Mediaboss Marketing

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Turkey will introduce regulations to control social media platforms or shut them down, President Tayyip Erdogan announced on Wednesday, pressing ahead with government plans after he said his family was insulted online.

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan speaks to members of his ruling AK Party (AKP) during a video conference call in Ankara, Turkey, July 1, 2020. Mustafa Oztartan/Turkish Presidential Press Office/Handout via REUTERS

Finance Minister Berat Albayrak, Erdogans son-in-law, said on Twitter on Tuesday that his fourth child had been born. Following the tweet, some users insulted Albayraks wife Esra.

Users of 11 out of 19 accounts determined to have shared content that insulted Albayrak and his family were detained, Turkish police headquarters said in a statement on Wednesday.

Speaking to members of his AK Party, Erdogan repeated that his party would introduce new regulations to control the use of social media, adding that an increase of immoral acts on the platforms in recent years was due to a lack of regulations.

Do you understand now why we are against social media platforms such asYouTube, Twitter and Netflix? These platforms do not suit this nation. We want to shut down, control (them) by bringing (a bill) to parliament as soon as possible, he said.

Ankara strictly polices social media content, especially during periods such as military operations and the current coronavirus pandemic.

Turkey fiercely criticised Twitter last month for suspending more than 7,000 accounts that supported Erdogan, saying the company was smearing the government and trying to redesign Turkish politics.

Erdogan said on Wednesday that social media companies would be forced to appoint representatives in Turkey to respond to legal requests, which he said were currently ignored.

We are determined to do whatever is necessary ... and will implement access bans, and legal and fiscal penalties after completion of the regulation, Erdogan said.

However a top Erdogan aide, Communications Director Fahrettin Altun, said his remarks were being taken out of context, adding the companies were asked to open offices in Turkey.

It is a futile effort to try presenting our presidents approach as repressive and prohibitionist, Altun said.

In April, the ruling AK Party included similar measures on social media in a draft law mainly about economic measures against the coronavirus outbreak. The draft law required companies to appoint representatives or have their bandwidth slashed by up to 95%, which would effectively make them inaccessible.

The measures were later removed from the draft law but opposition members warned they would come back on the agenda.

Reporting by Ezgi Erkoyun, Ali Kucukgocmen and Ece Toksabay, Editing by William Maclean and Jonathan Spicer

View original post here:
Turkey determined to control social media platforms, Erdogan says - Reuters UK

n

In addition to the selected guidance included below, all of WHOs technical guidance on COVID-19 can be found online here.

All events listed below are in the Geneva, Switzerland time zone (CET/CEST). Note that the dates listed for documents are based on when they were finalised and timestamped.

WHOs Country Office in the Peoples Republic of China picked up a media statement by the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission from their website on cases of viral pneumonia in Wuhan, Peoples Republic of China.

The Country Office notified the International Health Regulations (IHR) focal point in the WHO Western Pacific Regional Office about the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission media statement of the cases and provided a translation of it.

WHOs Epidemic Intelligence from Open Sources (EIOS) platform also picked up a media report on ProMED (a programme of the International Society for Infectious Diseases) about the same cluster of cases of pneumonia of unknown cause, in Wuhan.

Several health authorities from around the world contacted WHO seeking additional information.

WHO requested information on the reported cluster of atypical pneumonia cases in Wuhan from the Chinese authorities.

WHO activated its Incident Management Support Team (IMST), as part of its emergency response framework, which ensures coordination of activities and response acrossnthe three levels of WHO (Headquarters, Regional, Country) for public health emergencies.

The WHO Representative in China wrote to the National Health Commission, offering WHO support and repeating the request for further information on the cluster of cases.

WHO informed Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN) partners about the cluster of pneumonia cases in the Peoples Republic of China. GOARN partners include majornpublic health agencies, laboratories, sister UN agencies, international organizations and NGOs.

Chinese officials provided information to WHO on the cluster of cases of viral pneumonia of unknown cause identified in Wuhan.

WHO tweeted that there was a cluster of pneumonia cases with no deaths in Wuhan, Hubei province, Peoples Republic of China, and that investigations to identify the cause were underway.

WHO shared detailed information about a cluster of cases of pneumonia of unknown cause through the IHR (2005) Event Information System, which is accessible to all Member States. The event notice provided information on the cases and advised Member States to take precautions to reduce the risk of acute respiratory infections.

