nettime mailinglist

bwo BytesforAll & iac2009 lists/ Fred Noronha & Pranesh Prakash====July 10, 2011, Nancy MessiehWhy Egypt wasn’t waiting for WikiLeaks to ignite a revolutionAsk any Egyptian how much of an influence the Internet was in thenation’s uprising, the first thing they’ll probably do is rolltheir eyes at you. I’ve certainly mentioned it countless times –International media found the perfectly convenient package of theFacebook revolution fueled by a Google executive. A better ledecouldn’t have been written if they had made it up themselves.But the thing is, there is as much fiction in that phrase as thereis fact. Yes the Facebook page We Are All Khaled Said, created bythe Google executive Wael Ghonim, was instrumental in mobilizinga certain demographic in Egypt. But long after Hosny Mubarak wastoppled, figures have emerged to prove that calling the uprising inEgypt in any way, shape or form, a Facebook Revolution, is almost asridiculous as the short-lived name, the Lotus Revolution, a name whichhad absolutely nothing to do with the movement.In case you’re curious, the Lotus Revolution was a name that followedthe just as ill-thought out name for the Tunisian uprising, theJasmine Revolution. Both names were no doubt dreamed up by journalistswho had visited the countries once upon a time, and were enamouredwith the exotic, oriental, incense-filled alleyways of Cairo andTunis. The reality of these uprisings couldn’t be further from theOrientalist postcard snapshot that is continually forced down ourthroats.The reality of the uprising in Tunisia is that it was sparked by ayoung man, Mohamed Bouazizi, who lit himself on fire, because thatwas the only form of protest he had left to use. The reality of theuprising in Egypt is that it was sparked by a young man, Khaled Said,who was brutally beaten to death in an alleyway, while people watched,helpless as he begged for his life.So with that in mind, it’s no surprise that the Wikileaks parody adthat seemed to be taking a bit of credit for the Egyptian revolutionhas sparked outrage among Egyptian activists.Mosa’ab El Shamy, an Egyptian activist and photographer who spent the18 days of the uprising in Tahrir, told The Next Web, “I thought wewould only have to counter all the local corporates here, which weretrying to claim credit for the revolution and share a ride on thebandwagon, but Wikileaks, is to me, the worst of them all.”Many local companies have been accused of playing both sides inEgypt, bowing to the regime before the uprising, and in a lighteningquick chameleon change, their colours were suddenly an entirely red,white and black display of supposed patriotism and pride in Egypt’srevolution.El Shamy goes on to explain his views on Wikileaks conceding, “Ibelieve it’s changing the world in its own way and their effort is aprime and noble one, but it’s ludicrous to hear Mr. Assange in the addeclare with a cheeky grin as he watches the imagery of protesterspushing police forces back from Kasr el Nil Bridge that ‘the worldchanging as a result of his work is priceless.’”In fact, as Egyptian blogger Zeinobia pointed out in her response tothe parody ad, most of the Wikileaks cables relating to Egypt werenever translated or published in local media for a variety of reasons,ranging from a fear of retribution to simply a matter of bad timing,with more important issues taking the attention of the Egyptian mediaand its audience.Ironically, much of the information that the Wikileaks cables revealedabout the Egyptian authorities was already common knowledge. Egypt isa country that saw bloggers and journalists imprisoned for voicingtheir opinion. Egypt is a country where questioning the president’shealth was punishable with imprisonment. It is not a country which waswaiting for Wikileaks cables to spark a movement that was years in themaking.El Shamy points to another ad that saw an even bigger backlash fromEgyptian activists, bloggers and tweeters. A Vodafone ad which hadoriginally been released a few weeks before the January 25 protests,was re-released online, with a newly added introduction, in which thetelecom company seemed to be attempting to take a bit of the creditfor mobilizing the masses.Comparing the two, El Shamy says of the Wikieaks ad, “I find it moredangerous, and ‘under-attacked.’ Assange is an international, popularfigure and millions are ready to follow his steps and take his word;and here lies the danger of ‘brainwashing’ more masses than the oneswho believe that it was all his work.”Wikileaks parody ads aside, no matter how many times the theoryis debunked with statistics and personal stories, the Internetrevolution keeps rearing its ugly head. El Shamy comments, “It’salways entertaining to see the media to rinse and repeat storiesabout how tech savvy our revolution was, how Facebooked, YouTubed andTwittereized it is, but I believe it is taken out of context thisway, and is an insistence on showing a small, rather unrepresentativeaspect of the Egyptian revolution. The huge majority of Egyptians whotook to the streets weren’t on Facebook or didn’t mind on missing onthe Twitter fad, the impoverished and underfed and ragged clothedcertainly weren’t motivated by a Facebook event or some videos theysaw on YouTube. That should be acknowledged sooner or later or else Ithink it’s a huge injustice to them, and an elitist perspective.”The Egyptian revolution was an incredible coming together of men andwomen, from different backgrounds, different religions, differentcities, and throughout the country, they stood side by side and calledfor one thing. To even attempt to credit that to the Internet, toWikileaks, or to anything else other than the perseverance of theEgyptian people is to ignore the facts.The role that the Internet did play was to get the story out. ElShamy was one of many who tweeted his way through the revolution.Asking him how he personally used the Internet during the 18 dayuprising, he says, “I used it to tweet, tweet, tweet and tweet. Ireported everything as I saw and answered people’s questions andtried chronicling what it felt to be in Tahrir for over two weeks.I interacted with fellow activists who were away from the square orother parts of Cairo and tried convincing as much people who supportedand followed our news through the internet but feared for theirsafety. It was an amazing experience.”El Shamy does give credit to the Internet where credit is due. “Ithink the Internet played a fine role during those 18 days, but didthe revolution come to a halt or lose mobilization when the servicewas cut off the whole country? Definitely not. It was useful that welet the world know, and gradually increase pressure on the regime fromoutside, and it acted as an anti-propaganda tool when the media wasspreading all kind of lies, and I think we made the best of it. But itsimply shouldn’t be overstated.”As Egyptian state TV televised calming images of the Nile, YouTubeand Twitter were witness to brutal violence and tear gas-filled shotsof a struggle for freedom. As Egyptian state TV broadcast stories ofa Tahrir infiltrated by foreign spies from the four corners of theworld, hell bent on bringing Egypt to its knees, YouTube and Twittertold of men and women who stood against snipers, thugs, and even araid of camels and horses, to come out victorious.When it comes to the actual figures, Facebook penetration in Egypt inApril 2011 stands at 7%, with Tunisia’s penetration rate far higher at22%. And let’s not forget that not all Facebook users in the regionwere automatically supporters of the uprising. Facebook arguments inthe post-January-25 world were common. The number of photos of HosnyMubarak that appeared as profile pictures on Facebook after the formerPresident stepped down is proof of that. Country-wide protests werenot waiting for Facebook members to take to the street.Yes, activists used Facebook and Twitter to coordinate amongthemselves, even far before January 25. Yes, Flickr and YouTube wereessential in disseminating information to the wider public. But thenumber of people who took the streets because of a call on Twittercannot be compared to the number of people who took to the streetsbecause of the on-the-ground efforts of activists who ventured intoareas of Cairo, and Egypt as a whole where Twitter was virtuallyunheard of, and spread awareness. Not in a country where the numberof Twitter accounts didn’t exceed 130,000 in April 2011. In fact,the number of people who joined the protests as they watched fromtheir balconies as hundreds and thousands of protesters passed in thestreets, chanting “Come down” probably exceeded the Twitter effect aswell.On January 28, I watched minutes before a similar crowd passed beneathmy balcony, as a young man quickly passed out fliers to people in thestreet. He handed the sheets of paper to men standing in the street,threw them at the feet of a crowd of women who were gathered at astreet corner, ducked quickly into shops and ran right back out again.I never saw what the flyer said, because by the time I ran down intothe street, his fliers were nowhere to be seen, as he disappeared intoa crowd of protesters who had fast approached, accompanied by a largecrowd of helmeted riot police and police cars, pacing alongside them,peaceful for the moment.It is men like him who are truly to be credited with mobilizing theEgyptian people. It is men like him who made the Egyptian people taketo the streets, knowing there was a possibility they would not becoming home. To say that Facebook can be equated with each and everyperson’s effort on the ground is to take a little bit of credit awayfrom men like him.## About the Author Lesotho-born and raised, Nancy Messieh is anEgyptian writer and photographer based in Cairo, Egypt.--

(bwo Geert Lovink)http://events.ccc.de/camp/2011/Fahrplan/track/Hacker%20Space%20Program/4451.en.htmlChaos Communication Camp 2011Project Flow ControlA modern manifest of cyberspaceThe internet is dead, long live the internet!The internet is increasingly falling under the control andrestrictions of governments and multinational corporations. Internetconnections are filtered and censored, not only in China but blatantlyso in 'western' countries such as Australia and Canada. The contentindustry is clamping down on infringement on intellectual property andcalls for ever more far-fetching and over-reaching laws to be put intoeffect. Meanwhile, telco's are making deals with content providers todecide how gets premium access and who gets degraded access to theirnetworks.We have seen the internet rise, saw its potential and then lost itto capitalism and state control. It is time we truly 'take back theweb'. The modern manifest of cyberspace is a call to action, urgingthe community to regain control and fight for a free infrastructure tosustain an uncensored and unbiased flow of information.The internet is increasingly falling under the control andrestrictions of governments and multinational corporations. Internetconnections are filtered and censored, not only in China but blatantlyso in 'western' countries such as Australia and Canada. The contentindustry is clamping down on infringement on intellectual property andcalls for ever more far-fetching and over-reaching laws to be put intoeffect. Meanwhile, telco's are making deals with content providers todecide how gets premium access and who gets degraded access to theirnetworks.As such, the independence of cyberspacehttps://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.htmlas declared in 1996 is a thing of the past. We urgently need toreclaim this independence, to ensure the free flow of information. Oneway out is the deployment of darknets and encrypted tunnels layeredover the existing commercial internet. In this talk I will argue fora more radical option though; I will call to abandon the existinginfrastructure and build our own.This talk will highlight various already ongoing initiativessupporting this bold idea, and ideas that are currently bubbling up tobuild grass-roots internet. Wireless mesh networks that connect localareas, initiatives to connect rural areas to the larger networkingcommunity and the hackerspaces space program] launching this year atthe CCC camp in August, which creates the environment for an actualgrass-roots telecommunications satellite network and unites variousongoing efforts in this area.http://events.ccc.de/camp/2011/space.htmlBut most of all, this talk will argue that the time is here to joinloose initiatives and localized grass-roots telecommunication effortsto implement a world-wide and independent communications network. Thistalk will explore possibilities, challenges and perhaps the need tounlearn the familiar and adapt to a new era of a truly decentralizedinfrastructure without traditional hubs of power and controllingagencies.(see original 4 links)

