Podcast=The New Millenium's Community Radio? by Edmund

Have you ever turned off the radio just because you can't find anything that you want to hear? Situations like these happens a lot. And yet, what does it mean?Well, you may well be an under-served minority in the broadcasting world, where the mainstream contents just make your stomach churn in disgust.

However, there seems to be a solution: podcasting. It hit the blogosphere in the late 2004. Although the idea of sharing files on the Internet has been present since its creation, podcasting pushed it further. With a podcast, you can now have the audio file downloaded right into your computer media player! Convenient, eh? Now, what would be the potentials for the podcasting industry? (still being in infancy)

Many parties are having an awareness that such a communicative technology is the successor for the radio. It provides the ordinary man with the power to be heard, with the RIGHT to communicate to the world. This is however, limited by the resources at hand. Although it takes a few steps to just make a podcast, it will take a Internet connection, a computer, a microphone and some tech literacy to make it happen. The question now is whether it can have the same effects as much as what the community radio has?

1) Community radio serves the minorities,: Less can be said about the proper definition of a community radio, but we do know that it serves the minorities in the community. It broadcast programmes tailor-made for the specific group of people left out by the mainstream radios. It speaks in their native languages and talks about things that interest them. For podcasting, you can literally do the same thing. You can record anything you find interesting or that which shares the same view with a small group of people and put it on your website. However, the question of accessibility and accountability comes in. Is the public able to access it? By June of 2007, only 59% of the Malaysian population is able to access the Internet. Now, the figure may be anyone's guess even as Selangor was declared a developed state a few years ago. So, does anybody really listens to them? On the other hand, who would the podcasters be accountable to? Do they self-censor or do they just express anything they have on their mind, without regards to the listeners' sensitivity?

2) Community radio is a platform for democracy: Is podcast then a platform too? Democracy is in itself a power for the people and by the people (look at the origin of democracy). Can podcast then equip the people with such power? Undoubtedly, there isn't any known effect of such magnitude yet for the humble podcast. And yet, it is undeniably taking the cyberspace by storm. Podcast content can talk about democracy and much more. It is much harder to interfere with the mainstream broadcasting air wave, therefore slipping past the radar of authorities. It is truly a marvelous idea, it being a community radio, but are these opportunities merely the icing on the cake?

I leave you with a video on how to make your own podcast, in hopes for you to execise your RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE. That's what democracy is about anyways *wink*! (Go outside of USM hotspot if you can't view it!)

What’s the difference between NGOON and GOON???

We think that non-government owned online newspaper doesn’t have to worry about readership as their cost is lower, so they can write anything they want, right up to saucy and maybe unknown facts or from unreliable sources, they can quote anyone and not be afraid to be hauled to court because they know as long as they tweak the names a little they are sure to go scot-free.

Whereas for the government-owned online newspaper, they have to be careful in what they write as the attitude or articles that they write might reflect badly on them since they are government-owned. They are more careful in what they write or else they will risk hurting the government's image. Their articles about the opposition or anything need to be vetted so that they would not portray the government in a bad light / sour grapes.

Besides that, in terms of democracy, government-owned newspapers are trying harder to portray that they are democratic but they lose out in the end as their news are slanted towards the government, but then again, not necessarily private-owned newspapers are democratic as well because they tend to focus on things that government-owned newspapers would not write, as in they are more vocal in criticizing government up to the point where sometimes they are too quick to jump to conclusion which might not be a good thing as well because there are some things that government need to do (although its not really right) to put the country in order

Democracy for Malaysia is a far-cry, we all wanted democracy but we are not ready to sacrifice our own comfort for it.

If you are interested in viewing non-government owned online newspaper, please log on to www.malaysiakini.com, www.malaysiatoday.com, www.merdekareview.com. On the other hand, there are some government-owned online newspapers such as www.thestar.com.my, www.nst.com.my, www.bharian.com.my etc. for you to check it out.

Malaysia bans Spielberg's Prince

The Prince of Egypt falls foul of censors (courtesy DreamWorks)

Steven Spielberg's animated epic The Prince of Egypt has been banned in Malaysia.

Government officials in the country said the film had been banned so as not to offend the country's majority Muslim population.Film Censorship Board chairman Lukeman Saaid said: "We found it insensitive for religious and moral reasons. Because of the many races in Malaysia, religion is a very sensitive issue."

The film was produced by DreamWorks Studios, which is co-funded by Steven Spielberg. His films have a history of trouble with Malaysian censors.
Saving Private Ryan was allowed but with many violent scenes cut. Spielberg insisted the film be shown in full - and it still has not been seen in Malaysia.


Strict censorship in Malaysia
About 60% of Malaysia's 22 million people are Muslim; the remainder are Christian, Hindu or Buddhist. Film censors in the country have little tolerance over nudity, sex, strong language, violence or sensitive religious themes in films.

The ban has angered opposition leader Lim Kit Sang. He said: "This high-handed attitude may be the order of yesteryear but is no more satisfactory or acceptable in this modern age of information technology.

