How should a company with the internal policy Don’t Be Evil react to a country like China? What should it do when its internal privacy rules have been violated and the email accounts of several human rights activists have been systematically hacked and monitored?

Top legal gun of Google, David Drummond, said that Google decided to pull the plug when they realised their presence in China, suffering under strong pressure to censor, actually facilitated more and more oppression. The hacking of the gmail-accounts where the bit that flooded the bandwith.

So we increasingly came to feel that the original premise of our entry into China was being undermined. We thought when we went in that we could help to open the country and things could get better by our being there. Things seemed to be getting worse.
[via]

The next step from the Chinese officials will most likely be to reinstate the ban on Google, which will be followed up with a little bitching from the Western front that will quickly fade away. Then Baidu can relax, as there will be very far down to the nearest competitor.

This move, albeit it comes after years of operating within the Great Firewall of China, demonstrates the kind of ethos that made Google a unique company. Its blue-eyed will to fight for what is right is something you almost only see in young, vigorous companies, who have not yet been punished on the stock market. But it is also essential to Google’s success. On a daily basis, millions of people hand over fragments of personal data to Google, without much complaint. Why does an Orwellian dystopia seem more evident in CCTV-cameras or airport body-scanners? Why is it not absolutely clear that the search giant, without a doubt, presents one of the possible greatest threats to the individual’s privacy? Because Google, as we know it, is our friend. Google has managed to present itself as a benevolent beast that serves us in our common best interest.

Google is aware that public opinion is everything – they know they are just one bad PR-story from turning into a monster. So Google needs goodwill like a stand-up comedian needs laughs. And the way it will get that is by being an extraordinary company, a corporation that actually behaves like it has a conscience.
A lot of criticism was directed towards the search giant, with claims of Hypocrisy (Google should cut all ties with China, not just semi-slam the door, etc.). I, on the other hand, think Google is making a bold move, and will face a slap on the wrist from the stock market as a consequence. China still presents one of the best online opportunities for growth, and it is not easy for a public company to turn that opportunity down. Is the move arrogant and naive? Most definitely. But that is sometimes the only way forward. I am just afraid that a severe public flogging on the stock market, might be the first step for Google turning into a Microsoft (The European Commission’s monopoly investigation might be the second).

The meanest man on telly, Malcolm Tucker, is back on the screen. The first episode has aired (catch it on iPlayer) and it was not the best I’ve ever seen, but still fucking miles from all competition.

Climate change is now the thing, even more important than security. If we haven’t got a planet, we can’t blow the fucker up, can we?

The above pearl came 12 seconds in, which must be some comedy record.

In the speech, which you should probably see before reading this, he raises some valid points, but simultaneously makes several weird claims, some of which Medialyser will take a look at now:

• Murdoch argues that Darwin’s evolutionary idea should be applied to human enterprise in free market competition. Of course, it should not. We humans are thinking animals that can abandon primitive jungle-tactics, where only the strong survive. Actually, in my opinion, that is what civilisation is all about: suspending evolution. There are certain skills that cannot be translated into a strong/weak framework – only through cooperation and competition can human society develop itself.
• Murdoch calls for more plurality in the mediascape and claims that only the free market can ensure it. He actually called state-sponsored journalism a threat to the independence of news reporting. The argument got dangerously idiotic, when he compares the Beeb to local council-financed news papers. Baby Murdoch: the Beeb is not sponsored by the government, but by the people. Yes, reading local news papers is like listening to an over-enthusiastic low-level bureaucrat gleefully telling stories from the area, but that has nothing to do with the Beeb.
• Murdoch criticises the Beeb for having become a media behemoth that can outcompete any potential competitors in its quest for ratings and to dampen the opponents to the license fee. Here I agree with Murdoch – in my utopia, Beeb gives a fuck about ratings and kills idiot entertainment shows (yes, I’m looking at you X-Factor) and will just bring nice documentaries, music and comedy shows & leave the other channels to drama.

Lastly, I think Mr. Murduch needs to take it easy with his critique of creationism, considering the backlash he might face from Fox viewers. But then again, chances are their only source of information is Fox & Co., and chances are that they won’t be too critical of (or even mention) Murdoch Jr. tough stance on religious freaks. But that is independent journalism for ye.

Major Lazer, Pon De Floor
Directed by Eric Wareheim (50% of Adult Swim’s Tim & Eric show – if that’s your scene (freak), you should also watch Tom Goes To The Major) and is, of course, like eating candy-flavoured acid and going back in time to grind on the danceflo’ in 1980.

TTC, Travailler
D’Accord. This is a classic from the French electro freaks, TTC. I understand nothing, but French sources tell me this is about as freaky as you can get. And when the French say that, I believe them.

This is the freakiest turtle since that Teenage Mutant Ninja Michelangelo (let’s face it, there was just something wrong with him).