Thanks to Uwe Hoering/ Globe-spotting:http://www.globe-spotting.de/worldbank_risk_management.html (in German)Just as you thought you'd really seen everything in matters of cynicismand cronyism in the sphere of 'global finance' and its associatedmonosystemic honchos and entrenched institutions, you're in for the nextsurprise ... Or as Uwe Hoering concludes: "We can already figure how he(Zoellick) conjures up in his own eyes African farmers and Asianslum-dwellers standing in queues outside JP Morgan bank branches in orderto avail of expert advice on risk managment."Maybe time for the Cicero quote: "Usque tandem ...?"No Cheers, p+3D!....................................................................WB press release: http://bit.ly/n3jB0OWorld Bank Group Announces New Instrument to Help Food Producers andConsumers in Developing Nations Deal with Volatile PricesAvailable in: 中文, Français,العربية,日本語, EspañolPress Release No:2011/559/EXTZoellick says stepped up action by G-20 needed to protect the poorestWASHINGTON, June 21, 2011 - The World Bank Group today announced a newrisk management product to provide up to an initial $4 billion inprotection from volatile food prices for farmers, food producers, andconsumers in developing countries, addressing a key issue that will bediscussed later this week by Group of 20 (G-20) ministers.This first-of-its-kind product will improve access to hedging instrumentsto shield consumers and producers of agricultural commodities from pricevolatility. It will also protect buyers from price rises in food-relatedcommodities such as wheat, sugar, cocoa, milk, live cattle, corn, soybean,and rice.“With this new tool, we can help farmers, food producers, and consumersprotect themselves against price swings, strengthen their credit position,and increase their access to finance,” said World Bank Group PresidentRobert B. Zoellick. “This tool shows what sensible financial engineeringcan do: make lives better for the poor.”The Agriculture Price Risk Management (APRM) product will initially berolled out by IFC, the World Bank Group’s private sector arm, and J.P.Morgan. IFC hopes to roll out the product with other banks in due course.“We are proud that the World Bank and IFC have selected J.P. Morgan topartner with them to help address this public policy challenge indeveloping economies,” said Jes Staley, CEO of J.P. Morgan’s InvestmentBank.In the debut facility with J.P. Morgan, IFC will commit up to $200 millionin credit exposure to clients that use specific price hedging products,while J.P. Morgan will take on at least an equal amount of exposure tothem. Since the exposure associated with risk management operations istypically smaller than the principal amount of hedges made available toclients, these combined credit exposures should enable up to $4 billion inprice protection to be arranged by J.P. Morgan for emerging marketsagricultural producers and buyers.Potential clients for the APRM product can include agricultural producers,consumers, aggregators, cooperatives, and local banks as well as othersthat meet predetermined requirements.Developing risk management tools will be part of the plans to be discussedby G-20 agriculture ministers at their meeting in Paris this week. It wasalso part of a nine point plan recommended by the World Bank President inJanuary to address high and volatile food prices.Price stability is vital to help producers obtain finance needed to expandoperations as well as increase farm production, and to assure reasonableaccess to food supplies for consumers. While price risk managementproducts are routinely used in agriculture in developed countries, hedginginstruments cannot be obtained directly by smaller emerging marketproducers and consumers because of high upfront costs and marginrequirements. Furthermore, many financial institutions in emerging marketsare not yet experienced with these risk management services, and do notoffer them to local clients.The new APRM product enables producers and consumers in developingcountries to access agricultural price risk management. J.P. Morgan– andin the future other banks – will work with clients in emerging markets toappropriately hedge price risk associated with their business. IFCfacilitates this by sharing in the credit risk of these customers.Aside from promoting the use of risk management instruments, Zoellick saidthe G20 agriculture ministers could take a major step forward this week toaddress high and volatile food prices by agreeing to improve transparencyin agriculture, with an information system to increase public access toinformation on the quality and quantity of grain stocks.Speaking ahead of the meeting, Zoellick said he was also hopeful G20agricultural ministers would take the first steps in agreeing to exempthumanitarian food aid from export bans, so food aid can get to hungrypeople in time to save lives. “We have been in a period of extraordinary volatility in food prices,which poses a real danger of irreparable harm to the most vulnerablenations and people,” Zoellick said. “High, uncertain and volatile foodprices are the single gravest threat facing the most vulnerable in thedeveloping world. People are hungry for food and for action on a globallevel.”The World Bank President said greater transparency on food stocks aroundthe globe sends a powerful signal and would help reduce food pricevolatility by reassuring markets and helping calm panic induced pricespikes.Zoellick said the stresses on the world’s agricultural system – compoundedby growing demand for food – were evident in the numbers. Annual growthin rice and wheat yields in developing countries – home to four fifths ofthe world’s population - has dropped from three percent in the 1970s tojust one percent today.And he warned agriculture was under threat by climate change and withoutstrong adaptation measures, climate change could reduce yields by 16percent worldwide and 28 percent in Africa alone over the coming halfcentury.The World Bank President said greater investment in agricultural researchwas needed as food production must rise by 70 percent in order to feed anexpected global population of more than nine billion people by the year2050.“We need to be creative about farming, so there are not only more cropsbut more resilient crops, if we’re to respond to the challenges of feedinga growing population under more difficult and unpredictable conditions,”Zoellick said.The World Bank Group says since June last year, rising and volatile foodprices have led to an estimated 44 million more people living in poverty –under $1.25 a day. There are close to one billion hungry people worldwide– or one in seven people on the globe.The Bank Group has boosted it support for agriculture with spending upannually from around $4.1 billion in 2006-08 to between $6.2 and $8.3billion a year in 2010-12.Contacts:In Washington: David Theis, (202) 458-8626, dtheis-zQyhanSHZOXdtAWm4Da02A< at >public.gmane.org;For Broadcast Requests: Natalia Cieslik, (202) 458-9369,ncieslik-zQyhanSHZOXdtAWm4Da02A< at >public.gmane.org

