Global Media News

Journalist threatened by government officials in Veracruz, Mexico

After "journalist Jorge Carrasco was in Veracruz this week reporting on the killing of another Proceso". The Proceso magazine has release a statement; that because of Carrasco investigation in another  Proceso's journalist death, that they have found "reports about a meeting between former officials and government officials, public safety and the Attorney Veracruz whose purpose was to agree hostile actions against the reporter in response to more recent publication Regina around for Martinez, who began circulating across the country on the same Sunday 14." and the intention of the officials might be to "kidnapping and [cause]possible death" to journalist Jorge Carraso. 

The most likely explanation for  the government officials to send threats towards Jorge Carrasco is in  the article he did on which"was critical of Veracruz authorities’ handling of the case of Regina Martinez, the weekly’s correspondent in that state, who was strangled and beaten to death a year ago this month." and how they ended up convicting a junkie for the crime who has "denied guilt, saying he was tortured by Veracruz authorities into making a confession " 

Carrasco's article in detail also "exposed numerous holes in the state’s investigation, including questionable evidence and the failure of Veracruz prosecutors to take into account journalistic work by Martinez that angered many of the state’s powerful. The magazine accused state prosecutors of ignoring justice to instead protect the image of Veracruz Gov. Javier Duarte, under whose administration more journalists have been killed or gone missing than anywhere else in Mexico."

Journalists in Mexico are already in danger from kidnapping and death threats from the drug cartels but now to have government officials doing same thing that drugs cartels are doing becomes more problematic. This is a problem when people are in power and they are corrupt, they will do anything to keep their power. Even threatening a journalist that has already exposed their corrupt dealings. While this is good thing that corrupted government  officials find journalists to be threatening to their power, meaning that what journalist's report on  has the power on taking out these corrupt officials. In reality it should be the corrupt officials running for the hills and not the other way around where it the journalists that are doing this.

European Union regulation of the press and Britain backlash

European Commission wants to set up a  "proposals for EU-wide regulation of the press".  Lord Justice Leveson is the one who set up proposals to have  wide spread media regulation in the  European Union. It has been reported that in a proposal , the European Union would set up media councils giving them the powers "such as the imposition of fines, orders for printed or broadcast apologies, or removal of journalistic status." Some have argue that this seems somewhat fascist; that the idea that the Europe's set of standards for their media would be control by one governing body of the  European Union instead of having individual countries running and regulating their own media.

 While the European Commission has said that the proposal would up hold the  "European values", there are some countries that are already  opposed to this proposal. One country  that is particularly against this proposal is Great Britain. 

Department for Culture, Media and Sport(UK) have been quoted to have said "We have no intention of allowing Europe to regulate the British press. We have been clear that, as set out in the Leveson report, we expect the British press industry to implement tough, independent, self-regulation, in adherence with the Leveson principles.” The Britians have so much pride in their British run media regulations; that they  refuse to let any other country or specifically the European Union to control and regulate their media. Who can blame them really.

 This proposal looks good on paper but in reality as it stand s as of right now it is a mess to even try to get the proposal approved. One major problem that this proposal has  is that European Union has no "legal competence under the treaties to harmonise substantive media laws such as defamation. Any notion of harmonised rules of the game, monitored by the EU, is anathema to press freedom..." Meaning that  the European Union could only limit and regulate the press freedom doctrines already set in place by most of the world media. So if this proposal was approved as of right now it would be completely useless since they have no  legal right  to regulate the media.I personally  believe that media should regulate media, that it is a lot more truthfully run although sometimes bias, but at least it is not control by the government or some politician's agenda.  

Twitter and drug violence in Mexico

What happens when news networks stop reporting on certain subjects? Would lifes will be lost? This has been happening in Mexico where "Mexico’s media channels have stopped reporting about drug-related violence in the country because they have been threatened with violence. In response to the lack of news many Mexican’s have started using Twitter as a means to find that lacking news."

 Everyday citizens have picked up the slack on Twitter where they "inform the public about shootings, harassment, murders and arrests,.." To note  as well that those who report about drug related violence on Twitter are in danger of receiving death threats from Mexican Cartels. While they are taking some risks reporting about the drug violence over on Twitter; they're lucky to  "remained anonymous in order to [not have to faced] the [same amount of ] risks... by traditional journalists."

These twitter users are doing good work in that "The tweets acted as a “public service announcement” that warned citizens to stay clear of certain neighborhoods." Although these twitters users shouldn't  be the only ones reporting on the Mexican drug cartel violence. Journalists that know the risks of their jobs being dangerous  at times, should be reporting on the drug violence in there country regardless of the threats they get.   

