#39;Oil Control #39;~51-Ch7E-Rise of the NWO/Culling of Man
"It is the Luciferian Rockefeller/Rothschild/Illuminati/New World Order consortium who not only control the output and distribution of all the oil that is po...
By: e
Original post:
'Oil Control'~51-Ch7E-Rise of the NWO/Culling of Man - Video
Leela Samson, chairperson of the Central Board of Film Certification or CBFC, resigned last week. She cited governmental interference and the inability to make changes without any funds being released. Twelve members followed her. Soon, a war of words ensued with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B), under which CBFC falls. On Monday, the ministry appointed film-maker Pahlaj Nihalani as chairman. Besides films such as Aankhen (1993) and Shola Aur Shabnam (1992), Nihalani has made a six-minute video campaign for Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Nine more members, reportedly sympathetic to the current government's right-wing ideology, have been appointed. The tussle between the liberals and others has been played out in the media, extensively.
This drama seems pointless. When has any government - whether it is led by the Congress or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) - ever believed in letting any "body" operating in media and entertainment be? There is a fig leaf of autonomy bestowed through some act, but essentially every government, since independence, has been loath to give up control over anything to do with media. That also explains why the I&B ministry continues to be the policymaker, regulator and one of the biggest advertisers on media, all rolled in one. This creates a conflict of interest that doesn't exist in most free markets in the world.
Take Prasar Bharati, the "autonomous body" that runs Doordarshan and All India Radio. It is not allowed to hire people or fire them and it cannot leverage its considerable assets to raise money without the approval of the I&B ministry. In fact, it does not even own its assets, including 1,400 transmission towers, spectrum and real estate, because no government ever formally transferred them to the corporation after enacting the legislation to create it in 1997. It remains abjectly dependent on government dole - either as budgetary support or advertising.
A quick read through the Sam Pitroda Committee's 2014 report on Prasar Bharati, the fourth in a decade, will tell you that and more. Every government, irrespective of the party in power, has treated Doordarshan as an in-house mouthpiece meant to be controlled. They have studiously ignored all talk of financial and administrative autonomy.
In the early part of 2014, there was a ruckus over the alleged selective editing of an interview of BJP's then prime ministerial candidate, Narendra Modi. He referred to Doordarshan's struggle to maintain its freedom. The (then) I&B minister, Manish Tewari, retorted that the government keeps an arm's length distance from Doordarshan. But most politicians forget their worry about the "freedom of Doordarshan" once they are in power. The result of successive governments ignoring, abusing or suppressing the power of Prasar Bharati has made it the pathetic body it is today. Doordarshan has the same not-for-profit funding model as BBC or an Al Jazeera, but it is nowhere close to them in quality or reach.
Then there is the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai), the broadcast carriage regulator. While it has brought a lot of order to the chaos in the Indian television industry, it is clearly not as independent as the Act that created it would suggest. Almost every sensible paper or recommendation that Trai has/has made, is either ignored or put on the back burner. Digitisation, which could make India's television industry a force to reckon with globally, began very well in 2011. And Trai did a good job getting it going despite the madness that typifies India's on-ground TV distribution. But its deadline has been pushed back by the ministry largely because local cable operators, many of whom are politically affiliated, lobbied against it. That puts at least several millions of dollars worth of investment on hold. Not to mention the two billion-odd dollars that could be released as fully white, taxable pay revenue, if digitisation goes through completely.
CBFC is a statutory body under the I&B ministry to regulate the public exhibition of films under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act of 1952. The ministry, therefore, has the right to hire and fire people within. And most governments have used that power. Why then this lip service to "autonomy"?
It is time governments gave up on that fig leaf and admitted that they like controlling the media and other creative industries. At least then industry will know where it stands.
Twitter: @vanitakohlik
See the original post here:
Vanita Kohli-Khandekar: The fig leaf of autonomy
When President Obama was done with his turn the page speech, what seemed to resonate most with the pundits was his denunciation of cynicismand his critique of the media.