Unlike Us: Understanding Social Media Monopolies and their AlternativesInvitation to join the network (a series of events, a reader, workshops, online debates, campaigns etc.)Concept: Geert Lovink (Institute of Network Cultures/HvA, Amsterdam) and Korinna Patelis (Cyprus University of Technology, Lemasol)Thanks to Marc Stumpel, Sabine Niederer, Vito Campanelli, Ned Rossiter, Michael Dieter, Oliver Leistert, Taina Bucher, Gabriella Coleman, Ulises Mejias, Anne Helmond, Lonneke van der Velden, Morgan Currie and Eric Kluitenberg for their input.SummaryThe aim of this proposal is to establish a research network of artists, designers, scholars, activists and programmers who work on 'alternatives in social media'. Through workshops, conferences, online dialogues and publications, Unlike Us intends to both analyze the economic and cultural aspects of dominant social media platforms and to propagate the further development and proliferation of alternative, decentralized social media software.If you want to join the Unlike Us network, start your own initiatives in this field or hook up what you have already been doing for ages, subcribe to the email list. Traffic will be modest. Soon there will be a special page/blog for the initative on the INC website. Also an independent social network will be installed shortly, using alternative software. More on that later! List info:http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/unlike-us_listcultures.orgBackgroundWhether or not we are in the midst of internet bubble 2.0, we can all agree that social media dominate internet and mobile use. The emergence of web-based user to user services, driven by an explosion of informal dialogues, continuous uploads and user generated content have greatly empowered the rise of participatory culture. At the same time, monopoly power, commercialization and commodification are also on the rise with just a handful of social media platforms dominating the social web. These two contradictory processes – both the facilitation of free exchanges and the commercial exploitation of social relationships – seem to lie at the heart of contemporary capitalism. On the one hand new media create and expand the social spaces through which we interact, play and even politicize ourselves; on the other hand they are literally owned by three or four companies that have phenomenal power to shape such interaction. Whereas the hegemonic Internet ideology promises open, decentralized systems, why do we, time and again, find ourselves locked into closed corporate environments? Why are individual users so easily charmed by these 'walled gardens'? Do we understand the long-term costs that society will pay for the ease of use and simple interfaces of their beloved 'free' services?The accelerated growth and scope of Facebook’s social space, for example, is unheard of. Facebook claims to have 700 million users, ranks in the top two or three first destination sites on the Web worldwide and is valued at 50 billion US dollars. Its users willingly deposit a myriad of snippets of their social life and relationships on a site that invests in an accelerated play of sharing and exchanging information. We all befriend, rank, recommend, create circles, upload photos, videos and update our status. A myriad of (mobile) applications orchestrate this offer of private moments in a virtual public, seamlessly embedding the online world in users’ everyday life.Yet despite its massive user base, the phenomena of online social networking remains fragile. Just think of the fate of the majority of social networking sites. Who has ever heard of Friendster? The death of Myspace has been looming on the horizon for quite some time. The disappearance of Twitter and Facebook – and Google, for that matter – is only a masterpiece of software away. This means that the protocological future is not stationary but allows space for us to carve out a variety of techno-political interventions. Unlike Us is developed in the spirit of RSS-inventor and uberblogger Dave Winer whose recent Blork project is presented as an alternative for ‘corporate blogging silos’. But instead of repeating the entrepreneurial-start-up-transforming-into-corporate-behemoth formula, isn't it time to reinvent the internet as a truly independent public infrastructure that can effectively defend itself against corporate domination and state control?AgendaGoing beyond the culture of complaint about our ignorance and loss of privacy, the proposed network of artists, scholars, activists and media folks will ask fundamental and overarching questions about how to tackle these fast-emerging monopoly powers. Situated within the existing oligopoly of ownership and use, this inquiry will include the support of software alternatives and related artistic practices and the development of a common alternative vision of how the techno- social world might be mediated.Without falling into the romantic trap of some harmonious offline life, Unlike Us asks what sort of network architectures could be designed that contribute to ‘the common’, understood as a shared resource and system of collective production that supports new forms of social organizations (such as organized networks) without mining for data to sell. What aesthetic tactics could effectively end the expropriation of subjective and private dimensions that we experience daily in social networks? Why do we ignore networks that refuse the (hyper)growth model and instead seek to strengthen forms of free cooperation? Turning the tables, let's code and develop other 'network cultures' whose protocols are no longer related to the logic of 'weak ties'. What type of social relations do we want to foster and discover in the 21st century? Imagine dense, diverse networked exchanges between billions of people, outside corporate and state control. Imagine discourses returning subjectivities to their 'natural' status as open nodes based on dialogue and an ethics of free exchange.To a large degree social media research is still dominated by quantitative and social scientific endeavors. So far the focus has been on moral panics, privacy and security, identity theft, self- representation from Goffman to Foucault and graph-based network theory that focuses on influencers and (news) hubs. What is curiously missing from the discourse is a rigorous discussion of the political economy of these social media monopolies. There is also a substantial research gap in understanding the power relations between the social and the technical in what are essentially software systems and platforms. With this initiative, we want to shift focus away from the obsession with youth and usage to the economic, political, artistic and technical aspects of these online platforms. What we first need to acknowledge is social media's double nature. Dismissing social media as neutral platforms with no power is as implausible as considering social media the bad boys of capitalism. The beauty and depth of social media is that they call for a new understanding of classic dichotomies such as commercial/political, private/public, users/producers, artistic/ standardised, original/copy, democratising/ disempowering. Instead of taking these dichotomies as a point of departure, we want to scrutinise the social networking logic. Even if Twitter and Facebook implode overnight, the social networking logic of befriending, liking and ranking will further spread across all aspects of life.The proposed research agenda is at once a philosophical, epistemological and theoretical investigation of knowledge artifacts, cultural production and social relations and an empirical investigation of the specific phenomenon of monopoly social media. Methodologically we will use the lessons learned from theoretical research activities to inform practice-oriented research, and vice- versa. Unlike Us is a common initiative of the Institute of Network Cultures (Amsterdam University of Applied Science HvA) and the Cyprus University of Technology in Lemasol.An online network and a reader connected to a series of events initially in Amsterdam and Cyprus (early 2012) are already in planning. We would explicitly like to invite other partners to come on board who identify with the spirit of this proposal, to organize related conferences, festivals, workshops, temporary media labs and barcamps (where coders come together) with us. The reader (tentatively planned as number 8 in the Reader series published by the INC) will be produced mid-late 2012. The call for contributions to the network, the reader and the event series goes out in July 2011, followed by the publicity for the first events and other initiatives by possible new partners.Topics of InvestigationThe events, online platform, reader and other outlets may include the following topics inviting theoretical, empirical, practical and art- based contributions, though not every event or publication might deal with all issues. We anticipate the need for specialized workshops and barcamps.1. Political Economy: Social Media MonopoliesSocial media culture is belied in American corporate capitalism, dominated by the logic of start-ups and venture capital, management buyouts, IPOs etc. Three to four companies literally own the Western social media landscape and capitalize on the content produced by millions of people around the world. One thing is evident about the market structure of social media: one-to-many is not giving way to many-to-many without first going through many-to-one. What power do these companies actually have? Is there any evidence that such ownership influences user-generated content? How does this ownership express itself structurally and in technical terms? What conflicts arise when a platform like Facebook is appropriated for public or political purposes, while access to the medium can easily be denied by the company? Facebook is worth billions, does that really mean something for the average user? How does data-mining work and what is its economy? What is the role of discourse (PR) in creating and sustaining an image of credibility and trustworthiness, and in which forms does it manifest to oppose that image? The bigger social media platforms form central nodes, such as image upload services and short ulr services. This ecology was once fairly open, with a variety of new Twitter-related services coming into being, but now Twitter takes up these services itself, favoring their own product through default settings; on top of that it is increasingly shutting down access to developers, which shrinks the ecology and makes it less diverse.2. The Private in the PublicThe advent of social media has eroded privacy as we know it, giving rise to a culture of self-surveillance made up of myriad voluntary, everyday disclosures. New understandings of private and public are needed to address this phenomenon. What does owning all this user data actually mean? Why are people willing to give up their personal data, and that of others? How should software platforms be regulated? Is software like a movie to be given parental guidance? What does it mean that there are different levels of access to data, from partner info brokers and third-party developers to the users? Why is education in social media not in the curriculum of secondary schools? Can social media companies truly adopt a Social Network Users’ Bill of Rights?3. Visiting the Belly of the BeastThe exuberance and joy that defined the dotcom era is cliché by now. IT use is occurring across the board, and new labour conditions can be found everywhere. But this should not keep our eyes away from the power relations inside internet companies. What are the geopolitical lines of distribution that define the organization and outsourcing taking place in global IT companies these days? How is the industry structured and how does its economy work? Is there a broader connection to be made with the politics of land expropriation and peasant labour in countries like India, for instance, and how does this analytically converge with the experiences of social media users? How do monopolies deal with their employees’ use of the platforms? What can we learn from other market sectors and perspectives that (critically) reflect on, for example, techniques of sustainability or fair trade?4. Artistic Responses to Social MediaArtists are playing a crucial role in visualizing power relationships and disrupting subliminal daily routines of social media usage. Artistic practice provides an important analytical site in the context of the proposed research agenda, as artists are often first to deconstruct the familiar and to facilitate an alternative lens to understand and critique these media. Is there such a thing as a social 'web aesthetics'? It is one thing to criticize Twitter and Facebook for their primitive and bland interface designs. How can we imagine the social in different ways? And how can we design and implement new interfaces to provide more creative freedom to cater to our multiple identities? Also, what is the scope of interventions with social media, such as, for example, the ‘dislike button’ add-on for Facebook? And what practices are really needed? Isn’t it time, for example, for a Facebook ‘identity correction’?5. Designing culture: representation and softwareSocial media offer us the virtual worlds we use every day. From Facebook's 'like' button to blogs’ user interface, these tools empower and delimit our interactions. How do we theorize the plethora of social media features? Are they to be understood as mere technical functions, cultural texts, signifiers, affordances, or all these at once? In what ways do design and functionalities influence the content and expressions produced? And how can we map and critique this influence? What are the cultural assumptions embedded in the design of social media sites and what type of users or communities do they produce? To answer the question of structure and design, one route is to trace the genealogy of functionalities, to historicize them and look for discursive silences. How can we make sense of the constant changes occurring both on and beyond the interface? How can we theorize the production and configuration of an ever-increasing algorithmic and protocological culture more generally?6. Software Matters: Sociotechnical and Algorithmic CulturesOne of the important components of social media is software. For all the discourse on sociopolitical power relations governed by corporations such as Facebook and related platforms, one must not forget that social media platforms are thoroughly defined and powered by software. We need critical engagement with Facebook as software. That is, what is the role of software in reconfiguring contemporary social spaces? In what ways does code make a difference in how identities are formed and social relationships performed? How does the software function to interpellate users to its logic? What are the discourses surrounding software? One of the core features of Facebook for instance is its news feed, which is algorithmically driven and sorted in its default mode. The EdgeRank algorithm of the news feed governs the logic by which content becomes visible, acting as a modern gatekeeper and editorial voice. Given its 700 million users, it has become imperative to understand the power of EdgeRank and its cultural implications. Another important analytical site for investigation are the ‘application programming interfaces’ (APIs) that to a large extent made the phenomenal growth of social media platforms possible in the first place. How have APIs contributed to the business logic of social media? How can we theorize social media use from the perspective of the programmer?6. Genealogies of Social Networking SitesFeedback in a closed system is a core characteristic of Facebook; even the most basic and important features, such as 'friending', traces back to early cybernetics' ideas of control. While the word itself became lost in various transitions, the ideas of cybernetics have remained stable in fields such as artificial intelligence, robotics and the biopolitical arena. Both communication and information theories shaped this discourse. How does Facebook relate to such an algorithmic shape of social life? What can Facebook teach us about the powers of systems theory? Would Norbert Wiener and Niklas Luhmann be friends on Facebook?7. Is Research Doomed?The design of Facebook excludes the third person perspective, as the only way in is through ones own profile. What does this inbuilt ‘me- centricity’ imply for social media research? Does it require us to rethink the so-called objectivity of researchers and the detached view of current social research? Why is it that there are more than 200 papers about the way people use Facebook, but the site is ‘closed’ to true quantitative inquiry? Is the state of art in social media research exemplary of the 'quantitative turn' in new media research? Or is there a need to expand and rethink methods of inquiry in social media research? Going beyond the usual methodological approaches of the quantitative and qualitative, we seek to broaden the scope of investigating these media. How can we make sense of the political economy and the socio-technical elements, and with what means? Indeed, what are our toolkits for collective, transdisciplinary modes of knowledge and the politics of refusal?8. Researching Unstable OntologiesSoftware destabilizes Facebook as a solid ontology. Software is always in becoming and so by nature ontogenetic. It grows and grows, living off of constant input. Logging on one never encounters the same content, as it changes on an algorithmic level and in terms of the platform itself. What does Facebook’s fluid nature imply for how we make sense of and study it? Facebook for instance willingly complicates research: 1. It is always personalized (see Eli Pariser). Even when creating ‘empty’ research accounts it never gives the same results compared to other people’s empty research accounts. 2. One must often be 'inside' social media to study it. Access from the outside is limited, which reinforces the first problem. 3. Outside access is ideally (for Facebook and Twitter) arranged through carefully regulated protocols of APIs and can easily be restricted. Next to social media as a problem for research, there is also the question of social research methods as intervention.9. Making Sense of Data: Visualization and CritiqueData representation is one of the most important battlefields nowadays. Indeed, global corporations build their visions of the world increasingly based on and structured around complex data flows. What is the role of data today and what are the appropriate ways in which to make sense of the burgeoning datasets? As data visualization is becoming a powerful buzzword and social research increasingly uses digital tools to make ‘beautiful’ graphs and visualizations, there is a need to take a step back and question the usefulness of current data visualization tools and to develop novel analytical frameworks through which to critically grasp these often simplified and nontransparent ways of representing data. Not only is it important to develop new interpretative and visual methods to engage with data flows, data itself needs to be questioned. We need to ask about data’s ontological and epistemological nature. What is it, who is the producer, for whom, where is it stored? In what ways do social media companies’ terms of service regulate data? Whether alternative social media or monopolistic platforms, how are our data-bodies exactly affected by changes in the software?10. Pitfalls of Building Social Media AlternativesIt is not only important to critique and question existing design and socio-political realities but also to engage with possible futures. The central aim of this project is therefore to contribute and support 'alternatives in social media'. What would the collective design of alternative protocols and interfaces look like? We should find some comfort in the small explosion of alternative options currently available, but also ask how usable these options are and how real is the danger of fragmentation. How have developers from different initiatives so far collaborated and what might we learn from their successes and failures? Understanding any early failures and successes of these attempts seems crucial. A related issue concerns funding difficulties faced by projects. Finally, in what ways does regionalism (United States, Europe, Asia) feed into the way people search for alternatives and use social media.11. Showcasing Alternatives in Social MediaThe best way to criticize platform monopolies is to support alternative free and open source software that can be locally installed. There are currently a multitude of decentralized social networks in the making that aspire to facilitate users with greater power to define for themselves with whom share their data. Let us look into the wildly different initiatives from Crabgrass, Appleseed, Diaspora, NoseRub, BuddyCloud, Protonet, StatusNet, GNU Social, Lorea and OneSocialWeb to the distributed Twitter alternative Thimbl. In which settings are these initiative developed and what choices are made for their design? Let's hear from the Spanish activists who have recently made experiences with the n-1.cc platform developed by Lorea. What community does this platform enable? While traditional software focuses on the individual profile and its relation to the network and a public (share with friends, share with friends of friends, share with public), the Lorea software for instance asks you with whom to share an update, picture or video. It finegrains the idea of privacy and sharing settings at the content level, not the user’s profile. At the same time, it requires constant decision making, or else a high level of trust in the community you share your data with. And how do we experience the transition from, or interoperability with, other platforms? Is it useful to make a distinction between corporate competitors and grassroots initiatives? How can these beta alternatives best be supported, both economically and socially? Aren't we overstating the importance of software and isn't the availability of capital much bigger in determining the adoption of a platform?12. Social Media Activism and the Critique of Liberation TechnologyWhile the tendency to label any emergent social movement as the latest 'Twitter revolution' has passed, a liberal discourse of 'liberation technology' (information and communication technologies that empower grassroots movements) continues to influence our ideas about networked participation. This discourse tends to obscure power relations and obstruct critical questioning about the capitalist institutions and superstructures in which these technologies operate. What are the assumptions behind this neo-liberal discourse? What role do ‘developed’ nations play when they promote and subsidize the development of technologies of circumvention and hacktivism for use in ‘underdeveloped’ states, while at the same time allowing social media companies at home to operate in increasingly deregulated environments and collaborating with them in the surveillance of citizens at home and abroad? What role do companies play in determining how their products are used by dissidents or governments abroad? How have their policies and Terms of Use changed as a result?13. Social Media in the Middle East and BeyondThe justified response to downplay the role of Facebook in early 2011 events in Tunisia and Egypt by putting social media in a larger perspective has not taken off the table the question of how to organize social mobilizations. Which specific software do the 'movements of squares' need? What happens to social movements when the internet and ICT networks are shut down? How does the interruption of internet services shift the nature of activism? How have repressive and democratic governments responded to the use of ‘liberation technologies’? How do these technologies change the relationship between the state and its citizens? How are governments using the same social media tools for surveillance and propaganda or highjacking Facebook identities, such as happened in Syria? What is Facebook’s own policy when deleting or censoring accounts of its users? How can technical infrastructures be supported which are not shutdown upon request? How much does our agency depend on communication technology nowadays? And whom do we exclude with every click? How can we envision 'organized networks' that are based on 'strong ties' yet open enough to grow quickly if the time is right? Which software platforms are best suited for the 'tactical camping' movements that occupy squares all over the world?14. Data storage: social media and legal culturesData that is voluntarily shared by social media users is not only used for commercial purposes, but is also of interest to governments. This data is stored on servers of companies that are bound to the specific legal culture and country. This material-legal complex is often overlooked. Fore instance, the servers of Facebook and Twitter are located in the US and therefore fall under the US jurisdiction. One famous example is the request for the Twitter accounts of several activists (Gonggrijp, Jónsdóttir, Applebaum) affiliated with Wikileaks projects by the US government. How do activists respond and how do alternative social media platforms deal with this issue?Contact details:Geert Lovink (geert-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/wNWPw< at >public.gmane.org)Korinna Patelis (korinna.patelis-JJMhyjkirFbHCqZ3qdFy9g< at >public.gmane.org / kpatelis-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org)Institute of Network CulturesCREATE-IT/Hogeschool van Amsterdamwww.networkcultures.org

