Media Resistance

If you live in a free democratic secular country, try and think carefully about the last time you heard of someone being prosecuted for insulting a leader or religious figure.  It will probably be hard to do as most democracies value freedom of expression and speech very highly.

However if you visit post revolution Tunisia or Egypt you won’t find anything like this sort of freedom.  Imagine in the United Kingdom over the last few weeks, the number of people insulting the ex-primeminister Margaret Thatcher – you’d have locked up millions of people.  However in Egypt a TV satirist Bassem Youssef is being charged by Egyptian prosecutors for insulting Islam and President Morsi. The Muslim bortherhood who made so many liberal and democratic promises to the people of Egypt actually filed a lawsuit to ban the political show that he produces.

Freedom of expression in these countries is actually in some ways looking worse than under the previous dictators.  In Tunisia a rapper called Wld El 15 has been sentenced to 2 years in prison for ’insulting the police’ -seems a little harsh??  His alleged crime was for releasing a video criticising the police for using excessive force.  The producer and a dancer who appeared in the video were arrested – Ala Yaakoubi then disappeared.

Of course we’re all used to some elements of filtering and censorship  in our own lives.  We’ve all probably clicked on an interesting YouTube video to be informed that this is not available in your country.  In democratic nations this is more likely to be due to corporate actions or licensing restrictions than anything more sinister.  But imagine voicing crticisisms of your elected ruler and suddenly facing a prison term – this is the environment that the young people of Egypt and Tunisia find themselves in.

The revolution particularly in Egypt was inspired by young people seeking a free and open society.  Instead they are being faced with the usual dictatorial restrictions but this time applied by old, religious extremists. All have promised laws to protect freedom of both the media and the people, yet it is still an environment where TV producers and pop stars are arrested for merely voicing their opinions.!

I’m sure you’ve probably heard about the new controversial technology for gas extraction called ’fracking’.  Most of the news stories I hear are fairly polarised – with the environmentalists on one side and various politicians and money men on the other side clearly in favour.  

In the backdrop to this, a film maker Phelim McAleer has produced a film called FrackNation which argues in favour of using the technology.  The director has now accused the IMF of censoring parts of his film in order to not risk offending Russia, one of it’s most influential members.

The accusation refers to the fact  that the IMF was due to show the video at an upcoming conference.  However it was decided to omit a key scene from the film which highlighted that a major benefit of Fracking was that it would reduce Eastern Europe’s dependency on Russia for energy.  This would obviously also significantly reduce Russia and Gasproms revenue substantially if they were able to supply their own gas.

This would clearly not be popular with Russia and it appears that the IMF decided to cowardly dodge that part of the discussion.  A more blatent attack on the concept of a conference and a free exchange of ideas, you’d be hard pushed to find.  Unsurprisingly Phelim Mcaleer was not impressed at being told that he could only present certain parts of his argument and has pulled out of the conference.  

It is the sort of attitude that is becoming increasingly common in our so called free society.  As I travel a lot I am acutely aware of the growing censorship that’s happening online too.  Many countries usually under the veil of catching criminals and terrorists are selectively filtering the internet.  I use my proxies and VPNs virtually every day now, from bypassing a content filter to trying to watch BBC iPlayer on an iPad abroad it’s becoming an essential part of doing anything online without being blocked.

I’m not particularly sold on the FrackNation argument however leaving out one it’s most powerful benefits is hardly a good basis on having any sort of free and open debate!

In North Korea the internet is virtually non existent, unless you are part of the ruling few it’s something that you’ve no prospect of accessing either.  Some might wonder if it matters, after all if you live in North Korea there are probably lots of physical problems you have to deal with first like lack of food for example.  However as Google’s founder recently stated that in an increasingly connected world, soon North Koreas digital isolation will start to impact on many other levels.

It might appear to be an isolated and extreme example, not all countries censor to the level of North Korea of course.  But every country with a less than popular ruler knows that their demise could begin with a message typed into an Iphone.  Potentially it’s all that’s needed to sow the seeds of a successful revolution. Words are power and they can travel far and wide in a digitally connected society very quickly indeed.

It’s hardly surprising then that the majority of internet policies implemented tend to restrict, monitor or block.  Even in the more democratic nations like the USA we see huge fights over restrictive policies like SOPA and PIPA. There are people dying in these countries too trying to keep information and the internet open and transparent for all – I speak of course of the sad death of Aaron Swartz.

