Facebook has overtaken MySpace to become the most popular social network in the US market.
As per the latest data revealed by ComScore, Facebook had 70.28 million U.S. users last month. In comparison, MySpace had 70.26 million.
Facebook continues to grow at an impressive pace. They have doubled their user base since last year. MySpace on the other hand is losing users.
The report further said that Facebook had 307.1 million users worldwide in April. MySpace in comparison has just around 126.9 million members.
Other reports say that social MS is laying off 30% of its employees! Rupert Murdoch's social network is closing 4 offices outside US and will lay off at least 300 of its employees internationally. The affected countries are India, Spain, Brazil, Canada, France, Italy, Mexico, Russia and Sweden.
According to the New York Times... "is MySpace losing audience outright. While the site drew 70 million unique visitors in the United States in February and in March, that figure was down from 75 million in December and in January.
Facebook has twice the traffic of MySpace!
Compared with the overall online population in the United States, the site draws disproportionate numbers of teenagers, twentysomethings and people whose household income is less than $25,000 a year, according to the measurement firm comScore. The Facebook audience tends to be more affluent, making it a more appealing space for higher-end advertisers."
Well, my own experience with MS is not the best one...it has lots of serious "security loopholes" and became a tool for propaganda and fake profiles and hatemongers. But when I read the NYT article, I don't have to wonder why...
One of my friends is still in Gaza right now, trying to report about the situation there... For some reason I felt the need to show how difficult and dangerous the job of a reporter/journalist can be.
I have to post it here, because I am still not able to post on MySpace.
Reporters At War is a series that takes a long hard look at one of the most dramatic and dangerous careers of modern times, that of the war correspondent. More than 300 journalists have been killed in battle zones in the last dozen years, some 200 of these having been deliberately targeted by their killers. The recent War in Iraq’s rate of attrition - 15 dead (plus 2 still missing) in the opening 26 days - is the highest ever. Though 63 died in the Vietnam between 1963-1975, it’s been estimated that at the above rate around 4,500 journalists would die if the Iraq conflict lasted as long as the Vietnam War. Then there’s the psychological trauma of witnessing the brutality of war close-up, constantly, day in, day out, over long agonising periods of time. No wonder nervous breakdowns, marital break-ups, alcoholism, etc affect war correspondents to a degree unexperienced by most ordinary folk. Reporters At War also examines the ever-changing circumstances that the war correspondent must file their stories under and the evolving technology that is supposed to make their job easier…that, at least, is the theory. It also looks at some early examples of how technology aided and abetted the faking of war newsreel footage, the impact that television may have had on the outcome of war and the pressure that reporters now find themselves under in the satellite-driven, 24-hour rolling-news era that they now unwittingly find themselves starring in.
Finally, it’s often been said that truth is the first casualty of war. Thus the series goes behind those well known, icon stories and images from modern war journalism to scrutinise how such factors as patriotism, censorship, impartiality, propaganda and taste impact on the stories that we get to read, see and hear during times of conflict. If the journalists themselves are rarely happy with what passes for news in such circumstances, how can we ever believe their blood-stained dispatches from the front?
Please go the Reporter at war website there are links to organisations who try to protect and promote journalism's integrity and freedom.
CBC also aired a similar documentary "Beyond words - Photographers of war" Link
The Freedom of the press is soooo important...
Carl Bernstein: "Today, the greatest threats to freedom of the press are more insidious than a generation ago because they are intended to induce a climate of fear and self-censorship through systematic violence and emblematic arrest aimed at those who would practice real, independent journalism. Kidnappings (not just of reporters and editors, but of members of their families), murder, and torture intended to suppress the truth: These are increasingly basic strategies of criminal regimes, drug gangs, local despots, authoritarian cultures, and movements such as radical Islam that transcend national boundaries.
The extraordinary courage and success of journalists around the world as catalysts for human rights and resistance to oppression have produced a fierce and often lethal counter-reaction. This backlash is premised on the use of whatever means are necessary to force self-censorship upon journalists who would challenge the status quo or reveal discomfiting truths--whether reporting on environmental degradation in China, drug gangs in Mexico, corruption in the Philippines, fundamentalist terrorism in Iraq and Pakistan, secret policies in Putin's Russia, or economic failure in communist Cuba.