This kind of stuff is fairly hidden here - Alan---------- Forwarded message ----------Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:38:31From: Portside Moderator <moderator-1P9u8MX5GVLRnqqr4xx/QQ< at >public.gmane.org>To: PORTSIDE-psCCsKB7rKShSZ4PnerUBNpPI6r2+5pS< at >public.gmane.orgSubject: Protests Grow in Solidarity with California Prisoners as Hunger Strikes Enter Third WeekProtests Grow in Solidarity with California Prisoners asHunger Strikes Enter Third WeekAmy Goodman and Juan GonzalezDemocracy Now!July 15, 2011http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/15/protests_grow_in_solidarity_with_californiaThousands of inmates in at least 13 prisons acrossCalifornia's troubled prison system have been on hungerstrike for almost two weeks. Many are protesting insolidarity with inmates held in Pelican Bay StatePrison, California's first super-maximum securityprison, over what prisoners say are cruel and unusualconditions in "Secure Housing Units." We play an audiostatement from one of the Pelican Bay prisoners andspeak to three guests: Dorsey Nunn, co-founder of "Allof Us or None" and executive director of Legal Servicesfor Prisoners with Children, and one of the mediatorsbetween the prisoners on hunger strike and theCalifornia Department of Corrections; Molly Porzig, amember of the Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidaritycoalition and a spokesperson for Critical Resistance;and Desiree Lozoya, the niece of an inmate participatingin the Pelican Bay Hunger Strike, who visited him lastweekend. [includes rush transcript]Guests:Molly Porzig, a member of the Prisoner Hunger StrikeSolidarity coalition and a spokesperson for CriticalResistance.Dorsey Nunn, co-founder of "All of Us or None." He isalso the executive director of Legal Services forPrisoners with Children. Nunn was incarcerated from 1971to 1982 in San Quentin Prison in California. He is oneof the mediators between the prisoners on hunger strikeand the California Department of Corrections.Desiree Lozoya, is the niece of an inmate participatingin the Pelican Bay hunger strike.Rush Transcript This transcript is available free ofcharge. However, donations help us provide closedcaptioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TVbroadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.JUAN GONZALEZ: We turn now to California, wherethousands of inmates in at least 11 prisons across thestate's troubled prison system have been on hungerstrike for almost two weeks. Many are protesting insolidarity with inmates held in Pelican Bay StatePrison, California's first super-maximum securityprison.The hunger strike began on July 1st in the Pelican Bay'sSecurity Housing Unit, when inmates began refusing mealsto protest what they say is cruel and unusualconditions. Prisoners in the units are kept in totalisolation for 22-and-a-half hours a day, a punishmentsome mental health experts say can lead to insanity andis tantamount to torture.Democracy Now! obtained a recording of an audiostatement that one of the Pelican Bay inmates, TedAshker sic, made to his legal team in the secureprison's Secure Housing Unit, which is referred to asthe SHU. You will need to listen closely as he explainshis reasons for joining the hunger strike. TODD ASHKER: The basis for this protest has come about after over 25 years-some of us, 30, some up to 40 years-of being subjected to these conditions the last 21 years in Pelican Bay SHU, where every single day you have staff and administrators who feel it's their job to punish the worst of the worst, as they've put out propaganda for the last 21 years that we are the worst of the worst. And most of us have never been found guilty of ever committing an illegal gang-related act. But we're in SHU because of a label. And all of our 602 appeals, numerous court challenges, have gotten nowhere. Therefore, our backs are up against the wall. A lot of us are older now. We have serious medical issues coming on. And we believe that this is our only option of ever trying to make some kind of positive changes here, is through this peaceful protest of hunger strike. And there is a core group of us who are committed to taking this all the way to the death, if necessary. None of us want to do this, but we feel like we have no other option. And we're just hoping for the best.JUAN GONZALEZ: That was Todd, not Ted, Todd Ashker, oneof the prisoners in Pelican Bay's Secure Housing Unitwho is on hunger strike. California's Department ofCorrections and Rehabilitation spokesperson, TerryThornton, responded to the hunger strike, saying, quote,"This goes to show the power, influence and reach ofprison gangs." A prison guard told MSNBC that prisonersare kept in the SHU for their own safety. PRISON GUARD: Inmates that were placed into the SHU housing unit were placed in here, for the most part, because of violence, and that violence could be against other inmates or against officers.JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, activists who support the strikersdismiss allegations of gang ties. They describe theconditions inside the prison's highest-security specialisolation wing as inhumane.In May, the federal Supreme Court ruled that Californiamust reduce its prison overcrowding to be able toprovide inmates with adequate healthcare. In a five-to-four ruling, the court said conditions in California'sprison system are, quote, "incompatible with the conceptof human dignity, causing needless suffering and death."Supporters of the hunger strikers protesting theseconditions say, as the prisoners continue to refusefood, their health has deteriorated to critical levels.AMY GOODMAN: For more, we're joined by three guests. InOakland, California, we're joined by Dorsey Nunn, who isco-founder of All of Us or None. He's also executivedirector of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children.Nunn was incarcerated from 1971 to '82 at San Quentin.He's one of the mediators between the prisoners onhunger strike and the California Department ofCorrections.Also joining us from the University of California,Berkeley, is Molly Porzig. She's a member of thePrisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity coalition and aspokesperson for Critical Resistance.And in Arizona, we're joined by Desiree Lozoya. She isthe niece of a prisoner participating in the Pelican Bayhunger strike. She went to the prison last weekend andvisited her uncle.Desiree, let's start with you. Tell us what your uncleexplained to you, why he's on hunger strike, and what'shappening at Pelican Bay.DESIREE LOZOYA: Well, basically, just as Todd hadexplained in his video clip, they're just wanting to betreated better. They're cold. They're losing weight. Andlike he had explained, a lot of these prisoners aretrying to be-basically gang-labeled. However, there'snothing to be labeling them for. For instance, my unclewas an interstate transfer to Pelican Bay. He wassupposed to be transferred closer to home. However, hewas still transferred 17 hours away from us. And then,as soon as they saw a tattoo on his hand, they labeledhim right away. Although he has had no write-ups, hasgotten into no trouble, they automatically put him inthe Ad-Seg, which is now called the new SHU. They arenow expanding that. And so, that's where he sits.AMY GOODMAN: Because they said the tattoo indicates he'sa member of a gang?DESIREE LOZOYA: Yes. And the tattoo, he ended up gettingwhen he was a teen. He was only 18 years old when hereceived the tattoo. It was in no gang affiliationwhatsoever.JUAN GONZALEZ: And we're also joined by Molly Porzig.She's a member of the Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidaritycoalition. Molly, talk about how this has spread to therest of the California prison system.MOLLY PORZIG: Right. So, on the first day of the hungerstrike, thousands of prisoners across the state ofCalifornia, more than 6,600 prisoners that we know ofacross at least 13 prisons, joined the hunger strike insolidarity with the prisoners at the Pelican Bay SHU andtheir demands. What's really significant about that isthat people are risking their own lives in joining thisaction, while being in very similar, or even the same,brutal conditions as the hunger strikers at Pelican Bay.And that speaks to the fact that while this strugglespeaks to particular conditions at Pelican Bay and inthe SHU, it's also part of the larger system withinCalifornia, which was just mentioned that has beencondemned by the Supreme Court as inhumane and cruel,due to severe medical neglect and overcrowding.AMY GOODMAN: I'm wondering, Dorsey Nunn, co-founder ofAll of Us or None, if you could explain how this strikehas spread and how you are negotiating between theprisoners and the prisons.DORSEY NUNN: I think this strike has spread, just likeanybody else that supports injustice. So for them toconsider-I heard in your clip when he said the 6,000people that's supporting this strike is-demonstrates theinfluence of gang leaders. I think it demonstrates theneed for justice. Just as Martin marched and peoplefollowed Martin, people followed Gandhi, people areactually striking because they are being tortured. So Ithink that this strike has spread because torture is athreatening thing to anybody in the CaliforniaDepartment of Corrections.People are being tortured. Some parts of what I know, asa formerly incarcerated person who have did time withinthe California Department of Corrections, that they areguilty of torture. It's like being locked-it's not"like." People are being locked up in the bathroom for23, 24 and 30 years. It may not have been torture maybethe first 30 days or the first 60 days, but when youstart getting into multiple decades, then we can call ittorture.When you start extracting information in Pelican Bay orGuant??namo Bay, the purpose is the same. You'retorturing people. And I think under internationalstandards, it can be referred to as that. I think thething that is troubling, that this thing is happening onthe shores of the United States. We never did have toget into renditions if we were going to allow torture innorthern California.JUAN GONZALEZ: And Dorsey-DORSEY NUNN: So this thing is spreading.JUAN GONZALEZ: Dorsey Nunn, what's been the response ofprison officials or government officials? Have theyattempted to negotiate or mediate through you or withthe inmates?DORSEY NUNN: I think that we entered discussions. Iwouldn't necessarily call it "negotiating." We entereddiscussions, you know. So I guess if I was in a cagewith a 600-pound gorilla, you couldn't necessarily callit a dance.AMY GOODMAN: And where do you-DORSEY NUNN: You know, so I-you know, what you-AMY GOODMAN: Go ahead, Dorsey.DORSEY NUNN: You know, what brings me into this studiothis morning at 5:00 in the morning is that I'm scaredpeople are going to start dying. You know, the onlymodel that these guys got left is the model of BobbySands and the Irish strike. That's their model. So theseguys-AMY GOODMAN: Explain what you mean by that.DORSEY NUNN: You know, somebody needs to think aboutwhat would drive human beings-yes.AMY GOODMAN: Dorsey, you're talking about-you're talkingabout fasting to death, if you're talking about BobbySands.DORSEY NUNN: Yeah, that's what they're talking about.And that's what they've been like-that's what I'mfrightened of. So what brings me into your studio is, Ithink they're betting on the compassion of people wholive in the state of California, people who live in theUnited States. And what's frightening to me is that Idon't know if that compassion really exists.MOLLY PORZIG: I mean, just to add to that, to back up tothe question of what has the response of officials been,I mean, it's very, very clear that the CDCR is more thanwilling, if not wanting, people to start dying. Theywant this to go away quickly and quietly. They prideitself on Pelican Bay being the end of the line, notonly for people in California, but to be a model for theUnited States, and really the world, in terms of how torepress political organizing and resistance and any sortof defiance to any sort of establishment.And I think that, you know, what the challenge is forsupporters outside of prison is that we need to betirelessly working at, in a very urgent way, taking therisks that we can to match the courage of these hungerstrikers, because, like Dorsey is saying, people-it'snot just that we're afraid of in a few weeks peopledying. People are getting to that point now. And we needto be acting more. You know, historically, people haveused civil disobedience to prevent mass death. Andthat's exactly the moment that we're in right now.That's exactly what these hunger strikers and thousandsand thousands of prisoners across the state ofCalifornia are doing. Some prisoners at Ohio StatePenitentiary are also joining this. You know, so this isreally, really huge.AMY GOODMAN: We have to leave it there.MOLLY PORZIG: And if people start dying, if it gets tothat point-OK.AMY GOODMAN: We have to leave it there, but I thank youso much, all, for being with us. We will certainlyfollow this hunger strike. We've been joined by DorseyNunn, co-founder of All of Us or None, by Molly Porzigwith Critical Resistance, and thank you to DesireeLozoya, who joined us from Arizona.___________________________________________Portside aims to provide material of interest to peopleon the left that will help them to interpret the worldand to change it.Submit via email: portside-0h5K2prAsCRg9hUCZPvPmw< at >public.gmane.orgSubmit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faqSub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribeSearch Portside archives: http://portside.org/archiveContribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate

I believe it was the Guardian who have nudged this story along from thebeginning...If these folks did (or even I guess, tried to do) the hanky-panky with 9/11then in their Aussie/Brit journalistic "exuberance" they surely have"touched the third rail". Anyone care to assess the political/cultural fall out from a fallen FoxNews? M-----Original Message-----From: Portside Moderator [mailto:moderator-1P9u8MX5GVLRnqqr4xx/QQ< at >public.gmane.org] Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 12:48 PMTo: PORTSIDE-psCCsKB7rKShSZ4PnerUBNpPI6r2+5pS< at >public.gmane.orgSubject: [SPAM] Worst Is Yet to Come for News Corp.Worst Is Yet to Come for News Corp.By Matt WellsGuardian (UK)July 15, 2011http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/15/les-hinton-news-corp?INTCMP=SRCH Les Hinton sacrificed, but the worst is yet to come for News Corp. Every time Murdoch ditches a key executive, the flames of scandal flick ever closer to him.No relationship is safe, no loyal bond strong enoughfor Rupert Murdoch who - looking more than the sum ofhis 80 years - is mounting a final battle to save thecompany he built from nothing.His decision to throw Les Hinton to the wolves is hismost dramatic move yet. For more than 50 years, as ajournalist and then an executive, Hinton loyally servedthe Murdoch empire from its roots in Australia to theheight of its power in New York.Now, in a desperate effort to save News Corporation'smost valuable assets - its 27 US broadcast licences andthe 20th Century Fox movie studio - Murdoch is preparedto sacrifice one of his closest allies.The problem for Murdoch is that every time he ditches akey executive, the flames of scandal flick ever closerto him.Hinton was ditched because he was the crucial linkbetween Murdoch's valuable US businesses and thetainted operation in Britain. He was at the helm of NI- the holding company for his UK newspapers includingthe News of the World and the Times - when it seemedthat everyone who was in sniffing distance of asignificant news story found their phones being hacked.Questions were being raised about what Hinton knewabout corrupt payments to London police officers: if hewas shown to have been aware of them, that would be afelony in the US under the Foreign Corrupt PracticesAct.The problem for News Corp now is that, at every stage,its attempts to contain this story have failed. Thedecision to close the News of the World was motivatedin part to save the chief executive of NI, RebekahBrooks: that decision bombed and Brooks resigned onFriday.But the departure of Brooks was not enough to containthe scandal in Britain, so Hinton, who has been more significant to thecompany's fortunes and to Murdoch personally for far longer than Brooks,also left.The inevitable next move for Murdoch is prolicide. Hisson James, appointed in 2007 as chairman and chiefexecutive of News Corporation's operations in Europeand Asia, based at News International's headquarters in Wapping, eastLondon, clings on - but only for now.In London, James Murdoch oversaw the response to thehacking scandal. He approved the £700,000 hush moneypaid to Gordon Taylor, the former chief executive ofthe Professional Footballers' Association - a decisionhe has blamed on poor advice. (The legal director ofNews International, Tom Crone, was one of theexecutives of News International to leave this week.)The departure of Hinton suggests that News Corporationhas finally got to grips with the global significanceof this story, but the worst is yet to come. The FBIhas launched an investigation into accusations thatNews of the World journalists asked a former New Yorkpolice officer for the phone records of relatives of9/11 victims. If that toxic allegation is shown to havebeen true, one thing is certain: Fox News is finished,along with the rest of News Corporation as we know it.The emotional supercharge of 9/11 in the US is manytimes greater than Milly Dowler in the UK - and lookwhat happened here.Commentators have compared the crisis to Watergate;Carl Bernstein, the former Washington Post reporterwhose revelations helped depose a US president, says itis evident to him the events of the past week "are the beginning, not theend, of the seismic event".To coin a famous Murdoch newspaper headline: will thelast person to leave News Corporation turn off thelights?___________________________________________Portside aims to provide material of interest to peopleon the left that will help them to interpret the worldand to change it.Submit via email: portside-0h5K2prAsCRg9hUCZPvPmw< at >public.gmane.orgSubmit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faqSub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribeSearch Portside archives: http://portside.org/archiveContribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate!DSPAM:2676,4e223b0140302087622743!

