by Matthew L. Schafer

Note: This report originally appeared in the media blog Lippmann Would Roll.

On Friday, D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff lifted a restraining order she had placed to prevent the National Law Journal from publishing information in an article relating to an ongoing federal investigation of the juice company POM Wonderful.

The information that Judge Bartnoff sought to prevent the NLJ from publishing and that POM Wonderful also wanted sealed were details relating to an investigation of POM over $600,000 of legal bills it had not paid.  The judge’s order amounted to prior restraint, and was most likely a violation of the First Amendment and would not have stood on appeal.

“If I am throwing 80 years of First Amendment jurisprudence on its head, so be it,” Bartnoff said upon issuing the order preventing the NLJ from publishing the information it gathered from public court documents that were supposed to be sealed, but had not been due to an error by the court.

“Specifically, we are not allowed to name a government agency conducting a regulatory inquiry into one of the subjects of the article, POM Wonderful,” the NLJ wrote upon publishing a redacted version of the article on July 26.  “We fought this order vigorously in court; we thought and continue to think that it is a violation of the First Amendment.”

On July 30, The Washington Post, The American Society of News Editors, The Associated Press, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, NPR, Gannett Newspapers, Dow Jones & Company, the Society of Professional Journalists, and The New York Times filed an amicus brief (friend-of-the-court brief).

“Government censorship of the press in the form of a prior restraint on publication constitutes ‘the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights,’” the news organizations argued.

Shortly after the brief was filed, Judge Bartnoff withdrew her order, perhaps after she realized that the United States’ Supreme Court has never upheld an order which resulted in prior restraint.

by Matthew L. Schafer

Note: This report originally appeared in the media blog Lippmann Would Roll.

On Friday, Congressmen Gene Green [D-TX] and Fred Upton [R-MI] introduced a concurrent resolution that “directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to wait for Congress to enact a law prior to issuing rules, regulations, or orders concerning additional regulation of broadband Internet service.”

Since the FCC lost a case to Comcast last April, which stripped the FCC’s ability to prevent Internet service providers from blocking or throttling traffic online, it has been pursuing what FCC Chairmen Julius Genachowski has called a “Third Way.”  The “Third Way” would prevent Internet service providers like Comcast and AT&T from discriminating against certain types of traffic.

The move to “reclassify” the Internet in this way would give the FCC tailored authority that is neither as lenient as regulation under Title I or information services and not as strict as Title II or telecommunications services.  Despite the FCC’s attempt at tailored regulation, the concurrent resolution introduced today would urge the FCC not to move forward with reclassification.  Reps. Green and Upton were joined in their resolution by 46 other congressmen, including 24 Democrats.

“If the FCC continues its pursuit of reclassification, the certain result will be lengthy court battles that will reduce, or even halt, capital investments and effectively cease the improvement and expansion of access to the unserved and underserved areas of the country,” Rep. Green said.

While Green attempts to halt FCC efforts to reassert its authority over ISPs, Comcast and other service providers are free to discriminate against content online without repercussions from the FCC.  This comes despite the court’s admission in the Comcast case that “Congress gave the [Commission] broad and adaptable jurisdiction so that it can keep pace with rapidly evolving communications technologies.”

Green and Upton’s concurrent resolution comes after this week’s heated letter writing exchange between Rep. John Dingell [D-MI] and Genachowski and a speech by Rep. Al Franken [D-MN.] in support of reclassification.  While Dingell told Genachowski to “abandon” reclassification, Franken argued that the protection reclassification brings is necessary for a free and open Internet.

While Green’s office says the current resolution is not an appraisal of the merits of “net neutrality,” in the past Green has been an avid opponent of this move to prevent ISPs from slowing or stopping some online traffic.  In an October 2009 speech on the floor of the House, Green called FCC attempts to prevent online content discrimination “micromanag[ing].”

Both Upton and Green have financial ties with the telecommunications industry.  According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Green has accepted over $80,000 from AT&T in campaign donations.  Upton has also accepted thousands in campaign donations from Verizon, AT&T, and Time Warner Cable and holds $1,001-$15,000 in Verizon stock, $15,001-50,000 in AT&T stock, and $1,001-$15,000 in Comcast stock.

The resolution, which Green says “reinforces the powers that are reserved for Congress under the Constitution,” is unlikely to pass the House.  Even if the concurrent resolution did pass, it would does not carry the weight of the law or require President Obama to sign it.

Srinagar, July 30 (Scoop News)– Former Joint Director Information,  Bashir Ahmad Wani passed away at SKIMS, Soura here today after prolonged illness. His death has come as a shock to all his friends and acquaintances who knew him as a very sociable and pleasing person who had cultivated lot of admirers during his long service career spanning three decades.

 Wani had been ailing for some time and was shifted to SKIMS about a fortnight ago where the end came in the afternoon today.

 Wani had served all along in the Information Department except for a brief spell when he was posted as Joint Director Handicrafts, Kashmir. He had joined Information Department as Assistant Information Officer (AIO) and had risen to the position of Joint Director in which capacity he headed the Kashmir Division office of the Department. He served the department in various capacities and also headed its Public Relations wing. He was also posted as the chief of the New Delhi Bureau office of the department.

 Wani was gifted with the qualities of a professional public relations man and enjoyed a close rapport with the media both in Srinagar and Jammu. He had a great sense of dress and always wore a disarming smile. He is survived by his wife, two daughters and a son.

 Wani was laid to rest in his ancestral graveyard at Malkha near the Zaroo Gun Factory. According to family sources, the chaharum will be held on Monday, August 2ndat 10. 30 A.M. after which a condolence meeting will be held at his Sadrabal residence.

The demise of  Wani has grieved the employees of the Information Department and the media fraternity. A condolence meeting was held by the employees of the Department with Director Information,  Zaffar Ahmad in chair, in which rich tributes were paid to the departed colleague. His contribution to the development of the department and his warm relationship with his colleagues especially his subordinates was specifically recalled.  

www.scoopnews.in 

by Matthew L. Schafer

Note: A version of this report originally appeared on the media blog Lippmann Would Roll and Stop Big Media.

In front of a crowd of 2,000 bloggers and citizen activists at Netroots Nation last week, Sen. Al Franken [D-MN] delivered an explosive speech about media consolidation, Net Neutrality and corporate influence over policy (video). “Now, corporations with government permission pose the greatest threat to your First Amendment rights,” he said.

Franken was not only citing the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United decision, which will allow corporations to inject millions of dollars into the election process, but also the likely ramifications of the proposed Comcast-NBC Universal merger on free speech and the open Internet.

“If no one stops them how long to do you think it would take before four or five corporations effectively control the flow of information in America not only on television, but online?” Franken asked his audience.

A prominent opponent of the Comcast-NBC merger, Franken argued that it could open the door to even more mega mergers that would unite on a massive scale content creators and content distributors, while relegating independent content to the dark corners of the Internet and other platforms. A merger like Comcast-NBC, Franken said, is likely to lead to the favoring of corporate content over that of individuals.

Without vital Net Neutrality protections, and tough but fair regulation for corporations like Comcast, Franken sees a dark future where the flow of information in the United States will be controlled by just a few multinational corporations. Without Net Neutrality and other protections, Franken told the Netroots audience that the foundation of their movement – the open Internet – is next in line for a corporate takeover.

Franken repeatedly brought attention to the Comcast/NBCU merger, saying that empty promises from both Comcast and NBCU are not going to be enough. Instead, he said, it is absolutely necessary to proceed with the greatest amount of caution and skepticism.