WHO also issued its first Disease Outbreak News report. This is a public, web-based platform for the publication of technical information addressed to the scientific and public health communities, as well as global media. The report contained information about the number of cases and their clinical status; details about the Wuhan national authoritys response measures; and WHOs risk assessment and advice on public health measures. It advised that WHOs recommendations on public health measures and surveillance of influenza and severe acute respiratory infections still apply.

WHO reported that Chinese authorities have determined that the outbreak is caused by a novel coronavirus.

WHO convened the first of many teleconferences with global expert networks, beginning with the Clinical Network.

The Global Coordination Mechanism for Research and Development to prevent and respond to epidemics held its first teleconference on the novel coronavirus, as did the Scientific Advisory Group of the research and development (R&D) Blueprint, a global strategy and preparedness plan that allows the rapid activation of research and development activities during epidemics.

The Director-General spoke with the Head of the National Health Commission of the Peoples Republic of China. He also had a call to share information with the Director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

WHO published a comprehensive package of guidance documents for countries, covering topics related to the management of an outbreak of a new disease:

Chinese media reported the first death from the novel coronavirus.

WHO convened the first teleconference with the diagnostics and laboratories global expert network.

The Ministry of Public Health in Thailand reported an imported case of lab-confirmed novel coronavirus from Wuhan, the first recorded case outside of the Peoples Republic of China.

WHO publishes first protocol for a RT-PCR assay by a WHO partner laboratory to diagnose the novel coronavirus.

14 January 2020

WHO held a press briefing during which it stated that, based on experience with respiratory pathogens, the potential for human-to-human transmission in the 41 confirmed cases in the Peoples Republic of China existed: it is certainly possible that there is limited human-to-human transmission.

WHO tweeted that preliminary investigations by the Chinese authorities had found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission. In its risk assessment, WHO said additional investigation was needed to ascertain the presence of human-to-human transmission, modes of transmission, common source of exposure and the presence of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases that are undetected.

The Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare informed WHO of a confirmed case of a novel coronavirus in a person who travelled to Wuhan. This was the second confirmed case detected outside of the Peoples Republic of China. WHO stated that considering global travel patterns, additional cases in other countries were likely.

The Pan American Health Organization/WHO Regional office for the Americas (PAHO/AMRO) issued its first epidemiological alert on the novel coronavirus. The alert included recommendations covering international travellers, infection prevention and control measures and laboratory testing.

WHO convened the first meeting of the analysis and modelling working group for the novel coronavirus.

The WHO Western Pacific Regional Office (WHO/WPRO) tweeted that, according to the latest information received and WHO analysis, there was evidence of limited human-to-human transmission.

WHO published guidance on home care for patients with suspected infection.

WHO conducted the first mission to Wuhan and met with public health officials to learn about the response to the cluster of cases of novel coronavirus.

WHO/WPRO tweeted that it was now very clear from the latest information that there was at least some human-to-human transmission, and that infections among health care workers strengthened the evidence for this.

The United States of America (USA) reported its first confirmed case of the novel coronavirus. This was the first case in the WHO Region of the Americas.

WHO convened the first meeting of the global expert network on infection prevention and control.

The WHO mission to Wuhan issued a statement saying that evidence suggested human-to-human transmission in Wuhan but that more investigation was needed to understand the full extent of transmission.

The WHO Director-Generalconvenedan IHR Emergency Committee (EC) regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus. The EC was comprised of 15 independent experts from around the world and was charged with advising the Director-General as to whether the outbreak constituted a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC).

The Committee was not able to reach a conclusion on 22 January based on the limited information available. As the Committee was not able to make a recommendation, the Director-General asked the Committee to continue its deliberations the next day. The Director-General held a media briefing on the novel coronavirus, to provide an update on the Committees deliberations.

The EC met again on 23 January and members were equally divided as to whether the event constituted a PHEIC, as several members considered that there was still not enough information for it, given its restrictive and binary nature (only PHEIC or no PHEIC can be determined; there is no intermediate level of warning). As there was a divergence of views, the EC did not advise the Director-General that the event constituted a PHEIC but said it was ready to be reconvened within 10 days. The EC formulated advice for WHO, the Peoples Republic of China, other countries and the global community.

The Director-General accepted the advice of the Committee and held a second media briefing, giving a statement on the advice of the EC and what WHO was doing in response to the outbreak.

France informed WHO of three cases of novel coronavirus, all of whom had travelled from Wuhan. These were the first confirmed cases in the WHO European region (EURO).