The Wall Street Journal has always done an outstanding job at paintingpink what is actually deep and deep blue, but this time it has surelyoutperformed itself. Or to quote a French quirky phrase much loved by mysister: "C'est bien le moment ou les Atheniens s'atteignirent" ...bwo the Guardian's coverage of the 'Phone Hacking Crisis' (ie Newscorps)http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/phone-hacking("Best of the rest of the media" - indeed!)original to:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303661904576451812776293184.html?mod=djkeywordNews and Its CriticsA tabloid's excesses don't tarnish thousands of other journalists.When News Corp. and CEO Rupert Murdoch secured enough shares to buy DowJones & Co. four years ago, these columns welcomed our new owner andpromised to stand by the same standards and principles we always had. Thatpromise is worth repeating now that politicians and our competitors areusing the phone-hacking years ago at a British corner of News Corp. toassail the Journal, and perhaps injure press freedom in general.***At least three British investigations into phone-hacking and payments topolice and others by the now-shuttered News of the World tabloid areunderway, with 10 arrests so far. News Corp. and its executives haveapologized profusely and are cooperating with authorities. Phone-hackingis illegal, and it is up to British authorities to enforce their laws. IfScotland Yard failed to do so adequately when the hacking was firstuncovered several years ago, then that is more troubling than the hackingitself.It is also worth noting the irony of so much moral outrage devoted to asingle media company, when British tabloids have been known for decadesfor buying scoops and digging up dirt on the famous. Fleet Street ingeneral has long had a well-earned global reputation for the blind-quote,single-sourced story that may or may not be true. The understandableoutrage in this case stems from the hacking of a noncelebrity, the murdervictim Milly Dowler.The British politicians now bemoaning media influence over politics arealso the same statesmen who have long coveted media support. The idea thatthe BBC and the Guardian newspaper aren't attempting to influence publicaffairs, and don't skew their coverage to do so, can't stand a day'sscrutiny. The overnight turn toward righteous independence recalls aneternal truth: Never trust a politician.Which brings us to Friday's resignation of our publisher and CEO, LesHinton, who ran News Corp.'s British newspaper unit during the time of thealleged hacking. In his resignation letter, Mr. Hinton said he knewnothing about wide-scale hacking and had testified truthfully toParliament in 2007 and 2009. We have no reason to doubt him, especiallybased on our own experience working for him.In nearly four years at the Journal, Mr. Hinton managed the paper's returnto profitability amid a terrible business climate. He did so not solely bycost-cutting but by investing in journalists when other publications werelaying off hundreds. On ethical questions, his judgment was as sound asthat of any editor we've had.#insert here pic of Les Hinton, former CEO of Dow Jones & Co.#In the specific case of Singapore, he allowed the company to defend one ofour journalists against a defamation claim through the appellate stage,despite the historically faint prospect of success. This is more than canbe said for other British and American publications. In doing so, Mr.Hinton forced the Singapore judiciary to address significant changes inthe law protecting honest journalism elsewhere in the former Britishcommonwealth that the judges could have otherwise ignored.Our readers can decide if we are a better publication than we were fouryears ago, but there is no denying that News Corp. has invested in theproduct. The news hole is larger. Our foreign coverage in particular ismore robust, our weekend edition more substantial, and our expansion intodigital delivery ahead of the pack. The measure that really matters is themarket's, and on that score Mr. Hinton was at the helm when we againbecame America's largest daily.We also trust that readers can see through the commercial and ideologicalmotives of our competitor-critics. The Schadenfreude is so thick you can'tcut it with a chainsaw. Especially redolent are lectures aboutjournalistic standards from publications that give Julian Assange andWikiLeaks their moral imprimatur. They want their readers to believe,based on no evidence, that the tabloid excesses of one publication somehowtarnish thousands of other News Corp. journalists across the world.The prize for righteous hindsight goes to the online publicationProPublica for recording the well-fed regrets of the Bancroft family thatsold Dow Jones to News Corp. at a 67% market premium in 2007. TheBancrofts were admirable owners in many ways, but at the end of theirownership their appetite for dividends meant that little cash remained toinvest in journalism. We shudder to think what the Journal would look liketoday without the sale to News Corp.In braying for politicians to take down Mr. Murdoch and News Corp., ourmedia colleagues might also stop to ask about possible precedents. Thepolitical mob has been quick to call for a criminal probe into whetherNews Corp. executives violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act withpayments to British security or government officials in return forinformation used in news stories. Attorney General Eric Holder quicklyobliged last week, without so much as a fare-thee-well to the FirstAmendment.The foreign-bribery law has historically been enforced against companiesattempting to obtain or retain government business. But U.S. officialshave been attempting to extend their enforcement to include any paymentsthat have nothing to do with foreign government procurement. This includesa case against a company that paid Haitian customs officials to let itsgoods pass through its notoriously inefficient docks, and the drug companySchering-Plough for contributions to a charitable foundation in Poland.Applying this standard to British tabloids could turn payments made aspart of traditional news-gathering into criminal acts. The Wall StreetJournal doesn't pay sources for information, but the practice is commonelsewhere in the press, including in the U.S.The last time the liberal press demanded a media prosecutor, it was toprobe the late conservative columnist Robert Novak in pursuit of WhiteHouse aide Scooter Libby. But the effort soon engulfed a reporter for theNew York Times, which had led the posse to hang Novak and his sources. Doour media brethren really want to invite Congress and prosecutors toregulate how journalists gather the news?***Phone-hacking is deplorable, and we assume the guilty will be prosecuted.More fundamentally, the News of the World's offense—fatal, as it turnedout—was to violate the trust of its readers by not coming about its newshonestly. We realize how precious that reader trust is, and our obligationis to re-earn it every day.

Hi! Aaron Swartz Internet activist (and friend) has been arrested fordownloading too many journal articles from the Library. Please signthe petition of suport and help to spread the word, MayoNY Times article: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/reddit-co-founder-charged-with-data-theft///// Aaron Swartz charged for downloading too many journal articlesfrom the Library ////Shocking news: Moments ago former Demand Progress Executive DirectorAaron Swartz was indicted by the US government. As best as we cantell, he is being charged with allegedly downloading too many journalarticles from the Web. The government contends that downloading somany journal articles constitutes felony computer hacking and shouldbe punished with time in prison. We disagree.Will you click here to sign our petition of support for Aaron?http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/support_aaronThe charges are made all the more senseless by the fact that thealleged victim has settled any claims against Aaron, explained they'vesuffered no loss or damage, and asked the government not to prosecute.James Jacobs, the Government Documents Librarian at StanfordUniversity -- where Aaron did undergraduate work -- denouncedthe arrest: "Aaron's prosecution undermines academic inquiry anddemocratic principles," Jacobs said. "It's incredible that thegovernment would try to lock someone up for allegedly looking uparticles at a library."Will you click here to show your support for Aaron?http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/support_aaronThanks for your support and concern as we help see Aaron through thesetough times. We'll keep you updated. -- The Demand Progress teamP.S. Please considering forwarding this email to your friends or using the links below to alert them to Aaron's predicament.??????`??.(*??.??(`??.?? ??.????)??.??*).????`????????????*???????? Mayo Fuster Morell ??.??.??*??`??????????`??.(??.????(??.??* *??.??)`??.??).????`????Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.infoPh.D European University InstitutePostdoctoral Researcher. Institute of Govern and Public Policies. Autonomous University of Barcelona.Visiting scholar. Internet Interdisciplinary Institute. Open University of Catalonia (UOC).Visiting researcher (2008). School of information. University of California, Berkeley.Member Research Committee. Wikimedia Foundationhttp://www.onlinecreation.infoE-mail: mayo.fuster-tSBZotL4Eu8< at >public.gmane.orgSkype: mayonetiPhone Spanish State: 0034-648877748

http://goo.gl/SiGGj (PDF)"In all, [Aaron] Swartz stole approximately 4.8 million articles, amajor portion of the total archive in which JSTOR had invested...Swartz intended to distribute a significant portion of JSTOR's archiveof digitized journal articles through one or more file-sharing sites"And finally,

in Re: management techniques under market stalinism ...original to:http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/18/sean-hoare-news-of-the-worldSean Hoare knew how destructive the News of the World could beby Nick DaviesThe courageous whistleblower who claimed Andy Coulson knew about phonehacking had a powerful motive for speaking outAt a time when the reputation of News of the World journalists is at rockbottom, it needs to be said that the paper's former showbusinesscorrespondent Sean Hoare, who died on Monday, was a lovely man.In the saga of the phone-hacking scandal, he distinguished himself bybeing the first former NoW journalist to come out on the record, tellingthe New York Times last year that his former friend and editor, AndyCoulson, had actively encouraged him to hack into voicemail.That took courage. But he had a particularly powerful motive for speaking.He knew how destructive the News of the World could be, not just for thetargets of its exposés, but also for the ordinary journalists who workedthere, who got caught up in its remorseless drive for headlines.Explaining why he had spoken out, he told me: "I want to right a wrong,lift the lid on it, the whole culture. I know, we all know, that thehacking and other stuff is endemic. Because there is so much intimidation.In the newsroom, you have people being fired, breaking down in tears,hitting the bottle."He knew this very well, because he was himself a victim of the News of theWorld. As a showbusiness reporter, he had lived what he was happy to calla privileged life. But the reality had ruined his physical health: "I waspaid to go out and take drugs with rock stars – get drunk with them, takepills with them, take cocaine with them. It was so competitive. You aregoing to go beyond the call of duty. You are going to do things that nosane man would do. You're in a machine."While it was happening, he loved it. He came from a working-classbackground of solid Arsenal supporters, always voted Labour, definedhimself specifically as a "clause IV" socialist who still believed inpublic ownership of the means of production. But, working as a reporter,he suddenly found himself up to his elbows in drugs and delirium.He rapidly arrived at the Sun's Bizarre column, then run by Coulson. Herecalled: "There was a system on the Sun. We broke good stories. I had agood relationship with Andy. He would let me do what I wanted as long as Ibrought in a story. The brief was, 'I don't give a fuck'."He was a born reporter. He could always find stories. And, unlike some ofhis nastier tabloid colleagues, he did not play the bully with hissources. He was naturally a warm, kind man, who could light up a lamp-postwith his talk. From Bizarre, he moved to the Sunday People, under NeilWallis, and then to the News of the World, where Andy Coulson had becomedeputy editor. And, persistently, he did as he was told and went out onthe road with rock stars, befriending them, bingeing with them, pausingonly to file his copy.He made no secret of his massive ingestion of drugs. He told me how heused to start the day with "a rock star's breakfast" – a line of cocaineand a Jack Daniels – usually in the company of a journalist who nowoccupies a senior position at the Sun. He reckoned he was using threegrammes of cocaine a day, spending about £1,000 a week. Plus endlessalcohol. Looking back, he could see it had done him enormous damage. Butat the time, as he recalled, most of his colleagues were doing it, too."Everyone got overconfident. We thought we could do coke, go to Brown's,sit in the Red Room with Paula Yates and Michael Hutchence. Everyone got abit carried away."It must have scared the rest of Fleet Street when he started talking – hehad bought, sold and snorted cocaine with some of the most powerful namesin tabloid journalism. One retains a senior position on the Daily Mirror."I last saw him in Little Havana," he recalled, "at three in the morning,on his hands and knees. He had lost his cocaine wrap. I said to him, 'Thisis not really the behaviour we expect of a senior journalist from a greatLabour paper.' He said, 'Have you got any fucking drugs?'"And the voicemail hacking was all part of the great game. The idea that itwas a secret, or the work of some "rogue reporter", had him rocking in hischair: "Everyone was doing it. Everybody got a bit carried away with thispower that they had. No one came close to catching us." He would hackmessages and delete them so the competition could not hear them, or hackmessages and swap them with mates on other papers.In the end, his body would not take it any more. He said he started tohave fits, that his liver was in such a terrible state that a doctor toldhim he must be dead. And, as his health collapsed, he was sacked by theNews of the World – by his old friend Coulson.When he spoke out about the voicemail hacking, some Conservative MPs werequick to smear him, spreading tales of his drug use as though that meanthe was dishonest. He was genuinely offended by the lies being told by NewsInternational and always willing to help me and other reporters who weretrying to expose the truth. He was equally offended when Scotland Yard'sformer assistant commissioner, John Yates, assigned officers to interviewhim, not as a witness but as a suspect. They told him anything he saidcould be used against him, and, to his credit, he refused to have anythingto do with them.His health never recovered. He liked to say that he had stopped drinking,but he would treat himself to some red wine. He liked to say he didn'tsmoke any more, but he would stop for a cigarette on his way home. Forbetter and worse, he was a Fleet Street man.

