The academic writings of our US global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE corporations like HARVARD are what then enter those global public policy THINK TANKS. If Harvard is writing articles by Chinese global 1% and their 2% saying Chinese authoritarian capitalism is the CAT'S MEOW----then that is what our US political think tanks are MOVING FORWARD. MR YANG of Harvard just as MAO of YALE takes his position at an American university and sells the idea back in China that global neo-liberal LIBERTARIAN MARXISM is the economic model that a 'freedom, liberty, justice, and pursuit of happiness' America now supports.
Once 99% US WE THE PEOPLE understand MOVING FORWARD is MADE IN CHINA MADE IN AMERICA then we are able to see that what happens in China DOES NOT STAY IN CHINA.
REAL left social progressives have been shouting the goals of SMART CITY are to EXCLUDE 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE from a platform that will host every single civic activity allowing only that global 1% access. China during expansion of internet and digital economy and communications had never OPENED their internet to all 99% of Chinese citizens. It has always been called CLOSED. Internet censorship in China had Chinese global banking 1% constantly installing FILTERS making sure their citizens did not hear what was happening in global communities.
China to pay price for 'closed-internet' policy
Thinking everything will look good by blocking online access may sound too simple and naive
PUBLISHED : Monday, 26 January, 2015, 5:20am
UPDATED : Monday, 26 January, 2015, 9:52amHistory always repeats, just sometimes in different ways.
The so-called "closed-door" policy of the Qing government closed Chinese people's minds for about a century. Now, the more ironic question will be how long Beijing's "closed-internet" policy will last.
For many foreigners living or travelling in the mainland, last week they were surprised to find their long-time trick to skirt online censorship of popular websites through virtual private network (VPN) services could not work anymore.
The mainland media quickly confirmed the government decided to upgrade its censorship technology to block all VPN tools except for a few institutional users, who can get a permit from Beijing.
Censorship on the mainland is nothing new to the world. From Beijing's viewpoint, it can help the government block or remove information that it believes is harmful to the development of the socialistic society in the country. But who can define what information is harmful or not?
The websites of the South China Morning Post, together with dozens of leading international media outlets, have been blocked from accessing the mainland for years. Does that mean most of the international media is "harmful" for Chinese readers?
The Qing dynasty's "closed-door" policy paid a huge price for the future of China. It missed a rare opportunity to quicken the pace to reform itself into one of the leading powers in Asia. Instead, it was eventually forced by foreign invaders to "open the door" of the country.
Today, the mainland has become more powerful, but it does not mean it can do anything to buck the trend of information flow and technological developments worldwide.
The price Beijing will pay for its "closed-internet" policy will be huge. Many mainland scholars are now limited to do their research as they can rely mostly on domestic search engines and online research tools where English-language information is limited. Students also find it difficult to stay in touch with foreign universities or employers after the blocking of Google's email service.
Ironically, as Beijing stepped up its push to block VPN services last week, Vice-President Li Yuanchao made a rare comment that he believed he was a victim of "overseas online rumours". Indeed, Li has been widely reported overseas for the past few weeks as the next potential target in President Xi Jinping's anti-graft probe.
For Li, does that mean the "closed-internet" policy can save his reputation? We know a Chinese proverb " yan er dao ling", which means "to plug one's ears while stealing a bell". If Beijing thinks shutting down the internet will make everything look good, it may sound too simple and too naive.
US REAL left social progressive academics these several decades have always followed global communications from the 99% of citizens in each nation. As we stated it was hard to impossible to hear from Chinese 99% because of hard-line far-right wing, authoritarian censorship. The last time we heard REAL 99% populist Chinese voice came from labor and justice activists telling us how bad FOXCONN and all those global factories inside Chinese Foreign Economic Zones were and how brutal the global 1% of Chinese leaders were in enslaving and claiming land for those Foreign Economic Zones. As soon as that information leaked out of China-----all went silent.
Chinese global 1% have of course the same capture of their universities by GLOBAL BANKING CORPORATIONS so the writing released to global media are filled with propaganda just as today in US all our universities have been made global banking corporations. The US once had strong PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES with staff tasked with holding power accountable----academic writing was PUBLIC INTEREST making sure our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE were able to receive REAL INFORMATION. Now, regions of US have sadly always had corporate universities ======CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA has made sure all US public universities were made CORPORATE.
