From a government-controlled television channel and heavily censored entertainment to a modern abundance of information and entertainment capable of withstanding competition from international media, the Pakistani media environment has emerged in recent years as pressure and government censorship and the weakening of ‘freedom of speech’ have eased. Increased…
The last few years have been a turning point for the Pakistani media. Changing trends and liberal thinking have allowed the media to operate on such an open scale as never before in the history of the country. From models barely dressed in music videos to live discussions on taboo topics, the Pakistani media has undergone a transformation and has now become a major competitor to foreign media. Needless to say, the media themselves played a vital role in changing the perception of the conservative masses. No matter how conservative it may be, cafes and clubs have sprung up in every major city, and dance parties have become commonplace.
The media has grown enormously not only in the entertainment sector, but also in the news and information sector. The major newspapers have opened several new news channels and broadcast news as they appear. From uncovering the perversity of a metropolis like Karachi to live video broadcasts of violence erupting across the country. However, this freedom has to be paid for. The media have become too convenient to display graphics on screen and in print, leading to new laws for displaying graphics on the screen.
I have a question: what next? What’s next for the Pakistani media? It seems that the media are reaching a new level of broadcasting. Recently, one of Pakistan’s leading cellular telecommunications companies launched a service that allows broadcasting TV channels via GPRS or mobile Internet. No matter how successful this service is, it is a step in the right direction. Mobile companies around the world broadcast television content through their 3G networks.
On the contrary, it is the next important step for the Pakistani media, as the concept of web tv is already very popular among the tech-savvy population. On the other hand, the government has begun to introduce more bureaucracy and regulations in the industry and its activities. This will undoubtedly hinder the development and freedom of the media, but also hides their future. Only time will tell where the media is going now.
Over time, less attention is paid to quality and more attention is paid to how something is presented. This is true of today’s era, when things of the past consisted of the founders of highly paid, highly paid Class C products, which owe their success to presentation and packaging, and in today’s era the Internet largely dominates marketing. location. According to Forrester Homework, 97% of consumers search for the product on the Internet, and 92% immediately contact the company, finding and reading information about the product on the Internet.
Unfortunately, the use of the Internet as an advertising strategy is no longer a universal idea, and more and more companies are following this trend and are becoming fiercely competitive for small businesses or local businesses. Online advertising does not guarantee an immediate influx of customers. In this area, you should be at the top, or at least at the top of the page; Google page that is.
Optimizing freedom is the right choice for this. Freedom Optimize is a commercial advertising provider that helps local businesses through independent partners. It is a direct sales and online sales company offering advertising solutions under its own brand of trust and reliability. This allows these small businesses or firms to take advantage of the world of cyberspace.
But Optimize Freedom’s business opportunities don’t end there. Although Optimize Freedom is focused on providing services over the Internet, it also provides other types of media. The service allows local businesses and businesses to promote video, mobile devices, and other social networks, which can ensure that these businesses are promoted in Google’s rankings with the Guerrilla Trustmark sign and a suite of solutions. Optimize Freedom services provide local small businesses with the ability to have reliable leaders, brands on items you can trust, and useful startup help.
The optimization of freedom also makes the marketing process as painless as possible for the local entrepreneur. You don’t need special skills to get what you’re selling. There is no need for extensive research on online marketing or interactive media.
Optimize Freedom has assembled a team of Internet marketing experts who guarantee only the best in promoting business, business and business. They’re already moving in almost all types of social networks with results that can be shown, but their strength in internet marketing, and in this they proved that they exceeded expectations.
Optimize Freedom services also rely on a proven brand and solution-seeking Guerrilla Marketing, a company founded by Jay Levinson that relies on unconventional promotional methods and instead relies on time, energy and creativity rather than a large marketing budget.
Most, if not all, consumers are now using digital-age gadgets to query, research and validate a new product line or business they’ve just heard of, or to fall in love with them at all, your business is sold around the world. . The Internet is essential to its success. So choose wisely and maximize your freedom.