WHO held an informal consultation on the prioritization of candidate therapeutic agents for use in novel coronavirus infection.

The Director of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) urged countries in the Americas to be prepared to detect early, isolate and care for patients infected with the new coronavirus, in case of receiving travelers from countries where there was ongoing transmission of novel coronavirus cases. The Director spoke at a PAHO briefing for ambassadors of the Americas to the Organization of American States (OAS) in Washington.

The WHO Regional Director for Europe issued a public statement outlining the importance of being ready at the local and national levels for detecting cases, testing samples and clinical management.

WHO released its first free online course on the novel coronavirus on its OpenWHO learning platform.

The WHO Regional Director for South-East Asia issued a press release that urged countries in the Region to focus on their readiness for the rapid detection of imported cases and prevention of further spread.

A senior WHO delegation led by the Director-General arrived in Beijing to meet Chinese leaders, learn more about the response in the Peoples Republic of China, and to offer technical assistance. The Director-General met with President Xi Jinping on 28 January, and discussed continued collaboration on containment measures in Wuhan, public health measures in other cities and provinces, conducting further studies on the severity and transmissibility of the virus, continuing to share data, and a request for China to share biological material with WHO. They agreed that an international team of leading scientists should travel to China to better understand the context, the overall response, and exchange information and experience.

On his return to Switzerland from China, the Director-General presented an update to Member States on the response to the outbreak of novel coronavirus infection in China, at the 30th Meeting of the Programme, Budget and Administration Committee (PBAC) of the Executive Board. He informed the PBAC that he had reconvened the Emergency Committee on the novel coronavirus under the IHR (2005), which would meet the following day to advise on whether the outbreak constituted a PHEIC.

The Director-General also held a press briefing on his visit to China and announced the reconvening of the EC the next day. The Director-General based the decision to reconvene on the deeply concerning continued increase in cases and evidence of human-to-human transmission outside China, in addition to the numbers outside China holding the potential for a much larger outbreak, even though they were still relatively small. The Director-General also spoke of his agreement with President Xi Jinping that WHO would lead a team of international experts to visit China as soon as possible to work with the government on increasing the understanding of the outbreak, to guide global response efforts.

WHO held the first of its weekly informal discussions with a group of public health leaders from around the world, in line with its commitment to conducting listening exercises and outreach beyond formal mechanisms.

The United Arab Emirates reported the first cases in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region. The Regional Director affirmed that the Regional Office continued to monitor disease trends and work with Member States to ensure the ability to detect and respond to potential cases.

The Pandemic Supply Chain Network (PSCN) created by WHO, in collaboration with the World Economic Forum, held its first meeting. The mission of PSCN is to create and manage a market network allowing for WHO and private sector partners to access any supply chain functionality and asset from end-to-end anywhere in the world at any scale.

WHO published advice on the use of masks in the community, during home care and in health care settings.

WHO held a Member State briefing to provide more information about the outbreak.

The WHO Director-General reconvened the IHR Emergency Committee (EC).

The EC advised the Director-General that the outbreak now met the criteria for a PHEIC. The Director-General accepted the ECs advice and declared the novel coronavirus outbreak a PHEIC. At that time there were 98 cases and no deaths in 18 countries outside China. Four countries had evidence (8 cases) of human-to-human transmission outside China (Germany, Japan, the United States of America, and Viet Nam).

The EC formulated advice for the Peoples Republic of China, all countries and the global community, which the Director-General accepted and issued as Temporary Recommendations under the IHR. The Director-General gave a statement, providing an overview of the situation in China and globally; the statement also explained the reasoning behind the decision to declare a PHEIC and outlined the EC's recommendations.

WHOs Regional Director for Africa sent out a guidance note to all countries in the Region emphasising the importance of readiness and early detection of cases.

First dispatch of RT-PCR lab diagnostic kits shipped to WHO Regional Offices.

WHO finalised its Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan (SPRP), centred on improving capacity to detect, prepare and respond to the outbreak. The SPRP translated what had been learned about the virus at that stage into strategic action to guide the development of national and regional operational plans. Its content is structured around how to rapidly establish international coordination, scale up country preparedness and response operations, and accelerate research and innovation.

The WHO Director-General asked the UN Secretary-General to activate the UN crisis management policy, which held its first meeting on 11 February.