There are many, many policies and agendas being implemented across the world from the restrictions of North Korea and China across to the European nations almost all are eroding the freedom of the internet to some extent.  In China using proxies and VPNs is almost essential to surf online properly – technologies like in the http://thenewproxies.com/ still work in most of the world though despite the authorities attempt to block them.

It looks like such tools will become part and parcel of being online.  No government anywhere in the world looks like it wants to keep the internet genuinely free and open even if they implement the restrictions under the guise of protecting us from terrorism.  Our level of connectivity is only going to increase, I read an article the other day saying that 70% of our cars will be connected in ten years!

For a number of years, the prolific advertising of certain bodybuilding and fitness supplements and enhancing products has provided many with the means to build bigger, stronger and fitter physical bodies. Plenty has been written about the positive benefits of certain products, especially that of a growth enhancing protein known as IGF-1 (Insulin-like Growth Factor). But until recently, the negative side of this particular product was unknown.

Many people are unaware that this protein is responsible for more than just boosting the speed at which muscle tissue can be developed, or excess fat can be burned to facilitate weight loss. But a recent documentary by the BBC Horizon team changed all that.

Eating, Fasting and Aging

For many years, it has been widely known that there is a definite link between calorie restrictive eating, regular fasting and the slowing down of the aging process. Laboratory tests on mice show us that those forced to eat a calorie restricted diet lived far longer than those that were overfed.

There have been many instances in human populations where those that not only live longer but maintain better health for longer have attributed their health and longevity to a Spartan, yet healthy diet. The Horizon program highlighted the probable cause of this phenomenon as being a much lower level of IGF-1 in the body than those that died younger and suffered more ill health.

Why Does Eating Less Make You Live Longer?

Recent tests by medical experts working in the field of aging have uncovered a correlation to lower levels of IGF-1 in people who ate a calorie restricted diet or those that fasted regularly. It seems higher levels of this protein are also responsible for accelerated cell division and new cell creation in the body.

At first glance, this would seem to be a good thing, but the tests have uncovered the fact that when the life cycle of human cells is accelerated, so is the aging process. However, when this cycle is slowed down by the lowering of IGF-1 levels, cells stop multiplying so fast and instead go into repair mode.

When this happens, the aging process actually slows down as fewer new cells are created. Fewer old cells die, but are instead repaired and live longer in the body. The implications are huge.

Weight Loss, Aging and Health

There are many positive benefits to reducing the levels of IGF-1 in the body. By restricting calories and/or fasting, a person’s weight will naturally reduce as well as their body fat levels. This greatly reduces the risks of weight-related conditions such as diabetes, heart disease and even some cancers.

It improves health and reduces the need for medication when people approach retirement age. This is because their bodies are healthier on the inside and less prone to age related diseases. It also means a longer life expectancy.

This is a case where the media has provided us with an amazing piece of information that if applied, can potentially wipe out obesity and all the health problems that are associated with weight gain. More information on this weight loss genius strategy can be found by following that link to the website where many aspects of reducing body fat and mass are explained in easy to understand terms.

The story of the BBC’s Horizon program can be found here: The power of intermittent fasting

For many the internet has been a huge boost to the ability to protest and demonstrate.  Activists across the world in some of the most opppressed regions in the world can at last have a voice.  Unfortunately although we’d like to think that this communication can only be a good thing, there are others who use it as a tool for exactly the opposite reason.  Here’s a perfect example of what can happen when basically the authorities just make up the laws as they go along.

These three gentleman are protesting on International HUman Rights day against the imprisonment of Ales Byalyatski a human rights leader who was suspiciously sentenced for 4 years for tax evasion.  There were testimonies from four policeman who were rounded up fom somewhere.

It sounds a run of the mill explotation case until you read that nobody but them was actually at the ’demonstration’.  They were arrested as a result of this picture being put online.  The police who were witnessess weren’t actually at the protest, so I’m not sure what they witnessed.

One of the activists complained that he was arrested for what he advocated not for anything he had done.  This is a common practice for the KGB in Belarus who have realised it is easier to catch militants and activists by tracking them down online rather than in real life.  Sure this way they have less evidence and need to usually invent some witnesses in order to prosecute but that’s rarely a problem for that special brand of police who have a different agenda than upholding the law.