“If we don’t protect Net Neutrality now, how long do you think it will take before Comcast-NBC Universal, or Verizon-CBS Viacom or AT&T-ABC-DirecTV or BP-Haliburton-Walmart-Fox-Domino’s-Pizza start favoring its content over everyone else’s?” Franken said.

If the government and the people do not voice their opposition to the Comcast-NBC merger, it is all too possible the media landscape will be dotted with even larger mega companies that control every form of our communications systems. Franken argued that the Comcast merger is just the first domino in a line of future mergers that will stifle innovation, investment, and Internet freedom.

“If it falls, the rest will soon follow,” he said. “It’s almost too late to stop this from happening, but not quite.”

by Matthew L. Schafer

Note: This report originally appeared in the media blog Lippmann Would Roll.

The last few months have been one giant headache for cell phone manufacturers and services providers and one giant victory for consumers.  On June 15, San Francisco passed a city ordinance requiring all cell phone retailers to display in the store the rate (SAR) at which their phones’ radiation is absorbed into the body.   A month later, the Federal Communications Commission and the Wireless Assocation, a coalitition of service providers, began a blog war over the FCC’s May “bill shock” research.  Finally, Monday marked an equally unpleasant rule making decision by the Library of Congress, which enables cell phone users to “unlock” their phones for use on other networks.

In an effort to fight the San Francisco decision, the Wireless Association (CTIA) filed a lawsuit against the city of San Francisco.  CTIA argued that San Francisco’s ordinance was preempted by federal law and that the ordinance disregards the fact that SAR levels filed with the FCC are measured when a phone is at the maximum power and not normal power levels.  If the CTIA does not win the lawsuit, after February 1, 2011 all cell phone retailers in San Francisco will be required to post SAR levels at the point of sale in size 11 font.

In response to the lawsuit, San Fancisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said, “I am disappointed that the association representing the wireless communication industry has decided to challenge our landmark consumer information law in court.  This law is not an attack on the wireless industry or their products.”

The CTIA also found itself in a fight with the FCC earlier this month over a survey the FCC released, which revealed that an estimated 30 million Americans had been victims of arbitrary increases to their monthly cell phone bills.  In a July 14 post to the CTIA website titled, “Peeling the Onion on the FCC’s “Bill Shock” Survey: Part I,” Christopher Guttman-McCabe of CTIA argued that the survey was poorly designed and executed. Guttman-McCabe also argued that the “survey completely disregards the evolution of the wireless marketplace.” The FCC responded the next day saying that CTIA’s critique distorted and ignored facts. Despite the “Part I” title in the CTIA post, no “Part II” response was ever released.

“This trade association apparently believes there’s nothing to worry about if 30 million Americans have gotten sudden increases on their cell-phone bills,” the FCC argued.

Cell phone manufacturers have also been taking their fair share of blows. Apple has been hit especially hard in the policy arena-not to mention the iPhone 4 antenna problems, which recently cost Apple $175 million in bumper cases. In a Monday decision, the Copyright Office at the Library of Congress order that “jailbreaking” or the modifying a phone’s software to run on different networks or to run unapproved applications was not a violation of copyright.

Apple, which is notoriously particular about apps they allow to be sold in the iTunes app store, argued that laws against “jailbreaking” were necessary to protect the integrity of the network.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation argued, in part however, that “jailbreaking” was a fair use and not subject to copyright laws, because it is used for non-commercial purposes.  In their decision, the Copyright Office concluded that the amount of original software programming code used to “jailbreak” the phone was so little (1/160,000 of the total work) that it was not protected under copyright law.

“On balance, the Register concludes that when one jailbreaks a smartphone in order to make the operating system on that phone interoperable with an independently created application…, the modifications that are made purely for the purpose of such interoperability are fair uses,” the Copyright Office concluded.

While Apple has not responded to the change in rules, the CTIA did release a statement cautioning cell phone users that said although consumers may approve of the rule change, "they still need to review the terms of service… since altering the underlying source code may… adversely affect how the device operates on a wireless network.”

Free Press, a media reform organization, said that “The decision by the U.S. Copyright Office is an important step toward promoting open wireless networks.”

While it is unclear exactly how the situation in San Francisco will resolve it itself in the future, whether the bill shock issue will be readdressed by the CTIA, or the future scope of the Copyright Office’s final rule, one thing is clear.  Consumers are ending up on the winning side of these decisions, and judging from industry press releases, it is not happy about it.

by Matthew L. Schafer

Note: This report originally appeared on the media blog Lippmann Would Roll.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology held a hearing on Internet privacy.  The hearing comes at a time when online privacy is beginning to gain more attention.  In a survey released last June over 81% of Internet users said they are concerned about companies keeping track of their web usage in order to target them with advertising.  Social media privacy is driving concern, as changes to Facebook’s privacy policy recently prompted the founding of an anti-Facebook Privacy Policy group that has over 2.4 million members.

In the opening comments of the hearing, Sen. Jay Rockefeller [D-WV] told a short story about a shopper wandering through the mall that had a machine watching his every move through the store, only to have that information sold to advertisers.  He compared this to the current state of privacy online.

Tuesday’s hearing included FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz, Apple, Inc. Vice President Guy Tribble, Facebook Chief Technology Officer Bret Taylor, Alma Whitten of Google, Jim Harper of The Cato Institute, Dorothy Atwood of AT&T, and Joseph Turow of the University of Pennsylvania.  In the first panel, Chairmen Leibowitz and Genachowski both expressed their concerns about the lack of privacy online.

“There is a huge disconnect between what consumers think happens to their data and what really happens to their data,” Jon Liebowitz said during his testimony.  “Most consumers believe that a privacy policy protects their policy, instead a privacy policy deliniates their rights and lack thereof.”

Liebowitz also cited a British company’s April Fools joke where it added a line that to its contract, which told users that if they agreed the company owned their soul.  Only 12% of users opted out of “Immortal Soul Clause.”  Liebowitz also pointed out that while Internet search engines are supposed to anonymize search data, even anonymized search information can reveal peoples’ identity.  In 2006 for example, using AOL search data The New York Times tracked down 62-year-old Thelma Arnold, a.k.a AOL user No. 4417749, in Lilburn, Ga.

In the second panel, comprised of scholars and industry executives, Facebook's Bret Taylor argued that social technologies like Facebook are not detrimental to user privacy.  He called the Internet a "passive repository of information."  Taylor also argued that Facebook provides users with “powerful control” over the information they choose to share with others.  Taylor spent much of his testimony highlighting Facebook’s success as a social medium.

Facebook’s current privacy policy is approximately 10 pages long, and has a Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease of 34.  Any score below 30 is best understood by college graduates.  AT&T’s 18 page privacy policy, has a reading ease level of 20.  Google’s current privacy policy is approximately five pages long, and has a reading ease score of 12, which is best understood by college graduates that have over 18 years of formal education.
Despite the complex privacy policy Goggle’s Dr. Whitten argued that Google’s interactive privacy tools make controlling one’s personal information easy, saying “I have devoted my career to one primary goal making it intuitive simple and useful for internet users to take control of their privacy and security.”

Not all on the panel were sold on the companies’ promises to protect Internet privacy.  Joseph Turow, professor and author of the book Niche Envy, argued that the current uses of personal information by companies are invasive.  He said that most consumers are misinformed or underinformed about privacy policy settings.

“American’s don’t want a situation where content is tailored for them based on the firm’s use of their data without their knowing it,” Turow testified.  “Unfortunately the situation they don’t want is getting worse.”