An Internet marketing expert and a leading expert reveals how IT can be completely killed with the Optimize Freedom business model. Get the Optimize Freedom Insider report today by visiting:
Since the uprising began in Tunisia and called on the longtime dictator to resign, Egypt has followed the example of Tunisia’s recent Jasmine Revolution in search of reform, freedom and respect, using social media to organize, communicate and express its feelings, not just for the world. but to tell your dictators, “This is the end of your rule, and now it’s time to change whether you like it or not.”
The young catalysts of Twitter, Facebook and social networks are the driving force behind the revolution not only in Tunisia and Egypt, but also in Jordan and Yemen, where the role of social networking has proven that the new world order in digital social communications brings . totalitarian regimes in the Middle East. The incessant youth, the nascent youth, the educated elite of the Arab world express themselves in search of freedom. Yes, freedom is a precious commodity, especially in the Arab world, where there are no real democracies, but decades of totalitarian regimes have taken control of their people and turned it into modern slaves. Moreover, Egypt’s stranded elite is speaking out after thirty years of unprecedented selfish rule that has stolen their dignity by preventing them from participating in decision-making, taking responsibility for their future and now fighting for their pride in defining the road map to be won. freedom, the right to self-expression, needless to say, to earn respect by rewriting history, making them proud citizens of their forced changes, to set a better example not only to Egypt, but also to other dictators in the Middle East and around the world. Now social networks are terrible for dictatorships all over the Arab world, where Egypt’s dictatorial regimes are shutting down all social networks and communications to put more pressure on young people to stop their uprising, but it has not only turned against the totalitarian regime, but has also provoked more anger and given young people more reasons not to give up so easily, while supporting the struggle for freedom to the end until Mr. Mubarak witnesses his final minutes of 30 years of rule.
Socialization in the digital world is building a new world order, stimulating change and overthrowing dictators, at least in the Arab world. Egypt’s young closed elite seeks regime change, free elections and power to elect their own leaders, demanding that their basic civil rights be heard and respected; but getting there becomes even more difficult when the streets are chaos and a brand new ball game begins. Social media plays a vital role in bringing about change by giving these young rebels a tool they never had before, they could overthrow dictators and create a new world order in social digital communications.
Important facts about Egypt according to the latest CIA data published in FactBook: 2010
Population: 80 million
Average age: 24 years
GDP: about $216.8 billion (2009)
Per capita income: $6,200 (GDP/year ppp, 2010)
Unemployment: 9.7% (estimate)
Strategic interests for the world:
The Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty was signed in 1979. It is estimated that 10% of global demand for crude oil passes through the Suez Canal. The largest population in the Middle East Egypt receives about $2-3 billion in aid from the United States each year. Egypt has ancient treasures and artifacts. The Pyramids are one of the best wonders of the world. A global destination for tourists, making it one of the most important tourist markets in the world. Popular hashtags used on Twitter to message “Egyptian Uprising”:
Social freedom Twitter revolution
Civil liberties Surprise Mona Altahawi
To analyze “The Last Moods of the Uprising in Egypt Since It Began Eight Days Ago on January 25, 2011”; You can always link here.
Rami Gali is a marketer with more than a decade of experience in international markets. He has held professional and management positions in various global markets in a variety of industries, from retail, wholesale, consumer goods to technology product management, focusing on the development of distribution channels. He also holds a degree in International Marketing and a degree in International Relations and Middle East Studies from Daytona State College. He was interested in social media developments, next-generation search technologies, semantic search engines and text analysis; Needless to say, geopolitics, Middle East research and environmental factors that influence the growth of global business are common interests that love to watch and encourage writing about them.
The right to express opinions and freedom of expression are very important in a democratic country. Intellectuals have long supported it as a gateway to other freedoms, believing that restrictions on freedom of expression inevitably lead to restrictions on other rights, such as the right to information. The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Republic of India.