IN many countries you have to extremely cautious about what you upload to the internet.  The technique of arresting people based on their online activities was pioneered by the Iranians and Chinese who have huge teams of internet savy people tracking down opponents to their regimes.  Of course activists can take precautions by perhaps using a VPN or US proxy for example to protect their connections but posting personal information or images is a huge risk.

In 2012 Swedish Activists dropped a huge number of teddy bears across Belarus.  Two journalists had their photos taken with the bears to show solidarity with the protestors – they were both arrested and fined, their crime erm posing with a teddy bear!!

Thailand is a very popular location for tourists, more so than China, Japan and its south East Asian neighbors. No doubt tourists are drawn by the warm climate, the rich Buddhist culture, the cheap prices and the golden sand beaches. During the 1970s and 1980s it was mostly backpackers that visited Thailand. This started changing in the 1990s. In the first decade of the Twenty-first century tourism of Thailand was been dominated by package tourism and the middle and upper ends of the socio-economic scale. Has political instability had any effect on tourism in Thailand? Has Thai policy any effect on tourism?

Coups and Demonstrations

In 1991 and 2006 the military in Thailand took control of government. They ousted democratically elected governments with impunity and largely without the censure of Western governments. Throughout the Twentieth Century there have been political upheavals in Thailand. The present Thai King’s father was assassinated under mysterious circumstances. Today the country is torn between the red shirts that support Thaksin and the Yellow shirts that support the Democracy party. There have been a number of violent clashes between the two groups especially in the capital Bangkok.

Throughout all of this, visitor numbers to Thailand have continued to increase. It was only when protestors shut the main international airport down in 2008 that tourist figures were affected.

The Media and Tourism

In contrast a country like Columbia that has managed to gain stability after years of Marxist guerilla activity has very low tourist figures. It would appear that the media not political events shape perceptions of countries. Thailand has the third highest rate for murders by firearms (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms). And yet the general perception of Thailand is one of a safe country. On December 31st, 2012 a British man was shot dead at the Full Moon Party in Koh Phangan. Foreigners are attacked and murdered every week in Thailand. It should be seen as a dangerous country but the travel industry has done well to portray Thailand as ‘Amazing’. There is simply too much money involved for travel agents. The media as well as search engines have continually downplayed the danger of visiting Thailand to keep the money rolling in. Instead the media continues to provide images of famine, lawlessness and poverty in Africa. We need to resist media perceptions of countries and insist on accurate and even-handed coverage.

Thai Policy and Tourism

Successive Thai governments have changed the visa rules for Thailand. These have been to discourage low-end tourism and to stop backpackers spending months if not years living in the country. While some abuses needed rectifying the policy has caused small businesses in Thailand that cater to budget conscious visitors to suffer. The policies have also unfairly penalized foreigners who are married to Thais. These policies are mostly a symbolic gesture to nationalist feelings. Nothing has changed concerning foreign ownership in Thailand, but it looks like the government is playing tough.

The other result of new visa laws has been to encourage the development of more high end hotels and resorts; even traditional backpacker destinations such as Koh Phangan have seen a lot of high end accommodation being built.

There is a strong connection between politics and tourism in Thailand. It works through media manipulation and visa laws.

It’s a dilemma for many despotic regimes, what do you do about your citizens posting videos of torture, oppression and corruption across the internet.  Iran has put in stage one of it’s plan some time ago, anywhere you can share or discuss issues freely then they are likely to ban them.  For instance without using some sort of proxy like these - http://www.theninjaproxy.org/ then you won’t be able to access Facebook, Twitter or Youtube in Iran for instance.  

Now Stage 2 has been put into operation and it’s called ’Mehr’ which is Farsi for ’affection’.   Although I suggest that if you upload a video questioning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s last election win then you’ll probably receive very little affection in return.  Mehr is in fact an Iranian version of YouTube were you can upload videos.  

I suspect it will not be a runaway success with almost certainly every video being vetted and approved by some Government internet stooges.   I feel that the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting department will probably have a different sense of humour and interests than the normal young Iranian,

There are extensive rumours that Iran is developing it’s own version of the internet.  As many countries who wish to prevent free speech online have found it is virtually impossible with the circumvention technoplogy available to all to block everything.  Proxies and VPNs are widely available for small subscriptions and for those unable to afford then their are technologies like TOR which are free.  The worry is that they have discovered the only effective censorship online is to block all access to the internet and produce some government controlled intranet within the country – sounds fun doesn’t it!!!