OUR NATIONAL MEDIA GETS ITS INFORMATION FROM THINK TANKS--THINK TANKS GET THEIR INFORMATION FROM US UNIVERSITIES. WHEN THAT ENTIRE STRUCTURE IS CAPTURED TO GLOBAL BANKING 1% CORPORATIONS---WE GET NO REAL INFORMATION. SAME AS CHINA.
UK's Guardian is global banking 1% so it is propaganda. We doubt that Chinese 'bloggers' are being PUT TO DEATH ----they are far more useful as REHABILITATION CAMP FORCED LABOR. What this article by a UK raging global banking 1% media outlet is doing is SPREADING FEAR meant to hit our own 99% of US and UK citizens. CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA MOVING FORWARD is MAO'S GREAT LEAP FORWARD and all policies installed during these few decades have goals of creating these far-right authoritarian LIBERTARIAN MARXIST structures in US just as in China. TRUMP is simply MOVING these goals forward.
Far-right fascism whether Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Franco, Pinochet----always send media and academics wanting to provide REAL INFORMATION to the GULAGS.
International media is letting us know the Chinese national politburo now having what is being called a KING FOR LIFE is moving back to DARK AGES installing more brutal and censoring society. MOVING FORWARD in US has goals of doing the same with our internet communications.
Chinese internet: 'a new censorship campaign has commenced'
Murong Xuecun, who has had his accounts deleted, explains how bloggers compare being silenced on the internet to being put to death
Wed 15 May 2013 05.48 EDT First published on Wed 15 May 2013 05.48 EDT
On 9 May, I posted the following message on Sina Weibo:
"The account you have been managing for years can be deleted in a second. Then you try to plot its reincarnation by writing every word from scratch. The house you have been building all your life can be bulldozed in a moment. Then you try to rise from its rubble by picking up every piece of brick and tile.
"This is my Chinese dream: harbour no illusion about the evil powers, and understand that their evil will only grow.
"Be not depressed or desperate, however: start from zero, from minus, from rubble, and grow with resilience."
These words are the reflection of my true feelings. Not long ago, scholar Zhang Xuezhong, Xiao Xuehui, Song Shinan and lawyer Si Weijiang all saw their Weibo accounts deleted. They each had large numbers of followers, who spread their words to an even wider audience. But all of a sudden their names have disappeared. Nobody knows why, or who ordered it, but we all know that a new round of a censorship campaign has commenced. As in 1957, 1966 and 1989, Chinese intellectuals are feeling more or less the same fear as one does before an approaching mountain storm: the scariest thing of all is not being silenced or being sent to prison; it is the sense of powerlessness and uncertainty about what comes next. There is no procedure, no standard, and not a single explanation. It's as if you are walking into a minefield blindfolded. Not knowing where the mines are buried, you don't know when you will be blasted to pieces.
Two days later, at 10pm on 11 May, my Weibo accounts with Sina, Tencent, NetEase, and Sohu were deleted simultaneously. When the web staff from these sites got in touch with me several minutes later, they told me more or less the same story: they were following an order from a "superior department", whose identity they could not reveal because of a confidentiality agreement. In fact, such departments are as numerous as hairs on an ox: State Council Information Office, State Internet Information Office, Propaganda Department, Public Security Bureau, the secretary of a dignitary … Almost every department and dignitary can order internet companies to delete information and accounts while they themselves hide in the dark. Seeing speeches that trigger their ire, they can make them disappear for ever by simply picking up the telephone receiver.
I am mentally prepared for such things to happen, but when they do, I still feel dismayed and angry. I am a "big V" [verified user] on Weibo, possessing over 8.5m followers across the four web portals, and 3.96m in Sina alone. In a period of over three years, I had posted more than 1,900 Weibo messages totalling more than 200,000 words, each written with deliberation and care. In a split second, however, they were all brought to naught.
I can only guess the reasons. It could be my criticism toward a secret directive called the "seven-no" policy. Just in the previous day, several people confirmed a directive issued by a certain department of the government or the Communist party, which listed seven topics that are not supposed to be mentioned by university teachers: universal values, press freedom, civil society, civil rights, historic errors of the Communist party, the class of crony capitalists, and judicial independence. Soon, the Hong Kong newspaper Ta Kung Pao, known for its pro-Communist stance, ran a report on the same subject.
"The 'seven no's' can actually be summed into one," I wrote on my Weibo page, " 'Don't be civil.' " Perhaps someone was offended by this sentence.
