Mediaboss Marketing

For two years between 2011 and 2013 images of protesters in Egypt were a constant feature on news channels internationally.The streets of Cairos downtown district transformed into huge waves of demonstrators, demanding thatleaders listen to the will of Egyptians. Yet walking through the traffic-clogged streets of downtown Cairo today, there is little evidence left that such extraordinary and regular demonstrations were once the norm.

The space for dissent has shrunk drastically in Egypt in recent years. Observers says the country is experiencing repression with a greater severity than what Egyptians experienced under the military dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak, who was toppled in the heady and hopeful days of Egypts revolution in 2011 by popular protest.

Ever since the revolution seemingly endedin 2013 after the presidency of Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypts first democratically elected president was prematurely cut short by the military following popular protests Egypt has been in the throes of a brutal and wide-ranging crackdown on dissent.

It has ensnared political opponents, activists, judges and journalists. Human Rights Watch estimates that there are at least 40,000 political prisoners languishing in Egypt. And protesting the tool through which Egyptians fought for their rights for two years has become near impossible after a law introduced in late 2013 placed restrictions on demonstrations.

There are so few left to challenge the Egyptian regimes authority, and those that are have had their ability to do so significantly crippled by the Egyptian regime. Yet the regime under President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who was head of the army when Morsi was removed before becoming president in 2014, has this year displayed its intent to quieten the remaining dissenting voices, no matter how debilitated they already are, marking a new phase in the crackdown.

It has been a difficult phase, one Egyptian journalist told Crikey aboutworking for Mada Masr an independent news website in Egypt. The journalist, who asked not to be named out of concerns for their safety, was referring to the blockade of websites including Mada Masr known for its critical coverage of the government which the authorities startedin May.

Whilst Mada Masr is still available through use of some proxies, and the publication has also resorted to publishing its articles on social media, the journalist admits there is uncertainty overthe publications future. We are still not certain if there is an investigation against Mada or not, and we do not know if we will ever be back online or not, theysaid.

It has turned out to be a massive assault on internet freedoms in Egypt: initially 21 news sites were blocked, including international sites like Al Jazeera and the Huffington Post Arabic, as well as Egyptian ones like Mada Masr. Since then the number of websites blocked has increased to 127, says the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), and has widened in scope. Its now expanded to rights groups like Reporters Without Borders and the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information as well as VPNs making it harder to access the blocked websites through other means.

While press freedoms have been significantly eroded the past few years and censorship has been on the rise, the CPJ says that online censorship was nevertheless rare in Egypt.

And its not just the media that has been targeted of late. Human Rights Watch says the internet crackdown is part of a wider effort by the regime in intensifying repression of basic freedoms in Egypt.

Since April the authorities have been arresting political activists including the prominent rights lawyer, Khaled Ali, who announced in February that he was considering challenging Sisi in next years presidential elections. As of June, 190 political activistshave been arrested.

In late April Sisi strengthened his control over Egypts courts when he ratified reforms giving himself new power to appoint the most senior members of the judiciary. The move which analysts say was done to prevent the promotion of two rebellious judges has beencriticised by judges and rights groups, who say it endangers the remaining semblance of independence in Egypts judiciary.

The following month, Sisi turned his attention to civil society. He ratified a controversial NGO law that rights groups say criminalises the work of NGOs and makes it difficult for them to operate independently. The law marks an extension on the crackdown within the NGO community to developmental organisations too, says Mohamed Zaraa, a member of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies.

Several human rights organisations, including Zaraas own, have long been targeted by this regime through a long running legal investigation on charges of using foreign funding to destabilise Egypt. I think this law isnt targeting human rights organisations, but civil society at large, said Zaraa, who like many activists has been slapped with a travel ban.

Analysts say that this new phase in the repression is because Sisi is looking to consolidate his position ahead of next years presidential elections. Its widely believed to have also been timed to remove critics ahead of a controversial parliamentary vote in June on Sisis decision to cede control of two Red Sea islands to its powerful ally Saudi Arabia. The widely unpopular pact even deemed treacherous by some sparked rare street protests against the regime last year when it was announced.

Some observers suggest the President, who appears sensitive to criticism, has also been left feeling insecure about public criticism over cuts in food and fuel subsidies, and rising inflation, after last years IMF loan agreement. He has also faced criticism over his security strategy after four deadly attacks by the Islamic State group on Egypts Copts since December.