Meanwhile, the tension between technology and outright repression--the availability of satellite television, the use of the Internet as impetus for growth and economic modernization--has rendered obsolete the old methods of press control and suppression of information such as media nationalization and overt censorship.
In documenting the changing pattern of worldwide violence, arrest, and imprisonment aimed at journalists--and the concomitant goal of inducing self-censorship through fear and terror--the 2008 CPJ report makes important distinctions among the perpetrators of draconian measures intended to force the press into submission.
Done right, reporting--good journalism--is nothing more or less than the best obtainable version of the truth. In all three configurations of repression, that bottom line of truth is the intended casualty of those who have determined that they must resort to more and more depraved acts against journalists and against ordinary citizens who resist and provide information to the press. Of the 41 journalists who died in 2008 because of their work, 28 were targeted for execution. At least 26 reporters and photographers were kidnapped, nearly half of whom were still in captivity at year's end. Another 125 languished in prison cells around the world, 73 of them on vague "antistate" charges. More than 80 journalists fled their countries under threat.
More Internet journalists are jailed worldwide today than journalists working in any other medium, according to the latest CPJ census of imprisoned journalists. Forty-five percent of all media workers jailed worldwide are bloggers, Web-based reporters, or online editors--making up the largest professional category in CPJ's prison census for the first time.
What this homegrown experience in self-censorship teaches journalists in the United States, I believe, is to appreciate even more the courage and principled sacrifice of thousands of our colleagues worldwide who resist self-censorship in hellish environments where they have been singled out for nothing more than doing their jobs.
The struggle of these journalists is the struggle of all of us, which is why CPJ exists--to provide a sophisticated network of practical and financial support that aids their continued pursuit of the truth, as well as to assist journalists and their families caught in the crossfire of war and conflict everywhere."
Vincent Bugliosi was interviewed about his life, his career, and his body of writing. Topics included his current book about President George W. Bush, how he chooses his topics, and his research. He responded to telephone calls and electronic mail. Vincent Bugliosi was the lead prosecutor in the case against Charles Manson and successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony cases during his tenure as a Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney.
Decide for yourself - the most balanced news coverage of the Georgian/South Assetian/Russian conflict I have seen so far.... They try to show all sides!
Russia VS Georgia war - 11 August (1/2)
Russia VS Georgia war - 11 August (2/2)
Thousands displaced by Russia-Georgia war -- 14 august 2008
The West assesses Russia's withdrawal from Georgia - 16 Aug 08
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is now facing her most serious foreign policy crisis to date. The war in the Caucasus has shattered relations with Russia and sparked disagreements within the EU -- and with the United States.
Germans Present a United Front
In Berlin last week, observers were eager to see whether the German government, which had just returned from its summer holidays, could agree on a uniform approach toward Russia.
On Wednesday morning, the cabinet met for its first session following the summer break. Steinmeier was in Brussels, so Deputy Foreign Minister Gernot Erler -- who is also a member of the SPD -- sat in for the foreign minister. The chancellor gave a short presentation on the conflict in the Caucasus.
Erler listened very attentively. Would he have to object? But soon he leaned back in his chair and relaxed. Afterwards, Erler told everyone present that he could endorse every word that the chancellor had said. The dialogue with Russia should continue.
As a result, the Germans presented a united front, and this held until Friday, including Merkel’s trip to Sochi. The German government has shown that it can act in this crisis -- but the sobering reality is that the Germans alone cannot resolve the situation.
A German political consensus is not enough to counter the Russians. That would require, at the very least, a united European front. But that does not exist. Once again it becomes clear that German political policies cannot influence global politics when they do not reflect a united European position. It is already apparent in the committee sessions of NATO and the EU that Russia has successfully divided the rest of the continent into two parts.
The Eastern Europeans, Swedes and Britons constitute the core of Russia’s critics. Germans, French and Italians, on the other hand, are pushing for an approach that would maintain dialogue with the superpower. In the cabinet session, Merkel said that the EU cannot afford to send such mixed messages.