Another possibility concerns the "He Bing incident." He Bing is a professor at Chinese University of Political Science and Law, and has over 430,000 followers on Sina Weibo. According to an announcement issued by Xinhua on 10 May, he has been silenced by the State Internet Information Office for "purposely spreading rumours." He wrote a statement responding to this accusation, arguing that the issuance of the punishment did not follow standard administrative procedure, and declaring that he was preparing to file a lawsuit. He asked me to help him retweet the statement. I tried five times, and saw the message censored each time. The next night, I posted a message on Weibo, asking the State Internet Information Office to answer the following questions: Who gives you the power to deprive citizens of their right to free speech? What are the relevant legal standards and procedures for identifying rumours? On what basis do you accuse He Bing of spreading rumours? Why do you repeatedly delete He's statement? Why would you not allow him to defend himself? As one can imagine, the State Internet Information Office is not interested in answering my questions. In 20 minutes, all my Weibo accounts were deleted.
These are only my guesses. In fact, silencing a person requires no reason at all. As most Chinese know, our country has a blacklist. Having your name appear there turns you into the enemy of the country and the people. Your articles cannot be published, and your name cannot be mentioned. Whatever you do or say – even a simple "Hello" – will get deleted in no time.
Many people have expressed indignation on my behalf. Some held virtual candle vigils and "memorial services" for me on their Weibo pages, while other protested by boycotting Weibo. People started quoting words I wrote during my "lifetime", which populated Weibo in the dozen of hours following my disappearance. Quickly, "Murong Xuecun" became the most searched words on Weibo.
In fact, such incidents do not make news in China, for people have long been inured to them. Individuals are silenced on daily basis, and the pool of sensitive words grows by the hour: Liu Xiaobo, Gao Xingjian, Ai Weiwei, Wei Jingsheng, Liao Yiwu, Ma Jian, Mo Zhixu, Xiao Shu … The list goes on. It now includes me, as well as two more scholars who have since been silenced: Wu Wei and Wu Zuolai, whose accounts were deleted on the morning of 13 May. Lurking in the shadows, the "relevant organs" carry out such work as part of their daily routine, and expect people to remain silent. They have perhaps failed to foresee that in the age of Weibo, their actions could trigger such a severe backlash. To this, they responded with more censorship.
Netizens often compare being silenced on the Chinese internet to being put to death, and registering a new account is likened to reincarnation. Most Weibo users are familiar with the term "the Reincarnation party". It has come to symbolise people's resistance and struggle against censors. Every member of the party shares the same experience: being killed, and reincarnated; killed again, reincarnated again. Xiao Han, a teacher at Chinese University of Political Science and Law and a friend of mine, has reincarnated 212 times. Journalist Yang Haipeng started a game after many reincarnations by registering himself under the names of the 108 heroes in the novel Outlaws of the Marsh, one at a time. He started with Song Jiang, followed by Lu Junyi. Now he is Fei Xuan, hero No 47. The record-holder is a user named "Repair." As of 13 May, she has reincarnated 418 times. If she is unable to use that name, she will become "Re-pair", "Repare" or "ReIpair".
I reincarnated on the night of 12 May, under the new name "Pingyuan Dongfang Shuo," who was a famous minister during the Han dynasty. The first thing I did after reincarnation was to post a thank-you note to the individuals who spoke out for me. The next was to express my opinion toward the statement [reportedly made by Xi Jinping] that "Repudiating Mao would have led to national chaos".
"The evaluation of historic figures should be based on facts. Their merits deserve praise and their crimes warrant criticism," I wrote. "Forbidding repudiation means avoiding, hiding and falsifying certain facts. It is both a blasphemy against history and a violation of intellectual freedom. The truth has no agenda, but it can enlighten our eyes and illuminate our minds. Lu Xun once wrote an essay titled "On Opening Your Eyes to See". If our right to repudiate is denied, the article should instead be called "On Closing Your Eyes to Fabricate".
In my third message, I retweeted an essay from another web user, which discussed the methods people can adopt to protect their rights when the police knock on their doors. I do not know what was wrong with these messages. In just 10 minutes, my account was annihilated, a tragedy that was followed, of course, by more candles and memorial services.