(And then there are those who still believe that "To-Morrow NeverDies" was about Robert, not Ruppert ... ;-)original to:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jul/19/rupert-murdoch-phone-hackingPhone hacking crisis shows News Corp is no ordinary news companyRupert Murdoch's news organisations are not in the news business. Whatthey crave is influenceWatching the phone hacking crisis crack wide open over the last fewweeks has left me puzzled about its ultimate causes: what is it aboutNews Corp that has produced these events?I don't think we understand very much about this. We can say thingslike, "Ultimate responsibility goes to the man at the top," meaningRupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO. And that sounds right, but it stilldoesn't explain how any of it happened. "The key people are criminals,liars, or willfully blind..." We could say that, but then we wouldhave to explain how so many of them ended up at one company.Puzzles like these have led many people to the conclusion that there'sa culture inside News Corp that is in some way responsible, and Ibasically agree with that. Mark Lewis, lawyer for the family ofMilly Dowler, said after Rebekah Brooks resigned: "This is not justabout one individual but about the culture of an organization." CarlBernstein agrees. He wrote this in Newsweek a few days ago: "As anyone in the business will tell you, the standards andculture of a journalistic institution are set from the top down, byits owner, publisher, and top editors. Reporters and editors do notroutinely break the law, bribe policemen, wiretap, and generallyconduct themselves like thugs unless it is a matter of recognized andunderstood policy. Private detectives and phone hackers do not become the primarysources of a newspaper's information without the tacit knowledge andapproval of the people at the top, all the more so in the case ofnewspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch, according to those who know himbest."Bernstein tells us that one of his sources is a former executive atNews Corp, who says: "Murdoch invented and established this culture inthe newsroom, where you do whatever it takes to get the story, takeno prisoners, destroy the competition, and the end will justify themeans."I think this is correct as far as it goes, but now I want to introducemy theory of how this culture works and why it exists in the firstplace.When the news broke that the Murdochs had hired the Edelman firm tohandle public relations in the UK, I thought to myself, "Edelman has acrisis response practice, but do they have a denial division?"Because to me that is the most striking thing about the way News Corphas reacted to these events from the beginning. Denial! Not only inthe sense of deflecting questions with "move along, nothing to seehere..." (when, in fact, there is something) but that deeper senseof denial we invoke when we say that a woman is in denial about herunfaithful husband or a man about his coming mortality.Denial is somehow built into the culture of News Corp, more so thanany normal company. It isn't normal for the CEO to say, as Murdochsaid on July 15, that his company had handled the crisis "extremelywell in every way possible," making just "minor mistakes," when thenext day the executive in charge (Rebekah Brooks) resigns, then a daylater gets arrested, followed by Murdoch's closest aide, Les Hinton,who also resigned in hopes of reversing the tide of defeats.Your top people don't quit for minor mistakes, but no one in News Corpseemed troubled by that July 15 statement. The Wall Street Journalreported it without raising an eyebrow. Murdoch was confronted withhis "minor mistakes" quote in Tuesday's parliamentary hearing but heturned down the chance to take it back. Where does denial so massivecome from?Here's my little theory: News Corp is not a news company at all, buta global media empire that employs its newspapers – and in the US,Fox News – as a lobbying arm. The logic of holding these "press"properties is to wield influence on behalf of the rest of the (muchbigger and more profitable) media business and also to satisfyMurdoch's own power urges.However, this fact, fairly obvious to outside observers, is actuallyconcealed from the company by its own culture. So here we find thesource for the river of denial that runs through News Corp.Fox News and the newspapers Murdoch owns are described by News Corp,and understood by most who work there as "normal" news organisations.But they aren't, really. What makes them different is not that theyhave a more conservative take on the world – that's the fiction inwhich opponents and supporters join – but rather: news is not theirfirst business. Wielding influence is.Scaring politicians into going along with News Corp's plans. Buildingup an atmosphere of fear and paranoia, which then admits Rupert intothe back door of 10 Downing Street.But none of these facts can be admitted into company psychology,because the flag that its news-related properties fly, the legend onthe licence, doesn't say "lobbying arm of the Murdoch empire." No. Itsays "First Amendment" or "Journalism" or "Public Service" or "newsand information."In this sense the company is built on a lie, but a necessary lie topreserve certain fictions that matter to Murdoch and his heirs. Andthat, I believe, explains how it got itself into this phone hackingmess. All the other lies follow from that big one.Strangely, I do not think that News Corp people like Rebekah Brooksand James Murdoch are being insincere when they pledge allegiance tothe values of good journalism. On the contrary, they believe that thisis what their newspapers are all about. And this is the sense in whichdenial is constitutive of the company, a built-in feature that cannotbe acknowledged by any of the major players because self-annihilationwould be the result.

Jonathan Manthorpe's coverage of Asia is the very best reason to subscribeto and read the Vancouver Sun!And this one is a beaut!M------------------------------------------------------------http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Beijing+outclasses+London+managing+Murdoch/5129528/story.html#ixzz1Sff7ADFFMedia tycoon's lust for a piece of Chinese market was so all-consuming thatauthorities there easily milked his companies of their skills By Jonathan Manthorpe, Vancouver Sun July 20, 2011 A screen grab image taken from television on Tuesday shows News Corp. chiefRupert Murdoch and his son, James, giving evidence to a Parliamentary SelectCommittee on the phone hacking scandal, as Rupert Murdoch's wife Wendi Deng(centre) looks on. When dealing with Rupert Murdoch, the British political and chatteringclasses should have taken advice from the Chinese.Beijing quickly saw in the 1990s that when "the Dirty Digger" comes callingit is a good idea to lock up your wives and daughters, keep a tight grip onyour wallet, and don't let him over the doorstep.But the political and propaganda chiefs of China's Communist Party soon tooktheir view of Murdoch and his multifaceted media empire News Corp. to thenext level.As in their dealings with so many other foreign business people, the Beijingauthorities saw that Murdoch's lust for a place in the China market of 1.3billion people was so allconsuming he could easily be led around by thenose.Murdoch and his son and apparent heir, James, poured about $2 billion intotelevision and online enterprises in China.They lost at least half of that while the Chinese authorities milked theMurdoch companies of their skills in not only modern media communication,but also in methods of content control and censorship.Last year, Murdoch and son admitted they had hit "a brick wall" in China andsold off their three remaining television channels, Xing Kong, Xing KongInternational and Channel (V) Mainland China, as well as their Fortune StarChinese movie library to an investment fund controlled by the Beijinggovernment.The irony is that as the Murdochs withdrew from China they fixed theirattention on taking full control of British Sky Broadcasting, a bid that hasnow gone down the tubes in the muck and mire of the scandal around phonehacking by employees at the now defunct London tabloid, News of the World.Murdoch's attempt to get into the Chinese television market started badly.When he bought the Hong Kong-based Star TV satellite service in 1993 heproclaimed in a speech brimming with hubris that this medium would be "anunambiguous threat to totalitarian regimes everywhere."But Murdoch had already been taken for a ride. He bought Star TV for morethan $500 million from Richard Li, son of Hong Kong's tycoon of tycoons, LiKa-shing.Somehow in the excitement of making the deal it failed to get mentioned thatStar TV's output in China was totally pirated and there was no income.Within a month, Beijing made clear its view of Murdoch and his crusade tobring the light of open information and ideas into the dark corners ofChina's authoritarianism.The ownership of private satellite dishes was banned.The speed with which News Corp. changed tack and became a cringingsupplicant at the court of Beijing was astonishing.Murdoch sold the Hong Kong newspaper, the South China Morning Post, to apro-Beijing Malaysian businessman, who has tempered its previously vigorouscoverage of China.Murdoch's book publishing subsidiary, HarperCollins, produced a biography ofChina's paramount leader Deng Xiaoping written by his daughter - andbusiness tycoon - Deng Rong.And to reinforce his new attitude toward Beijing, Murdoch orderedHarperCollins to back out of a contract to publish the memoirs of HongKong's last governor, Chris Patten, an account that was bound to anger theChinese government.In 1994 Murdoch went further. The man who only a year before extolled thereforming influence of free information took the BBC News out of the Star TVsatellite package because it was causing too much friction with Beijing.A couple of years later Beijing apparently considered that Murdoch was nowsuitably submissive.In 1996 News Corp. made a joint venture with Liu Changle, who had links tothe propaganda ministry. They created Phoenix, which broadcast to a limitednumber of urban households politically trustworthy enough to watch foreignmedia.Phoenix introduced Westernstyle fast-pace news reporting, but kept wellclear of sensitive topics.The Chinese state-controlled media and censors learned a lot from Phoenixand apparently decided that Murdoch could be managed.He was given more access and over the next few years he sent teams to helpstate operations such as China Central Television and People's Dailynewspaper develop their websites.He also brought teams of Chinese television managers and technicians to hissatellite TV operations to learn how they worked.These contacts ended up being a giveaway of News Corp. skills, and Murdochgot nothing much in return.But like so many other business people who have caught China market fever,the Murdochs seemed to feel that one more demonstration of friendship andloyalty would do the trick.In a 1999 interview with the magazine Vanity Fair, Murdoch said of the DalaiLama, who Beijing believes is a Tibetan separatist, "I have heard cynics whosay he is a very political old monk shuffling around in Gucci shoes."In 2001 in a speech in Los Angeles, James Murdoch claimed that Westernreporters based in China support destabilizing forces in the country andthat the health and spiritual well-being movement, Falun Gong, is "dangerousand apocalyptic."By this time, Rupert Murdoch, then 68, had made the most personal possibledemonstration of his love for China and married, in 1999, Deng Wen Di (nowknown as Wendi Deng Murdoch), who was 31 years old.Wendi Murdoch became her husband's lever into China and adviser oninvestments.They went on an investment binge in the early 2000s, spending hundreds ofmillions of dollars, mostly on dot-com startups, and in some cases inpartnership with the son of then-president Jiang Zemin.News Corp. even saw its television reach into China expand under thispatronage, which included joint ventures with the son of the head of thepropaganda ministry.But the good times came to a sharp halt with end of the Jiang era and thecoming to power of Hu Jintao in 2005.Despite having cozied up to Hu's power base, the Communist Youth League,with joint ventures, the Murdochs were forced out of their local broadcasttelevision ventures by the new propaganda chief, with a loss of up to $60million.Also in 2005, on the advice of Wendi Murdoch, the company bought for $580million the Chinese social network operation MySpace.Well, that didn't work out either, and earlier this month MySpace wasunloaded for $35 million.jmanthorpe-W4fJYJ0jtx1ciDnNYQZIPg< at >public.gmane.orgC Copyright (c) The Vancouver SunRead more:http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Beijing+outclasses+London+managing+Murdoch/5129528/story.html#ixzz1Sff7ADFF