On the other hand, article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian Constitution is important in determining the standards applicable to the conduct of many media, i.e. the media in India.
However, the right to freedom of expression is confused and equates to the need to ignore the media as a business (referred to in article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of the Republic of India), which significantly affects it. The rights of the citizen and the rights of the owner of the media company fall under different criteria and contours and cannot be considered simultaneously.
It is very important to understand that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of movement, since the ability to disseminate one’s speech is an integral part of that freedom. It is also important to understand that the news recipient and news editor belong to fundamentally different interest groups. That is why our legislators so clearly distinguish between expressing their own opinions and publishing/spreading news. Thus, these two concepts need different levels of misunderstanding to ensure that the subsequent right retained in article 19 (1) (g) does not revoke the rights enshrined in article 19 (1) (a) or restriction.
Freedom of the press, in the meaning of article 19 (1) (g) should be guaranteed as such to ensure that the public is properly informed. In addition, evidence of State autonomy is judged by the degree of press attention to ensure that ordinary citizens do have the right to freedom of expression and expression – to ensure an effective democracy – and that such a right does not affect them. for commercial purposes.
The Constitution, the highest law of the country, guarantees freedom of expression under article 19, which deals with the protection of certain rights with respect to freedom of expression. While article 19 (1) (a) stipulates that all citizens have the right to freedom of expression, on the other hand, article 19 (1) (g) allows any person to engage in professional activities or to engage in any profession. , trade or business.
Moreover, basic rights were part of the basic structure of India’s constitution and could not be changed. Certain restrictions had been imposed on freedom of expression by article 19 (2), and constitutional protection was the greatest guarantee of freedom of expression in India. Moreover, under Indian law, freedom of speech and freedom of the press did not give an absolute right to express themselves freely. Section 19 (2) of the Indian Constitution allows a legislator to impose the following restrictions:
State security, Friendly relations with foreign countries, Public order, Decency and morality, Disrespect for the court, Calumny, Incitement to violation and India’s sovereignty and integrity. In view of the aforementioned restrictions, each individual and media organization should understand whether there is a violation of the aforementioned restrictions, citing freedom of expression as an authority. In fact, a very fine line separates the right to freedom of expression from its limitations. Therefore, it is necessary to fully understand the correctness.
The British Broadcasting Corporation / Sugar and Others (on request) British Broadcasting Corporation / The Information Tribunal and Others (2007) Freedom of Information Act 2000 cases.
The plaintiff in the case, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), asked B. for advice on covering issues in the Middle East for the BBC. In 2004, B., who was an experienced journalist, wrote an internal written report on the subject. The report was referred to the BBC Journalism Council for consideration. Subsequently, a commission was subsequently appointed in 2005 to conduct an external and independent review of the BBC’s reporting of cases in the Middle East. This second report was never published.
Respondent S wanted to see the second report. He believed that he had access to it under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the 2000 Act). He therefore made a written request to the BBC, stating that the report had had a direct impact on the BBC’s coverage of major world events and that the 2000 law did not apply to them. S. was not satisfied with this response and subsequently filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner.
The Commissioner actively corresponded with S and separately with the BBC. In a detailed letter, the Commissioner expressed his preliminary view that the report was kept for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes and that in such circumstances the BBC was not considered a public body under the 2000 Act on Claim S, and therefore there was no obligation to disclose the contents of the report.
S. declined to comment further to the Commissioner, who confirmed his final decision that the report could not be made public, thereby notifying S. of his right to seek judicial review of the decision. S. appealed to the Information Tribunal under the provisions of Article 50 of the 2000 Act.
that S. did not invoke Article 50;
The Commissioner did not notify of a decision that could be appealed; And
That the court was not competent to hear such an appeal.
The Tribunal believed that it did have the power to hear an appeal. The Commissioner settled the jurisdictional dispute. The Court held that it had jurisdiction to hear S.’s appeal and therefore proceeded to consider it. It ruled that at the time S. requested a copy of the report, the report was kept for purposes other than journalism, art or literature.