It’s a dilemma for many despotic regimes, what do you do about your citizens posting videos of torture, oppression and corruption across the internet.  Iran has put in stage one of it’s plan some time ago, anywhere you can share or discuss issues freely then they are likely to ban them.  For instance without using some sort of proxy like these - http://www.theninjaproxy.org/ then you want be able to access Facebook, Twitter or Youtube in Iran for instance.  

Now Stage 2 has been put into operation and it’s called ’Mehr’ which is Farsi for ’affection’.   Although I suggest that if you upload a video questioning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s last election win then you’ll probably receive very little affection in return.  Mehr is in fact an Iranian version of YouTube were you can upload videos.  

I suspect it will not be a runaway success with almost certainly every video being vetted and approved by some Government internet stooges.   I feel that the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting department will probably have a different sense of humour and interests than the normal young Iranian,

There are extensive rumours that Iran is developing it’s own version of the internet.  As many countries who wish to prevent free speech online have found it is virtually impossible with the circumvention technoplogy available to all to block everything.  Proxies and VPNs are widely available for small subscriptions and for those unable to afford then their are technologies like TOR which are free.  The worry is that they have discovered the only effective censorship online is to block all access to the internet and produce some government controlled intranet within the country – sounds fun doesn’t it!!!

With the advent of the internet, people became more connected than ever. The rising popularity of social media and it’s obvious impact on transforming people’s live and empowering them to take collective action through the use of the internet as a tool. This is evident in several uprisings in various parts of the globe. With the help of the web and some social network sites, more and more people can “really” see what’s happening outside the confines of their own territory. For this reason, the world wide web is somehow influential in how people and behave these days.

Unlike other medium of communication, the internet has a broader reach and is becoming more social as each day passes. New social network sites are popping up like mushrooms whilst some grow at an incredible speed – take a look at how fast Pinterest is growing in terms of its popularity and ever-growing userbase. Ecommerce sites have more social platform where consumers can provide feedback and discuss with other people from across continents. Someone looking to buy a Precor Amt 100i, for instance, may want to search for user feedback on that equipment prior to purchasing it.

Empowered by the internet, consumer nowadays are much more savvy. With a click of button, you can find any info you want in mere seconds. But, as what we always advocate here in Media Resistance, one should be critical of “facts” being presented, even if those info came from a trusted source. Remember, the media is a tool and can be manipulated. We’re not conspiracy theorists here, but we would like people to form their own opinion on things and not just take the news at face value.

The abundance of social media platforms available to us now-a-days makes it much easier to reach people with our message. Clay Shirky’s excellent Why SOPA is a bad idea video was able to reach millions via the internet. However, only ten or twenty years ago, it would never have reached anywhere near the same numbers of people. Listening to great thinkers such as Noam Chomsky and Peter Singer is simply a matter of loading up Youtube and searching for one of their many videos. Today’s thinkers not only have their own websites but also Facebook pages, Twitter feeds and Youtube channels.

The mainstream media certainly isn’t dead. However we now have many more easily accessible sources that we can access. This of course helps us to make more informed decisions about our lives. Often these can be serious issues such as social justice, corporate responsibility and environmental protection. There are all kinds of other gems of information available on these social sites. Some examples include topics such as: an Omega VRT350HD Demonstration, how to fix a PS3, learning foreign languages and all kinds of other topics.

What I personally like about this sort of “participatory media” is that we now don’t have to rely so much on corporations for our news and information. Things now seem much more democratic. Literally all we need to get involved is our own computer and video camera. That’s it! Whatever you have to say, put it out there. Being an avid Youtube viewer, I know that if just one of your videos goes viral, your voice will be spread to thousands of people.

“Are you sitting comfortably? Then the show will commence after a message from our sponsors.”

You may have become so used to hearing and seeing powerful television commercials for just about everything under the sun that you have become almost consciously unaware of their presence. Advertisers are exceedingly clever people and they know exactly how to push all your buttons to get you to want whatever it is that they are promoting. The incredible power of television makes their job so much easier, because when their commercials are aired during a really popular show they know they have a captive audience whom they can exploit at will.

It doesn’t matter what is being hawked during the commercial break, but you can be sure that the companies behind the ads have paid a lot of money that they consider money well spent to have their products or services put before a potential customer base. Take as an example commercials for weight loss diet programs. The advertiser’s job is already partly done because there is a huge need for this kind of product in an ever growing population. People want to lose weight but they need to be told what product to use in order to get it done. So and advertiser can come along and promote Weight Watchers, Medifast, Jenny Craig or Nutrisystem, and a huge number of viewers will be convinced on the spot to sign up right away.