During the 146th Executive Board, WHO held a technical briefing on the novel coronavirus. In his opening remarks, the Director-General urged Member States to prepare themselves by taking action now, saying We have a window of opportunity. While 99% of cases are in China, in the rest of the world we only have 176 cases.

Responding to a question at the Executive Board, the Secretariat said, it is possible that there may be individuals who are asymptomatic that shed virus, but we need more detailed studies around this to determine how often that is happening and if this is leading to secondary transmission.

WHO's headquarters began holding daily media briefings on the novel coronavirus, the first time that WHO has held daily briefings by the Director-General or Executive Director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme.

WHO deployed an advance team for the WHO-China Joint Mission, having received final sign-off from the Peoples Republic of China that day. The mission had been agreed between the Director-General and President Xi Jinping during the WHO delegations visit to China at the end of January. The advance team completed five days of intensive preparation for the Mission, working with Chinas National Health Commission, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, local partners and related entities and the WHO China Country Office.

WHO announced that the disease caused by the novel coronavirus would be named COVID-19. Following best practices, the name of the disease was chosen to avoid inaccuracy and stigma and therefore did not refer to a geographical location, an animal, an individual or group of people.

WHO convened a GlobalResearch and Innovation Forum on the novel coronavirus, attended in person by more than 300 experts and funders from 48 countries, with a further 150 joining online.Participants came together to assess the level of knowledge, identify gaps and work together to accelerate and fund priority research, with equitable access as a fundamental principle underpinning this work.

Topics covered by the Forum included: the origin of the virus, natural history, transmission, diagnosis; epidemiological studies; clinical characterization and management; infection prevention and control; R&D for candidate therapeutics and vaccines; ethical considerations for research; and the integration of the social sciences into the outbreak response.

The Forum was convened in line with the WHO R&D Blueprint, which was activated to accelerate diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for this novel coronavirus.

Supplementing the SPRP with further detail, WHO published Operational Planning Guidelines to Support Country Preparedness and Response, structured around the eight pillars of country-level coordination, planning, and monitoring; risk communication and community engagement; surveillance, rapid response teams, and case investigation; points of entry; national laboratories; infection prevention and control; case management; and operational support and logistics. These guidelines operationalised technical guidance, such as that published on 10-12 January.

WHOs Digital Solutions Unit convened a roundtable of 30 companies in Silicon Valley to help build support for WHO to keep people safe and informed about COVID-19.

Based on lessons learned from the H1N1 and Ebola outbreaks, WHO finalised guidelines for organizers of mass gatherings, in light of COVID-19.

The Director-General spoke at the Munich Security Conference, a global forum dedicated to issues of international security, including health security, where he also held several bilateral meetings

In his speech, the Director-General made three requests of the international community: use the window of opportunity to intensify preparedness, adopt a whole-of-government approach and be guided by solidarity, not stigma. He also expressed concern at the global lack of urgency in funding the response.

The WHO-China Joint Mission began its work. As part of the mission to assess the seriousness of this new disease; its transmission dynamics; and the nature and impact of Chinas control measures, teams made field visits to Beijing, Guangdong, Sichuan and Wuhan.

The Mission consisted of 25 national and international experts from the Peoples Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Nigeria, the Russian Federation, Singapore, the United States of America and WHO, all selected after broad consultation to secure the best talent from a diversity of geographies and specialties. It was led by a Senior Advisor to the WHO Director-General, with the Head of Expert Panel of COVID-19 Response at the China National Health Commission (NHC) as co-lead.

Throughout the global outbreak, WHO has regularly sent missions to countries to learn from and support responses, at the request of the affected Member State. Particularly in the early stages of the worldwide COVID-19 response, missions went to countries facing relatively high levels of community transmission, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, Italy, and Spain.

Weekly WHO Member State Briefings on COVID-19 began, to share the latest knowledge and insights on COVID-19.

The WHO Director-General appointed six special envoys on COVID-19, to provide strategic advice and high-level political advocacy and engagement in different parts of the world:

The Team Leaders of the WHO-China Joint Mission on COVID-19 held a press conference to report on the main findings of the mission.

The Mission warned that "much of the global community is not yet ready, in mindset and materially, to implement the measures that have been employed to contain COVID-19 in China.

The Mission stressed that to reduce COVID-19 illness and death, near-term readiness planning must embrace the large-scale implementation of high-quality, non-pharmaceutical public health measures, such as case detection and isolation, contact tracing and monitoring/quarantining and community engagement.

