Freedom of Security

This entry is split between media and tact because of its legal, speech, and tactical components.

There seems to be a cross between government transparency, freedom of speech, government secrecy, and finding moles or people who talk to others.

The government should ACTIVELY STRIVE to have less secrecy within its borders and internationally.

Freedom of speech is more important than security.

Breach of contract, sedition, exposing soldiers or civilians to imminent threat by speech [which partially define issues of national security], are either punishable or jailable offenses of speech.

Finding moles or unreliable legal secret keepers is low on the order of priority.

Also, the Supreme Court or a judicial branch entity should review all American secrecy cases to determine if they are credible. They should also have freedom of review to examine and search for undisclosed secrecy cases, and ability and encouragement to disclose these secrets to whomever they see fit in order to propagate their remedy.

The New Democracy?

IS SURVEILLANCE THE NEW DEMOCRACY??

Arguably, we are all voting by being investigated. Our interests and plans are cultivated from us, rather than formulated and presented to a governing body which we have agreed to or assume to be part of. By using surveillance technology entities can assess your political leanings and become part of your most intimate political and ethical conversations.

Is it better than voting?

Only if everyone can see.

Freedom of the Press

The New York Times and other media forms present information that is obviously freely available to the public. The media do not use special ESP to get secrets, they ask people, or are told. Then they tell others. This is the job of media and is not fundamentally dangerous, it is fundamentally necessary.

The media functions as one of the state's checks and balances, and Americans' primary form of interaction with goverment, second to voting. It is critical that media be vicious in testing and examining the government.

The state needs to keep certain secrets, such as sensitive military plans, sensitive espionage programs, and certain routes of money administration to these efforts. Routine surveillance and methods of surveillance is not sensitive espionage. It is a potential threat to the 4th amendment, which must be made public and decided by the courts. It should have been decided by the courts before it was implemented. If it is unconstituitonal, the American people should sue the state in a public action to change the organization of government and intelligence methodology.

News and Government

The media seems to be the state's mouthpiece. We listen to what foreign media says about their governments, and governments often speak through their medias to us. Not all of us can be in Brussels.

However, it is critically important for the media to be free and the mouth of the people, not just the state. How can media express just what the government wants to express, without the medium of the media? They do have their own CSPAN and CNET, don't they? Should the state treat its people like a foreign government? Should the people issue statements to other nation's governments, or populations?

Is this ethical? Maybe yes. Is it honest? Yes, usually. Is it dangerous? Slight. Is it Constitutional? Absolutely, and nothing less will do. The people need 3rd party media, not paid for by government or corporation interests. Software defined radio could fill this role. Internet media can fill this role and is beginning to. We need more segway into it. More awakening of independence of media, of searching forethought.

I have heard people gloss over statements about Osama bin Laden being behind 9/11 and Afghanistan. These people need to consider the massive enlightened populace, possibly the majority, that knows Bin Laden wasn't behind 9/11, and to find out about it on the internet media. Drudge Report was an early key player without a tower, but millions more have arrived and are being heard.

Please, turn up the internet.

Synthetic News, like Oil

You will enjoy a clip of George Bush singing, "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" by U2. I call for other internet movie buffs to direct and produce numerous clips of the president and other officials giving custom addresses to internet audiences. Whatever you would like them to say, I want you to tape it together and present it for the whole world to see.

We call this democracy.


As seen on Break.com

I may take this down later, or learn how to modify it, but the link is at:
http://clip.break.com/dnet/media/content/sundaybush.wmv

If you could have the president say anything at all, what would it be? I invite guests to post the addresses they would have delivered in comments and all those with html skills to consider them. I may even give $5 to the luckiest winner, or any one that makes me chuckle uncontrollably!

YOU'RE ON!!!

Non-incendiary News

I have noticed that certain otherwise newsworthy reviews of events, such as those posted by far left or far right political resources often resort to mudslinging and verbal viciousness. I call for all news and distribution of information to be non-incendiary.

Left wingers, you will be more effective and cohesive, and better received by cetrists and news organizations, if you tailor your words in suitable ways. Conspiracy theories must be civil, even if the world is full of secrecy. A plan or call to become massively aware of these events and opinions is more effective than slander. Your facts will be your sword, and civility in light of truth your journalism.

Far right ones, I call on you to stop insulting lefterners and to desire to better understand why they would want to spend money in different ways, or protect individuals from certain organizations,and why it should or should not be done, considering the best and worst scenarios from the outcome of any event, and accounting for the state of society and the plight of an individual whom you may not even know, let alone their ability to succeed or defend themselves. Also, view What Every American Should Know. If you speak with the authority to recommend carefully, research carefully.

3rd Party News

The excessive competition for $ on TV makes it drama and not meaning. [By 'it' i mean serious news programs.]

So the news media is bending over and made meaningless because they have to believe and act like they believe all the things the government has said that probably are not true. They have to address terrorism as though it is everything the government says, and the action just isn’t there. it’s faked up. They have to be pro-iraq, and there’s only so much you can do in that realm.

If the media began to examine the truth of the government’s statements and launched investigations on these topics and iraq and put forward pieces of news and fostered discussions such as ‘flight 93 landed in cleveland at 10:45am on 9/11’ they would have plenty of real meat and the American people would be able to examine and accurately judge their government.

Why don’t they do this? Perhaps they are relying on the government’s money, or on advertisers, or on government leaks of information or government cooperation at interviews. Unfortunately those interviews do not produce much good new news information and primarily more of the same.

