Mediaboss Marketing

THE May 30 mass shooting in Seattle that claimed the lives of five innocent victims, plus the 40-year-old gunman by his own hand, sent shock waves through the city. And the fact that this latest episode followed on the heels of an apparent short-term spike in homicide by gunfire has intensified the levels of anger, fear and concern among the residents of Seattle.

Understandably, politicians and pundits alike are calling for stiffer gun-control measures, particularly at the state level. As City Councilmember Nick Licata put it, "The problem isn't in Seattle, but in Olympia." Actually, the problem is far greater than what the Washington state Legislature can address, and the solution far broader than any Band-Aid gun-control measures.

While violence, and gun violence in particular, is sadly all too common on the streets of Seattle, as it is elsewhere, mass murder remains a rare and unpredictable event. In fact, the only predictable thing about mass murder is that it will generate a surge of anti-gun rhetoric that will dissipate as soon as residents, politicians and the media inevitably turn their attention to other matters.

Since the mid-1970s and up until this recent incident, Seattle has endured five episodes of mass murder, cases in which at least four victims were killed (not counting the assailant). One incident involved a disgruntled family member, but the remainder implicated acquaintances or strangers. All involved firearms, as it is difficult though not impossible to slaughter large numbers of people by means of stabbing, bludgeoning, beating or strangling.

The kinds of proposals being advanced in the press and over the airwaves closing the gun-show loophole, enhancing background checks, aggressively prosecuting gun crimes may be reasonable and well-meaning; but when it comes to preventing mass murder, they are meaningless.

Would Kyle Huff, who in 2006 killed six and wounded two others at a Capitol Hill address just before committing suicide, have been deterred by state restrictions on gun purchasing when his shotgun was brought from his hunting-rich home state of Montana?

Would the three assailants Kwan Fai Mak, Wai-Chiu Ng and Benjamin Ng in the 1983 Wah Mee Club massacre have needed to find a gun show to secure the weapons they used to rob and murder 13 people?

Would Ian Stawicki, implicated in the latest mass murder, have been concerned about violating laws that punish gun crimes when he was apparently prepared to end his own life rather than be captured by the police? And would Stawicki, known for being belligerent and quick to anger, have been disqualified from gun ownership no matter how restrictive the qualifications?

The answers to these questions are strikingly similar, all ranging from probably not to definitely not.

Gun-control measures that work to reduce single-victim homicide would be ineffective against mass murder.

Originally posted here:
Gun control is a good crime-prevention measure but not for mass murder

Vedomosti

Demyan Kudryavtsev

Two high-ranking media executives have been pushed out of their jobs in shake-ups that both said were business driven, but that still raised worries among some observers about politically motivated censorship.

Kommersant holding company CEO Demyan Kudryavtsev was fired, it was announced Thursday just months after the companys owner, Alisher Usmanov, sacked an outspoken editor at Kommersant Vlast under reported pressure from the Kremlin.

Bolshoi Gorod editor-in-chief Phillip Dzyadko also unexpectedly announced Thursday that he would resign as head of the popular lifestyle magazine.

Both said that politics had nothing to do with their departures, but in his farewell column published Thursday, Dzyadko painted a bleak picture of the media landscape.

In the first summer month of Putins third term, a purge of sources of independent media is taking place in front of everybodys eyes, he wrote.

Kudryavtsev said his exit from Kommersant was largely driven by new business priorities.

Its not a corporate secret, he said in an interview with business news website Slon.ru. Its just that people who have proved their success in media have been given the task of developing strategies for growth. There is no need to seek a direct political connection.

But Galina Timchenko, editor-in-chief of Lenta.ru, told Openspace.ru that Kudryavtsevs dismissal means that they are shutting off our channels of access to independent information.

Read this article:
Media Shake-Up Stirs Worries of Political Control

Members of Congress have sided with the media to blast a new Labor Department policy that tightens control over the distribution of employment data, saying the new rules threaten press freedom and raise concerns of possible Big Brother government interference.

The policy an attempt to improve data cybersecurity would prohibit news organizations from using their own computers and telephone lines when filing stories about embargoed unemployment numbers and consumer prices from the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Instead, news organizations will be required to use only government-owned software and hardware.

The department currently gives journalists gathered in lockdown rooms the data a half-hour early, allowing reporters time to compile stories that can be published simultaneously when the information is officially released.

The Labor Department says the new policy is necessary to ensure that sensitive government information doesnt leak ahead of the embargoes. Early access to this data, even if just by a few seconds, can allow traders to unfairly manipulate markets and reap millions of dollars.

Media groups say theyve long supported government procedures to guard against leaks. But at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the matter Wednesday, they said the impending new rules go much too far, would trample First Amendment rights, reduce government transparency and increase not lower threats to market volatility.

The media takes government interference with its work product very seriously. So does the Constitution, Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told the panel.

Daniel Moss, Bloomberg News executive editor for economics and international government, complained the policy would give the government unfettered access to reporters notes and drafts.

No administration anywhere should have access to a reporters thoughts, drafts or notes as a condition for covering the news, let alone news of such importance, he said.