My next reincarnation is going to be more difficult. The Chinese government makes sure its internet technology keeps pace with the times, which leaves me effectively no loophole to exploit. On the morning of 13 May, I attempted to re-register on Weibo, and after an hour of typing almost 30 versions of verification codes, I still couldn't get registered. My IP address, which is static, has been blocked. Registering a new account would require a verification code to be sent to a mobile number. I have only one mobile phone, which has similarly been blocked.
A friend once asked me what it felt like to be silenced. "It's as if you were chatting and laughing with friends in a brilliantly lit house, when you suddenly fell into a dark pit," I told him. "You yell at the top of your lungs, but no one can hear you. You struggle to get out, but only sink deeper." I also need to console those who love me, and let them know everything is fine. In this abyss, I am once again visited by the biting chill of uncertainty, of not knowing what will come next. I am not as prepared as I thought. I am still scared, but I will not stop struggling, because I believe my silence would only embolden those who are trampling on my rights, and will trample on the rights of others. I need to stand bold straight and tell those in the "relevant organs": you can never take away my rights. This abyss, I believe, will not remain dark for ever. As long as I keep up my effort, I will eventually find a piece of flint and kindle a tiny spark to illuminate the square inch in front of my feet.
Translated by Helen Gao
What we are now seeing on US national media is a mirror of these actions in China. What we call social media---FACEBOOK, TWITTER made the only media outlet for 99% of WE THE PEOPLE'S voices are now going to censorship as we have shouted for over a decade. We are told propaganda about Russia this and Russia that creating havoc on our US social media and this is the reason of course these communications outlets are moving to more censorship. What Zuckerberg of Facebook is quoted as saying is------we will have to do FACT CHECKS on posts made is social media. Well, all US FACT CHECK corporations are tied to -----global banking 1%. We are seeing already the public policy discussions over what to censor ------supposedly video streaming 'news formats' are those being hit first. We are an education format------once COMMONER CORE is installed as the source of all educational formats------our CITIZENS' OVERSIGHT MARYLAND REAL left social progressive public policy discussions will not be a SUITABLE EDUCATIONAL FORMAT.
All these internet transitions started to soar when OBAMA made DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS the only game in town. Remember when our TV's and radios were made to go digital right after Obama's installation. We shouted then and do now-----we need ANALOG AND DIGITAL infrastructure to keep communications open with diversity-----MOVING FORWARD SMART CITIES has the opposite of goals.
All of our 5% FAKE global banking 'populist' leaders whether pols or 'labor and justice' players KNEW these goals back in 1990s. If someone has not been shouting these few decades educating as to what SMART CITIES will look like----we know they are 5% freemason/Greek global banking players.
VPN providers play 'cat-and-mouse' with China's growing censorship
By Michael Kan
U.S. Correspondent, IDG News Service | Jan 29, 2015 11:55 PM PT
Amit Bareket calls it a “cat-and-mouse” game. In this instance, his company is the mouse, and the Chinese government is a giant cat.
The two sides are continually at odds, because Bareket’s company, SaferVPN, is one of many that provide software tools designed to circumvent the country’s notorious Internet censorship.
These tools are growing more popular in China, in spite of recent government attempts to block them, according to Bareket.
“I can tell you that more than 300 new VPN users come to our service every day in China,” said Bareket, who is the spokesman at SaferVPN.
VPNs, which stand for Virtual Private Networks, are essentially tools that can let users bypass Internet censorship. For about US$6 to $10 a month, subscribers to these services in China can access blocked sites such as Facebook, YouTube and more.
But lately, China has been more aggressive in trying to disrupt these services. Last week, several VPN providers reported access problems for users. Days later, one of the country’s top regulators defended the actions and signaled that the authorities were prepared to crack down further.
“As the Internet develops, and new circumstances arise, we will take new regulatory measures to keep up,” said Wen Ku, a director with China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.
That said, the recent disruptions haven’t stopped the VPN services, only added a minor roadblock. Companies like SaferVPN still manage to bring their services to the country, and are working on new technologies to stay a step ahead of the censors.
Although VPN providers serve countries across the world, China is one of the big markets, Bareket said. SaferVPN is a smaller player, and has only several thousands of users from the country. Bareket estimated that the bigger VPN providers may have over 100,000 users in China, if not more.
In SaferVPN’s case, it’s not just foreigners living in China and businesses that use its service, but also local residents. VPNs became more widespread among Chinese users last year, driven mainly by regular users wanting access to site likes Facebook, Bareket said.
That may be the reason why the government, which was previously somewhat tolerant of the technology, is growing more alarmed about VPN usage.