"How can Malaysia become Asia's film-making hub when it has such outmoded censorship laws?"

Google Earth vs Democration???

Google Earth is a software that allows you to navigate planet Earth from multiple views. Google Earth combines satellite photos and maps with a search engine to allow you search to find directions and specific addresses or general locations and services.

The software has been criticized by a number of special interest groups, including national officials, as being an invasion of privacy and even posing a threat to national security. The typical argument is that the software provides information about military or other critical installations that could be used by terrorists.

The question here posted is that how this new technology does has something good on promoting democracy? We think that it’s invading our own privacy, however the good way we can see is that we can search and have a look for the desired tourist destinations where we plan to go for vocations and nothing more than that.

It seems a bad news for peace-loving nations who are eager to protect their own countries’ assets from prying eyes. Besides that, some citizens all around the world may express concerns over aerial information depicting their properties and residences being disseminated freely. As relatively few jurisdictions actually guarantee the individual's, right to privacy as opposed to the state's right to secrecy, this is an evolving, but
minor, point.

For example, in October 2007, The Guardian reported that the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades were using Google Earth to plan Qassam rocketattacks on Israel.

If you wanna get a feel on how powerful is the google earth, you can just download the software and try it.

http://google-earth.en.softonic.com/

YOUtube censorship vs. freedom of information

YouTube is a video sharing website where users can upload, view and share video clips. Unregistered users can watch most videos on the site, while registered users are permitted to upload an unlimited number of videos. Some videos are available only to users of age 18 or older (e.g. videos containing potentially offensive content). The uploading of videos containing pornography, nudity, defamation, harassment, commercial advertisements and material encouraging criminal conduct is prohibited. Related videos, determined by title and tags, appear onscreen to the right of a given video. Before the launch of YouTube in 2005, there were few simple methods available for ordinary computer users who wanted to post videos online. With its easy to use interface, YouTube made it possible for anyone who could use a computer to post a video that millions of people could watch within a few minutes. The wide range of topics covered by YouTube has turned video sharing into one of the most important parts of Internet culture.

YouTube has been blocked in several countries since its inception, including Tunisia, Thailand (which has since been lifted) and Iran. Certain video pages were banned as of October 1, 2007 in Turkey, but this was lifted two days later. More recently on January 22, 2008 Turkey banned YouTube once again but this ban was lifted after three days. There is currently a ban on YouTube in Turkey since May 5, 2008. Certain pages are also banned in United Arab Emirates.

On February 23, 2008, Pakistan blocked YouTube due to "offensive material" towards the Islamic faith, including the display of pictures of the prophet Muhammad. This action by the Pakistani authorities led to a near global blackout of the YouTube site for at least two hours. Thousands of Pakistanis undermined the 3-day block using a VPN software called Hotspot Shield. The YouTube ban was lifted on February 26, 2008 after the "offensive material" were removed from the site.

YouTube has been subject to threats of censorship by various countries because of the content it hosts. It was blocked from Mainland China from the 18th October due to the censorship of the Taiwanese flag. URLs to YouTube were redirected to China's own search engine, Baidu. It was subsequently unblocked on the 31st of October.

Schools in certain countries have begun to block access to YouTube due to students uploading videos of bullying behavior, school fights and racist behavior as well as increased bandwidth usage and other inappropriate contents

Below are the links to the detail informations on the ban of youtube in certain country:

· A Turkish court has reportedly once again blocked access to the popular video-sharing Web site, YouTube in the country because of clips allegedly insulting the country’s founding father, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

· Banned, YouTube seeks to mend rift with Thai Kingdom

· The attempt to block the site, reportedly because of a "blasphemous" video clip, caused a near global blackout

· Can Brazil Ban YouTube?

· Indonesia lifts its YouTube ban

· Pakistan declares war on YouTube

· YouTube Banned in Morocco

The YouTube YouTube banning trend is getting out of hand. Every week we hear of some country or other that has decided to protect its oversensitive citizens from the horrors of video sharing by initiating a block of the site. To track what the hell is happening, we’ve created a nice map of countries that have banned YouTube in the past, and/or still don’t allow access to the service.

*Map modified from Wikipedia world map.

Here’s an overview of what’s actually happening on the map above.

Iran and UAE United Arab Emirates - The UAE, as well as Iran, are blocking YouTube due to their standard censorship of “offensive material”. It is unlikely that their big fat firewall will open up for YouTube anytime soon.

Morocco - Morocco has had YouTube banned because of videos that mock the Moroccan king as well as some pro-Western Sahara clips - until today. For the first time in two weeks, Moroccans can access YouTube again.

Thailand - A similar on and off situation is found in Thailand, which blocks/bans/sues YouTube every time a new clip which mocks their king appears. Thailand has recently lifted the ban, but who knows when it may appear again.

Turkey - Finally, a court in Istanbul has issued a short-lived order to block YouTube because of videos offending Ataturk, the founding father of the Turkish Republic.