Sisi faces little pressure from Western leaders on human rights, as European powers like France, Germany, the UK and the EU itself havemoved to strengthen ties with Egypt in recent years, deeming it a vital strategic partner.

The presidency of Donald Trump, who appeared to have quickly developed a close bond with Sisi, evidenced by Trump complimenting Sisi on his nice shoes,has also given him confidence at home, says Amro Ali,professor of sociology at the American University in Cairo.

It all boils down, in large part, to the Trump effect. When Trump told Sisi nice shoes, it was a signal to Sisi, metaphorically, to use them to further trample on human rights, Ali said.

There is something banal about the Trump small talk and avoidance of serious issues (not that we have high expectations of Trump anyway) that has emboldened Egypts usual widespread crackdowns to shift gear into destroying potential, rather than actual, threats. From arresting dormant activists to blocking websites, among other things.

But in a surprise move lastweek the US cut or delayed close around $300 million in aid to Egypt. The US State Department said that this was because of the NGO law and deterioration in human rights in Egypt, though the New York Times reported this could also be down to Egypts ties to North Korea.

This may yet provide a glimmer of hope for exhausted opponents of the Sisi regime, like activist Zaraa who says international pressure is key to alleviating their plight or at least preventing it from getting even worse. If there is no [international] pressure he said, then definitely the crackdown will continue.

See the article here:
Egypt's government tightens authoritarian control, blocks dissenting ... - Crikey (registration)

News Corpwill not be allowed to buy an Australian television network other than the Ten Network, even if media-ownership laws are changed, industry executives believe.

Despite strong opposition from media competitors, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission approved Lachlan Murdoch's failed plan to buy the Ten Network.

Receivers PPB Advisory and administrator Korda Mentha surprised the market by agreeing to sell Ten toUS media giant CBS on Monday.

If Mr Murdoch or his family company, News Corp, wanted to buy a different television network instead they would be unlikely to get ACCC approval, industry sources said.

A source close to News Corp denied it was interested in buying the Nine Entertainment Co, which doesn't have a single large shareholder that could block the sale of the company.

Seven West Media, which owns the Seven network, is controlled by West Australian entrepreneur Kerry Stokes, who has shown no interest in selling his top-ranked television stations.

ACCC chairman Rod Sims declined to comment Tuesday but last week said Mr Murdoch was cleared to buy Ten because an alliance with News Corp's media outlets, which include most of Foxtel, Sky News and many newspapers, wouldn't have a big impact on how much news is produced.

Unlike Seven and Nine, the Ten Network doesn't have a high-rated evening news broadcast or well-read online news site, Mr Sims said.

"It might have been a different result if this had been about Channel Nine or Seven, which have a strong online presence and a much stronger evening news," he said on ABC radio.

"This decision doesn't mean let her rip. One can't draw a conclusion that similar transactions will be treated in the same way."

Even though Mr Murdoch, who is News Corp's co-chairman, planned to buy the Ten network in a personal capacity with billionaire Bruce Gordon, sources said plans were well advanced at News Corp to integrate some of Ten's operations before Monday's surprise decision to sell the company to CBS.

Sky News would have produced Ten's evening news, they said, and Fox Sports would have helped produce Ten's sports coverage. The two companies already share the broadcast rights for rugby, supercars and soccer.

Ten and Foxtel use the same company to sell advertising, Multi Channel Network. Given News Corp is likely to see a CBS-owned Ten as a direct competitor, it is unclear if that arrangement will continue.

Taking control of a commercial television network would have locked in a customer for 21st Century Fox, a television and movie company controlled by the Murdoch family, and allowed it share existing costs such as studios, offices and salespeople.

Media-ownership rules don't allow News Corp to own an Australian television network, apart from Foxtel, although Mr Murdoch had worked out a structure using options that would have allowed him to get around the law, which the Coalition government is trying to change, sources said.

News Corp and Fairfax Media, publisher of The Australian Financial Review, have both been campaigning for a change to the law.

Opponents, including the Labor Party and Greens, fear liberalisation would give more power to News Corp, which owns about two-thirds of Australia's newspapers by circulation.

News Corp's publications had a history of giving Ten positive coverage while Mr Murdoch was a shareholder and chairman.

That seemed to change on Monday when The Australian website published an article about the network headlined "Same sex marriage: Network Ten admits doctoring controversial footage".

More:
News Corp doesn't have a second television option - The Australian Financial Review

What will it take for Donald Trump to pass the test?