Middleaged men in tights or wigs are good at setting the mood. But these ancient ceremonies can be a bit confusing: if you listen closely around 3:01 you can hear the gentleman whispering “go the other direction” to Sugar after he has been sworn in.

Funny thing, how Clive Goodman is nowhere to be seen on the NoW website

Andy Coulson, David Cameron’s Communications Director/Spin Master, is having a difficult time distancing himself from the Clive Goodman phone-tapping scandal (Goodman, the royal editor of News of the World, was jailed for phone-tapping members of the royal staff and other prominent people. Andy Coulson, then editor of News of the World, denied any knowledge of the illegal activities, but assumed responsibility and stepped down.) Currently, everybody is falling over each other to tell us that Goodman was a rogue journalist, a lone wolf hunting on his own. Albeit, there is sources who claim that there are around 2-3000 suspected cases, but, hey, Goodman was a busy wolf.

The journalistic focus is going to be on Cameron and Coulson, but will the reporting on this issue dig deeper than that? Will it actually shine a light on the media industry, where this sort of thing cannot be described in singular? It is well known that “Fleet Street” has a dark side, which is rarely discussed in public, as the media is very reluctant to reflect on its own behaviour – it can quickly become uncomfortable for everybody. That is why, I am pleased to see this case surface in the multi-platform mediascape. This we can thank the tenacious Nick Davies for (read his excellent book Flat Earth News asap).

I need a clean break and the house is now too big for me anyway. I only use one or two rooms. I will just rent somewhere else instead.

Sounds a little suspicious, no? A few calculations reveal the truth:
£1m prize @ £20 = 50,000 x tickets
Odds of winning = 200,000:1
In other words: House Wins.

The story took up a half-page in Evening Standard, London Paper and London Lite. Yet, the whole scheme is merely a well-promoted competition from the professional company JTRL Ltd. (company number: 6750542, address: 10-12 Little Trinity Lane London EC4V 2AR). You can e-mail Andrew Paul or phone him on 07725731150 to ask how this all ties in with his personal life?

This event is symptomatic of the nu mediascape, where PR-people are able to exploit the weakness in the structure of the media industry. As more and more journalists are under pressure to deliver words, the easy story of the press release can roam freely in the publications. Although, a few minutes of research can expose the true incentive behind the press release, all publications printed the story, more or less, uncritically thereby giving JTRL Ltd. free exposure.

Cassetteboy, who edit “footage they’ve nicked off the telly to make celebrities swear” has spent way too many hours watching The Apprentice and has made this incredible summary for us. Sir Allan Sugar, you are beautiful. Give them some moneyz (The people from Cassetteboy, not Sugar)

Related posts:

1. Ceremonial Confusion

Grand old Guardian dog, Nick Davies, eats dogs in his book, Flat Earth News, where he exposes the idiotic ways of sheep journalism. He does a brilliant job: first, he avoids falling into too many conspiracy theories along the way (This isn’t a conspiracy. It’s just a mess, p. 153) – even dispels a few – and, second, he admits that he can be wrong. This is the basis for a sound analysis of, well, anything.

Throughout the book, Davies documents the decline in journalistic standards, as financial incentives obstruct deep investigative reporting and forces the workers in the news factory to resort to churnalism – and thereby also be subjected to the whims of manipulative Press Releases. The structural vulnerability of modern day journalism, where the chronic maxim is more with less, is exposed through a range of well-researched case studies (e.g. the Y2K hysteria, the misunderstandings revolving around heroin and the Iraq falsehoods leading up to the war). Especially, three points of criticism should be highlighted:

1. there is a tendency for the news factory to choose ‘safe’ stories – controversial stories about powerful people are financially taxing and timely, whereas the stories that comply with the rules (both the generally accepted truths and the elites’ perspectives) are relatively easy to (re)produce. When news media go out of line, they will occasionally be punished, which, according to Davies, has the same deterrent effect that an electric fence has on sheep.
2. when the commercial news media have to satisfy their readers, they will give them what they want – not what they need. So populist junk becomes the main course, and news media are forced to go with the moral panics, no matter how unsubstantiated they are. Furthermore, the eloquently named Ninja Turtle Syndrome influences the production: Like parents buying violent toys for their kids because they are afraid they might lose out on social relationships, the news media are sometimes forced to report stories, just because other publications run them. Dumb but true. That is the way that untruths flow through the media.
3. it is not just the powerful elite being bad. In many ways, the Alistair Campbells of the world exist to counter the dirty ways of some press outlets. Davies exposes Fleet Streets’ Dark Arts – illegal behaviour in the pursuit of stories – which involves digging through rubbish, forced cross-dressing, blagging, Trojan Horse emails, bribes etc.

It is a bleak book and the reader is left with little hope of any profound changes. Although, there is some tendency to glorify the past of journalism in the book, it does raise some important points and it is definitely a must-read for anybody who cares about the media.

The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He ascribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy.
- H. L. Mencken, 1936