John McTernan may not get what he (and I) wishes (hence my title in thes/l ;-) but it's a good read.bwo The Guardian's Best of the Restoriginal to:http://news.scotsman.com/politics/John-McTernan-Loyalty-to-Coulson.6804185.jpJohn McTernan: Loyalty to Coulson leaves Cameron a lame duckThe Prime Minister may hang on, but he has lost authority not only in thepolitical arena, but also in the public's eyes.David Cameron is finished. He may, in the end, survive the phone hackingscandal, but if he does, then he will be in office but not in power. Theseare strong words. But they go to the heart of the paradox of modern powerin a democracy. Even the most overwhelming majority is no longer amandate, it's a licence. The authority of a government, of a PrimeMinister, is renewed, renegotiated, constantly - sometimes weekly, oftenmonthly. Or, as Cameron has discovered to his cost, rarely - butdevastatingly - on a daily basis.The line from Conservative back-benchers is interesting. They say theirleader has been "behind the curve" and concede that Labour leader EdMiliband has been "making the weather". All true, but missing the pointmassively. In Washington, they have a phrase for a scandal that dominatesthe political classes but is ignored by voters, they call it a "Beltwayblood-letting". The phrase means no-one cares outside the Beltway - DC'sown M25.The truly corrosive political scandals are those that enter thebloodstream of public conversation. This is what has happened with theNews of the World phone hacking scandal. It has in social media terms"gone viral", it is a talking point across the country.Cameron's problem is not playing catch-up with Miliband. His problem isthat he's playing catch-up with the public - and failing. The proof? Justfollow the public chatter. What are cabbies - the fantastic, all-purposesalt of the earth focus group - saying? They're losing their faith in thePrime Minister. So are talk radio hosts and their guests. And the Toryblogosphere.Earlier this week, I drafted the memo I would write to Cameron if I wascurrently in No 10 advising him how to get out of the bind. Tory bloggersimmediately suggested I should be appointed. Not, of course, a ringingendorsement of me - more a vote of no confidence in the Downing Street setup.More striking still, the comments following my blog normally peppered withreferences to "Bliar", "Liebour" and "Iraq" were uniformly anti-Cameron.There's a huge group forming out there who are scunnered with the PrimeMinister. And the biggest problem for Cameron is he just doesn't get it.For the first year of government, the Prime Minister mastered a fantasticturn. When a policy became unpopular he would hang back, wait until hisCabinet minister was unpopular and discredited, and then step in. Callinga press conference he would proclaim: "I have just discovered that thegovernment is about to do something appalling. It must be stopped. And Iwill do that now." Breathtaking brass neck. Yet from the privatisation ofthe Forestry Commission to the reform of the NHS, it has worked.Repeated success with this approach has led Cameron to believe that it isa single, transferable tactic. And he has come to believe that a confidentdelivery can redefine reality. It doesn't. Well, at least not all thetime.The end of the road came in Africa. To be out of the country at this timewas a serious failure of judgment. The optics were terrible.Semi-detached.As one well-informed young man observed to me: "Off selling arms." And soout of touch. Asked about Andy Coulson, the Prime Minister went straightto defence - nothing Andy did in No 10 was wrong or has ever beenquestioned. Wow. Wrong answer to the wrong question. It's the actualappointment not the work rate - or work content - that's under scrutiny.Now, Cameron has a really good ear for the public - it's been the key tohis success. But he missed a beat here, because he's out of the country.He missed the fact that he is under sustained attack by the MetropolitanPolice. I'm guessing that when he was informed about the resignations ofSir Paul Stephenson and John Yates the Prime Minister was relieved. Hewill have utterly missed the nuance of their statements unless he saw themlive - which he won't have, Prime Ministers travelling never do.But to be frank, outside of a Latin American coup d'etat, I have neverseen a clearer declaration of war on an elected government. Why? BecauseStephenson and Yates said virtually the same thing: "We did nothing wrong,but there are serious public perceptions of conflicts of interest. We arepublic servants. Integrity is a core value for us. When we are the subjectof such serious accusations, we must resign to protect the integrity ofthe institution in which we serve."The point, more powerful for being unspoken, was clear: if we did nothingwrong and resigned what should others do? Or to be clear: the cops employa former deputy editor of the News of the World and resign, the PrimeMinister employs the formal editor and - Yvette Cooper put it pithily -one law for the police another for the Prime Minister.That was why Cameron was so wrong to defend Coulson one more time. Thecentral contest in politics is to get the public to think that you are "ontheir side". What kills you is when the voters decide you are "out oftouch". Unfortunately for Cameron his understandable personal loyalty toCoulson has blinded him to political realities. He is defending theindefensible - and he has left Miliband with an open goal today. All hehas to say is: "The Prime Minister just doesn't get it."And this is why Cameron is on the slide. He has not shown that he gets it,but the public is finally getting him. Under Gordon Brown, Labour tried tobrand Cameron as a toff. That didn't work because no-one cared where hewas from, they got his authority and connection. But authority is oftenthe flip-side of arrogance - and that is where the public is moving, andindeed has perhaps moved decisively.Few ordinary people pay detailed attention to political scandals, howeverlarge, but they get a glimpse from time to time. The danger for thepoliticians in the frame is that the snapshot in time becomes a definingimage. For Cameron that is happening right now, and he is hurting.

Marx is Back: The Importance of Marxist Theory and Research for Critical Communication Studies Today
Call for Papers for a Special Issue of tripleC – Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society.
Edited by Christian Fuchs and Vincent Mosco

http://fuchs.uti.at/wp-content/uploads/CfP_Marx_tripleC.pdfFor inquiries, please contact the two editors.In light of the global capitalist crisis, there is renewed interest in Karl Marx’s works and in concepts like class, exploitation and surplus value. Slavoj Žižek argues that the antagonisms of contemporary capitalism in the context of the ecological crisis, the massive expansion of intellectual property, biogenetics, new forms of apartheid and growing world poverty show that we still need the Marxian notion of class. He concludes that there is an urgent need to renew Marxism and to defend its lost causes in order to render problematic capitalism as the only alternative (Žižek 2008, 6) and the new forms of a soft capitalism that promise, and in its rhetoric makes use of, ideals like participation, self-organization, and co-operation, without realizing them. Žižek (2010, chapter 3) argues that the global capitalistcrisis clearly demonstrates the need to return to the critique of political economy. Göran Therborn suggests that the “new constellations of power and new possibilities of resistance” in the 21st century require retaining the “Marxian idea that human emancipation from exploitation, oppression, discrimination and the inevitable linkage between privilege and misery can only come from struggle by the exploited and disadvantaged themselves” (Therborn 2008, 61). Eric Hobsbawm (2011, 12f) insists that for understanding the global dimension of contemporary capitalism, its contradictions and crises, and the persistence of socio-economic inequality, we “must ask Marx’s questions” (13). 

This special issue will publish articles that address the importance of Karl Marx’s works for Critical Media and Communication Studies, what it means to ask Marx’s questions in 21st century informational capitalism, how Marxian theory can be used for critically analyzing and transforming media and communication today, and what the implications of the revival of the interest in Marx are for the field of Media and Communication Studies. 
Questions that can be explored in contributions include, but are not limited to:

* What is Marxist Media and Communication Studies? Why is it needed today? What are the main assumptions, legacies, tasks, methods and categories of Marxist Media and Communication Studies and how do they relate to Karl Marx’s theory? What are the different types of Marxist Media/Communication Studies, how do they differ, what are their commonalities?
* What is the role of Karl Marx’s theory in different fields, subfields and approaches of Media and Communication Studies? How have the role, status, and importance of Marx’s theory for Media and Communication Studies evolved historically, especially since the 1960s?* In addition to his work as a theorist and activist, Marx was a practicing journalist throughout his career. What can we learn from his journalism about the practice of journalism today, about journalism theory, journalism education and alternative media?
* What have been the structural conditions, limits and problems for conducting Marxian-inspired Media and Communication Research and for carrying out university teaching in the era of neoliberalism? What are actual or potential effects of the new capitalist crisis on these conditions?

* What is the relevance of Marxian thinking in an age of capitalist crisis for analyzing the role of media and communication in society?
* How can the Marxian notions of class, class struggle, surplus value, exploitation, commodity/commodification, alienation, globalization, labour, capitalism, militarism and war, ideology/ideology critique, fetishism, and communism best be used for analyzing, transforming and criticizing the role of media, knowledge production and communication in contemporary capitalism?
* How are media, communication, and information addressed in Marx’s work?* What are commonalities and differences between contemporary approaches in the interpretation of Marx’s analyses of media, communication, knowledge, knowledge labour and technology?
* What is the role of dialectical philosophy and dialectical analysis as epistemological and methodological tools for Marxian-inspired Media and Communication Studies?
* What were central assumptions of Marx about media, communication, information, knowledge production, culture and how can these insights be used today for the critical analysis of capitalism?* What is the relevance of Marx’s work for an understanding of social media?
* Which of Marx’s works can best be used today to theorize media and communication? Why and how?
* Terry Eagleton (2011) demonstrates that the 10 most common held prejudices against Marx are wrong. What prejudices against Marx can be found in Media and Communication Studies today? What have been the consequences of such prejudices? How can they best be contested? Are there continuities and/or discontinuities of prejudices against Marx in light of the new capitalist crisis?
All contributions shall genuinely deal with Karl Marx’s original works and discuss their relevance for contemporary Critical Media/Communication Studies.
Eagleton Terry. 2011. Why Marx was right. London: Yale University Press.Hobsbawm, Eric. 2011. How to change the world. Marx and Marxism 1840-2011. London: Little, Brown.Therborn, Göran. 2008. From Marxism to post-Marxism? London: Verso.Žižek, Slavoj. 2008. In defense of lost causes. London: Verso.Žižek, Slavoj. 2010. Living in the end times. London: Verso.
Editors

Christian Fuchs is chair professor for Media and Communication Studies at Uppsala University’s Department of Informatics and Media. He is editor of the journal tripleC – Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society. His areas of interest are: Critical Theory, Social Theory, Media & Society, Critical Political Economy of Media/Communication, Critical Information Society Studies, Critical Internet Studies. He is author of the books “Foundations of Critical Media and Information Studies” (Routledge 2011) and “Internet and Society: Social Theory in the Information Age” (Routledge 2008, paperback 2011). He is co-editor of the collected volume “The Internet and Surveillance. The Challenges of Web 2.0 and Social Media” (Routledge 2011, together with Kees Boersma, Anders Albrechtslund, Marisol Sandoval). He is currently writing a book presenting a critical theory of social media. http://fuchs.uti.at 

Vincent Mosco is professor emeritus of sociology at Queen's University and formerly Canada Research Chair in Communication and Society. Dr. Mosco is the author of numerous books on communication, technology, and society. His most recent include Getting the Message: Communications Workers and Global Value Chains (co-edited with Catherine McKercher and Ursula Huws, Merlin, 2010), The Political Economy of Communication, second edition (Sage, 2009), The Laboring of Communication: Will Knowledge Workers of the World Unite (co-authored with Catherine McKercher, Lexington Books, 2008), Knowledge Workers in the Information Society (co-edited with Catherine McKercher, Lexington Books, 2007), and The Digital Sublime: Myth, Power, and Cyberspace (MIT Press, 2004). He is currently writing a book on the relevance of Karl Marx for communication research today.

Publication Schedule and Submission

Structured Abstracts for potential contributions shall be submitted to both editors (christian.fuchs< at >im.uu.se, moscov< at >mac.com) per e-mail until September 30th, 2011 (submission deadline). The authors of accepted abstracts will be invited to write full papers that are due five months after the feedback from the editors. Full papers must then be submitted to tripleC. Please do not instantly submit full papers, but only structured abstracts to the editors.
The abstracts should have a maximum of 1 200 words and should be structured by dealing separately with each of the following five dimensions: 
1) Purpose and main questions of the paper
2) Description of the way taken for answering the posed questions
3) Relevance of the topic in relation to the CfP
4) Main expected outcomes and new insights of the paper
5) Contribution to the engagement with Marx’s works and to Marxian-inspired Media and Communication Studies

Journal

tripleC (cognition, communication, co-operation): Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, http://www.triple-c.se 

Focus and Scope:Critical Media-/Information-/ Communication-/Internet-/Information Society-Studies
tripleC provides a forum to discuss the challenges humanity is facing today.It publishes contributions that focus on critical studies of media, information, communication, culture, digital media, social media and the Internet in the information society. The journal’s focus is especially on critical studies and it asks contributors to reflect about normative, political, ethical and critical implications of their research.