All the advertisers need to do is to make the diet programs appear highly appealing with results that are highly desirable. That means promoting a diet that will help a person lose weight in the easiest way possible while saving them time and allowing them to do all the great things with their new slim bodies that they always wanted to do. It’s really only selling a dream. But that’s all television commercials are created to do. Because if you can create enough desire for a thing in viewers, they will go out and buy it because they have been convinced that they want it and they need it and they must have it!

This is why television advertising is so incredibly powerful. The medium, because it is both visual and aural, is capable of getting its message rooted deep in the subconscious of the viewer so that without realizing why, the viewer will have a nagging desire to have this product or use that service. It should be used with care!

“History is the lie commonly agreed upon.” – Voltaire

One of the goals of Media Resistance is to show that just because something is in the media doesn’t mean it’s true.

The thing is, behind the media are real people — real people who cut corners, have their own personal agendas, had a rough night at home, or are sub-par employees for whatever reason.  The danger of all of this is that an untrue story or a misplaced “fact” can be propagated not to cause ill will, but simply out of neglect from the employee(s) behind the information.

One example of this is a press release about a hair care line, WEN Hair Care.  The company issued a press release singing the praises of the products (as they would, naturally), and a reporter for a popular online magazine took the press release and published it as fact. 

Unfortunately, a look at online WEN hair care reviews show that the products don’t work so well.  Many frustrated consumers emailed the magazine and stated that they would no longer read the magazine because they didn’t trust the information published.  The reporter for the magazine published an apology and stated that she made an error in publishing the “story” without spending much time researching it.

There’s not an easy solution to solving issues like this.  The only thing you can do is become aware of the problems of the media and not rely on stories that you see published as the ultimate source of the truth.

Nobody should doubt the importance of peaceful protest in any free and democratic country, we are fortunate that Great Britain has had a great respect for this tradition for many decades. We should not forget what a powerful force peaceful protest can be, we possibly take for granted some of the rights and freedoms we have been granted through the actions of those who have made the effort to actually take to the streets in support of something in which they fervently believe.

Simply having the right to protest in public has been a hard fought battle and it is only now, with the Human Rights Act, that we, at last, have this right written into law. And because of the importance of this right to peaceful protest we all have a responsibility to uphold our end of the bargain and not misuse this legislation. It’s true that there are still many other laws that can be used aagainst the protester and it is therefore essential that we stay on the right side of these laws. It is not reasonable to protest against the Monarchy and their insistence at sleeping in ostentatious canopy beds by setting fire to our local furniture store. We as a nation need to be intelligent in the way we protest and not play into the hands of the authorities, some of whom would be only too willing to take away our rights given half the chance.

In the authors opinion we would do well to take the time to study the necessary literature regarding the organisation and participation of peaceful protest and passing on this information to anyone you know who wishes to get involved.

One problem with the media is that they are largely beholden to their advertisers. If they report something that an advertiser finds offensive or disagreeable, they risk losing the sponsorship money that company provides. While on a small scale this is not a problem, in some cases it can be a considerable issue.

For this reason, the media needs to be cautious about what they report. Domestically, this may mean a fluff piece about refrigerator reviews could be subject to editorial review if – for example – it recommends a product from Frigidaire when a major sponsor is Samsung.

When Samsung pays thousands of dollars to promote their fridge freezer during a new program, they are not going to be thrilled to see their advertisement followed immediately by a glowing referral for their competitors’ products. Clearly, the news channel may be encourage to play it safe and recommend the Samsung in their refrigerator review, even if true independent analysis may not support that claim.

Of course, sometimes it is good that the media is subject to advertiser pressure. Take, as an example, the recent incident between Rush Limbaugh and the law student regarding contraception.  No matter what their politics, everyone agrees that Rushes comments were unacceptable.

Does he have the right to make them? Yes, of course, the first amendment is sacred.  However, the public has the ability to threaten advertisers who support offensive programming with boycotts. If he truly feels his statements are worth suffering financially for, he is of course entitled to stand by them; but, the collective outrage of the public is a good carrot for encouraging ethical behavior amongst broadcasters of his type.

The media can be influenced by advertisers and the public alike. This means we should take that into account when analyzing what they have to say to us, but overall it is not a bad thing.