But how does she intend to bridge the gap? Currently, Germany and France are not working together to create a strong backbone for European foreign policy. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has proven unreliable and no effective partnership can be forged with him. Recently, the French magazine Le Point quoted him as saying: “There are not many who are running the show. Bush’s time is up, Blair is no longer there. Merkel, no, that’s not it either. Actually, there is only me.”
Such statements do not go over well in the chancellery in Berlin, especially since the inimitable Sarkozy, who currently heads the EU Council Presidency, did a slipshod job of negotiating the ceasefire between Georgia and Russia. He allowed the Russians to cruise their tanks through Georgia. In any case, Sarkozy has failed to gain the trust of Eastern European countries.
Europe Split on Reaction
The conflict over how to deal with the crisis in the Caucasus could erupt again this Tuesday at a special NATO session. Together with the US, the Eastern European countries are calling for the alliance to set an example by taking military action in favor of Georgia. They propose dispatching AWACS aircraft -- which are used for reconnaissance, but can also serve as flying command centers for fighter jets -- to monitor Georgian airspace.
Most other EU members, above all the Germans and the French, oppose such a measure. They argue that flying AWACS missions over the Black Sea would only further provoke the Russians. What’s more, top officials in the German military have advised the chancellery and foreign ministry in Berlin that, from a military perspective, the aircraft are not required. There is no lack of information on the movements of the Russian air force. German specialists are monitoring radio communications of the Russian fighter jets and helicopters, reconnaissance satellites are providing photographs of Georgia, and the new SAR-Lupe satellites of the German armed forces, the Bundeswehr, are transmitting high-resolution radar images.
But many countries continue to push for AWACS -- also partly because Eastern Europeans such as the Estonians, the Latvians and the Poles need symbols of support for Georgia. After suffering for decades under Russian domination, they fear nothing more than an intervention. EU and NATO military involvement would allow them to feel more secure. They hope that if the Russians are halted in Georgia, they would never even try to invade Baltic States like Estonia or Lithuania.
Sarkozy has announced that he will “examine” a military mission for the European Union. At a meeting with EU colleagues in Brussels, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier found an amazing amount of willingness to embark on such a course. Since then his ministry has begun to map out scenarios for deploying EU troops. The question is whether police officers, soldiers or civilian observers should be sent to Georgia.
The German defense ministry remains rather skeptical of this idea. Military experts say that it is unlikely that Russia would allow an EU military mission into Georgia after it has gained control of the entire country, with the exception of the capital Tbilisi. According to a high-ranking military officer, this option is currently seen as “not very realistic.”
Meanwhile, the Bundeswehr is gearing up for another mission. There are plans to significantly boost the number of observers working for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which has been stationed in Georgia since 1992. There are roughly 200 of them, almost all of them civilians. They were supposed to help prevent fighting from flaring up again in South Ossetia, and obviously failed. Now the OSCE, which is based in Vienna, is considering sending in another hundred experts.
Last week, the Bundeswehr searched among its own ranks for suitable personnel. A knowledge of Russian is a must and experience in disarmament inspections in Russia is desirable. An initial survey revealed that roughly 30 serving and former soldiers could be ready to go in just a few days.
Georgia and NATO
One thing that the German government wants to avoid at all costs is NATO being drawn into the conflict. As things now stand, the crisis has renewed debate on Georgia’s membership. At the NATO summit in April in Bucharest, Merkel and Steinmeier played a major role in preventing Ukraine and the Caucasus country from joining the alliance’s Membership Action Plan (MAP). Now that hostilities have erupted, the Germans are happy to keep as much distance as possible between them and Georgia.
Nevertheless, during her Sunday visit to Tbilisi, Merkel repeated her claim that eventually Georgia would become a member of NATO. Speaking at a press conference she said "Georgia will become a member of NATO if it wants to -- and it does want to."
Eastern Europeans see the situation somewhat differently -- they would like to see Georgia already firmly on the path to NATO membership -- as does the US administration, represented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Strong criticism has also emerged from the American election campaign. US presidential candidate John McCain has warned that withholding fast-track membership for Georgia might have been viewed “as a green light by Russia for attacks on Georgia.” He said: “I urge NATO to reconsider its decision.”