The BBC subsequently appealed the jurisdictional decision and the journalists’ decision, and in order to allow any alleged lack of jurisdiction, the BBC attempted to challenge the court’s decisions through a simultaneous judicial review.
S initiated in due course its own judicial review procedure for the auditor’s original decision. It was alleged that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the alleged appeal and that the trial of S. was to seek a judicial review of the Commissioner’s original decision. Furthermore, it was argued that, despite the initial impression that could be removed from Subsection 3 (1) and Annex 1 of the Act 2000, subsection 7 (1) showed that it was related to the application of Parts I – V information, rather than describing the circumstances under which an organization should or should not be considered a “public institution”.
Article 3 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 states that this material:
(1) In this Act, “public institution” means:
(a) In the light of article 4 (4), any person, person or accused incumbent who:
(i) is listed in Appendix 1, or
(ii) appointed by article 5, or
(b) a public company in the meaning of Section 6.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, information is stored in a public institution if:
(a) it belongs to the authorities, except on behalf of another person, or
(b) it belongs to another person on behalf of the Office.
Article 7 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides for material:
(1) If a public authority is listed in Annex 1 only for information with this description, nothing in parts I to V of this Act applies to any other information available to the Office.
(2) In the injunction under subsection 4 (1) when a record is added to Annex 1, only a government authority may be mentioned in relation to information with the specified description.
Article 50 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides for material:
(1) Any person (“the plaintiff”) may file a request to the public auditor to decide whether a request for information from the plaintiff to the public authority has been processed in a particular respect, in accordance with the requirements of Part I. .
(2) After receiving the request under this article, the Commissioner decides if he does not think:
(a) The complainant has not complied with any complaint procedure provided by the public authority in accordance with the code of rules under section 45,
(b) There was an unjustified delay in filing a request,
(c) The request is unreasonable or vexing, or
d) The application has been withdrawn or rejected.
(3) If the Commissioner has received a request under this article, he must:
(a) Notify the complainant that he has not made a decision in accordance with the on-demand section and the reasons why he did not, or
b) inform the plaintiff and the public body of their decision (“notification of decision”).
Article 57 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 states that this material:
(1) Once a notice of decision has been issued, the plaintiff or the public authority may appeal the notice to the Tribunal.
(2) The State body to which the Commissioner has been given a notice of information or notice of execution may appeal against the notice to the Tribunal.
(3) With regard to a decision or executive act regarding:
(a) The information to which Article 66 is applied and
(b) Subsections (1) and (2) depending on whether the reference to a public body was a reference to a public body or a responsible body, depending on whether the reference to a public body was a reference to a public body or a responsible body, on the matter, depending on whether the reference to a public body was a reference to a public body or a responsible body.
Annex 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 contains a list of government organizations. Most of those listed in Part VI Of Appendix 1 are mentioned by name, but some are not, and one of these agencies is the BBC. The BBC’s Entry in Part VI App 1 reads:
“The British Broadcasting Corporation with regard to information stored for purposes other than journalism, art or literature.”
The appeal was granted for the following reasons:
As for the requirements of parts from the I to V Act 2000, the BBC was considered a public body only in respect of the information it stores for purposes other than journalistic, artistic or literary. The applicable sections of the 2000 Act, namely subsection 3 (1) and subsection 7 (1) taken together with Annex 1, were different. These sections specify which bodies should be considered as public bodies for certain types of information. The sections do not allege that the BBC was for all intents and purposes under the State Agency’s 2000 Act on all the information they had.
The structure of the 2000 Act is such that some of the commissioner’s decisions cannot be appealed to the court. It can be concluded from the wording and structure of the 2000 Act that any intention to appeal the decision rests with the Tribunal when the Commissioner decides whether The requirements of Part I have been met by the court, the public body and when the decision has been notified. If the auditor has decided that there are circumstances in section 7 (1) of the 2000 Act, section 50 (3) (b) will not be notified of the decision that the auditor could designate. Consequently, an appeal cannot be filed with the court. The appeal was heard in court. Looking at the terms of Sections 3, 7 and Appendix 1 of the 2000 Act, the court had no right of appeal.