With the president and first lady arriving in Texas today, will the journalists who questioned whether Trump could handle Hurricane Harvey at least give him credit for showing compassion?

He is, at the very least, avoiding the symbolic mistake of George W. Bush in flying over New Orleans after Katrina. (Bush later admitted this was a huge mistake that made him look detached and uncaring.)

While Harveys catastrophic flooding is overwhelming authorities in Houston, Trump hasnt made any significant missteps so far. He held video conferences with senior officials from Camp David--with the White House sending out pictures to create an image of control.

Virtually every mainstream media outlet has been touting the hurricane as the first natural disaster test for Trump, often rooted in an assumption that a guy with no government experience has no idea how to deal with this. And its early in the process. If FEMA screws up, the president will rightly be criticized. But lets not jump the gun.

The real test, in my view, for a president whos been at war with both parties, is for him to pull together a Texas aid package on the Hill, because staggering amounts of money are going to be needed to rebuild these areas in the coming months and years. And in past battles over Katrina and Sandy, some Republicans have argued against federal disaster aid without offsetting spending cuts.

But as the hurricane drama plays out, the media are pursuing a parallel story line about Trump becoming more isolated within his administration.

(Interesting aside: The press is free to cover political controversies as the hurricane damage mounts, but if Trump, amid a series of Harvey messages, tweets about having won Missouri before visiting the state, some critics say aha, he doesnt care!)

Axios reports that the president is getting fed up with Rex Tillerson, a narrative that was fueled when the secretary of State spoke about the American peoples values on Fox News Sunday.

When Chris Wallace said, And the presidents values?, Tillerson replied: The president speaks for himself.

Pundits are coupling this with the fallout from chief economic adviser Gary Cohn speaking out against Trumps handling of Charlottesville.

At the same time, the media are increasingly focused on what the Wall Street Journal editorial page calls Trumps divorce from the GOP Congress. For example, Trump took a Twitter shot at Bob Corker after the Tennessee senator said he hadnt yet demonstrated the stability or competence to be successful.

And Republicans such as Paul Ryan and John McCain are criticizing Trumps during-the-hurricane pardon of former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio.

One thing is clear: Trump, as always, puts himself in the eye of the storm. And that may be his real test, long after the Houston floodwaters have receded.

Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Go here to read the rest:
During catastrophic flooding, press poses Trump hurricane 'test' - Fox News

The writing was on the wall for Mediacorp when Ernest Wong came back to the national broadcaster as its chairman last July. And two weeks ago, Mediacorp appointed a surprise choice as its chief executive: former CEO Tham Loke Kheng.

Tham is not your normal, safe choice to run a sensitive business like Mediacorp. She is a battle-hardened media executive, having spent considerable time in the dog-eat-dog world of Hong Kong and Taiwan. Wong, who was CEO from 2000 to 2005, seems to have come with specific plans for the media giant as it flounders in a market facing declining advertising revenues and stiff competition from disruptive digital streaming businesses.

Then on Friday (25 August) came the news that the company has struck a deal with its rival Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) to buy back the print giants stakes in the publisher of Today, Mediacorp Press, and the national broadcaster for $18 million. The deal comes with two catches that Today, the print arm of Mediacorp, goes fully digital and, more importantly, that it stops publishing any soft copy of the computer-readable format of the newspaper that looks and feels like the print version of the paper for five years.

The bottom line is this: Today, which came on to the scene in 2000 with audacious ambitions to gobble up 10 per cent of The Straits Times advertising revenue, has now surrendered the print market to SPH. The deal comes 13 years after the latter gave up fighting a bloody war with Mediacorp in the TV market.

Theduopoly of Mediacorp and SPH

With that, SPH has been given a respite but the bout has got a few more rounds to go. Will it continue to put its faith in The New Paper? Can the Chinese afternoon newspapers, Shin Min and Lianhe Wanbao, continue to provide very similar content and survive?

And the biggest question of all: Can SPH continue to bite at the fringes instead of executing some big bang decisions and, if so, for how long? But there is no doubt about one thing: that the reality of the death of print can now be discussed by observers without them being accused of purveying a doomsday scenario.

For Today, it is a scenario the paper has been looking at for a couple of years. Print is the highest cost item for the paper because it does not have a printing press of its own and had to pay a bomb to a private printer, Kim Hup Lee, to get out 200,000 copies a day from Monday to Friday. The weekend edition went fully digital in April this year.