 

Mumbai,India gets it's first Social Media Lab

In India, Mumbai police set up the first social media lab in the country. The main idea behind setting up this lab by Mumbai police is so that they can " Through [their] social media lab, [they] will come to know the pulse of the people as to what they are thinking, writing and what's happening in the city, country and around the world. By reading the mindset of what people are writing on various modes of communication, we will try to provide better and improved safety and security to the Mumbai citizens," This sounds all fine and dandy, but critics of this have said that they believe the lab will be used to impose more censorship in the country.  

Censorship became a problem when, "Last year, [where] controversy surrounding social networking sites surfaced when two teenaged girls were arrested in the state’s Thane town for allegedly making offensive comments about then deceased chief of the Hindu radical Shiv Sena party, Bal Thackeray. Their arrests spurted a furious debate on the role of censorship and freedom of expression in the country." So are the police setting up to cause more censorship in their country or are they trying to understand how social media works and are attemping to protect their citizens from certian dangers of the internet?

It's been stated by, "Commissioner of Police Satyapal Singh said its purpose was not to invoke censorship on discussions of various subjects, but only to analyse them." We can only hope that this is what they plan on using it for. It is too early to tell if this social media lab will be good for the police in protecting their citizens or that it will cause more censorship in India; creating issues concerning their citizen's freedom of speech/expression.  

 

India:Social media and fraud

Those on the internet know that at one point you come cross a pop up ad saying you win a million dollars; you know that this is some kind of hoax; if you click on the ad you will get a virus on your computer or that someone is trying to steal your social security number.  We also have on FaceBook  come across a fake celebrity account claiming to be whatever celebrity they are when in reality it is some 15 year old fan running the account. This has become a recent problem in India as many celebrities and MPs (members of Parliament) are complaining about this.

 One "Former Bollywood star and Rampur MP Jayaprada said celebrities are being targeted on Facebook. [She is reported to said]"Fake Facebook accounts are being created and nude pictures are posted on them. There is no provision to delete them. Is the government trying to find the links to those who create these accounts? This is not freedom of expression," she said." 

So the question is what is freedom of expression? Is it teens impersonating  their favorite celebrity on FaceBook? Or are these celebrities allowed to claim defamation of their personality and image; that is it being ruined by these fake FaceBook accounts? Well "communications minister Kapil Sibal's response that policing the internet was a work in progress led to calls for tougher action against social media." 

While Kapil Sibal called for tougher action with social media he still cautions, saying "If we object to certain postings we will violate freedom of expression. This government is fully committed to ensuring freedom of expression."  So how are they to police social media sites without stepping on people's right to freedom of expression? 

It became a recent problem with children impersonating thier favorrite cereblity on FaceBook. That  there are programs in place set up by Delhi police to educated young people about the Internet. That program "...will primarily focus on creating awareness amongst children about the risks of uninhibited exchange of information on the internet and the precautions one needs to take. "Asking children to refrain from entering adult and hate sites, informing them of the cyber laws of the country and initiating publicity campaigns are some of the highlights of this programme," 

Unfair Coverage in Hungary?

        In the past few years a law was passed in Hungary stating that media outlets that are bias and do not have fair coverage on all sides are subject to a fine. "Hungary's Parliament passed a law which threatens fines on media who engage in "unbalanced coverage"." Many of the media outlets in Hungary were only covering one view point of a story, this causes Hungarian citizens to not have all of the information and it can cause them to think in a certain way if they only have one side of a story.

        According to IFLA, "The act, comprising 230 articles, establishes in the country a new body for media control, the National Media and Communications Authority, for monitoring the contents of all media, including the internet. Media Council is an independent body of the Authority. The Authority may stipulate regulations with respect to the behavior of the media. If it regards that the published information is not balanced, it has the right to impose a heavy fine to the media in question or even suspend its activity (see article 187 below). It may also oblige the media to reveal their source of information. The Act also gives quotas to European and Hungarian programs and music in the public media (articles 20-22). The Act stresses respecting "family values," a fact that has made the international sexual minority organizations suspicious. The Authority, as well as several other institutions, is led by Fidesz, the leading political party."

        This act was passed in order to make the citizens of Hungary more informed and have a better rounded view point. The Hungarian government wants their citizens to be able to think for themselves, if they do not have all of the information, this becomes impossible.

        However, according to The Human Rights Brief enforcing this law on the media outlets in Hungary also infringes on Hungarian rights that are granted by the Hungarian Constitution. While at the same time, not informing Hungarian citizens of all of the information is also taking away the Hungarian rights.

        This is an issue that the European Union has stepped into to try and resolve to create fairness for both sides. "The Media Act has received harsh criticism. Many European nations criticize the Act for violating Article 62 of Hungary’s constitution, which recognizes freedom of the press, as well as Article 10 of the ECHR, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression."

Twitter Blocked?: Pakistan Edition

        While in the United States we have the freedom to have access to everything on the Internet, in Pakistan, they are not so lucky. In Pakistan, the government blocked the use of twitter for their citizens.

