Mediaboss Marketing

Communication and ground rules is key to keeping social media enjoyable and under control.

image credit: Journal art

By Dennis Box/editor The Enumclaw Courier-Herald

Social media is both a popular and polarizing issue for parents, school districts and students.

Understanding the ins and outs of social media means it can be a way for adults and kids to enjoy pictures, videos and interesting stories.

Being smart with social media is the key.

There is a dark side if used for the wrong ends. Social media can be dangerous if a few rules and precautions are not observed and understood.

Families and schools should communicate clearly on the rules of the road for cell phones, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts.

Social media is a lightening fast form of communication, which can quickly and easily spin out of control.

Communication is the key to keeping social media under control and enjoyable.

See the rest here:
Back to school special report: Be smart with social media

The National Union of Somali Journalists (NUSOJ) expresses outrage over the passing of a contentious anti-media legislation that introduces strict media restrictions and heavy fines.

On Monday, 1 September 2014, Somalia's Council of Ministers narrowly passed a draft media law presented by the Minister of Information, Mustaf Sheikh Ali Dhuhulow, in an attempt to control the independent media under the guise of regulation.

"The broad restrictions laid out by this legislation invite both its abuse by Somali authorities to silence their critics, control independent media, disproportionately punish journalists and self-censorship on the part of journalists and media houses in order to avoid potential repercussions," said Omar Faruk Osman, NUSOJ Secretary General.

"The government has not honoured its pledge to introduce a media law that would expand the margin for free expression and promote the media landscape".

Article 6 of the draft media law establishes a National Media Council, which consists of thirteen (13) members. 6 of the thirteen members will be appointed from the Ministry of Information while 4 members will be appointed from independent media. The remaining three members will be appointed from civil society, particularly from the National Human Rights Commission, the National Women's Organisation, the Solicitor General or the Somali Bar Association. The National Media Council shall be appointed by the Ministry of Information, according to article 6, provision 6.2 of the bill.

This article clearly establishes a media regulatory body which is dominated by the Ministry of Information with most of the members and is appointed by the same ministry. The council undoubtedly lacks independence, credibility and the journalistic community and the wider public will have no faith in it.

All media houses including newspapers must register at the Ministry of Information and pay an unspecified annual license fee to get a licence from the ministry, according to article 7, provision 7.3. This opens the door for the ministry to politicize the issuance of licenses and deny any media house that they may deem to be critical to them.

The draft media law further states that a journalist or media house shall pay a fine between US$5,000 to $10,000 for breach of the "code of ethics", according to article 3, provision 3.4.

As stated by article 21, any media house, which is found guilty by the National Media Council and penalized to pay a fine or compensation must publish or broadcast the judgment of the council, and upon failure to do so, the media house shall pay US$20,000 for penalty.

"The proposed drastic fines will impose an enormous restraint on freedom of the media, resulting in stifling the media, as well as self-censorship," added Osman.

See the rest here:
Somalia: Media Law Imposes Heavy Fines On Journalists for Breaching "Code of Ethics"

"It will kill the media," says Abhinav Shrivastava, an associate with the law offices of Nandan Kamath in Bangalore. He is talking of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India's recent recommendation on corporate ownership of media organisations. "By restricting corporate ownership, you will be clamping down on the sector's ability to raise funds as a whole," says Shrivastava. "On the face of it, Trai's recommendation looks untenable," adds Chinmayi Arun, assistant professor, National Law University, Delhi. "If the media cannot be incorporated into a company, it cannot grow beyond a point. By not allowing it to corporatise, you could be crippling the media," says she.

Funnily enough, Trai's 23 recommendations on "issues relating to media ownership" released last month are intended to do exactly the opposite. They are meant to foster plurality, independent journalism and build a stronger media industry. While several of the recommendations are sensible, the one on corporate ownership is vexing lawyers, media owners and investors alike.

Trai recommends that "on grounds of the inherent conflict of interest, ownership restrictions on corporations entering the media should be seriously considered by the government and the regulator. This may entail restricting the amount of equity holding/loans by a corporation in a media company to comply with provisions relating to control." The three parameters it uses to define control are: equity holding of 20 per cent or more, 51 per cent voting rights or de facto control by means of being a party to agreements, contracts, or understandings. (Ironically , one of the conditions for getting into the news media is that "the largest Indian shareholder should hold at least 51 per cent of the paid up equity".)