We need 3^rd party news.

Also, forget about phone companies acting illegally by surrendering phone records. Give me the NSA that asked for them illegally.

News Forums

Media companies should support internet based forums to promote public discussion by viewers. CNN, Fox, these channels can become closer to audiences by providing their news as forum topics, to be discussed by any person who registers and chooses to type.

They should also address the concerns of their viewers posted on the forum by gathering newsworthy sources from them. They can hold votes among readers to see what topics they most want researched and discussed on air, and find which forum topics are most heavily discussed and research and report views there.

Media transparency will increase and freedom of speech will be free.

Stop, Collaborate, and Listen

The Free Media

It is mission critical that the media be free for citizens to make use of and free from reliance on high overhead broadcasting requirements. The internet is fast becoming the primary source of news distribution in the world, and as such will allow the dream of free media by and for the people.
The internet and activism's ability to produce numerous customized and varied news reports alongside mass-news participatory sites such as www.ohmynews.com will continue to flourish and entice more viewers to get their information from the free internet, and begin to provide information of their own.
It is important for citizens to become connected to one another and ready to collaborate on mass-action events such as elections, demonstrations, boycotts, market shifts, referendums, civil questions, and topics, and hear what others have to say ad think about these matters. The state exists by the people and for the people, and this is one good way to make that reality.

Steven Colbert and Billy Kristol

Colbert, Kristol, and the PNAC

PD- William Bunker

I am very pleased to see the new realm of comic journalists. Amusing journalists have an edge in the field because they can deliver reports and ask questions with a flair and an excuse that many normal-styled journalists don't, or won't, and, suitably, the audiences they serve will tolerate less pristine non-hitting cylinder news pumped out by major news networks.

They enrich the media workplace. John Stewart could take on any politician on the right day and help us realize what they really believe and feel. The audience can tell by the wild mood items what the journalist and interviewee really feel. This level of news will come to replace the majority of 'serious news' and help viewers catalyze stories and information and become better citizens and journalists themselves.

===

We Get Signal
originally posted 28 May 2006 at Super Science

Currently we live in a 'push' market of television broadcast. It goes out and everyone who is allowed to receives it. We could have a 'pull' market of media broadcast, like internet, where media is requested and replied.

This push TV is governed by the FCC. Certain wave frequencies are dedicated to certain economic interests. This kind of push market uses up a very high amount of overhead expense and forces companies to rely on advertising, establishing an economic incentive to media. This also allows dedicated careers to media and broadcast production, though.

A request/pull media would also have the ability to interact economically and produce careers, but in a much more democratic way. It would become a cookoff instead of a buffet.

Democracy is a cookoff, not a buffet.

The media i suppose is based on following customers. It must be made so that the media switched from a push to a pull economy. The internet must be demonstrated to provide substantial replacement for forms of push-media.

This is a critical period in the development of media, but regardless of the laws made now the right ones will be in place within decades.

Communication needs to transfer from pull to push, and media needs to transfer from push to pull. Calling someone on the phone should be a broadcast, not a company request. Getting the news should be a request, not a 'flip it on'. This will substantially reduce FCC waste and deadair signal, and free up much communication space for the 1ST AMENDMENT [sp] and reduce the overhead of media, changing its function.

This will look like this:

>100 million Americans get their daily news and information and even entertainment from the internet and not from the TV or radio. www.youtube.com is a fine model for this media. Major broadcast companies receive less funding from advertisers from dropping audiences.

Internet servers hosting movies and information increase advertising budgets, outpacing the costs of serverspace. Internet communication rates continue to increase slightly, and the cost of a GB of HD and bandwidth drop dramatically. Movies, reviews, information of all kinds are put online. Centralization of media via decentralization of media.

Media careers become more widespread and lower economic intensity. This puts 'stardom' and civil service within reach of all kinds of individuals on the net and removes some luster from conventional Hollywood celebrity.

Feature length movies in theaters can be made by individuals and media groups and distributed on the internet with webcam and video editing software. The government/FCC provides public funding for internet media service on a page-by-page basis by verified numbers of hits. The web of the internet expands and various netrings for all manner of information are formed. More users worldwide get online and internet use between continents and international reasons and needs increases. The UN provides internet news service and sponsors long lists of information spreading websites on everything from poverty to medical conditions to activism groups.

Net activism replaces 60's style protests.

Television becomes like radio.

Software defined radio replaces cellular phones, and is supported by public service networks instead of telecomm giants. The people and the government[s] work together to bring about these advances while telecommmedia companies gradually disperse their activities into internet and technical service fields.

===

The Newest Cinema
originally posted 29 May 2006 at Super Science

Movie theaters are examples of 'push' media. They show film and you sign up for it. It is broadcast at a certain time. Smaller rooms showing the movie on a digital projection monitor or screen, available for small parties or single-viewing rental would turn the movies into a 'pull' market, where people arrive and request movie viewings.

A digital library could be connected to a central database, and people could request viewing any movie since the dawn of movies from the databse, ad charged a ticket fee. The rush of snackbuying would be spread out, classic film theaters could prosper without substantial license fees, the place could be turned into a movie-restaurant instead of a theater. Parties of any size could have relative privacy, and huge theater audiences could still be provided for very popular choices on a push basis. But if you come late, watch it on the smaller booth. And order some fries.

It'll be fantastic.