Tuesday’s Senate hearing is just a first step in address what seems to be the ever growing concerns over privacy online.  While it is currently unclear what next steps the government will take in addressing these concerns, it is unlikely that Congress will get a vote on any privacy legislation this year.  Sen. John Kerry [D-MA] did release a statement, however, saying he intended to pursue legislation.  The FTC is hoping to release recommendations regarding privacy online in the fall.

by Matthew L. Schafer

Note: This report originally appeared in the media blog Lippmann Would Roll.

On Sunday The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel published reports detailing over 90,000 secret military documents.  The documents outline on the ground events in Afghanistan from January 2004 to December of 2009.  The reports include descriptions of 144 incidents of civilian causalities, a “black ops” team that is charged with hunting down and either capturing or killing wanted Taliban leaders, and the acquisition by the Taliban of heat seeking surface to air missiles.

“I think the reaction to this type of material–a breach of federal law–is always the same,” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a Monday press briefing.  “…and that is whenever you have the potential for names and for operations and for programs to be out there in the public domain besides being against the law has the potential to be very harmful to those that are in our military.
Governmental reaction aside, an interesting dynamic always emerges when the press deals with the disclosure of classified or otherwise secret government material.  The dynamic is even more interesting when coverage of the story by blogs and other new media are juxtaposed to that of traditional media.

While blogs are relatively liberal in their coverage of just about anything, traditional media operate on norms and routines that are inherently more conservative than that of blogs.  Anecdotally, for example, the publication of these most recent documents left the Los Angeles Times asking “Was Wikileaks release of Afghan War documents done in poor judgment?”  While blogs were publishing headlines suggesting that already the War Logs provide enough evidence supporting claims of war crimes.

While new media provides a new environment in which this story unfolds, the general situation is not new.  The Pentagon Papers for example, a trove of classified military documents highlighting the dire situation in Vietnam, were leaked by Dan Ellsberg to The New York Times, which in turn began publishing the documents on June 13 of 1971.  After refusing to stop publishing the papers, the government filed a suit against the New York Times.  While the case was under adjudication, an appellate court ordered the Times to stop publication of the documents–the first time the United States government had ever explicitly practiced any form of prior restraint on the press.  The Supreme Court later ruled in favor of the New York Times (and the Washington Post), which began publishing the papers again.

The Pentagon Papers is just one example of past conflicts between the government and the press.  Yet, it is important to acknowledge that the traditional press is not as antagonistic as many believe.  Indeed, a recent book entitled “When the Press Fails” outlines the relatively cozy relationship between the government and the press.  So cozy in fact, the authors argue the only viewpoints, in general, that make it into the news are viewpoints of official sources within the government.

“In news about most government policy issues, the absence of credible and potentially decisive opposition from inside government itself leaves the mainstream press generally unable to build and sustain counterstories,” Bennett, Lawrence, and Livingston argue.

Simply, the press prefers to play the objectivity card and not include diverse viewpoints of “non-traditional” sources.  The close relationship also extends to publishing top secret documents; as both the Washington Post in the case of their recent “Top Secret America” and the New York Times in the current case went to the White House–not to seek permission–but rather to offer them fair warning that the story is about to run.

Yet, the new media environment does not internalize the same relationship that the traditional press and the government do.  Blogs are far more racy with their coverage than are the traditional press.  One could even say the look of blog headlines alone are more antagonistic than the traditional press.  This is ever obvious from the front pages of a variety of news outlets upon the release of the Afghan Logs on Sunday, which are featured in this video.
For example, Fox News initially led their coverage as a sub-headline under a lead about BP CEO Tony Hayward stepping down.  The Washington Post also had the leak story playing second fiddle to a story–the immigration debate.  CBS News had just two small headlines about the story.  Yet, the Huffington Post ran a picture of soldiers pointing rifles under the red headline: THE WAR LOGS: A Devastating Portrait of the Failing War in Afghanistan.”  The Drudge Report ran a similar headline across the top of its front page.

It is no secret that blogs are not tied to the same code of conduct that their traditional counterparts are.  That fact gives blogs, in general, greater latitude to play with a story’s focus, angle, tone, and sources or lack thereof.  While this may not be kosher with the majority of the traditional media, it indeed serves an important purpose.  It breathes life into stories, offers independent viewpoints, and highlights facets of a story that would otherwise be left in the dark unless a source commented about it.  Although some blogs can be toxic in both their rhetoric and lack of validity, on the whole blogs provide an important context to stories that traditional journalism cannot.  Sometimes stories may merit all caps headlines and red font, and that’s exactly what bloggers are good at.

As Lev Grossman of Time wrote simply back in 2004, “Bloggers are unconstrained by such journalistic conventions as good taste, accountability and objectivity — and that can be a good thing.”

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} Although the Government of Bangladesh and civil society organisations are now actively working to increase awareness of child labour and child rights, studies show that the number of child labourers has increased alarmingly over the last few years. An ILO study[1] observes that “the level of awareness on the issue of child labour is still low. Society in general has a rather indifferent attitude towards the problem. In many cases, it is not realised that the children who are employed in, for example, domestic service, often have no access to education or medical care.” The majority of Bangladesh’s population still lacks information about and a good understanding of child labour and its consequences

[1] International Labour Organization ( 2004), Child Labour and Responses, Overview Note, Bangladesh

URL: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/asro/newdelhi/ipec/responses/index.htm

by Matthew L. Schafer

Note: This report originally appeared in the media blog Lippmann Would Roll.

In 2006, Jeff Howe told the indelible website Wired that there was something in the air.  What was it?  Crowdsourcing or the outsourcing of labor, creative processes, sweat equity, etc. to the audience.  While some were initially skeptical about the potential of crowdsourcing, one thing is now certain: It grabs attention, and people love it.  Just ask the Old Spice guy.

“Remember outsourcing? Sending jobs to India and China is so 2003,” Howe wrote in 2006.  “The new pool of cheap labor: everyday people using their spare cycles to create content, solve problems, even do corporate R & D.”

Crowdsourcing, in the broadest terms, can refer to any contribution of the audience to the production of content of some type.  Most interestingly, however, is the rise of advertising crowdsourcing.  Essentially, companies are employing their audience to sell products to their audience.  Whether this is exploitation or not is a topic for another day, but whatever it is, it’s something the audience likes.

The most recent, and possibly the most successful advertising crowdsourcing to date, is the recent Old Spice campaign.  With the help of retired NFL player Isaiah Mustafa, Old Spice put together a crowdsourcing campaign that used social media not only to get ideas from its audience, but to start a conversation with the audience.  With a few popular commercial spots under its belt, the Old Spice team began to scour the Internet for audience commentary on the new advertisements.

Using Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, and other popular new media outlets, Old Spice advertisers and audience members started having realtime conversations.  The advertising firm Wieden+Kennedy came up with the conversation advertising campaign in order to breathe new life into an almost 80-year-old company that was most famous for burning cheeks before the new advertising campaign. So how does it works?

First, Old Spice develops a character through traditional commercials that appeal to many demographics–men and women alike.  Second, using the existing fan base, Old Spice begins to answer in realtime to queries posted on new media outlets across the web.  For example:

A Twitter user named @iggip0p wrote, “@Oldspice man, what is the manliest thing you have ever done?”

Once the team of editors and advertisers at Wieden+Kennedy chose to respond to @iggip0p’s post, they wrote and produced this video, and posted it on Youtube with dozens like it.
The turnaround is extremely quick.  Ian Tait, a director for the project, told Fast Company that the firm was producing nearly 100 Youtube videos a day.  It paid off, at least in views.  All told, Old Spice’s videos have posted almost 100 million views on Youtube–a much cheaper proposition than buying advertising revenues from cable and broadcast companies.   When asked why the company decided to use all types of social media platforms, Old Spice advertising directors said they wanted to juice as much potential out of new media offerings.