Major recommendations were developed for the Peoples Republic of China, countries with imported cases and/or outbreaks of COVID-19, uninfected countries, the public and the international community. For example, in addition to the above, countries with imported cases and/or outbreaks were recommended to "immediately activate the highest level of national Response Management protocols to ensure the all-of-government and all-of-society approach needed to contain COVID-19".

Success was presented as dependent on fast decision-making by top leaders, operational thoroughness by public health systems and societal engagement.

In addition to the Mission press conference, WHO published operational considerations for managing COVID-19 cases and outbreaks on board ships, following the outbreak of COVID-19 during an international voyage.

Confirmation of the first case in WHO's African Region, in Algeria. This followed the earlier reporting of a case in Egypt, the first on the African continent. The Regional Director for Africa called for countries to step up their readiness.

WHO published guidance on the rational use of personal protective equipment, in view of global shortages. This provided recommendations on the type of personal protective equipment to use depending on the setting, personnel and type of activity.

The Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission was issued, as a reference point for countries on measures needed to contain COVID-19.

WHO published considerations for the quarantine of individuals in the context of containment for COVID-19. This described who should be quarantined and the minimum conditions for quarantine to avoid the risk of further transmission.

WHO issued a call for industry and governments to increase manufacturing by 40 per cent to meet rising global demand in response to the shortage of personal protective equipment endangering health workers worldwide.

This call fits within a broader scope of ongoing engagement with industry, through WHOs EPI-WIN network and via partners, such as the International Chamber of Commerce and World Economic Forum, the latter of which has supported COVID-19 media briefings at the regional level.

WHO published the Global Research Roadmap for the novel coronavirus developed by the working groups of the Research Forum.

The Roadmap outlines key research priorities in nine key areas. These include the natural history of the virus, epidemiology, diagnostics, clinical management, ethical considerations and social sciences, as well as longer-term goals for therapeutics and vaccines.

To mark the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases surpassing 100 000 globally, WHO issued a statement calling for action to stop, contain, control, delay and reduce the impact of the virus at every opportunity.

WHO issued a consolidated package of existing guidance covering the preparedness, readiness and response actions for four different transmission scenarios: no cases, sporadic cases, clusters of cases and community transmission.

The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, an independent high-level body established by WHO and the World Bank, responsible for monitoring global preparedness for health emergencies, called for an immediate injection of $8 billion for the COVID-19 response to: support WHO to coordinate and prioritize support efforts to the most vulnerable countries; develop new diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines; strengthen unmet needs for regional surveillance and coordination; and to ensure sufficient supplies of protective equipment for health workers.

WHO, UNICEF and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) issued guidance outlining critical considerations and practical checklists to keep schools safe, with tips for parents and caregivers, as well as children and students themselves.

Deeply concerned both by the alarming levels of spread and severity, and by the alarming levels of inaction, WHO made the assessment that COVID-19 could be characterized as a pandemic.

Originally posted here:
Timeline of WHO's response to COVID-19 - World Health Organization

Its over.

Finally. Officially.

No more procedural steps. No more maybes.

New Jerseys takeover of Newark Public Schools formally ended Wednesday, almost 25 years to the day that the state stripped local control from its largest school district.

I am just glad I lived to see this day come, said longtime state Sen. Ron Rice, D-Essex. I never felt that we should be taking the districts over.

The state Board of Education voted unanimously Wednesday to end state oversight of the district, which has been operating independently for two years under a state-approved transition plan. The district met all benchmarks that had been set and proved its ready to move forward on its own, state officials said.

This is a historic day for the great city of Newark, said Roger Len, the school district superintendent. We have learned from the past, are preparing for a promising future and are committed to working tirelessly to provide a first-class education for all of the children of the City of Newark.

State board member Arcelio Aponte, a product of Newark schools, said the boards vote amounted to justice for the city.

I am particularly proud today to complete this journey, Aponte said.

The vote officially ends a takeover that stirred decades-long tensions between the state and Newark leaders, who had little leverage over their schools.

The state took control in July 1995, following a probe that produced a 1,798-page report accusing Newark school leaders of mismanagement, neglect and corruption. The investigation found conflicts of interest, crumbling school facilities and inequitable distribution of resources, all part of an atmosphere that collectively would virtually ensure academic failure.

But under New Jerseys control, a revolving door of state-appointed superintendents with veto power over school board decisions often rankled residents in a community eager for better-performing schools.