Today faces other challenges as well. Ad revenues in the digital world are miniscule and the fight is with world media giants like Google, Facebook and Amazon. There is also the question of how Mediacorp will rationalise the digital offerings of Channel New Asia and Today.

The media scene has come one full circle after the government initiated a liberalisation drive to get the two giants to compete. Although the government does not have an official hand in the latest change, it is not beyond belief that it hadat least some influence on proceedings. Look at what the government said in a Today article on the latest move, This is a commercial decision. In the next breath, it said, We have no objections to the proposed move. If it is a commercial decision, then why say it has no objections?

The ever-present government

Singapores media history is littered with examples of the governments visible and invisible hand. It was instrumental in getting United Overseas Bank (UOB) to underwrite a newspaper, The Singapore Monitor, in 1981. The goal was to provide competition for The Straits Times, which the authorities felt was getting a little laidback. A new company was formed to include the Chinese papers in the Monitor fold. That attempt failed miserably.

Then came another rationalisation move to get the Chinese papers under the SPH umbrella as a sop to the Chinese-educated, who were still sore about the forced closure of Nanyang University. Then came the liberalisation drive in 2000, with SPH getting a TV licence and Mediacorp a print licence. All these measures have failed.

Most of them were made under the late Lee Kuan Yew, whose obsession with media control was legendary. But times are changing dramatically and the current political leadership must decide if such government interventions are still useful for an industrystruggling with declining revenues and fewer and fewer eyeballs.

As both Ernest Wong and new SPH chief Ng Yat Chung attempt to ensure the survival of their respective companies in a post-print world, a new reality will hopefully dawn on them. A post-mainstream media world has arrived and it is here to stay.

P N Balji is a veteran Singaporean journalist and the former chief editor of Today, as well as aformereditor at The New Paper. He is currently a media consultant. The views expressed are his own.

Link:
COMMENT: Today goes fully digital - what's next for Singapore media? - Yahoo Singapore News

Each month when I write about our right to keep and bear arms, its difficult to predict what the state of play will look like by the time this article hits your mailbox. This is especially so when it comes to the dizzying array of fake news from an opposition that is not only increasingly desperate but also increasingly detached from reality.

This time, however, The Washington Post made it easy. In July, the Post published a story that is so ridiculous, so outlandish in its shading of the truth, that it may very well take its place alongside Rolling Stones timelessly ludicrous expose on Americas five most dangerous guns (i.e., pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, and derringers). The story ran under the headline: Gun-control advocates pushed back a tough year at the state level, and theyll take the win. The basic premise of the Post article is that gun control is winning because its not losing as badly as it conceivably could.

Thats right. According to The Washington Postmaybe Americas second-most prominent nationwide newspapergun control is winning at the state level in 2017.

And, yes, the reporter actually calls it gun control in the piece, not one of the usual euphemisms like gun violence prevention or gun safety laws. Apparently, its acceptable to be honest about the agenda when spiking the football, rather than trying to sneak something by the public.

The storys byline is from a reporter whose biography says she writes about politics. The content, however, is derived from a report by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (LCPGV), a group of gun-hating lawyers now formally associated with Americans for Responsible Solutions (ARS), the gun ban group led by Gabby Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly.

The basic premise of the Post article is that gun control is winning because its not losing as badly as it conceivably could. It attempts to conjure a sort of Rocky Balboa theme by portraying the NRA as an entrenched titleholder facing a plucky upstart in the likes of organizations including ARS, LCPGV, and the Bloomberg-backed Everytown for Gun Safety. According to the article, the outcome of their clashes in Trumps overwhelmingly red America is a foregone conclusion: the reigning champ will prevail. But without a conclusive knockout blow, so the storyline goes, the champs victory is hollow and short-lived and only sets the stage for the sequels in which the contender finally turns the table.

An LCPGV attorney is quoted as saying, 2017 marked a year where we held our ground and then some. An ARS executive enthuses, Were getting better and better. And Everytowns president even claims, When you look at whats happening in statehouses across the country, the gun safety movement is winning.

In reality, however, winning for the gun control side was nothing of the sort. Even with many legislatures still in session and numerous pro-gun initiatives on the move, the NRA has landed all of the years significant wins to date, and the opportunities that were missed this year will be revisited until success is achieved in coming legislative sessions.