“By locking the campaign into any proprietary place would have just severely limited the exposure it would get and diminish it,” Ian Tait of Wieden+Kennedy told Fast Company.  “This whole idea of responding to people and being very smart about who we decided to respond to, and in what manner, that wouldn’t have worked if we hadn’t done it in a format like YouTube where we are able to embed it. People are very familiar with the ways of sharing it, liking it, and favoring it, and just the fact that it can go everywhere very quickly was a huge positive.”

Other companies are now trying to figure out how to profit from a similar approach.  It’s unclear how replicable this type of advertising will be in the future.  Indeed, it may just have been a fluke.  It does appear, however, that the audience enjoyed talking back to the advertiser though.  As of July 23, Old Spice had over 90,000 followers on Twitter and 690,000 fans on Facebook.

Despite the excitement around the campaign, some close to the media industry spoken to by Lippmann Would Roll question the moral underpinnings of what one person called “advertainment” and using the audience to help sell products back to the audience. Questions about ethics are unlikely to stop future iterations of Old Spice’s campaign as advertising isn’t new to questionable ethics practices.  As one advertising executive recently said, “People in advertising spend a lot of their time dealing with ethical choices, and those choices are almost never black and white. They’re subtle, shades-of-gray choices.”

Srinagar,July 24 (Scoop News) –  In connection with Sh. Amarnathji Yatra,14950 yatris comprising male, female, children and sadhu’s left from traditional route Pahalgam and Baltal Sonmarg for  holy Cave to have darshan of Shiv Lingam. Of these, 9342 were male, 4295 female, 570 children and 743 Sadhus.

            As such, as many as three  lakh Yatris visited holy Cave for darshan of Shiv Lingam, so far. In addition, according to tourism sources over 1.93 lakh domestic and foreign tourists have so far visited Pahalgam health resort.

            Various departments have made arrangements for ensuring hassle a free Yatra. The departments include CAPD, Information, Tourism, Revenue, SRTC, Labour, BSNL, Metrology etc. besides, tourist information assistance booths have been set up at all the halting stations like Nunwan, Chandanwari, Sheshnag, Panjtharni and holy cave for guiding the Yatris.

  Meanwhile The Chairman Shrine Board, N. N. Vohra, reviewed all aspects of the on-going Yatra with  R. K. Goyal, Chief Executive Officer,  Saugat Biswas, Additional CEO and all the other concerned functionaries here today.

            The Yatra to the Holy Cave Shrine of Shri Amarnathji is progressing satisfactorily and till last evening around 2,90,000 pilgrims had performed darshan at the Holy Cave. Of the total number of Yatris, about 21000 availed the helicopter services from Baltal and Pahalgam to Panjtarni to undertake their Yatra.

            The Yatra, which remained suspended on 22nd – 23rd July due to almost continuous heavy rains and inclement weather, resumed on both the routes today morning, with the significant improvement in the weather conditions.

            Today morning, over 2500 Yatris left Jammu for the Nunwan and Baltal Base Camps.

            The Chairman noted, with deep regret, that 28 pilgrims had lost their lives on the tracks due to cardiac and respiratory ailments. In this context,  R. K. Goyal, Chief Executive Officer, has strongly reiterated his advice to the intending Yatris to get themselves medically examined and embark on the Yatra only after they are declared physically fit to undertake the pilgrimage as the routes to the Cave Shrine pass through arduous terrain at very high altitudes.     

www.scoopnews.in

by Matthew L. Schafer

Note: This report originally appeared in the media blog Lippmann Would Roll.

The economic downturn hit many television broadcasters hard.  Under the massive deregulation of the Republican led Federal Communications Commission, broadcasters were allowed to expand their audience reach over 35%, buy up newspapers, and enter into agreements allowing the consolidation of multiple television stations under one roof.  Unfortunately, broadcasters took advantage of the situation, and overextended their businesses leaving some with billions in debt.

The increasing consolidation put stations in such a precarious position during the economic downturn that an annual report on the state of the media said that "the question about local TV economics in 2009 was not whether it was bad year but how bad."  Those close to the industry told Lippmann Would Roll the loss came after broadcasters bought up stations with large loans while expecting pre-downturn revenues to continue.  They didn't.

Many of the same broadcasters that overextended themselves are now urging the FCC to further deregulate the industry, arguing that the outlook for local TV is dire if they are not allowed to expand.  LIN Media, Nexstar Broadcasting, Gray Television, Belo Corporation, Sinclair Broadcasting, and Media General all submitted comments advocating deregulation to the FCC in relation to the congressionally mandated review of media ownership laws.

Fortunately for the broadcasters advertising revenues are looking up.  CNN recently called a projected $4 billion injection of advertising revenue a "feast" for media companies.  Broadcasters have already seen increases in advertising revenues.  LIN Media saw advertising revenues increase in automotive, retail, restaurants, and services.  Some increased up to 51% over last year.  As a result, LIN Media is projecting an increase in revenue of up to 33% in the third quarter of 2010.

Belo Corp., which posted $13.5 million in net income in the first quarter of this year up 52% from the same time last year, attributed its rise in profit to advertising.  While citing increases of 17% in spot advertising revenue as cause for the almost $6 million dollar increase in profit, Belo told the FCC that the competition for advertisers was reason in part for further deregulation.

"Given these financial and competitive challenges, Belo submits that it is critically important for the FCC to update its local broadcast ownership rules to enable broadcasters to play on a more level playing field with their competitors," Belo's counsel wrote.

Despite strong advertising revenues across the board, many broadcasters in addition to Belo are telling the FCC that deregulation of media ownership is necessary to help them overcome difficulties in earnings on advertising.

Gray Television also saw an increase in advertising revenues, which drove its net revenue up over $70 million despite posting a net loss of $4.7 million.  In its first quarter earnings call, Gray said the increase in revenue "has really been driven by increases in each and every of [our] advertising categories."

In its comments to the FCC, however, Gray said the broadcast industry needs deregulation, in part, because "...competition for advertising dollars has increased exponentially, threatening the single revenue stream on which broadcasters have long depended."

Gray was not alone in bringing to light supposed difficulties in selling advertising with so much competition from the Internet and other competitors.  Sinclair Broadcasting, which posted a net income of 11.5 million in the first quarter of 2010, said that "television advertising continues to improve with many categories growing year-over-year."  Eight of their top ten advertising categories were up.  Despite the increases, Sinclair painted a different picture in its comments to the FCC.

"In reality, local broadcasters face intense competition for viewers and advertisers from a vast number of sources," Sinclair's counsel wrote.

It appears that broadcasters are relying in part on past declines in advertising revenues to support further deregulation of the industry, but currently advertising revenues are rebounding at impressive rates as evidenced by the revenues referenced above.  When one looks closer at the income statements released by these media companies, it is evident the problem with their bottom line has less to do with advertising revenues than with servicing the debt that these companies have already accumulated.

Srinagar, July 23 (Scoop News) -The University of Kashmir Friday bagged an award for its role in implementation of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the education system.

The KU vice-chancellor, Prof Riyaz Punjabi received the "WISITEX-ICT Ratna 2010 award" at the Lalit Grand Palace here.

The award was presented to Prof Punjabi by the Minister for Higher Education, Abdul Gani Malik during a day long conference on "e-governance and information technology in Jammu and Kashmir", organized by the state government and Industry.

Others who received the awards for various contributions to public life included J&K Bank , STPT J&K. DOEACC J&K and NIC.