Mr. Moss also said the policy threatens national security because the transmission of data would shift away from secure, dedicated lines operated by news outlets to the less-secure Internet, a potentially catastrophic scenario.

Bloomberg and three other news-gathering organizations the Associated Press and Dow Jones and Reuters have requested a meeting with the White House to voice their opposition to the pending policy change.

Visit link:
Media, lawmakers balk at new labor-news rules

LONGUEUIL, QUEBEC--(Marketwire -06/07/12)- On July 25 and 26, 2012, Canadian media are invited to NASA's Johnson Space Center where Canadian Space Agency (CSA) Astronaut Chris Hadfield is preparing for his upcoming mission to the International Space Station (ISS).

These media days are a unique opportunity for members of the media to acquire footage of Hadfield in training and to conduct one-on-one interviews prior to his mission, which is set to launch in December 2012.

Places are limited and subject to NASA's accreditation approval. Interested media must contact the CSA Media Relations Office in order to begin the NASA accreditation process. The required information must be sent to CSA by end of day, June 26, 2012. (Note:Each member of the media crews will have to fill out a form for accreditation and provide a PDF of their passport).

Schedule(i): July 25 - Day 1

Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL)

Mission Control

July 26 - Day 2

Training/simulation sessions

ISS real size mock-ups

(i)More details will be available soon. Please note that one-on-one interviews will most probably be done after hours (past 5:00 p.m.) and the location for these interviews is to be confirmed.

View original post here:
Media Advisory: Media Days at NASA's Johnson Space Centre with Canadian Astronaut Chris Hadfield

WASHINGTON, June 7, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --Americans believe participation in social media makes them more informed and influential as both consumers and citizens, even as they express clear skepticism about the trustworthiness of the information they find there, according to poll results announced today by The Allstate Corporation (ALL) and National Journal.

The 13th quarterly Allstate-National Journal Heartland Monitor Poll explored how Americans incorporate social media into their consumer and community behaviors. Its findings reveal important themes about trust and influence, even as leaders in the public and private sectors increasingly use social media to engage consumers and voters.

Nearly two out of three American adults surveyed used social media in the last month. Although social media users are somewhat younger, more educated and more affluent than non-users on average, they closely align with the overall American public in their opinions about politics and the economy, as well as their perceptions of major institutions.

However, social media users report significantly higher levels of political and community activity, including volunteering for a community organization (69% of social media users versus 49% of non-users), signing campaign or community petitions (68% of users versus 50% of non-users), or attending a campaign rally (32% of users versus 22% of non-users). Social media users also are more likely to consult with others about buying a product or service (79% of users versus 60% of non-users) or change their minds about a product or service because of others' opinions (64% of users versus 47% of non-users).

More than two-thirds of social media users, and 60% of all Americans, believe the Internet and social media have made it easier for them to be well-informed consumers. A plurality of Americans (47%) and social media users (55%) say these technologies have made them more well-informed and active as citizens and in the political sphere.

"That the explosion of available information and interconnectivity through social media is changing profoundly and very quickly how we communicate with each other and with business and government is beyond dispute. The greater question is whether these amazing new tools can also help make us more trustworthy in our messaging and in the end reanimate our free press and our free enterprise even as it helps reinvent those endeavors," said Joan Walker, Allstate executive vice president. "This poll shows that the jury is still out on these questions but suggests strongly that in social media there is much potential for good, creating more accessibility while demanding more authenticity to be successful. This is a recipe that I believe in the long run can help strengthen our social fabric."

Despite the positive impact many Americans see from their engagement in online and social media, they remain skeptical about the trustworthiness of the information they find there. More than two-thirds of Americans believe that major corporations and political candidates are active on social media mostly to advertise, collect information on customers or supporters, and increase their own success, either in profits or votes. They rate the trustworthiness of traditional news sources more highly than online information sources, including company or campaign websites, blogs, forums and social media sites. Americans also don't believe that social media engagement has given them more power or influence over corporations or the government, despite the personal benefits of being more well-informed.

Still, 64% of social media users say they'd like to see companies use social media for customer service purposes, and 59% say that corporate use of social media makes them more likely to see a company as "accessible and responsive." Users say the same about candidates and elected officials, but to a lesser extent.

"The results of this poll show that most Americans believe the emergence of constant communication is providing them better tools to make decisions under their immediate control, like choosing between cars or planning trips. But most don't believe these tools are increasing their leverage over the vast public and private institutions that shape the larger currents of American life," said National Journal editorial director Ronald Brownstein. "That dynamic is similar to the attitudes expressed in earlier Heartland Monitor polls about issues from retirement security to lifetime employment: in an economy that now offers individuals both more choices and more risks, most Americans have become reluctant individualists, trusting their own efforts, rather than any institution, to provide them security.""

Key findings from the 13th Allstate-National Journal Heartland Monitor Poll (PDF) include:

See more here:
NEW POLL: Americans Using Social Media Are More Engaged Consumers and Citizens, But Remain Skeptical of Social Media ...