The process of regaining control has been long and gradual, with the final steps beginning in 2017. Though Wednesdays vote was largely a formality, its impact shows just how far the city has come, local leaders said.

We screamed for two decades, Give us back our schools, state Sen. Teresa Ruiz, D-Essex said. We have our schools.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.

Adam Clark may be reached at adam_clark@njadvancemedia.com. Tell us your coronavirus story or send a tip here.

Read the original here:
N.J.s takeover of Newark schools is officially over 25 years later - NJ.com

By Ryan Patrick Hooper, Special to the Detroit Free Press Published 11:46 a.m. ET June 29, 2020

A group observe a duo of tigers at the Devereaux Tiger Forest exhibit that opened last year at the Detroit Zoo.(Photo: Ryan Patrick Hooper, Special to the Detroit Free Press)

New, pandemic-era visitor limits at area attractions like the Detroit Zoo in Royal Oak and the Henry Ford in Dearborn could mean a better experience with smaller crowds.

But it could also mean: frustration for customers competing for limited tickets for their preferred time slots, beneficial treatment for members, and a general sense of confusion (expressed recently on social media)when it comes to navigating the new online ticketing systems.

In a pre-COVID-19 world, a busy weekend at the Detroit Zoo in Royal Oak could bring up to 15,000 patrons in a single day.

But on a recent Saturday, a daily capacity limit of 2,900 people across the 125-acre park meant few lines and open sight lines of animal habitats. The capacity was originally capped at 1,000 patrons per day when the zoo first reopened on June 8.

Were not bumping into everyone. Were not waiting in a long line, says Jerry Demott of Lake Orion, listing the advantages to smaller crowds at the zoo.

But Demott and his wife Chris, who are members at the zoo, said the process of having to choose a day and time to attend was not ideal.

Brandon Bielby, 8, of Warren, greets Nanook, a Detroit Zoo polar bear mascot, at the entrance of the zoo on Saturday, June 27th.(Photo: Ryan Patrick Hooper, Special to the Detroit Free Press)

It was not hard, but I dont like it. Id like to stroll in, says Chris Demott. Youre locked down. You only get so many dates. We had two friends who wanted to come today, but they couldnt.

On the Detroit Zoo website, reservations are limited to six people per booking and can be made up to two weeks in advance. Guests are admitted every 30 minutes to stagger crowds.

When people have a date or time slot in their head and they cant get that, I can understand why they would be upset, says Alexandra Bahou, communications manager for the Detroit Zoo.

Some members expressed their frustration via the Zoos Facebook page.

I just tried to book a reservation using our membership and there were no available dates, wrote Katalin Rosinski.

Bahou says frequent cancellations mean theres often updated times and slots being added to the website. She encourages guests to check back regularly if the time or slot theyre requesting is not available.

At the Henry Ford in Dearborn, which reopens with a member-only preview on Thursday, outdoor attractions like Greenfield Village are also proving popular with patrons looking for outdoor activities after months of being cooped up.

Opening weekend was made available exclusively to members and is sold out, says Melissa Foster, senior manager of public relations for the Henry Ford.

Im not surprised, says Foster. The members love Greenfield Village. Theyve been waiting for us to be open. We havent been open in the village since December. It normally opens in April.

Tickets for the Henry Ford Museum of America Innovation are still available to members for opening weekend, says Foster.

She says shes expecting a larger influx of crowds to the indoor museum once the new exhibit Marvel: Universe of Super Heroes opens on July 16. The comic book-themed exhibit will be on display through Jan. 31, 2021.

Starting July 9, the general public will be welcomed back to the Henry Ford campus. Some elements of the Henry Ford the Ford Rouge Factory Tour, the Giant Screen Experience will remain closed during this initial phase of reopening, says Foster.

Like the Detroit Zoo, the Henry Ford is enlisting an online reservation system to dole out tickets and time slots. Capacity at Greenfield Village will be heavily reduced.

Typically, our capacity in the village is upwards of 10,000 people at a time, says Foster. We had to reduce the capacity, so only 2,500 folks can get in through the span of the day.

Foster says memberships will be extended 111 days the length of time the Henry Ford has been closed due to COVID-19.