Speaking on the occasion, Malik said he was happy to see that Kashmir University had taken a lead in introducing e-governance in its dealings.

The Minister for Information Technology, Aga Syed Rohulla, highlighted the importance of e-governance in the present world. "If we have to prosper and keep pace with the fast moving world, it is important that we take a lead on the path of e-governance," he said, calling for "capacity building" of the stakeholders "to see e-governance projects flourish."

The KU vice-chancellor, Prof Riyaz Punjabi, thanked the organizers from the State and Industry for recognizing the efforts of the university vis-à-vis ICT implementation. "It is the IT which can to a great level bring about transparency and efficiency in the system," he said. "Despite resistance at several levels, the dream of IT implementation has been accomplished in the university,"

He urged the government to declare KU as a centre of excellence in information technology. "KU has already completed its linkage with 19 valley collages and after this, we are moving to higher secondary schools for the IT implementation," he told the delegates. "Our aim is to bridge the gap between academics and industry through the establishment of Advanced Centre of Information Technology which shall also include development of the necessary support structure necessary for the development of the IT Industry."

Principal Secretary to CM, Khursheed Ahmad Ganai said that there is tendency in our state to look at government for everything. "But to see the e governance in the state become a reality, initiatives must come from the private sector as well. The massive programme of capacity building in various government departments has to done."

The J&K Bank chairman, Dr Haseeb A Drabu said technology has to be there as an enabler of business and not as an industry. He referred to the need for making use of the technology as a crisis management tool and said this can help to provide education to our children in difficult periods.

Dr Manohar Lal Sharma Minister IT also spoke on the occasion. Atal Daloo commissioner secretary, IT was also present.

www.scoopnews.in

1024x768 Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Freedom of opinion and expression, unfettered access to information and freedom of the media are perhaps some of the most efficient tools of combating human rights violations in a country where there is a “disturbingly high degree of violence directed against journalists." While Bangladesh boasted a relatively free press prior to the current CTG, the institution of the state of emergency and Emergency Power Rules in January 2007 brought along severe punishments for media authors of “provocative” materials, systematic intimidation and harassment of journalists, numerous instances of censorship, coercion of media outlets to broadcast selected government news programmes, and government monitoring of Internet communications (charges documented by national and international  rights-monitoring bodies and organisations).

So, with a view to enhancing the culture of human rights at grass roots and national level and engage media to act as an ally of the victims of rights violation Relief International and Democracywatch have been partnered to strengthen capacity of the media professional through the establishment and capacity building of National Network of Concerned Journalists in line with advocacy and awareness raising among the community people through a constructive dialogue. The project will encompass youths,media, educators and local government at large at 20 districts in Bangladesh.

by Matthew L. Schafer

Note: This report originally appeared in the media blog Lippmann Would Roll.

On Tuesday Kevin Smith, president of the Society of Professional Journalists, wrote an open editorial advocating for the passage of a federal shield law that is currently sitting in the Senate.  The House version of the bill, entitled the “Free Flow of Information Act of 2009,” passed in November of last year.  In the editorial, Smith said the time has come to pass the Senate version of the bill, which if passed would be one of the broadest federal protections for reporters ever signed into law.

“As [the bill] awaits permission from key senate leadership to come to the floor for a full vote, all senators, representing the interests of American citizens, need to hear from their constituents,” Smith wrote.  “Citizens who value the importance of transparency in governance and think the American press needs to continue to serve as the watchdog on the federal government should tell their senators to support this measure.”

Shield laws have become increasingly controversial in the past as federal and state governmental organizations have increased the number of subpoenas against journalists and bloggers seeking the identification of confidential sources.  Most famously perhaps is a 2005 case involving the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity as an agent of the CIA.

In the case, Judith Miller, then of the New York Times, and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine were ordered by a judge to reveal their sources.  While Cooper eventually did testify, Miller refused to reveal her sources and was held in contempt of court.  She served 85 days in prison, refusing to testify until her source released her from her promises of confidentiality.  At the time, Joel Roberts of CBS News wrote simply, it was a case of “punishing good journalists.”

“So it’s fairly clear now, if it wasn’t before, that until the Supreme Court recognizes a constitutional privilege protecting journalists from testifying in grand jury proceedings – or until Congress passes a law that similarly protects reporters – journalists seeking such protection in federal court are going to run into a wall,” Roberts wrote at the time.

In April of this year, the Department of Justice renewed a subpoena of New York Times reporter James Risen, which was originally issued under the Bush Administration.  The Department of Justice is seeking Risen’s sources for his 2006 book entitled “State of War.”  In his book, Risen uncovers a failed attempt by the United States to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.

“He intends to honor his commitment of confidentiality to his source or sources,” Joel Kurtzberg, Risen’s lawyer, told the New York Times in April. “We intend to fight this subpoena.”

In a letter sent to Senator Harry Reid [D-NV] last year, a group of media organizations wrote that over 40 reporters or media organizations had been subpoenaed for information in the past several years.  Because of the numerous examples of attempts to compel the disclosure of confidential sources, reporters are asking for increased protections under the law.  Shield laws are that protection they argue.  Simply put, while the application of shield laws is a messy subject, in many cases they protect reporters from being held in contempt of court for refusing to reveal their sources.

Currently, 36 states have shield laws and no federal shield law exists.  While shield laws very from state to state, they are based on the presumption that democracy needs investigative journalism, and that reporters, in some instances, need to be able to offer sources confidentiality in order to gather information.

California’s shield law is currently in the spotlight, as blogger/journalist Jason Chen of the online news site Gizmodo recently found himself subject to a search warrant, where his laptop among other things was taken by police after he bought an iPhone 4 that an Apple employee left at a bar on the night of their birthday.  The California law reads in part:

(a) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose, in any proceeding as defined in Section 901, the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.

The bill, H. R. 985, introduced by Representative Rick Boucher [D-VA] and co-sponsored by 50 representatives on both sides of the aisle, reads similarly to the California law.  It reads, in part, that “in any matter arising under Federal law, a Federal entity may not compel a covered person to provide testimony or produce any document related to information obtained or created by such covered person as part of engaging in journalism.”
While the bill would provide similar protections as the California shield law, its definition of a journalist is much broader and includes anyone “who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information.”  An important distinction is the exclusion of the word “employed,” thus likely extending its protections to bloggers.

Upon passage of the act, Boucher said, “[I] support this breakthrough agreement, which is a victory for the public’s right to know and for the ability of reporters to bring information on the most critical issues of the day to light.”

The bill in the Senate, S. 448, sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter [D-PA], reads similar to the House version.  It does, however, expand on the definition of a covered person.  In around 400 words, the bill describes a covered person as someone who acts (in part):

With the primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information concerning local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest;  [Someone who] regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports or publishes on such matters by conducting interviews, making direct observation of events, or collecting, reviewing, or analyzing original writings, statements, communications, reports, memoranda, records, transcripts, documents, photographs, recordings, tapes, materials, data, or other information whether in paper, electronic, or other form

The bill is currently stalled in the Senate after being voted out of committee in December.  Remarking on the bill leaving committee, Specter said that the bill “has been a long time coming. The bill creates a fair standard to protect the public interest, journalists, the news media, bloggers, prosecutors and litigants.”

While the Society of Professional Journalists is urging the passage of the bill in the Senate, SPJ President Kevin Smith is disappointed by the inclusion of the definition of a “covered person” in the bill.  In an email to Lippmann Would Roll, Smith called the definition a “difficult pill to swallow,” citing that SPJ has been fighting against defining a “journalist” in any absolute terms.