VPNs risk upending the vast censorship China has so heavily invested in. Bareket noted that Chinese authorities were taking more measures to block VPN service, after pro-democracy protests broke out in Hong Kong last September.
China was already censoring coverage of the event, and was quick to cut access to Instagram, after photos of the demonstrations began to appear online. Still, a VPN service would be able to bypass the block.
As for the most recent VPN disruption, Golden Frog was one of the providers affected last week. While the company wouldn’t reveal user numbers, a spokesman said that demand for its VPN was up in the country.
Part of the reason is that China in recent years has blocked other lower-quality VPNs that were free, pushing more customers to its service, said Golden Frog spokesman Andrew Staples in an email.
The company’s service, called VyprVPN, is in use by business customers that need to access cloud services blocked in China, such as Google Docs and Dropbox, he added. But along with foreign students and other expatriates, Chinese citizens wanting access to an unfiltered Internet are also among its subscribers.
Although last week’s disruption may have caused some hiccups for Golden Frog, the company was able to quickly restore its VPN service. “One reason we do well in the country is we’ve developed technologies for China,” Staples said. The technology is called “Chameleon”, and was built to “defeat” China’s censorship systems, although its not 100 percent perfect yet, he added.
To fight back, China has blocked the websites to many of the top VPN providers. In some cases, e-commerce sites and social networking services in the country have censored search terms such as “VPN” and “Fanqiang”, the Chinese word for climbing over the wall and circumventing the country’s censorship.
Still, companies such as SaferVPN are finding ways to reach Chinese Internet users. They can do this by selling its services through affiliates and advertising networks that the censors haven’t blocked yet. “Also when they block a domain name, we can just a start a new domain name,” Bareket added.
But the big is question is how far China will go to stop the VPN providers. The government could do more to stifle the services, but any Internet clampdown would draw complaints from businesses about disruption of their activities, industry experts said.
For now, VPNs still have one other barrier to entry and that’s the monthly subscription. Outside of China’s larger cities, where many residents earn less, an unfiltered Internet could still be financially out of reach.
“What the authorities may be looking to do right now is make it more difficult for the masses to gain VPN access,” said Mark Natkin, managing director for Beijing-based Marbridge Consulting. “But corporations and those that have enough money will still be able to use Facebook and Twitter.”
Every media outlet is now discussing just this----remember, CA Diane Feinstein and far-right Clinton neo-liberals were the first to suggest the need to curb FAKE NEWS-----never mentioning national media-----instead setting national media journalism as the STANDARD.
As we stated---all of today's FACT CHECKS are tied to US national media and captured THINK TANKS. NY TIMES as Washington Post was victim to global banking 1% capture as it was sold to MEXICAN GLOBAL 1% BILLIONAIRE---and shed all journalists that were at least trying to hold power accountable. No one at NY TIMES is giving REAL NEWS.
'But as a journalist who has been covering the inner workings of the technology industry for more than a decade, I find the calls for Facebook to accept broad responsibility for fact-checking the news, including by hiring editors and reporters, deeply unsettling'.
Here is the source of this NYT OPINION article------no less a global banking 5% player then any other FACT CHECK source.....Former Wall Street Journal reporter---oh, yeah, that is a 99% populist media leader
Media Insiders Are Laughing About New Site 'The Information,' But Founder Jessica Lessin Will Laugh Last
Dec. 4, 2013, 1:11 PM
jessica lessin Jessica Lessin
Former WSJ tech reporter and editor Jessica Lessin officially launched a tech news site this morning.
Robert H. Lessin, Jefferies Vice Chairman, Dies at 56By Evelyn M. Rusli
August 9, 2011 4:26 pm August 9, 2011 4:26 pm
Jefferies & CompanyRobert H. Lessin, vice chairman of Jefferies and a longtime Wall Street banker.
Facebook Shouldn’t Fact-Check
By Jessica Lessin
Nov. 29, 2016
We finally got a grudging mea culpa from Mark Zuckerberg: an admission that fake news is a significant problem that his social network must help solve.
But as a journalist who has been covering the inner workings of the technology industry for more than a decade, I find the calls for Facebook to accept broad responsibility for fact-checking the news, including by hiring editors and reporters, deeply unsettling.
What those demanding that Facebook accept “responsibility” for becoming the dominant news aggregator of our time seem to be overlooking is that there’s a big difference between the editorial power that individual news organizations wield and that which Facebook could. Such editorial power in Facebook’s hands would be unprecedented and dangerous.