        In Pakistan, the government blocked the usage of twitter. They did this because the ministry did not like that twitter would not, not post certain topics. According to the Ministry of Information Technology, "twitter was blocked because it failed to respond and take action regarding the publishing of blasphemous content." While the Pakistani government may not want their citizens being exposed to certain things, this is a bit extreme.

    However, this blockage of twitter only lasted for about 12 hours, according to Michael Kugelman of the Huffington Post. Even though twitter was banned, Kugelman says, "Ironically, most of this outrage was expressed on Twitter itself. Users in Pakistan promptly discovered alternate means of accessing the micro-blogging site, created the hashtag #TwitterBan, and angrily tweeted away." So, this means that Pakistan citizens still found a way to tweet using a third party.

        The Pakistani government should not just be able to block a website out of spite. How is the Pakistani government being fair to their citizens? This is not something that the government should be able to take away and change on a whim.

Brazil: The Social Media Capital

        It was recently revealed by the Wall Street Journal, that the social media capital of the world is Brazil.  Brazil has surpassed the United States and Europe, even though Brazil is on top, it still has potential for growth to become even bigger.

        The reason Brazil is able to be on top and continue to grow versus a country like China is because; according to Polly Becker a blogger on the wall "the [Chinese] state imposes many restrictions on what can and can't go on, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are currently blocked." Brazil is able to surpass countries such as china because they do not have restrictions like this.

        There are 65 million Facebook users, this puts Brazil right behind the United States in the number of Facebook users. However, the reason Brazil is ahead of the United States in social media as a whole is because Brazilians use many other social media websites along with Facebook where as in the United States, many Americans primarily use Facebook.

         According to The Wall, "a recent study found at Latin America's on line population grew faster than any other global region.." This creates interest for the social media companies to want to promote their social media site in a country like Brazil.

         From a promotional standpoint, these social media companies have a major opportunity to get many more Latin American users and expand their social media site even more so. This is a great place for smaller social media sites to start, it can create a domino effect if promoted properly.

 

Afghanistan vs. YouTube

        While the Afghanistan government has banned the use of YouTube to their citizens. The Afghanistan government felt that they did not want their citizens to have the freedom to view the kind of material that is available on YouTube. According to the New York Times, "While officials say they hope to lift the block “as soon as possible,” they have offered only a vague sense of what must happen before that can be done." The Afghan government is worried that their younger population will have access to view information that they do not want them to see, according to an Afghan citizen, "“I don’t need YouTube. I can watch videos on other Web sites.”

        The original reason that YouTube was banned was because of "a trailer for the video “Innocence of Muslims,” which portrays the Prophet Muhammad as a crass thug and a womanizer, began to circulate in September, the Afghan government reacted quickly to stem potential violence as riots broke out in other countries. In a move that senior Western officials in Afghanistan praised, the Afghan authorities reached out to religious leaders across the country, urging them to preach restraint and tolerance." More controversially, officials also decided to impose the ban on YouTube after the company refused to remove the video from its site.

        The citizens who agree with the government are not the people they need to worry about viewing the material, it's the people who disagree with the government and will find another way to view the material. The government has to has faith in their citizens. "Still, some are asking the question: Where does the government draw the line on filtering information to its citizens? The answer has consistently been: Anywhere Islam is insulted." In my opinion this is over the top, the government has to trust their citizens enough to have their own view on the Afghan government.

Is Big Brother Too Protective?

        Every country has to take precautions, however Israel, has to take more than most. Israel is located centrally to all of their enemies. Israel is a Jewish country that is surrounded by Islamic and Arab countries, this creates a major issue since they share borders.

        The Israeli government has to be very careful with what they allow their citizens to post on the internet. According to Tikun Olam, the Israeli Army has begun to take drastic measures to monitor what is posted on social media sites, they are comparing this to "Big Brother". According to Richard Silverstein, "..as it begins monitoring the social media accounts of Israeli journalists and bloggers for potential violation of censorship provisions.  At a conference on digital media, the censor, an IDF colonel, announced that her staff would further constrict freedom of the press and speech by assuming the mantle of social media enforcer.."

        However, most countries try and take away their citizens freedom to shield them from what they may see on the internet or other media outlets, Israel is doing this to protect their citizens from other countries. If Israeli's put the wrong things on the internet, it may create issues for the country.

    Israel is very technologically ahead of most countries, they have created a new system to monitor the internet.  According to Col. Sima Vaknin-Gil, "[T]he new system will monitor visual and textual information on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, on blogs and on traditional news sites. Vaknin-Gil explained that the new system will examine information using keywords labeled in advance. The system will be able to monitor information that was previously difficult to reach.

        According to OpenNet, "Although the censorship of information considered vital to national security is a reality, both under law and by voluntary pact, Israel has yet to legally authorize or implement filtering of the Internet. " Israel has to have its guard up at all times, even if it means restricting their citizens from certain content. They are in a very different position then most countries and need to know how to operate as such.