James is proud to have been kicked out of the Synthetic Times new media art exhibition in Beijing because he wouldn’t censor his little art project. James wonders why organizations like the MoMA, Parsons, Eyebeam, Ars Electronica and many other arts and cultural institutions around the world who claim to support free speech and expression would participate in a show like this. But they did! It was after being kicked to the curb by the show’s curator that James connected with Students for a Free Tibet and decided he would go to China anyway and do what he though was right in support of Tibet, Taiwan, free speech and the people of China. James lives, if indeed he is alive, in the County of Kings, Brooklyn, and teaches at the Communication Design and Technology program at Parsons the New School for Design. I am James Powderly and I approve of this message.

In compliance with IOC requirements and common practice at previous Olympic Games, BOCOG has issued a rule that spectators must observe during the upcoming Olympic and Paralympic Games.

The rule is similar to that of the Sydney and Athens Olympic Games, placing caution on articles accompanying spectators and spectator behavior at the Olympic venues, said Zhang Zhenliang, vice-director of the Volunteer Department of BOCOG and chief of the Spectator Call Center for the Beijing Olympics, on Monday.

According to Zhang, the rule restricts articles and behavior that are not illegal but not in conformity with Olympic and Paralympic regulations and tend to interfere with order, venue environment and interests of athletes and other spectators; banned articles and behavior which are against current Chinese laws and regulations. Legal action may be taken against violators.

Restricted articles include hard-packed drink and food; fragile articles; musical instruments; carry-on bags, suitcases and handbags which are too big to carry to the seats; flags of countries and regions not participating either in the Beijing Olympic Games or Paralympic Games and other flags over two meters in length or over one meter in width; flag poles of over one meter in length; banners, leaflets, or posters; unauthorized professional videotaping equipments; knives, bats, long-handle umbrellas, long poles, sharp-ended stands for cameras and video cameras, and other objects that may cause harm and injury to people; animals (with the exception of guide dogs); vehicles (except for strollers and wheelchairs); unauthorized walky-talkies, loudspeakers, radios, laser devices or wireless devices that interfere with the electronic signals of the Olympic Games.

The rule deemed the following behavior as inappropriate: smoking at a non-smoking area; crossing over the guardrail; using umbrellas or standing up for a long period of time in the seating area, thus obstructing the field of vision of other spectators; and flash photography.

The rule banned weapons and equipment including guns, ammunition, crossbows, and daggers; fireworks, firecrackers and other flammable materials; corrosive chemicals and radioactive materials.

From 24 to 26 September 2008, thousands of creative minds from all over the world will come together in Amsterdam for the third PICNIC.

15,000 women marched through New York City in 1908 demanding shorter hours, better pay and voting rights.

http://www.internationalwomensday.com/about.asp

100 years on, the pertinence of this event is honored through IWD’s 2008 global theme ‘Shaping Progress’.

Around the world, websites link to this site. Add your own IWD events and news.
There are currently 612 IWD 2008 events listed from 52 different countries

Viewership has fallen across the board as core audiences — guys aged 18 to 34 in particular – are abandoning the device that raised them, opting instead for game controllers and the internet. Meanwhile, those who have remained loyal to TV are failing to remain similarly loyal to the advertising that makes it profitable, increasingly choosing to get their tube fix via commercial-annihilating digital video recorders, advertising-light DVDs, and (horror of horrors) pirate downloads.

With viewers putting up blinders to the ad-program-ad rhythm of for-profit television, the desirability of conventional 30-second commercial spot is tanking. For the first time in decades, a number of key markets have witnessed decreases in the amount spent on traditional ads, as marketers demand the ever-elusive bigger bang with in-program product placements and full-on brand integration within storylines. The result: as much as 15 full minutes of every hour of programming in North America is now dedicated to thinly veiled product placements, with shows like American Idol topping out at over 4,000 placements per season — all of this in addition to the average of 14 to 22 minutes out of 60 still set aside for traditional spots.

Given televisions’ incredible shrinking credibility, especially in the case of broadcast journalism, it is little wonder that we have suffered through the ceaseless debate over whether we live under the thumb of a “liberal media” or a “conservative media.” Luckily, we can safely disregard the question of television’s political affiliation, since we are rapidly approaching a sort of McLuhan-esque implosion which will render the answer irrelevant. It’s that moment when the specifics of the rock ‘em sock ‘em, talking-head debates may be school massacres or missing pageant queens, but the message itself always remains the same. That message is television, an ingenious device for the capturing of eyeballs. Increasingly, this device is being pressed into the service of a singular purpose. While this purpose could hardly be called a philosophy in the proper sense, as a system of narrow values it does require the exclusion of dissonant ideas to efficiently function.