Indeed, as a result of the rise of the blogger the definition of who is a journalist continues to be a controversy among industry professionals and judges.  As previously reported by Lippmann Would Roll, a New Jersey judge recently wrote in an opinion that “new media should not be confused with news media.”

“This was presented to us as a take-it only proposition,” Smith wrote, in reference to the bill.  “A lot of discussion took place and the bottom line is simple for many involved — right now we have no protection at the federal level. This bill will protect the vast majority of journalists working in our country.”

In his recent editorial Smith writes that the bill is ready for a vote on the floor.  It just needs the approval of Senate leaders in order to come to the floor for a vote before the August recess. He urged citizens to contact their representatives and advocate on behalf of the bill.

Smith signed off his editorial writing, “Only when there is a free flow of information from the government to its people can we truly appreciate the beauty and power of a democracy.”

 Srinagar, July 21 (Scoop News) - Jammu and Kashmir State, Police and Army have killed two militants of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HuM) in Sopore including a Top commander. in its fight against militancy in Kashmir.

      Police said in a statement that  on specific information regarding the presence of militants at Parray Mohallah, Haigam Sopore, 52 RR, 29 RR and Sopore Police laid a siege of the village and started search operation. The militants barged into the house of Abdul Ahad Yatoo, ARTO Sopore and took shelter inside. Immediately all civilians hold in target and peripheral houses were evacuated. The hiding militants fired upon the search party of police and army and the fire fight began. During ensuing encounter one foreign militant namely Noman @ Mooch Wala @ Mike Islam and a local militant namely Arif @ Bitta resident of Adipora Sopore were eliminated. According to Sopore Police Noman was Commander in Chief of HuM and was involved in militancy for past six years. He was the planner of fidayeen attack of Lal chowk Srinagar on January 7, 2010 in which one local militant namely Manzoor Ahmad was killed. He was also involved in the killing of one police constable and three CRPF men in Sopore Bus Stand, Mother of an SPO lady and Head Constable of police in Sopore. Arif had joined the ranks of militants recently.

Police is considering the killing of Noman as a vital breakthrough because he had been roping in local youth and luring them to join the ranks of militants. Two AK 47 rifles, six magazines, one pouch and one GPS were recovered from the slain militants.

Meanwhile Army jawan hanged himself   at Trehgam Kupwara.

According to Police One Lans Naik Charan Jeet Singh No. 33399838K of 86 Mountaineer Brigade hanged himself in the camp premises at Trehgam Kupwara falling under the jurisdiction of police station Trehgam. Proceedings under section 174 CrPC have been initiated in this regard.

www.scoopnews.in

by Matthew L. Schafer

Note: This report originally appeared in the media blog Lippmann Would Roll.

Today, the conservative website The Daily Caller released excerpts from what has been dubbed the “Journolist.”  The Journolist was created by rising Washington Post reporter Ezra Klein in February of 2007.  The Journolist is an email listserv that was comprised of hundreds of lean-to-the-left journalists, scholars, pundits, and contributors.  Its existence was first revealed by Political in early 2009.  In the article, Klein dismissed the list’s importance.

“It’s just a list where journalists and policy wonks can discuss issues freely,” Klein told Politico in 2009.

Despite the recent attention to the list, over the past three years the list has only been mentioned in about 225 news articles in the LexisNexis database.  This may be due to the list’s off-the-record policy.  The list, however, has still suffered several leaks since the original Politico article describing its existence was published.  The Daily Caller has cried foul on some of the leaked information, citing certain passages that show some journalists planning a counterstrategy to fend off Rev. Jeremiah Wright election attacks by conservatives.

“It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense… What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left,” Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent (ironically) wrote during the election.  “In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window.”

While Obama did get more favorable coverage during the election, it is impossible to make any inferences that this was the result of Journolist’s existence as The Daily Caller and Sarah Palin are suggesting.  In a time when conservatives are embattled with charges of racism, which were enflamed by a NAACP amendment released last week, conservatives see the revelations of the Journolist as proof of liberal press bias.  The press war rages, and in today’s press climate it’s all about who comes out on top.

While determining who is right, wrong, racist, or not, will surely be address by the press in light of the new information, the list seems to prompt a more important question regarding the state of the news media.  Who’s doing the real journalistic digging, while many journalists–both left and right–are strategizing and plotting against each other?  This is not to say that any discussion among journalists is taboo.  Indeed, in the past journalists have lived in packs.  But, as Jon Stewart recently pointed out, whether it is listservs with less than cogent commentary or White House-Press club get-togethers or propagated misinformation or press mudslinging as in the current case, it appears the press “is stuck.”

While rays of light still remain, investigative reporting and quality journalism are ceding to increasing amounts of press grandstanding, press fraternizing, press posturing, and press aspirations for fame.  This self-destruction of America’s Fourth Estate should worry all citizens.  In many cases, the press is becoming the celebrity, not the watchdog.  For example, the Daily Beast, a relatively young Internet news magazine, recently ran with a story entitled “BPs Gulf Oil Spill: The Hunks,” which featured the “most attractive” male correspondents covering the spill.

The Journolist, celebrity journalists, partisan press antagonizing each other and not the government–it is all a sign of the rise of the new celebrity press.  A press that is concerned more about its image and its position in the political hierarchy it is supposed to be monitoring than it is about the people.  Indeed, it seems what American journalism needs is another I.F. Stone, another Ernie Pyle, another Seymour Hersh.  Instead, we are stuck with Keith Olberman, Sean Hannity, and the myriad of other “celebrity journalists” who seek fame, not fact.

Jammu, July 20 (Scoop News) – J&K  Chief Minister,  Omar Abdullah today was addressing Jammu District Development Board Meeting, where he approved annual plan for 2010-2011 to the tune of Rs. 78 crore. The plan outlay includes Rs. 52.45 crore as the Capital component and Rs. 25.51 crore as the Revenue component.

He said that the work on major projects, including Mubarak Mandi- Bahufort Cable Car, proposed flyovers and ambitious Artificial Lake on River  Tawi   would be started soon.

 Responding to the points raised by the board members,  Omar informed that the Government has already released Rs 5 cr equity for the ambitious cable car project proposed to be taken up on Public Private partnership (PPP) Mode.

 About the development of Tawi Barage, he said that the Central Government has sanctioned Rs 25 crore for the purpose and Rs 7 crore have already been released. He also divulged that a whopping sum of Rs 50 crore have been secured under 13th Finance Commission for the development of Mubarak Mandi Royal Palace as Heritage complex.

 Referring to the proposals for constructing flyovers at various places across Jammu city, The Chief Minister said that the Projects have already been submitted for funding by the ADB. He also said that consultants for construction of the multistoried parking at existing bus stand have been engaged and the project would be taken up under PPP mode.

Listing other projects,  Omar said that a Golf course at Sidhra-being developed at a cost of Rs 110 cr is going to become a major attraction for high end tourists adding that the work for the second phase was in full swing. He also referred to the proposed cricket stadium at Bajalta and said that it would be ready for hosting tournaments by next two years.

 Reiterating the commitment of his Government to establish a vital Panchayat and Urban Local Body system in the State, he said it was important to ensure balanced development of both rural and urban areas. He also stressed the need for the empowerment of these institutions by devolution of planning and financial powers to   these grass roots level institutions.

 Chief Minister also hinted at elections to these institutions in the last quarter of this year. He said that establishment of these institutions will help in ensuring need based development.