For more than a hundred years, media brands have been created and owned by corporations - in the US, Europe as well as India. The Malayala Manorama, one of the largest selling dailies in India, began in 1888 and survived some serious skirmishes with the British because its founders owned a rubber factory and a bank, among other businesses. The Essel group used its rice export business to finance Zee Television. Ramnath Goenka's other businesses helped finance The Indian Express. The Times of India survived years of unprofitable existence because of the family's chemical and other businesses. "If you are in the media business and want to get into IT, there is no restriction, so why should there be a restriction for anybody from any other industry getting into the media," asks Jayant Mathew, director, Malayala Manorama.

The Trai recommendations completely ignore the economic realities of the media industry. News is an expensive and unprofitable business globally. Advertisers cannot fund it completely and audiences are unwilling to pay for them. "If corporations can't fund it, that leaves only one other option, the underworld," quips one broadcast CEO in frustration. Khullar says that the ownership controls are designed to stop more damage to the media in the future.

India is a free market, so how can anyone be stopped from getting into the media, ask experts. This then is the second question. "Instead of trying to impose ownership limitations which can be breached in a million ways, regulators should allow for full plurality and remove entry and exit barriers," says Bahl. Anyone can set up, own and run a media company in a democracy and India's record so far has been wonderful - maybe too much so with thousands of newspapers and 135 news channels. About a third of these are owned by politicians and random real estate developers, making for some terrible news television. More than 60 per cent of the cable systems are owned by politicians who block other channels at will. So Trai reiterates a suggestion made in 2008 that political, governmental or religious bodies or their surrogates should be barred from broadcasting and distribution of television signals. And any such body already into news should be provided an exit.

Bahl agrees with that. "They (religious and political bodies) are different - their objective is not to operate in a competitive media market but to further a religion or a political party. The media is a competitive economic activity and survives on advertising and other forms of commercial revenues, so only those entities should be allowed to participate which are mandated to compete in commercial activities," says he. Other supporters of the ban -the-politicians-from-news brigade point to Ofcom (the communications regulator in the UK) which regulates media ownership by religious and political bodies. "Ofcom is a quasi-judicial body, it has (legal) competence," points out Shrivastava.

This then brings us to the third and most critical question: Trai's authority to make recommendations in the whole area of plurality and ownership. It is after all just the broadcast carriage regulator. The Competition Commission of India, according to Shrivastava, is the right body to regulate on issues of influence and dominance in any market, a point many media firms have made to Trai in their submissions.

The way out Trai doesn't agree with that view. It makes suggestions on cross-media restrictions such as a newspaper with a dominating share in one market cannot own a dominating TV channel in the same market and vice versa. "The vertical and horizontal limits will take care of plurality. But to handle conflict of interest, you need regulation that is outside of the government. That is where a media regulator would help," says Khullar.

Maybe giving teeth to self-regulatory bodies such as the Press Council of India or the News Broadcasters Association will be more effective, says one broadcast CEO. Others suggest getting the Union ministry of information and broadcasting out of the regulatory picture. Its conflicting roles, as the policymaker, regulator and one of the biggest advertisers, have created havoc with media regulation for years.

View post:
Trai proposals may thwart media growth

The head of the Committee to Protect Journalists believes its no longer an effective strategy

The brutal murder of journalist James Foley and now Steven Sotloff in Syria has sparked disbelief and raw outrage. Now, a broader debate is opening about the role of the media in conflict zones: Are some stories just too dangerous for journalists to cover? Should governments pay ransom when reporters are kidnapped? How should the media cover terrorist propaganda like that surrounding the beheading of these journalists?

Answering these questions requires accurate and timely information from conflict zones, precisely the kind of thing journalists risk their lives to report.

But there is one story the media has not been covering fully, at least until recently. And that is the story of the kidnappings themselves. Under a practice known as a media blackout, news organizations have routinely suppressed information about the widespread abductions of journalists and others that have taken place in Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, and other countries around the world. The number of journalists kidnapped each year varies greatly from conflict to conflict, but there has never been anything like Syria. More than 80 journalists have been kidnapped since the conflict erupted in 2011.

As head of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Ive been involved in far too many of these cases over the years. Ive provided support from media organizations and families; Ive participated in campaigns, both and public and private, to win the release of kidnapped reporters; and Ive debriefed many journalists and media organizations about their experience.