The question of whether the information was “preserved for purposes other than journalistic” was ultimately decided by the Commissioner, depending on the circumstances of each individual case. His decision was not subject to judicial review.
To say that media owners have a clear influence on media practice is to say nothing. Indeed, the world’s media deny the necessary freedom, even if the journalist bears undivided responsibility to his society, his country and his conscience. It must choose between the interests and policies of media owners and the demands of professionalism. Thus, serving the private interests of owners is a subtle betrayal of professional ethics. Holding a compromise line between the media owner’s political goals and the social responsibilities/duties of the profession is never an easy decision.
Media professionals around the world, especially in Africa, have in practice tried to address the still contentious issue of the political objectives of media owners versus professionalism. For example, Kofi Buenoor Hajor, a journalist from Ghana, once said that “journalism must be important” for Africa. According to Hajor, the media, which absorb and disseminate information around the world on a daily basis, should be treated as they are: an inalienable art of society, which in turn reflects and influences existing social relations.
Because of the prevailing influence of media owners on the media, the policy was proclaimed in Yaounde, Cameroon, in the African member state of UNESCO, the Intergovernmental Conference on Communication Policy from 22 to 31 July 1980. The conference report said: “We need a new concept of freedom that will truly give people and society the right to vote, rather than subjecting them to the conditions of those who control powerful means of communication that will promote the democratization of communication and recognize the rights of people and peoples to ask and freely express their opinions.”
In many parts of the world, especially in Nigeria, competing power structures dominate the problem faced by the media because of their contribution to the absence of forced press freedom.
According to Herbert Altszull, an independent press is impossible because “information is agents of people exercising political and economic control.” In other words, regardless of the goodwill of the government or the democratic principles of society; Regardless of the progress of any society, the media are usually subject to some form of control by those who own and control the apparatus of power.
However, the foundations of authoritarianism in Nigeria, which gave the government direct control and monopoly on radio and television stations, were broken in 1992, when private broadcasters obtained their first licence, ushering in a new era in the ownership of audiovisual media. .
In the United States, according to Amy and David Goodman, the concentration of media ownership today is very often seen as a media and society problem, because most people are motivated by so many things. Media ownership may focus on one or more inappropriate issues, which can then lead to a number of undesirable consequences, including serving the interests of their sponsors (advertisers and government) rather than the public interest, and lack of accountability. . competition-based. This has led to companies dominating the media market from suppressing material that is not in their interest. As a result, the public suffers from a lack of awareness on some important issues that may concern them.
The censorship of the media, which is a persistent problem throughout the world, regardless of the perceived freedoms expressed in their constitutions, will remain true to the practice of the media unless decisive measures are taken to restrict it. Over the years, those in political power have controlled the media in every society in various ways. They often achieved this through arsenals of authoritarian control, such as repressive laws, high taxes, direct or indirect control of basic means of production, ill-treatment of media workers, death threats and, in some cases, death threats. Extreme cases, murders of media workers and media house. Closing.
Indirect control measures are also applied to media workers, which includes a governance structure in which media workers determine the day-to-day activities of the organization; financing, production, structure and distribution of broadcast signals, as in the case of broadcast media.
In addition to state control over the media, there are other agencies, such as courts, that impede freedom of speech. The Government’s position on preferential treatment also cannot “bribe” the most influential journalists or critics of the Government with appointments to high public office. When journalists are appointed to public office, they become mere pioneers, as this influences the objectivity of their media products in dealing with issues of concern to the government.
On the other hand, the owners of private media exercise considerable control over their media. There are cases when owners demand self-censorship from their publishers to promote the interests of their sponsors.