Adbusters began, in large part, as a product of outrage over just how destructive, self-serving, and at times downright insane the deliberate exclusions of this system have become. We’ve learned, for example, that the keepers of the airwaves will permit you to expose the perils of cardiovascular disease; you may not, however, tell the truth about a major advertiser’s fat-laden products. Similarly, you are allowed to tell kids to get more exercise, but you can’t tell them to turn off their TVs in order to do so. You may encourage women to ignore the images produced by the beauty industry and to feel good about their own bodies, no matter the shape or size — but only if you’re selling soap in the process. And, most gallingly, you can pay lip service to the urgency of tackling climate change, and yet you can’t challenge people to buy less stuff as a way to actually go for it.

But it’s possible that you don’t care. Maybe you gave up on television a long time ago. Maybe you don’t even own a TV set anymore. For your personal peace of mind, that was probably a good move; with an estimated 112 million television households in the United States alone, however, we ignore the stirrings of TV at our own peril. The last couple of decades have seen unprecedented levels of consolidation in the realm of mass media. Today, the movers and shakers of TV are the very same people and corporate entities who control the majority of newspapers, of radio stations, of book publishing, of outdoor advertising, of music distribution, of film production, and of your favorite social networking sites. The dirty tricks and the sleights of hand that are used to keep urgent, dissonant messages off the air aren’t in any way specific to that TV. They are the natural consequences of corporate rule, and they will be brought to bear whenever we are too distracted to stand in the way.

Not by accident, more and more people are doing just that — stepping up to join the ongoing battle against a media system that has left civil society out in the cold and in the dark, a media system that has been busily propagating itself at the expense of our social, cultural, political and environmental health. It’s a battle that Adbusters has proudly taken up with its ongoing lawsuit against CanWest, Canada’s biggest media conglomerate.

What’s at stake in this struggle is not just access, but the creation of a whole new media aesthetic: a messier one, more spontaneous and unpredictable, one that fosters participation and social relevance, a genuine engine for the positive change. If Adbusters’ lawsuit is a success, one of the first manifestations of this aesthetic will be a strange new mood – exciting, challenging, even slightly dangerous — every time you switch on the box in your living room, where previously there was only a moribund device completely sewn-up by private, for-profit interests. This strange new mood will prove once and for all that television (just like newspapers, magazines and radio before it, and just like the internet after it) has the capacity to perform services other than selling us on the idea of buying, services of vital importance to the health of our species and its democracies. And like with all exciting, challenging, and slightly dangerous new moods, we’re betting it will prove to be pretty damned infectious.

by Clayton Dach from Adbusters

On Monday, January 7th, the British Columbia Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on whether or not Adbusters’ lawsuit against Global Television, the CBC, and the CRTC, should go forward. If the Adbusters lawsuit clears this hurdle, media rights advocates will celebrate an important victory in the battle against censorship.

For more than a decade, Adbusters, a magazine and media foundation, has been trying to pay major commercial broadcasters to air its public-service TV spots, but these attempts have been routinely blocked by network executives, often with little or no explanation. In 2004, Adbusters finally turned to the courts. It filed a lawsuit against the government of Canada and some of the country’s biggest media barons, arguing that the public has a constitutionally protected freedom of expression over the public airwaves.

At issue is the right of all Canadian citizens to have (as stipulated by the Canadian Broadcasting Act) “a reasonable opportunity…to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern.”

“This case will decide if Canadians have the right to walk into their local TV stations and buy thirty seconds of airtime for a message they want to air,” says Kalle Lasn, editor-in-chief of Adbusters.

Ryan Dalziel of Bull, Housser & Tupper LLP, who is representing Adbusters, explains the special nature of this suit.

“This is not,” he says, “a bare-knuckle family law dispute, nor is it a Bay Street-style war of attrition between commercial entities. It is public interest litigation, brought by a not-for-profit organization with no chance of any monetary return.”

Adbusters is hoping Canadians will pay close attention to a landmark case that pits ordinary citizens and consumers against powerful special interests. The outcome will determine the future role of television in Canada.

Every independent journalist should be sad, this morning Enzo Biagi died in Milan. He was 87. Enzo Biagi was born in Lizzano in Belvedere, and started his career as journalist in Bologna.

Biagi then disappeared from the TV screens a few months after the Berlusconi declarations in Sofia, Bulgaria, where the then-Prime Minister accused the popular journalist, together with fellow journalist Michele Santoro and showman/comedian Daniele Luttazzi, to have done a criminal use of television service.

Biagi’s defenders argue that a public service should provide pluralism, and that a country where the government forbids the opposing voices to be on air is a regime.

He was currently also a columnist for the daily Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, a newspaper he has been working for since the early 1970s.