Read or Share this story: https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2020/06/29/detroit-zoo-henry-ford-reopening-limited-visitors-crowd-control/5321734002/

Read more:
Detroit Zoo and Henry Ford reopen with limited visitors, frustrating some guests - Detroit Free Press

In 1824, Raja Rammohan Roy wrote to the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William protesting colonial era regulations which restricted the freedom of the press by introducing a licensing regime for newspapers. He wrote, Every good ruler will be anxious to afford every individual the readiest means of bringing to his notice whatever may require his interference. To secure this important object, the liberty of publication is the only effectual means that can be employed.

After the revolt of 1857, the British government, intent on curbing the role of the press as the institutional opposition to its rule, enacted the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (PRB 1867). This Act was aimed solely at English newspapers and was a relatively uncontroversial legislation at the time, while the Vernacular Press Act of 1878, which was a much more draconian legislation targeted at revolutionary nationalist newspapers of the era, was waiting in the wings to curb vernacular newspapers.

Nearly 150 years later, it appears that the Indian government is following the colonial British governments playbook. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting released a draft Registration of Press and Periodicals Bill, 2019 (RPP 2019) for stakeholder consultation. The Bill seeks to replace the PRB 1867, though on a close examination, it is not significantly different from the colonial era legislation developed by the British to strangle the freedom of the press, though some of the more egregious rules have been omitted.

What is perhaps most interesting in this Bill is a provision which declares that rules for the registration of news on digital media may be prescribed. If imitation is indeed the greatest form of flattery, then re-enacting an ostensibly lenient framework for newspaper regulation while keeping a more draconian, targeted legislation waiting in the wings is perhaps the greatest homage that the government could pay to its British predecessors.

Whether this historical analogy is apt or not would depend on the content of the rules made for the registration of news on digital media. However, there are serious reservations with the RPP 2019 that deserve critical public scrutiny.

Also read: As FIRs Against Media Pile Up, Inconsistent SC Response Points to Judicial Incoherence

The draft Bill was released in November 2019, and it has now been a few months since the period for public comments has expired. However, there has been a lack of communication on the outcome of public consultations. It remains unclear whether a new draft will be circulated based on the feedback received during this period, or whether the government will stick to the Bill in its current form.

A lot has also happened since November 2019 the COVID-19 crisis has brought the print news industry to a grinding halt, and its already fragile business models appear to be crumbling. There have been several reports over the past few months of newspapers laying off journalists, cutting their benefits and even shutting down editions of their newspapers. In this context, the need of the hour is a reform of press laws which can ensure the sustainability of credible journalism. The colonial character of the proposed Bill does not appear mindful of the present moment and the contemporary issues faced by the press.

While the topic of media regulation is a subject of incredible depth, it might be prudent to focus on three preliminary reservations to the Bill. First, the government should not be re-enacting a colonial era legislation designed to curb the freedom of the press. Second, the substance of the RPP 2019 is seriously inadequate and represents a flawed approach to regulating the news ecosystem. Third, the opportunity cost of this Bill is to forego constructive solutions to the problems faced by newspapers today.

Lessons from history

The regulation of newspapers was a site of great contestation between the colonial British state and the rising nationalist movement in the country. While initially aligned with colonial sensibilities, the press in India very quickly adopted the mantle of serving as the institutional opposition to colonial policy. In perfect alignment with the colonial model of social control, the governments response was to introduce the requirement of registration for every prospective newspaper. This requirement, first introduced in 1823, was directly responsible for Raja Rammohan Roys Mirat-ul-Akbar shutting down its operations.

Raja Rammohan Roy. Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty

In the period from 1870 to 1918, when the national movement had not yet resorted to mass agitation, the press was the chief instrument for arousing and consolidating nationalist public opinion. Several powerful newspapers under fearless journalists emerged in this time period, such as The Hindu and Swadesamitram under G. Subramaniya Iyer, Kesari and Mahratta under B.G. Tilak and Amrita Bazar Patrika under Motilal Ghosh. As a response, powers to revoke registrations, to confiscate printing presses and to impose criminal liability on editors were integrated within the regulatory framework of the press. What followed was the creation of a regime intended to keep the press at a short leash, forcing editors and journalists to moderate the tenor of their criticism.

Given the role of the press in securing independence for the country, it is an issue of some surprise that the governments of early India opted to retain the apparatus of press regulation bestowed upon them by the British. The transformative moment of the constitution did not yield a similar transformation for the press of this country, who continued being regulated by a colonial model of social control and subject to the administrative vagaries of a licensing regime. In 2020, however, it might finally be time to reimagine the relationship between the State and the press, particularly in a time where the independence of the press is increasingly critical to ensuring accountable governance.