Noting that unethical practices and negative attitudes in the workplace can have a negative impact on the productivity, profitability, growth and reputation of an organization, the environment in which so many journalists work today has been the exact opposite. Success is now measured by the number of “who is who?” on the organization’s list of sponsors. Imagine a situation where unemployment, poverty and the deterioration of social values are central and a journalist manages to secure a place where his daily needs are met despite ethical concerns? In some parts of the world dominated by money, most journalists no longer care even about the ethics of their profession, but succumb to the antics of dubious media owners in order to gain access to places and people to get information, to get well-paid advertising from sponsors, and to dubiously label and distort materials containing valuable information, in the interests of their sponsors.
Under English law, workers have the right not to be unfairly dismissed. The employer must determine that the reason for dismissal may be a valid reason. In order for the dismissal to be fair, the employer must also comply with a fair procedure. To establish the fairness of the dismissal case for behavioral reasons, the employer must be able to demonstrate that at the time of dismissal:
The staff member was found guilty of misconduct.
There were reasonable grounds to believe that the officer was guilty of this misconduct.
He did as much research as was reasonable in the circumstances.
The question of whether the employer acted reasonably should be assessed objectively: was the employer’s decision to dismiss part of the reasonable answers that a reasonable employer could take in those circumstances and in that business? The court cannot replace its position with the employer’s position.
The right to freedom of expression
The basic rights of residents of European member states are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention). These rights include the right to freedom of expression (Article 10 (1)).
The right to freedom of expression ‘can be governed by any formality, conditions, restrictions or sanctions prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public security, in the event of riots or crimes, to protect health. or morality to protect the reputation or rights of others, prevent the disclosure of confidential information or maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) enacts most (but not all) contractual rights and enforces them in UK courts. As far as possible, basic and by-laws should be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the rights enshrined in the Convention (section 3, HRA 1998). Government authorities also operate unlawfully in violation of contractual law (Article 6 (1) HRA 1998).
In the latest Facebook case, the court investigated whether the cafe manager was honestly fired after posting negative comments from customers on his Facebook page and whether his right to free speech had been violated.
The court rejected his application.
The court ruled that the employer had launched a reasonable investigation into allegations of serious misconduct, namely that the complainant had been interviewing on Facebook. The conversation was clearly about work and led to an exchange of views that many people, including the clients themselves, could read. The sanction of dismissal was one of the reasonable answers offered to a reasonable employer.
The Court held that if an employee had the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the Convention, the employer’s actions were justified because of the risk of reputational damage.
The court found the behaviour of the buyers offensive and shocking. However, Facebook posts took place over a long period of time, after the situation calmed down and it began to work normally. The employee knew that she could use the hotline to get advice from an experienced manager or, if she was sad, ask for permission to retire earlier.
For employers, this case underscores the importance and usefulness of a well-defined policy on the use of social media. The lesson for employees is not to use Facebook or similar media to express frustration at work.
All articles are for public use and public use and are not legal or professional advice.
Copyright 2010 Anassutzi and Co Limited. All rights are protected. Information cannot be transmitted or reproduced unless it is accompanied by the author’s name and biography.
Not many people have ever heard of WikiLeaks. Julian Assange is probably now discussing Amish groups. It is hard to imagine another organization that has so completely divided the world. People love it or hate it, and they change loyalty in the blink of an eye, or, so to speak, an international bomb.
The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is a non-profit organization that truly believes in the importance of an open and transparent Internet. He regrets the level of criticism and resentment directed against WikiLeaks and its founder, who are currently in a legal predicament. The APC is concerned not only about the reaction of global governments, but also about the reaction of private companies such as Amazon and PayPal, which severed all ties with WikiLeaks and deprived it of the opportunity to work and raise funds.
APC believes that WikiLeaks (and other like-minded sites) play an important role in the fight against international corruption and censorship.
However, it is also called a counter-revolutionary. It was suggested that instead of posting information at the request of the website, it could take the information even further underground, returning espionage tactics to the Cold War era.