We can all agree that Facebook should do much more to make sure that blatantly fabricated claims that Donald J. Trump won the popular vote or received the pope’s endorsement don’t spread and are, at a minimum, labeled fakes.
Facebook admits, and my sources confirm, that it can do a better job of this by helping users flag dubious articles and predicting fakes based on data it has for search. This doesn’t have to involve humans: Facebook could decide to label content as suspected as fake if it was flagged a certain number of times and if it displayed other questionable attributes. Such a move would not mean Facebook’s taking broad responsibility for what’s true.
But hiring editors to enforce accuracy — or even promising to enforce accuracy by partnering with third parties — would create the perception that Facebook is policing the “truth,” and that is worrisome. The first reason has to do with the nature of Facebook’s business. The second has to do with the news business.
One thing is clear to anyone who has worked in a newsroom: Not all fact-checking decisions are black and white.
Did the pope endorse Mr. Trump? He did not.
But did the F.B.I. reopen the Hillary Clinton email investigation? That’s a little tougher. Although major news outlets like CNN said that it had, the agency did not in fact reopen the inquiry, which would have been a far more significant move than what it did do (which was to take a look at newly discovered emails to see if it should reconsider its decision to close the case). Erroneous reporting by established organizations is a bigger threat than fabricated stories, and far more rampant.
News organizations like my own publication make these judgments a million times a day. And we sometimes get them wrong. But we are checked by the power of our competitors and, for news organizations with a subscription business, by readers who stop paying us if we fail them.
To be sure, this business model is under great stress as people lose trust in news organizations. But I don’t believe the solution is to give up on it, particularly if the alternative is to cede the power of authentication to companies like Facebook.
I’m not comfortable trusting the truth to one gatekeeper that has a mission and a fiduciary duty to increase advertising revenue, especially when revenue is tied more to engagement than information. Facebook continues to consider, for example, how it can win approval to enter the Chinese market, including by censoring content. For the company, business can come before truth.
No matter how many editors Facebook hired, it would be unable to monitor the volume of information that flows through its site, and it would be similarly impossible for readers to verify what was checked. The minute Facebook accepts responsibility for ferreting out misinformation, users will start believing that it is fact-checking everything on the site.
And what about more private content in groups or messages? For that to be fact-checked, Facebook users would have to trade their privacy (as an analogy, imagine AT&T fact-checking phone calls). That isn’t a position I think Facebook would ever want to be in.
The second reason I am fearful of Facebook as fact checker is what it will do to journalism.
If you don’t believe that Facebook’s policies could sway the news industry, you haven’t been paying attention over the past five years. Publications have been suckered into tweaking their content and their business models to try to live off the traffic Facebook sends them. They’ve favored Facebook clicks over their core readers, and are no closer to addressing plummeting print revenues. What would happen if the distribution of their articles on Facebook was tied to submitting data about their sources or conforming to some site-endorsed standards about what constitutes a trustworthy news source?
My fellow reporters and editors will argue that I am letting Facebook off too easy. While my husband did work there for a brief period, my position isn’t a defense of the company, which I have covered critically for years. I simply don’t trust Facebook, or any one company, with the responsibility for determining what is true.
We discussed how an ANNENBERG FOUNDATION attached to a far-right wing Bush neo-conservative global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE BROWN UNIVERSITY would not be giving REAL left social progressive 99% POPULIST health policy media. We have KAISER PERMANENTE tied to global hedge fund Bush neo-conservative STANFORD AND JOHNS HOPKINS as our other source for PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY.
If any health organization is using these sources for health policy or REAL information---we know those organizations are FAKE 5% global banking players.
Here we have LESSIN------LESSIN was Wall Street Journal's opposing voice against FACEBOOK censoring----LESSIN is also global Wall Street banking family. Here we see a LESSIN from HARVARD telling us what our US MEDICAID policy should be---pretending to care for the poor MOVING FORWARD UNITED NATIONS preventative care only for all 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE.
When every media option it tied to global banking 5% players then the US has far-right authoritarian LIBERTARIAN MARXISM just as China in place. As 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE are made FEARFUL of voicing our real public policy stances----as here in Baltimore----then we are already living MADE IN CHINA MADE IN AMERICA.