Chief Minister also called for empowerment of legislators and suggested for increasing the ceiling of Constituency Development Fund (CDF), but with certain riders. He said the experiment in taking up the improvement of HTLT network through contributory scheme has been very encouraging and said that same mechanism would be adopted for improving potable water supply from next year. He said by way of increase in CDF limit with regulatory mechanism will further help in taking the development to the ground and reduce the chances of complaints about discrimination in terms of fund allocations to a particular area.

Sharing his concern over the potable water scarcity in various areas, he said that the Government is looking forward to integrate the water supply schemes for sharing between various localities in the event of stratagem. He said that Rs 2 crore have been kept for this purpose for the current year.

Earlier, the DDC Jammu  M.K. Dwivedi gave a resume of the major achievements of the district and apprised the meeting   that as part of the various developmental works about 66 kms roads have been black topped, 360.91 kms metalled/shingled and 229.09 kms fair weather roads have been constructed by the PWD under various programmes. In the PDD sector 29 substations have been upgraded, 1348 pump sets energized and 2106 damaged transformers repaired. About 3165 houses were constructed and upgraded by Rural Development Department under various schemes for the BPL families. He further apprised that 346 works of PWD, PHE, Education, Health and PDD sectors have been completed under BADP by utilizing an amount of Rs 13.05 crores. The DDC also informed that cent percent fund utilization was achieved for the funds released under NABARD, Tied grant, LIC and six bridges were constructed under projectization.

Among others the meeting was attended by the Deputy Chief Minister  Tara Chand, Deputy Chairman Legislative Council S. Arvinder Singh Mickey, Minister for Industries and Commerce  Surjeet Singh Slathia, Minister for Health  Sham Lal Sharma, Minister for Medical and Technical Education  R. S. Chib, Minister for Revenue,  Raman Bhalla, Minister for R&B  G. M. Saroori, Advisor to the Chief Minister  Mubarakh Gul, Political Advisor to Chief Minister Davinder Rana, Member Parliament  Madan Lal Sharma, MLA’S Prof. Chaman Lal Gupta,  Ashok Khajuria, Sham Chaudhary, Prof. Gharu Ram Bhagat,  Jugal Kishore Sharma,  Ashwani Sharma   Yash Paul Kundal,  Sukhnandan Kumar Choudhary,  Bodh Raj, s. Bimla Luthra and s. Indu Pawar, MLC’s  Ait Malhotra,  Ajatshatru Singh,  T. S. Wazir,  Ajay Sadotra and  B. R. Kundal, Chief Secretary,  S.S. Kapur, Principal Secretaries, Heads of various departments and senior district officers were also present in the meeting.  

www.scoopnews.in

Technologies are revered for having made our lives easier.  The conveniences they afford us seem to be endless!  But is it the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing?  Are we too busy staring at the computer screen or texting at the wheel to notice what it is doing to us? The past two decades have seen our society slowly but surely start pulling the drapes closed on the outside world, and losing ourselves in virtual reality.  The biggest casualties? Our children.

So how did we get here?

It’s impossible to draw a line in the sand that divides “before” and “after” the state of collective attention deficit disorder that has befallen us.  It’s not like we fell down a hole like Alice and suddenly our lives were lived in… unreality. No, it crept up on us slowly.  And we allowed these creations to become such a part of our lives as to be comparable to a fifth (or sixth, or seventh) appendage. 

Just another naysayer…

No one can honestly deny the necessity of modern technology.  Technology has brought us treatments of diseases, better DNA analysis and better healthcare to name a few things.  But aren’t we going a little overboard in some arenas? I mean, eating is necessary, but morbid obesity is definitely not condoned.  I guess there just isn’t a large enough market for it.

iCrave

Am I drawing a comparison between technology overuse and morbid obesity? Absolutely.  There is some truth to the old adage “less is more”, and with adult Internet addiction being argued for inclusion in the newest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, substituting technology for organic life is the new norm.  But with all of us having our noses stuck in our various technological fancies: maintaining social lives on Facebook; planning our lives on Blackberries; pursuing love on Lavalife; and catching up on Lost and ER -what are our children doing?

Collateral Damage

Our children are getting sucked into the lifestyle right along with us.  The only difference is that we had no idea the effect it would have on developing minds and bodies.  Many people still don’t know. The culture of the techno-babysitter has spun way out of our control, and with information just now coming to the fore about the consequences of technology abuse, for some children it may be “too much” too late.

Baby-ADD

Let’s start from the beginning.  Parents were thrilled with the introduction of Disney-owned Baby Einstein.  The DVDs, marketed for babies as young as 3 months, were said to make babies smarter by encouraging learning of language and numbers.  Parents snapped up the DVDs, excited to see their little Einstein grow and for a long while, we bought it.  Park your baby in front of the TV and voila! He’ll be the smartest kid in class by grade one!  In all truth, research showed that children who had watched such “educational” DVDs showed poorer motor and language skills than children who had spent their first years… well, being regular babies.

What’s the connection?

So why does watching a few hours of TV make an infant essentially dumber than its TV-free counterparts?  It goes beyond the usage of the phrase “use it or lose it” and becomes more of an abstract “make it or break it”.  Growing babies need more than just to stare at a television screen in order to evolve into healthy toddlers.  In fact, sitting babies in front of the TV denies them the three most critical factors involved in their development: movement, touch and connection to other humans.  If healthy development is not fostered, we’re turning out broken children.

From Babies to Toddlers

Studies show that toddlers watch 4.5 hours of TV per day.  And why wouldn’t they? Back when they were growing Einsteins, they were watching an average of 2.2 hours per day.  Parents may see Treehouse and Mario Cart as cheap and effective babysitters, but if their daycare center proved to be detrimental to their toddler’s development would they continue to utilize their services? My guess would be no.  But for each hour that a toddler watches TV, they will have 10% more attention problems by the age of seven.  Not a 10% chance of having attention problems, 10% more attention problems.  Per hour.  Add to that the vicious environment of the ADD “burning times” and the increasing pressure on children to perform academically and we’re giving children golden tickets to misery.  Not only are we setting our children up for attention and literacy problems, but we’re also setting them up for a plethora of other problems as well.  Whether or not we recognize it, when a child watches high stimulus television or video games (whether first or secondhand) it causes an acceleration of the autonomic nervous system, releasing adrenaline and other chemicals that stress the body.  Is it any wonder that child psychiatric disorders such as anxiety and bipolar disorder are on the rise?  We’re also engendering social problems: with the focus on technology, which provides mainly exclusive and introverted activities, skills like reading facial expressions and understanding gestures are left wanting.  We then catapult these poorly socialized children into classes of 20 or more other children, and expect them to thrive.  Some may scoff at the idea that just 4.5 hours of television would create such speed bumps to a child’s development and claim that those children manifesting these issues are simply troubled from birth.  Others say it’s time to stop classifying children’s mental “disturbances” as biological “illnesses” and start facing the fact that we are failing our children in a major way.

They Grow Like Weeds…

School age is where the effects of our technology-overdose truly begin to rear its ugly head.  What starts as an innocent distraction so mom and dad can get some chores done becomes a lifestyle.  Suddenly parents realize that not only can television distract their children at home, they can also install TV’s in their vehicles and not have to be badgered by the incessant “are we there yet?”  They can give their children hand-held video games and not be glared at by complete strangers in a crowded restaurant when junior decides he’s sick of sitting still and breaks out into a 3rd degree tantrum, they can put a TV in their daughters bedroom that will lull her to sleep so that they can have some peace and quiet before bed.  To the bedraggled parent who just wants a moments rest, these methods may seem innocent, but the effects are alarming at best.

