal articles published every year, after hitting 69 in 1996, rarely dipped below 60 and even spiked to 121 last year.

The report challenges not only the media narrative but also the notion that researchers need a constant flow of federal money in order to thrive.

CPRCs study takes it as a given that researchers always want more funding, but suggests that even without federal funds, academics are spending more time on these projects. It also points to a rise in private research funding.

Federally funded gun research was originally restricted through an amendment to Centers for Disease Control funding in 1996. Lawmakers, and the NRA, at the time voiced concern the money could be used to specifically promote gun control.

Here is the original post:
Study aims to shoot down media narrative on frozen firearms research