We already knew what he was going to say last night on taxes and new programs, so the networks spent little time on that. But who expected him to channel his 2004 speech about moving beyond red and blue states, to decry the medias focus on gotcha politics and gaffes, and to declare that I still believe the cynics are wrong?
NBCs Chuck Todd quickly returned to reality, saying, Does he have some sort of followup on breaking gridlock?
ABCs Jonathan Karl was surprised that Obama gave no nod to Mitch McConnell as the new majority leader: There was no mention of the fact that he was walking into a very different chamber.
Cokie Roberts, too, felt the rhetoric didnt match the appeal: This speech was all about a Democratic agenda, and not trying to get something done.
Even Robert Gibbs, Obamas former spokesman, said on MSNBC: I dont know that were going to change our politics over the next two years.
Rachel Maddow lauded the president for directly taking on the question of whether he had let the country down. For people who voted for him, and thought he could be transformative, that is the central question, she said.
But Chris Matthews seemed to take Obamas criticism personally: I think he made a mistake about cable TV. There are a lot of people, our network especially, who hoped and shared his hope.
On Fox, George Will said Obama was trying to come off as Mr. Congenial, but he pledged four, count em, four vetoes.
Juan Williams said he didnt think the audience would warm to Obamas crowing mode, but that his attack on crazy politics and call for worthy debates could strike a nerve.
Visit link:
Media debate Obamas cry against cynical politics -- and coverage
Wake Up People! (The Truth Behind It All)
Paris prophet Mohammad! The truth behind it all. Don #39;t let the media control your thoughts!
By: 3mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Read the original here:
Wake Up People! (The Truth Behind It All) - Video
A mathematical study of how infectious diseases spread has demonstrated a surprising link between the progress of an outbreak and the way that outbreak is portrayed in the media.
The study suggests that when public health officials are speaking to reporters about an outbreak, they should include information about the rate at which a disease is spreading and not just the total number of cases in a population. The studys authors say that in a real-world situation, effective media communication could delay the peak of an outbreak by days or weeks, buying crucial time for health agencies to respond.
Its a really interesting result, said Abba Gumel, a professor of mathematical biology at Arizona State University who was not involved in the study. It shows that the quality of media coverage, especially during the early stages of an outbreak, is really important.
To quantify that importance, researchers led by Jianhong Wu, director of York Universitys Centre for Disease Modelling in Toronto, built a mathematical model based on a 2009 flu outbreak with data on case numbers from the Shaanxi province of China. In the model, the influence of the media has an effect on the number of individual contacts, which can spread the infection from one person to another.
We know intuitively that the media can change population behaviour, Dr. Wu said. What were trying to do is find the functional relationship between the media and that change.
When the media influence was removed or altered in the model, the team was able to study the difference in the way the outbreak proceeded. They found that the medias impact was not uniform across the duration of the outbreak but was strongest during the initial stages, when the rate of new infections is changing most rapidly.
In contrast to previous studies, they found that media impact seems to switch off as an outbreak nears its peak, despite the fact that this is when the probability of getting infected is at its highest. In a discussion of their results, published Friday in the journal Scientific Reports, the team said that the way media influence switches on and off as a disease spreads through a population may account for why some outbreaks feature multiple peaks.
A key finding of the study is that by emphasizing the rate of change of case numbers rather than simply the total number of cases, officials may be able to significantly slow the growth of an outbreak. In the case of a deadly flu pandemic, that would increase the opportunity for health agencies to develop and produce antiviral medications.
Every week you can delay, youre one week closer to getting a vaccine. You want to drag [the peak] out, otherwise by the time you get your act together, everybodys infected already, said Michael Gardam, director of infection prevention and control at the University Health Network in Toronto.
He added that the York study should encourage health officials to think more strategically about the role of the media as an agent of disease control.
View original post here:
Media can help slow spread of disease, study finds