Iraq - Iraq has quite a weird situation: in Internet cafes you can access YouTube, but the US military forces residing there, due to an order from Pentagon, can’t. The ban, which blocks access not only to YouTube but also several other social networking sites Most-Networked-Executives , like MySpace, is still enforced, despite severe protests from YouTube.

Brazil - Brazil, like Turkey, has had a nationwide YouTube ban due to a court order. The offending clip this time was Daniela Cicarelli’s sex stunt on the beach (how you can expect to have sex on the beach and not have it end up on YouTube is beyond us), and this Brazilian model insisted that the clip should either be fully removed (and users stopped from reposting it) or that YouTube should be banned altogether. YouTube was banned for a while, but the ban was removed relatively quickly.

Victoria, Australia (in schools) - Australia is also included here (actually, only one of its states, Victoria) because YouTube was banned in schools there. It’s not really a full ban, but it’s not negligible either, considering some 1600 schools were affected.

China and India - Finally, China and India currently have no active ban on YouTube, but both states have on occasions threatened to block the video sharing website; India because of a video clip mocking Gandhi, and China because of their general policy of banning, well, all kinds of stuf

Banning only offensive videos, or entire YouTube?

The ban of accessibility to youtube however provoked a question mark towards the genuine understanding of democracy. Should this be happening? I mean by forbidding access of us(citizens) to knowledge, to information and what is more, our right to be a step closer to the truth. To put it in a layman’s term, internet censorship is jeopardizing human rights and the freedom to information.

** Freedom of information (or information freedom) may refer to the accessibility of government-held information (Freedom of information legislation and Open government), or the protection of the right to freedom of expression with regards to the Internet and information technology. Freedom of information may also concern censorship in an information technology context, i.e. the ability to access Web contents without censorship or restrictions.

Freedom of information is an extension of freedom of speech, a fundamental human right recognised in international law, which is today understood more generally as freedom of expression in any medium, be it orally, in writing, print, through the Internet or through art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression. Freedom of information may also refer to the right to privacy in the context of the Internet and information technology. As with the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy is a recognised human right and freedom of infromation acts as an extension to this right

What is more I managed to found these two theories in supporting this whole idea of freedom of information and democracy… One of it is the “Semiotic Democracy” a phrase first coined by John Fiske, a media studies professor, in his seminal media studies book Television Culture. Fiske defined the term as the "delegation of the production of meanings and pleasures to [television's] viewers. Prof. Terry Fisher of Harvard Law School has written extensively about semiotic democracy in the context of the crisis facing the entertainment industry and in terms of the ability of people to use the Internet in creative new ways.

Also The Cute Cat Theory of Digital Activism but I will not touch much on this one as it may be a little bit dry. Nevertheless, here is the link if you feel like knowing more then just the “name” of this theory.

~~http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007877.html~~

YouTube for Democracy!!

“Senator Lieberman stated his belief, in a letter sent today, that all videos mentioning or featuring these groups should be removed from YouTube — even legal nonviolent or non-hate speech videos,” YouTube’s blog post states. “While we respect and understand his views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone’s right to express unpopular points of view. We believe that YouTube is a richer and more relevant platform for users precisely because it hosts a diverse range of views, and rather than stifle debate we allow our users to view all acceptable content and make up their own minds.”

Senator Lieberman Wants Terrorist Videos Removed From YouTube

… the folks at YouTube did it so well. I love that Lieberman wanted even the legal videos removed.

I ask, exactly what is about this country that is worth saving if things like ‘free speech’ and ‘civil rights‘ go to hell?

YouTube did, by the way, do the right thing as far as I’m concerned.

Senator Lieberman’s staff identified numerous videos that they believed violated YouTube’s Community Guidelines. In response to his concerns, we examined and ended up removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because they depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech. Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines. #

Uploading Democracy: Candidates Field YouTube Questions

Another very good example is that For the first time, individuals could submit video questions via YouTube to be shown on-screen and answered by the political candidates in a democratic debate which held at the Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. The submissions varied in content and presentation and engaged the candidates on a wide range of issues, some of which had not been addressed in previous Democratic debates. What follows is an analysis of the format and major themes of the debate as compared with public opinion data.

The debate highlighted the emerging role of online videos in the 2008 presidential campaign. Some 15% of adult internet users report having watched or downloaded political videos online and 2% report doing so on a typical day. Recent popular campaign videos have included Hillary and Bill Clinton's parody of the final episode of "The Sopranos"; "I got a crush on Obama"; John McCain joking about bombing Iran; and a tape of John Edwards combing his hair. Fully 44% of the public have heard of at least one of the four videos and 27% have seen at least one.

The YouTube format gave voice to a range of citizens not normally heard on the presidential debate stage. In addition to airing some of the dissatisfaction and frustration held by individuals and the public, the YouTube questions also raised issues that had not been addressed in-depth by previous Democratic debates.

SO What is y’all commentary on this?? Should the ban of youtube be supported?? Or youtube shouldn’t be banned at all cost as it’s a new creative way of utilizing internet to the sharing of information as well as a platform for acquiring new informations. Please comment on this folks!!!=)

prepared by vance and Yusoff.