Wired for speed

And it’s true, not only are these children not learning the self-control and discipline to sit in a car or at the dinner table without acting up- among other things, but our parenting-shortcuts are rewiring their brains in an enormous way.  Their frequent exposure to television, video games, and computers is training their brains to be ultra-sensitive to environmental input, and causing them to have short attention spans in real-world situations that don’t supply instant gratification.  To combat children’s growing ADD, schools and parents are fighting fire with fire by purchasing more technology to better hold their attention, and the cycle goes on.

Can you hear me now?

And what a vicious cycle it is.  So vicious that without knowing it, we could be changing the course of society.  For one thing, with technology taking over our households and providing us with solitary tasks and self-contained activities not requiring socialization, the home unit is crumbling.  It’s been noted that Canadian parents spend and average of 3.5 minutes per week having meaningful conversation with their children:  time spent utilizing various medias is negatively related to time spent with family members- isn’t it obvious?  Once again, normal communication skills taught and honed by the family are not laying solid neural tracks in the brain.  Sure children can tell you what LOL, TTYL or BRB mean, but once they are unplugged, how might they fare then?

On The Front Lines

Even with the communication disconnect, the growth of disorders (developmental and psychological) and the weakening of the family unit, the most disturbing change yet is the altering of frontal lobe development.  Every adult’s gripe about youth can basically be explained by the fact that their frontal lobes- responsible for judgment, perspective, ability to delay gratification, predict outcomes, and other adult-like processes- are underdeveloped.  Why is this important? You ask?  Because overuse of interactive media has been found to stunt frontal lobe growth in adolescents and in extreme cases (those that played 2-7 hours per day) shut down the frontal lobe completely. Can you imagine a world of perpetual immaturity? 

Life beyond the screen…

Many of us seem to have lost the concept of what life is like beyond the world of technology.  Those fortunate enough to have been born before the “technological revolution” can remember playing outside until dusk and coming home with grass-stains on their jeans and mud under their fingernails.  Before worldwide news on demand made the threat of the boogeyman force children inside, despite the fact that crime in Canada has steadily dropped since the 90’s.  Now too many children grow up inside, sheltered, and can’t imagine life without technology.  Take Brandon Crisp for example.  The 15-year-old Ontario boy ran away from home on October 13, 2008 when his parents took his favorite video game from him, worried that he had become obsessed with it.  His body was found three weeks later.  It can get a lot worse… In Ohio in 2007, a 17-year-old boy whose parents grounded him from his favorite Xbox game retaliated by taking a 9mm to their heads; wounding his father and killing his mother after asking them to close their eyes because he had “a surprise” for them.  When he ran, all he took was his precious game.  What could be so horrible about life that a youth would go to such extremes over virtual reality? And what has gone so terribly wrong that a 17-year-old boy could plan the murder of his own parents?  So many people were skeptical when critics brought the subject of video games to the table after Columbine.  And why wouldn’t they?  At first glance it doesn’t make sense that simply playing a video game could lead to such massacre.  But in light of the fact that video game addiction alters the brain- especially the area responsible for empathy and judgment, does it seem so far-fetched? 
What’s horrible about life to these children is that they don’t know what life beyond the television screen is and if they do, few have been taught to value it.
Our children are the collateral damage of a new technological world founded on ignorance.  We dove head first into the technology craze, without first considering the shallow pool of knowledge that accompanied it.  We relaxed into the idea that massive oversights like these wouldn’t happen in the 21st century: we’ve advanced.  Technology is our friend.  But friend or foe, it is our responsibility to find a healthy balance for children and for ourselves so that the massive disconnect that has been creating a rift through our society can be mended.  Remember the silly sci-fi thriller where robots take control of the world? It turns out not to be so perceptible, but just as tangible.  






 

by Matthew L. Schafer

Note: This report originally appeared in the media blog Lippmann Would Roll.

Fresh off of its name change, NPR is finding itself in hot water with its listeners, prompting questions about NPR’s identity in the 21st century.  It all began with a segment about the Mel Gibson tapes on All Things Considered.  Listeners were not happy about the concentration on the celebrity gossip, causing NPR ombudsperson Alicia Shepard to ask an interesting question: Is Mel Gibson Newsworthy of NPR?

Readers complaining about coverage of the Gibson tapes, which allegedly feature Gibson using racial epithets and threatening violence against his former girlfriend, argued that the “All” in “All Things Considered” should not include celebrity gossip.  In all fairness to NPR, their coverage of Gibson ran for just 4 minutes and 31 seconds, which amounts to .6% of the All Things Considered’s total weekly airtime.  All Things Considered, the flagship program of NPR, runs for 135 minutes each day during the week and for 50 minutes on each weekend day. Despite the small amount of time devoted by the program, listeners were livid.

“I urge you to think twice or however many rethinks it takes before devoting time to any story that requires you to say ‘alleged’ multiple times in the opening minutes,” one listener from Kentucky said.

“I listened to the original broadcast and [host] Norris’s reaction the next day,” one listener posted to a comment board on NPR’s online recording of the segment.  “But I’m not sure [Norris] gets how much credibility this costs NPR. This isn’t about Mel Gibson but the gossip-mongering mob-think.”

NPR’s ombudsperson sided with the viewers in this case.  While she acknowledged the difficulty in balancing “serious news stories” and a trending popular story, Shepard argued that in general, public radio patrons “do not turn their dials to public radio for the kind of gossip featured at the grocery store check-out counter.”  Additionally, since some readers pointed out correctly that the tapes have not been authenticated, she argued that NPR should not have played the tapes.

In search of an answer from NPR, Shepard sought out the show’s executive producer, Christopher Turpin.  Turpin argued that the topic is relevant, because it raises several interesting business related questions and that the tapes were used because “no one… has suggested that it’s not his voice on the tapes.”

“The Mel Gibson story is totally defensible,” Turpin said. “To me Mel Gibson is a huge international star.  It’s a story that everyone is talking about… So I don’t think we can pretend these things don’t happen.”

Gibson leads both wars, but falls to the oil spill, which had more than 3000 stories (graph does not represent stories beyond 3000).

While the sour taste is likely to linger in many NPR listeners’ mouths, mainstream media consumers are having to navigate a much more treacherous jungle of Gibson coverage.  While it’s necessary to wait for our friends at the Project for Excellence in Journalism to release an official tally on the amount of coverage Gibson has garnered, with the help of news database LexisNexis, which sifts through 3,500 English language publications, a simple search shows that from July 12-17, Gibson beat out both the Iraq and Afghan Wars in total coverage.  About 1050 stories in the six-day period mentioned Gibson, while only around 700 mentioned the Iraq War and 700 mentioned the Afghan War.  Gibson coverage did, however, succumb to the Gulf Oil Spill, which was mentioned in over 3000 stories.

The coverage and interest have grown to such a degree that it is unclear which is driving which. Whether coverage is driving interest or interest is driving coverage, both persist to some degree. Looking from an anecdotal perspective, over 3,000 people have commented on one Huffinton Post article about Gibson, while a front page Huffington Post article about U.S. unemployment had just a third of that. The Gibson saga even landed on Friday’s New York Times editorial page.  It is necessary, however, to acknowledge a recent Rasmussen poll that reports that only 1% of Americans would like more celebrity coverage, and 87% think the media focuses on celebrities too much.

It seems that for better or worse, Gibson is grabbing the coverage of all types of mainstream media outlets (not to mention the 500 blog posts about the incident).  With oil spewing and civilians and soldiers dying, maybe the question shouldn’t be “Is Mel Gibson Newsworthy of NPR?” but rather “Is Mel Gibson Newsworthy of Any of Us?”