The flawed substance of the RPP 2019

The historical context of the PRB 1867 clearly outlines the draconian intent behind the law. Worryingly, the RPP 2019 retains the substance and spirit of colonial-era press legislation.

Significantly, the RPP 2019 retains the requirement of registration for every periodical (a broader category than just newspapers, including magazines and journals), as well as the power to revoke registrations. The colonial model of proprietor control the use of licensing and registration requirements to enable the exertion of pressure on the proprietors of a newspaper is retained by the draft Bill.

Watch: The News Media Is in Crisis. Can it Live Through it?

It goes on to disqualify any person convicted of an offence for having done anything against the security of the State or convicted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, from bringing out a publication. While conviction under the UAPA might be a justifiably narrow disqualification, phrases such as security of the State are vague and have historically been prone to capture by ruling dispensations to meet their ends of political self-preservation. Further, recent instances of the use of the UAPA to clamp down on journalists and civil society activists makes this disqualification all the more troubling.

The RPP 2019 establishes the office of the Press Registrar General, which on the face of it, is no different than the colonial post of the Press Registrar. The Bill forces the Press Registrar General to be bound by the Central government on questions of policy and leaves the determination of what amounts to a question of policy to the Central government itself.

The press is often hailed as the fourth estate, an institution whose independence is coveted in most liberal democracies. In this light, it is worrisome that there is no attempt made in the RPP 2019 to establish any degree of institutional autonomy for the Press Registrar General. Consequently, it is prudent to fear that this institution, vested with crucial regulatory powers, may become another bureaucratic arm through which the Government imposes various pressures on the news ecosystem. A sophisticated mechanism for the constitution and operation of this institution is essential to enacting benign press regulation, however the RPP 2019 does not appear to make this effort.

Additionally, the Bill introduces the requirement for the registration of news on digital media, though this requirement will not be operational until rules for the same are prescribed by the Central government. The definition of news on digital media in the Bill appears to be incredibly expansive, and unless it is significantly revised, may prove to be an unworkable definition for the bill. More importantly, requiring the mandatory registration of all news on digital mediums undermines the ability of the internet to democratise information by erecting barriers to the freedom of publication, especially given that the terms associated with this registration are not laid out in the Bill.

The lack of any geographical limitation in the rule serves to exaggerate its absurdity. This kind of an over-broad rule demonstrates, at best, a lack of understanding of the internet, and at worst, a portent mistrust of the freedom of publication.

The opportunity cost

The government may not have moved beyond the colonial models of governance employed in 1867, but the news ecosystem has not stood still. A comprehensive range of problems are faced by todays newspapers, which require nuanced, evidence-backed regulatory intervention. A stagnation of circulation rates for print media appears inevitable given the rise of digital mediums for news consumption. When combined with shrinking advertising revenues in print because of the emergence of digital advertising, this threatens the sustainability of many newspapers, who find themselves isolated in commercial negotiations with advertisers.

Many small newspapers rely on government advertising through the Department of Audio-Visual Promotion (DAVP) as a lifeline for their revenue, thereby providing the government with leverage to impose editorial pressures on such newspapers. The DAVP has been alleged to suffer from various operational inefficiencies and functions under strict bureaucratic control. There is an immediate need to ensure transparency and accountability in the operation of the DAVP to ensure that state support is channelled equitably to struggling newspapers.

Also read: Indias Free Press Is Still Tormented by the Laws Brought by the Emergency

The opportunity cost of a poorly drafted Bill, in this context, is to let the fourth estate of democracy die a slow death by a thousand cuts. Indian press regulation needs to abandon its colonial character in order to truly address the problems of the 21st century. A recent report by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy outlines a roadmap of legal reforms for the press based on an analysis of the constitutional values that must be advanced by any such reform, and explores some of these issues in further detail.

However, the only substantive reform forwarded by way of the RPP 2019 is to require the mandatory registration of all publications, even on the internet. Perhaps it is true that if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In this context, it is imperative that the government reconsiders the substance of the RPP 2019, and develops legislative measures backed by evidence-based research and industry consultation.

While it may be asking too much to ask the government to stop perceiving the press as an unruly beast, the least it can do is build a healthy, progressive ecosystem, and not restrain it with the same colonial leash.

Aniruddh Nigam is Research Fellow (Public Law) at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.

Read more:
Draft Press Registration Bill Is Nothing But a New Collar on an Old Leash - The Wire