Reinventing the Way Medicaid Delivers Care
Reinventing the Way Medicaid Delivers Care. Sachin H ... Leeba Lessin is president of CareMore Health ... Harvard Business Publishing is an affiliate of Harvard ..
Center for Health Journalism
March 30 at 12:39pm · Save the date: Drinks on us at AHCJ 2018 in Phoenix! Connect with old friends and make new connections at our annual happy hour event on Friday, April 13th at Ziggys IL Posto Italian Bistro. Hope to see you there!
A far-right wing global banking 1% health journalism source telling us---DON'T WORRY about the goals of TELEMEDICINE----it is left social progressive-----
A new name and enduring mission: Welcome to the Center for Health Journalism
Nov. 9, 2015
Communication and Marketing Staff
Updated Sep. 5, 2017 4:08 pm
The nation’s pre-eminent center for health journalism training and news collaborations today announced a name change that reflects its broader reach and impact: the Center for Health Journalism.
Formerly known as The California Endowment Health Journalism Fellowships, the center has operated since 2004 as a program of the USC Annenberg School of Journalism. Initially, it had a singular purpose: to offer health journalism training to California journalists. The center’s activities have expanded considerably since its founding, with several national journalism programs; a webinar series; grant making; an online community; and reporting collaboratives now among its family of programs.
Michelle Levander, the center’s founding director, said that its new name better reflects its rich array of initiatives.
“Our overall mission remains the same — to help journalists and community storytellers innovate, investigate and illuminate health challenges in their communities,” Levander says. “But as journalism has changed, our center has innovated to serve reporters and their communities better.”
“The center has a reputation for excellence,” said Willow Bay, Director of the USC Annenberg School of Journalism. “Its new name is a fitting expression of its broader impact. The Center’s partnerships with news outlets across the country enrich the profession and call attention to pressing health issues in communities across America.”
Among the center’s programs:
- Professional Health Journalism Training & Partnerships with Newsrooms: The center trains reporters and partners with them and their newsrooms to nurture ambitious journalism that impacts policy, stimulates new community discussions and wins awards. The center has trained more than 800 journalists since 2005. Its Health Journalism Fellows have produced more than 1,500 major articles about health issues in the United States. Its next fellowship, in December, will train California reporters in health data journalism.
- CenterforHealthJournalism.org: Formerly called Reporting on Health, this online community has built a community conversation among people who are passionate about fostering great health coverage of our communities, including journalists, policy thinkers and policymakers and clinicians. The Los Angeles chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists recently honored the site and Levander, its founder.
- Media Grant-Making: The center awards more than $70,000 annually to reporters to underwrite substantive explanatory and investigative journalism.
- The Center for Health Journalism Collaborative: Formerly called the ReportingonHealth Collaborative, this joint effort by the center and select Health Journalism Fellows and their media outlets tackles ambitious investigative projects on a common theme to harness the power of reporting across news outlets, languages and types of media.
- Boyle Heights Beat/El Pulso de Boyle Heights: In partnership with Hoy (Los Angeles Times Media Group), the center publishes a quarterly bilingual newspaper, written by youth and distributed to 28,000 households, as well an online news site, BoyleHeightsBeat.com, with adult contributors, which serve a Latino immigrant neighborhood of Los Angeles.
The Center for Health Journalism was started thanks to a generous grant from The California Endowment. Its current funders also include the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Blue Shield of California Foundation, the California HealthCare Foundation, the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, the Hunt family and other individual donors.
The progression towards ending all of America's strongest in world history free press and media journalism open to all 99% of WE THE PEOPLE allowing broad public policy discussions and opinions started with CLINTON ERA Telecommunications Act-----progressed to Bush era media consolidation----soared during OBAMA'S digital only telecommunications------and as our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE'S voices were silenced in traditional print, radio, TV media outlet we are being HERDED into digital media-----FACEBOOK AND MYSPACE providing broad media options for communications disappearing with TWITTER----TWITTER is texting corrupting any ability to communicate complex social thought-----ergo TRUMP ON TWITTER. OBAMA gave us a US President on SMART PHONE----TRUMP moves us to TWITTER----as FACEBOOK disappears----so too will TWITTER.
All 5% global banking players have a job of moving US 99% WE THE PEOPLE to these media outlet-----while we have shouted since OBAMA DIGITAL transition-----PLEASE KEEP LOCAL media options alive separate from digital social media. We must have print media---we must keep analog radio, TV which is possible in US city infrastructure development---but not if it is SMART CITIES.