The Post article glosses over the fact that the ratio of pro to anti-gun bills actually signed into law at press time was 20:1. Only in the modern era of fake news running amok would that ratio result in the clear loser proclaiming victory and the media reporting it as true.

Moreover, the anti-gun legislation that did pass affected only peripheral issues, whether incremental expansions upon existing prohibited person categories, erosions of due process rights for persons accused of misbehavior, or funding for gun control activity already authorized by law.

None of those developments is welcome news for anyone who respects the U.S. Constitution or rule of law, and they were all opposed by your NRA. But they demonstrate how eager the opposition is to capitalize on any development they can portray as a turning point.

Meanwhile, the pro-gun victories were substantive and in some cases game-changing. Last month I mentioned the omnibus bill signed into law in Iowa, legislation that catapulted the Hawkeye state into the upper ranks of pro-gun jurisdictions. Indeed, it might have been the most important pro-gun bill in Iowas history, apart from 2010s shall-issue concealed carry law.

Leading-edge developments also made their way into law in numerous states. Permitless concealed carry was enacted in New Hampshire and North Dakota. Campus carry forged ahead in Arkansas and Georgia. Gun owners received additional protection for the storage of firearms in personal vehicles in Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana,

Tennessee and Texas. And self-defense laws were materially strengthened in Florida, Iowa and Oklahoma. The Post article glosses over the fact that the ratio of pro to anti-gun bills actually signed into law at press time was 20:1. Only in the modern era of fake news running amok would that ratio result in the clear loser proclaiming victory and the media reporting it as true.

Florida has been a leader in popularizing Stand Your Ground laws that allow victims to determine for themselves whether retreat or defensive force is the safer option in the face of unlawful aggression.

A precedent-setting law passed this year in Florida would revamp the legal procedure in Stand Your Ground cases to ensure the prosecution carries the burden of proof through all phases of the proceedings. Unsurprisingly, the law is generating controversy with those who dont believe in self-defense, but its enactment demonstrates a commitment to freedom that goes beyond the status quo.

The logic of the Posts own story, such as it is, also requires acknowledgement that precious little has happened to advance the gun control agenda, even where anti-gun forces have a relatively free hand. In New Mexico, for example, national anti-gun groups poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into a failed bid to push universal background checks through a legislature newly controlled by Democrats.

The Posts story, standing alone, has little value or important data, but its worth talking about for what it reveals about the modern gun control movement. It might be that at this point in history the mainstream press simply isnt sophisticated or self-aware enough to understand, much less critically evaluate, the nuances of the gun control debate. But even if they were, its clear that the mass media have so attached themselves to the gun control cause that theyre distinguishable from groups like ARS/LCPGV only because they have a broader portfolio of social issues to promote, not in their viewpoints or desire to see America disarmed. Media and gun control advocacy have effectively merged.

Thats not exactly a new development, but the transparency and shamelessness of the alliance is notable even to those of us who have been observing the process for a long time. This collaboration allows gun control advocates to use the reach and prestige of the press to push as the truth their science, their studies, their facts and their narratives.

The premise that a lie told often and insistently enough eventually will be accepted as truth is an idea attributed to tyrants throughout world history. And so the media tells the American public again and againdespite obvious evidence to the contrarythat firearms arent necessary for self-defense, that Americans dont want guns but do want more gun control, and that firearms not fielded by any Army are military-style assault weapons.

And now theyre insistingegged on by gun control groups with a financial interest in delivering results to patrons like Michael Bloomberg and George Sorosthat the tide is turning against the right to keep and bear arms in America and that the glorious victory they have long sought is inevitable.

But it would be a mistake simply to dismiss all their claims and aspirations as fantasies. It is certainly true that firearm prohibitionists are as emboldened, determined and well-funded as ever. It is also true that they have insinuated themselves not just into the mass media apparatus, but into nearly every opinion-influencing sector of American society, from education, to entertainment, to laweven to sports and medicine.

Over time, the combined efforts of these entities have eroded other bedrock and once uncontroversial American values. It would be foolish for us to think the values embodied in the Second Amendment are immune from the same process.

But even if some newspaper writers want you to believe that their version of history is already carved in stone, they dont get to write the next installment in the unfolding story of Americas devotion to its Second Amendment protected freedoms. That remains the job of the American people. Rest assured, your NRA is here to ensure that the good guys, as they always have in the American saga, will find a way to win.

Continue reading here:
Gun Control Advocates, Cheered on by the Media, Claim Victory in Losing - NRA ILA