Somehow this makes Germany partly responsible for the war in the Caucasus, at least in McCain’s eyes, and that does not bode well for Germany should the Republican be elected president in November. Berlin actually had hoped that it only had to get through the last few months of the Bush administration, and then everything would get better. But, no matter who is president, Germany’s relationship with the US promises to be fraught with tension should America allow itself to be provoked by Russia.
And what approach should Germany take with Russia? It should pursue dialogue, yes, but with what words and messages? Recently, Germany’s ties with Russia were strained by Merkel’s criticism of human rights violations. Now she would have even more reason to condemn the Russians. But this is precisely where Horst Teltschik -- who once served as a foreign policy advisor to former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl -- comes in with a surprising change of course.
Superpower Flexes its Muscles
Teltschik says that a “defensive approach” is inadequate, and that the German government has to take the initiative. He says that the main thing is to take the security needs of the Russians seriously and enter into negotiations on this issue -- and not simply hammer away on the topic of human rights.
According to Teltschik, there are a wide range of possible initiatives, from negotiating a new European contract on relinquishing violence to offering the Russians nearly full membership in NATO.
Teltschik, a conservative, points to -- of all people -- former SPD Chancellor Willy Brandt as a model for such bold ideas. He says that after the brutal suppression of the Prague Spring in 1968, Brandt, who was foreign minister at the time, correctly realized that he had to reorient his policy of détente, and more clearly approach Moscow, instead of East Germany or Poland.
Now Teltschik feels that the Germans have done far too little to improve their relations with Russia. He contends that former Chancellor Kohl -- along with his Social Democratic successor, Gerhard Schröder -- would have done a better job.
In a current SPIEGEL interview (more...), Schröder advises the government to “establish and maintain a strong relationship with Russia.” He then adds that “there is not a single critical problem in world politics or the global economy that could be solved without Russia.”
This is certainly no news to Russia, which is why the superpower is confidently flexing its muscles in Georgia.
Merkel wanted, more than anything else, to explain to Medvedev what kind of impression this imperial Russia makes on the world -- what kind of an effect it has when tanks roll through an independent country. These images have left her feeling shaken. She told Medvedev that Russia’s policy on breakaway provinces is inconsistent. Anyone who says that Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be able to declare their own independence should also grant the same privileges to its own provinces, such as Chechnya.
But, in the end, the chancellor did not have the feeling that this had impressed Medvedev.
Where to from here? There is no recipe for dealing with an imperial Russian superpower, not even a concept. Only one thing remains certain: “It will definitely be difficult,” said German Foreign Minister Steinmeier last week as he met with reporters over a cup of coffee -- and gazed rather helplessly into the distance.
My name is Su and I was an independent writer/co-writer for a couple of years in Germany...
I believe in the ethic of journalism - to seek truth and report it! No matter how ugly the truth might be, it has to be reported. Real journalism is the will to find out and sometimes our own beautiful "theories" or beliefs are killed by ugly facts, but that is what journalism is about…
The same is true for science... it is not just a belief it is also the will to find out, it is organized common sense. Just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts – and WE see only what we know! Consequently our view and belief is dependend on our knowledge… it is that simple!
Even if I believe that global warming is not only man-made, we are fully responsible for a lot of problems we face today"
Not only we produce much more CO2 than those "generations" 1500-2000 years ago, we also manufactured all kinds of greenhouse gases, we were so smart to clear the rain forests, "createt" the ozone hole, and the fact that oceans are "loaded" with heavy metals are just a few examples how we are going to destroy this planet.
A Fact: In certain intervals the temperature of Earth drops and soars (every 1500-2000 years) - a possible reason could be the orbit of earth around the sun - this orbit isn't a perfect circle but an ellipse which means that the earth is at a certain point of time nearer to the sun - a logical conclusion would be a higher temperature!
A higher temperature would also mean a natural rise of CO2... BUT we all should be smart enough to differenciate between "natural" and "man-made".
Otherwise we will destroy this beautiful planet!
Please take all the warnings seriously and do your part!
A short note...
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, and so on. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Quote:
The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you're going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins. -- I.F. Stone, journalist
Posts