It is common knowledge by now that MOVING FORWARD internet access if global corporate campus/global factory SMART CITIES is allowed to be installed---we not be open access to 99% US WE THE PEOPLE. WE ALREADY KNOW THIS.
When organizations promote the development of CITIZEN JOURNALISM on these internet formats------we know they are 5% to the 1% global banking players. Citizens journalism will not be found on social media----on the internet----is will be found in rebuilding our strong local printed/analog local communications outlets. As academic researchers who are REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE-----we look for voices coming from local media outlets----and understand that those pushing internet media as POPULIST are FAKE NEWS.
The Impact of Twitter on Journalism
| Off Book | PBS Digital Studios
Published on Nov 15, 2012
The world of journalism has changed in the internet era. Newsrooms are significantly smaller now than they were 10 years ago, and news is no longer a once-a-day product, but instead a constant flow of information. The rise of Twitter brought concerns within the industry - would this overwhelming source of direct raw information put professional reporters out of business? Journalists are now faced with the challenge of adapting their roles in this digital era, finding new ways to add value to content, and helping to ensure that the internet is changing our worldview for the better.
Citizen Journalism - What Is It ?
Published on Aug 23, 2006
Help us caption and translate this video on Amara.org: http://www.amara.org/en/v/B00i/ http://www.MasterNewMedia.org
Cambridge Community Television (http://www.cctvcambridge.org/) has just published a very interesting short video explaining what grassroots, citizen journalism is. The video includes some interesting contributions and examples of what citizen reporting may be all about.
Cambridge Community Television | Harvard Square
www.harvardsquare.com/cambridge-community-television Cambridge Community Television is a public forum for all Cambridge residents, businesses and organizations. CCTV provides training and access to telecommunications ...
Global banking 1% pushing for broadband installation as a HUMAN RIGHT when it is totally tied to needs of GLOBAL CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY ONE WORLD ONE TECHNOLOGY GRID----is far-right wing propaganda----as Hillary and MS WONG know.
'In February, United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, made similar remarks in speech regarding Internet freedom to George Washington University'.
All employment is now being attached to INTERNET STARTUPS-----as the global of MOVING FORWARD SMART CITIES is internet access for ONLY global corporate campuses and global 1%.
Who is leading internet censorship? Global banking neo-liberal 1% United Nations. Who is BFF with Chinese far-right authoritarian MAOIST NEO-LIBERAL MARXISM? Global banking 1% and United Nations.
BROADBAND AS A HUMAN RIGHT-----WE CAN BELIEVE A HITLER/MAO/STALINIST PROPAGANDA MACHINE WOULD LOVE THAT ONE.
If broadband and internet development was LOCAL----then it would be a fine addition to media diversity----it is the centralized control of ONE WORLD ONE TECHNOLOGY GRID that let's us KNOW these communications' structures are not POPULIST.
Rich Wong is one of several Midas List members who scored big on the $5.6 billion IPO of Atlassian, a maker of enterprise collaboration tools. Other notable exits for Wong include SunRun ($1.4 billion IPO in 2015) and Airwatch (acquired by VMWare for more than $1.5 billion in 2014)'
'Cynthia Wong, Director for Washington-Based Center for Democracy & Technology’s Project on Global Internet Freedom'
U.N. Special Rapporteur: Internet Censorship Violation of Basic Human Rights
Published on June 6, 2011 in Broadband's Impact/Cybersecurity/International by Josh Peterson
WASHINGTON, June 6, 2011 – The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, presented his report on freedom of expression and the Internet to the Human Rights Council in Geneva on Friday, concluding that Internet access is a basic human right.
In what was hailed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation as a ‘landmark report,’ La Rue’s report also declared that disconnecting individuals from the Internet goes against international law.
According to La Rue’s profile on United Nations Human Rights website, a Special Rapporteur is appointed by the Human Rights Council as an independent, unpaid, expert. The position is honorary, and the Special Rapporteur’s job is to examine and report back in a country situation or specific human rights theme.
“This report explores key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet,” stated the report. “The Special Rapporteur underscores the unique and transformative nature of the Internet not only to enable individuals to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression, but also a range of other human rights, and to promote the progress of society as a whole.”
The 22-page report addresses censorship, cyber-attacks, data protection and privacy, Internet access and the necessary infrastructure to enable Internet access.