Initially, I supported the use of media blackouts in selective cases. But more recently I have come to doubt that it is an effective strategy. The rationale behind blackouts is that they can save lives by facilitating hostage negotiations. But I have seen scant evidence to support this. Meanwhile, because the news is suppressed and sometimes never released, blackouts themselves stifle the public debate and undermine the medias own credibility.

After Foley went missing while reporting in Syria on November 22, 2012, his family and editors initially asked for a blackout. But after much reflection, they decided to go public and in January 2013 launched a public campaign for his release. I believe this was the right decision. The terrible killing of Sotloff, whose abduction was not reported until ISIS itself broke the news in the Foley video, makes clear that blackouts are not likely to effect the outcome at least as far is ISIS is concerned.

In Foleys case, the public campaign did put pressure on US authorities, which launched an unsuccessful military operation to try to rescue Foley, Sotloff, and other hostages. Media coverage of Foleys kidnapping also raised public awareness about the perilous conditions in which journalists work in Syria. Finally, it prevented Foleys depraved killers from using the video of his execution to define him as a helpless victim. Indeed, blackouts may well serve the interests of Islamic militants who peddle in murder videos since they make it easier for such groups to control the message.

The kidnapping of journalists is not a new phenomenon. From Lebanon to Colombia, militant, guerrilla and criminal groups have used media kidnappings to extract ransom, generate publicity, and shape coverage. Journalists are uniquely vulnerable because they need to interact directly with the militants and where possible gain their trust.

At first, the response to such kidnappings was to use the power of the media itself to put pressure on the perpetrators to release their hostage. That strategy worked so long as those holding the journalist were hurt by the negative publicity.

View original post here:
Is it time to end media blackouts?

Interviewee: Philip Seib, Professor of Journalism, Public Diplomacy, and International Relations, USC Interviewer: Jonathan Masters, Deputy Editor September 2, 2014

The critical foreign coverage of unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, is the latest instance reflecting perceptions abroad of American hypocrisy, says Philip Seib, an expert on media and foreign policy. "The United States preaches about transparency in government and about human rights around the world," Seib says, "and then trips up on [National Security Agency] snooping and out-of-control policing in Ferguson." He says that while the negative imagery from events like Ferguson is difficult to counteract, U.S. public diplomats can do a better job of promoting foreign policy successes like humanitarian relief.

How much of an effect do the events in Ferguson have on foreign publics' perception of the U.S?

The events in Ferguson have negatively and significantly affected global perceptions of the United States. Part of this is due to the predictably hostile tone of news coverage from Russia, Iran, and the like, but the undistorted truth, as seen in the photographs and video emerging from Ferguson, tells a story that contradicts official U.S. messaging about championing human rights. When a half-dozen police officers in full military gear confront one apparently unarmed African-American with his hands raised, the image of that has its own power; no propagandistic adornment is necessary. Damage is done.

Much of the critical coverage is coming from U.S. alliesthe UK, Germany, Canadais this a symptom of deeper discontent with Washington?

From allies and others, much of the criticism reflects discontent with what is perceived as American hypocrisy. The United States preaches about transparency in government and about human rights around the world, and then trips up on [National Security Agency] snooping and out-of-control policing in Ferguson. There is a bit of schadenfreude as a result.

In general, how do you feel the U.S. brand is faring abroad these days?

I don't like using "brand" in referring to nations because it trivializes foreign policy; a nation is not a soft drink. But the United States suffers from a perceived lack of resoluteness. When the [Bashar al-] Assad regime in Syria crossed the "red line" President Obama had drawn [with a heightened threat of punishment for use of chemical weapons], and then the United States did nothing, American credibility suffered considerable damage.

How do negative events like Ferguson balance against positive ones like U.S. humanitarian relief after the Fukushima disaster or Haiti's earthquake?

The exceptional assistance that the United States has provided in the aftermath of numerous humanitarian disasters should be a more central ingredient in U.S. public diplomacy messages about what this country stands for. Granted, self-praise may seem inappropriate when many thousands of casualties have occurred and when many more thousands are living in misery, but reality must trump modesty. Too many people have only a vague concept of what America is, and fixing that requires a certain amount of self-serving communication.

See the article here:
Countering the U.S. Image Problem