It was also suggested that by disclosing information, the website could put whistleblowers at risk. However, Wikileaks argues that the policy of anonymity is valid.
Freedom of the media is a vague subject that can be interpreted. Wikileaks strongly supports its disclosure policy to make governments accountable and transparent, as well as to keep people informed. And the discussion continues.
In countries where dictators control the population, the press is either blocked or absent. Government media are often the only source of information on what governments are doing in these authoritarian societies. The leaders of media freedom are Western countries, including the United States. But Trump has railed against the media and refuses to inform reporters about his policies, and many wonder why.
Sadly, he calls them liars and crooks, as he often does. It also accuses them of spreading false information and distorting facts. However, this is not true, and it reminds us of how important freedom of the press is to democracy.
There are countries all over the world where people crave information not from their own leaders. One such country is North Korea. There’s nothing reported other than repetitive descriptions of the leader’s greatness and what he has done against his enemies, the most important of which is the United States.
We have seen the same scenario in other communist countries. The same was true in the Soviet Union and China, which are still reporting on the government’s achievements and the greatness of its leaders.
In countries where the press can tell stories from all over the country, as well as from other countries, educating people in this regard can be part of a democratic system. So why would Trump, the president of the world’s most powerful country, turn the tide in the media? What can he get or does he have anything to lose?
Journalists are notorious for revealing the truth, and he may be concerned about it. You have to wonder if this affects the way he constantly accuses them of fake news. Does it pave the way for the overthrow of everything they think against him? No one can hide forever, and if something has to come out, they’ll do it. This is democracy, openness and freedom of the press.
Norma Holt has the knowledge that allows her to understand a lot. Political, social and behavioral issues are usually on her list for discussion, as are everything related to the Spirit of the Universe and the reincarnation it has experienced. She’s happy to hear from all her readers.
If you think the African media are under threat, you’re wrong. The Third African Media Leaders Forum (AMLF) was recently held in Yaounde, Cameroon, and it is likely that the media industry in Africa is growing by the hour rather than by day, although it is constrained by a lack of funding. The forum, dedicated to the theme “Funding African Media in the Age of Uncertain Economic Models,” brought together 271 media representatives and representatives of the banking sector. The goal was to find ways to develop financial and business platforms in the industry.
Many people would be surprised to learn that Cameroon is a beacon of press freedom in Africa and an example to which all other African countries, including South Africa, should aspire. With more hope, Issa Chiroma Bakary, Cameroon’s Minister of Communications, also promised that his Government would fully support AMLF’s overall goal of creating networking opportunities that meet the highest standards of ethics, fairness and objectivity.
During a possible dig in South Africa, AllAfrica reports that one of the speakers, Alfred E. Opobor, secretary general of the West African Center for New Media and Development, said that African media are theoretically free based on the constitution of most countries. but he lacks reality because of the immaturity of political leadership. Ministers and politicians should see the press not as an enemy of progress, but as a partner. Today’s struggle in Africa for freedom of expression is aimed at making our politicians and even our businessmen understand that a free communication environment is a good issue for the economy. Development. “
Speaking about funding, Eric Chinge, head of global media development at the World Bank Institute, said most media outlets in Africa receive funding from governments and corporations. It’s bad because it undermines transparency and honest journalism. Private media companies that depend on advertising find it difficult to compete with the almost appalling state treasury, and they can find it hard to work if you don’t stick to the government’s line.
One solution, according to Chinji, is to finance banks, financial institutions, development agencies and fund managers. “That’s where the real money is. If you look at the figures, the amount of media funding from banks, financial institutions and development agencies is negligible.”
It is important to find this additional funding because, according to Hunter Gault, an award-winning SA journalist, “the media can help accelerate Africa’s economic and social progress … Africa needs strong media to record these changes. part of what could eventually lead to the rebirth of Africa. “
If only the Government of South Africa had paid attention to its other African counterparts now, we could have stopped pointing the finger and moving forward as a nation.