Indexing:Scopus, EBSCOHost Communication and Mass Media Complete, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
Open Access:tripleC is an open access journal that publishes articles online and does not charge authors or readers. It uses a Creative Commons license (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License) that allows reproduction of published articles for non-commercial purposes (without changes of the content and only with naming the author). Creative Commons publishing poses a viable alternative to commercial academic publishing that is dominated by big corporate publishing houses.

Dutch police training Afghan colleagues without knowing local realityJuly 21, 2011 by Tjebbe van Tijen De geïllustreerde versie staat ophttp://limpingmessenger.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/dutch-police-training-afghan-colleagues-without-knowing-local-reality/‎”Kennis Nederlandse trainers over Kunduz lijkt beperkt” (knowledge of the Dutch trainers about Kunduz seems limited) is the headline of De Volkskrant daily this morning and I imagine how an ignorant Royal Dutch Marechaussee (military police) officer instructs the local Afghan police force: “Look that is how we do it in Holland!”[tableau showing a Dutch military policeman training an Afghan police class]At the same time I imagine the improbable reversed situation of an Afghan military or police functionary training Dutch police officers at the Dutch Police Academy in Apeldoorn: “Do you understand? That’s how we do it in Afghanistan!” Should it be rather the Dutch politicians who need such a training before deciding to send a police training mission to Afghanistan? An impossible proposition almost for sure, because who would determine who would be the Afghan trainers for such a mission in the Netherlands, which fraction of Afghan society would such an instructor represent? Now we are ready to reverse this question and think about who has been selected in the Netherlands to train Afghan policemen. Or can policing be made in something blank and objective non dependant on local standards and social complexities? I doubt it.[tableau showing Afghan policeman teaching a Dutch police class]Tjebbe van TijenImaginary Museum ProjectsDramatizing Historical Informationhttp://imaginarymuseum.orgweb-blog: The Limping Messengerhttp://limpingmessenger.wordpress.com/# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime< at >kein.org

We Demand The Impossible: An Interview with John Jordan and Gavin Grindonhttp://www.furtherfield.org/features/interviews/we-demand-impossible-interview-john-jordan-and-gavin-grindonBy Marc GarrettFurtherfield interview with Gavin Grindon and John Jordan from the Laboratory of Insurrectionary Imagination about the User's Guide to (Demanding) the Impossible. Published by Minor Compositions (http://www.minorcompositions.info)"This guide is not a road map or instruction manual. It’s a match struck in the dark, a homemade multi-tool to help you carve out your own path through the ruins of the present, warmed by the stories and strategies of those who took Bertolt Brecht’s words to heart: “Art is not a mirror held up to reality, but a hammer with which to shape it.”Marc Garrett: In the introduction of publication it says it, "was written in a whirlwind of three days in December 2010, between the first and second days of action by UK students against the government cuts, and intended to reflect on the possibility of new creative forms of action in the current movements. It was distributed initially at the Long Weekend, an event in London to bring artists and activists together to plan and plot actions for the following days, including the teach-in disruption of the Turner Prize at Tate Britain, the collective manifesto write-in at the National Gallery and the UK’s version of the book bloc."I think readers would be interested to know how the 'teach-in disruption' and the 'collective manifesto write-ins' went?John Jordan: I was not at the first Turner teach-in so can't give first hand account. From what I've heard it was a wonderful moment where the sound of the action penetrated into the room where the Turner Prize were being held, as the back drop of the channel 4 live link up. Kind of perfect, because it was a sound artist who got the award.As for the National Gallery event - this was held during the evening after one of the big days of student action. Having spent the day being trampled on by her majesties police horses, a load of us went up to the National Gallery and mingled in front of Manet's Execution of Emperor Maximillian, opposite a corridor that held a Courbet painting. It was a perfect placement as courbet of all the 19th artists was really the one who understood the role of art within an insurrection, putting down his paintbrushes to apply his creativity directly to the organising of the Paris Commune of 1871 just as the impressionists fled the city to the quiet of the countryside. Only to return a few years later when Impressionism was launched, as a kind or artistic white wash over the massacres of the Commune, a return to normal bourgeois representation. Courbet had used the rebel city, a "paradise without police" as he put it, as a canvas to create new forms of social relationships and new ways of public celebration, including the destruction of the monument to Empire and Hierarchy, the Vendome column.Several hundred artists and art students at a given moment sat down and occupied room 43, telling the staff that we would leave once a collective manifesto had been written. Which is what happened. Small groups of 10 or so were formed as the guards and director of the gallery paced up and down unsure of how to react, each group worked on points for the manifesto which were then read out and merged in 'The Nomadic Hive Manifesto' - http://www.criticallegalthinking.com/?p=998 - it was an extraordinary moment of collective, emergent intelligence, a reclaiming of a public cultural space from the realm of musefication and representation.MG: I have no hesitation in declaring that much of the content in the 'A Users Guide to (Demanding) the Impossible' publication, features quotes by individuals and groups, who have inspired many of us in the networked, Furtherfield community. But, I am also aware that you may be a younger generation, presently experiencing the brunt of education cuts imposed by the current government coalition. Could you explain how these cuts are effecting you and your peers?JJ: Well I wish I was a younger generation !!! I’m 46 years old, it was written for the youth !! You should talk to some arts against cuts folk, I can put you in touch if you need to?Gavin Grindon: I'm not exactly 'the younger generation' either, but I guess I'm in a strange position between. I recently finished my PhD, so a lot of my friends are either students or just becoming teachers. There aren't many jobs about, academic or otherwise, and most of them are doing multiple part-time, short-term jobs to make ends meet, without the assumed security or career progression of a generation before, and the cuts are only going to exacerbate that situation. I guess what's new is a recession on top of these kind of precarious work conditions, which extend far beyond the University. With part-time, hourly-paid and non fixed positions, replacing real jobs.Of course it's damaging, but it's also been inspiring to see students responding to turning over lessons to discuss the cuts and seeing them on the streets. It's politicised a lot of young people, and there's an opportunity there. At one of the University's I work at, it was great to see the art students working together to make protest banners, not in their studios but in the foyer, where other people could see and join in. And when I started talking with them, we began to realise that with all the technical resources of an art school at their disposal, it was possible to be much more ambitious and imaginative than just making banners or placards, the standard objects of protest. But the history of a lot of art-activist groups who had these kind of ambitions isn't taught, never mind the more popular history of the arts of social movements itself. And it's not just about knowing and being inspired by some great utopian tales of adventure, or understanding yourself as part of a historical legacy - it leaves you strategically disadvantaged about what can be done. So starting a conversation with these students, was, as JJ says, kind of the idea behind the guide.MG: There are various other creative protest groups such as UK Uncut (http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/) and the University for Strategic Optimism (http://universityforstrategicoptimism.wordpress.com/), whom I interviewed live on Resonance FM, December last year (http://www.furtherfield.org/radio/8122010-university-strategic-optimism-and-genetic-moo). Are you connected to any of these creative activist groups, and are there any others in the UK you would like us to be more aware of?JJ: Yes - I've worked with UK Uncut, and was unfortunately arrested in Fortnum and Mason, whilst recording the BBC 4 afternoon play, but that’s another story! There are lots of interesting groups that work on the edge of art and activism, right now a space to keep an eye out for and to visit is THE HAIRCUT BEFORE THE PARTY - http://www.thehaircutbeforetheparty.net/ - set up by two radical young art activists who have opened a hair dressers that offers free hair cuts and political discussion about organising and friendship, rebellion and the material needs to engage in it. The salon is in 26 Toynbee Street, near Petticoat Lane and open till November. It's an interesting example of a medium to long term, art activist project that attempts to create new forms of relationship and affinity, and sees itself as building radical movement and not simply representing them.GG: Yeah, again the idea of the text was to build on the connections that are already there, which THBTP does too in a more informal, social way. And for sure, you shouldn't be seen at the June 30th strikes or UK Uncut's support actions without a flash new haircut. I should also get a plug in for Catalyst Radio - http://www.catalystradio.org/ a new 24/7 DIY UK-wide activist radio station, which started up the other week and is still growing, and brings together a lot of radical radio projects from around the country.MG: Do you share a mutual empathy and respect for other protesters elsewhere such as those in Spain and in Greece, and in the Middle East?JJ: Of course. Although it feels like the camp protests are lacking a conflictual approach and without the mixture of conflict and creativity, protest can easily be ignored, which is a bit what has happened with all the European camps. Although sitting here in the British library its easy to be critical ! Whatever happens, those involved in the camps will have tasted politics, new friendships, alternative ways of organising etc... As for the middle east, its all still in flux, who knows what will happen and the role of artists and musicians has been pretty key in setting the powder kegg alight there..GG: Yeah, though I think there's a tension between the symbolic solidarity of occupying city squares and the strategic differences between activist practices in different countries. I think solidarity between these struggles is massively important, though I'm personally not sure how it's best to manifest that here right now.MG: In the User's guide, it mentions the workshops in art and activism at the Tate Modern, held by the Laboratory of Insurrectionary Imagination (Labofii), entitled it ‘Disobedience makes history’. And that Laboffii "was told, in an email, by the curators that no interventions could be made against the museum's sponsors (which happen to be British Petroleum) [..] decided to use the email as the material for the workshop. Projecting it onto the wall they asked the participants whether the workshop should obey or disobey the curator’s orders."What I find interesting regarding this episode is not just that a big institution would take the risk in bringing in art and activist culture within their usually, protected environment whilst being sponsored by British Petroleum; But, what intrigues me is the different forms of controversies reaching the public from such situations. I am surprised that Laboffii would even consider doing such a project in the Tate Modern in the first place, but also pleased, because of the resulting dialogue that has come out of the clash of different political contexts. So, isn't it the case that we need these big institutions as platforms to explore issues of corporate corruption further, so that those who may not even consider such things are suddenly faced with considering them?GG: I'm sure JJ has plenty to say about this. But more generally, it depends *how* they function as a platform. An art gallery or a university can be a great discursive space to explore issues, but the bounds of that debate are also strictly limited in lots of ways. This is a problem with the idea of a bourgeois public sphere. Most often, that boundary is that you can debate whatever you like but questioning the basic systemic assumptions on which such spaces rest isn't possible, at least not in a practical way. The lab's workshop at the Tate tried to question exactly that kind of assumption about what culture is for, and who it benefits. But for many activists from social movements, who have less faith in the public sphere and its institutions to resolve issues by discussion, that neutered debate is more of a problem than a benevolent gift to the public, and they have to take a different approach. Its not necessarily opposed to those institutions as a whole, but just asks them to make good on what they claim to be.JJ: It's a long story, but the key is to be able to put one foot inside these institutions and to be not frightened to KICK. But not to KICK symbolically, to really kick, to really shake them up and to be able to let go of one's cultural capital. The Labofii will NEVER be re-invited to do anything at the TATE, bang goes all our chances of a retrospective in the fashionable art activism world !!! ;) But, what we gain is that we were free ! When the curators told us that we could not do anything, could not take action against BP and we refused to obey them, we were free, we could do what we wanted because they could not give us anything in return. The Zapatistas say, "we are already dead so we are free" - when power can give you nothing you want, you can do anything.. this is a very powerful moment. To see the faces of the curators, the head of public, the head of security etc during the meeting where they tried to censor the lab, was priceless - they had always had power over artists, because artists will normally do ANYTHING to get their work in the Tate, but we did not care, we cared about the politics, about the actions, about climate change and social injustice - we were more powerful than the institution in that moment because we were no longer dependent on them.. it was one of the most beautiful moments... and now the movement against oil sponsorship is spreading everywhere. The message is simple, give up your cultural capital throw away your dependence on these institutions and be free...MG: I come from a background of hacking, social hacking and D.I.Y culture, and instead of going to University I chose to be self-educated, creating alternative groups for self discovery and art with dedication to social change. And even though, many are fighting the education cuts right now, what are your own ideas around self-education, do students really need to go to college now that there are so many different forms of information and ways in creating one's own place in the world 'with others'?GG: A lot of experiments with autonomous self-education have sprung up recently which ask just this question, like the Really Free School (http://reallyfreeschool.org/), there are even some more institutional business-model experiments online with peer-to-peer education. But at the same time the catchment of both of these is relatively narrow at the moment, so I think there's still a place for these kind of education institutions, and there are interesting radical experiments going on all over, either by individuals or whole departments, although the cuts to institutional funding for education by the government changes the playing field again, so there's an opportunity for something like this to become less marginal, both inside and outside the university.MG: JJ, In 2005 you wrote, Notes Whilst Walking on “How to Break the Heart of Empire”, in it you write "Radicals are often vulnerable souls. Most of us become politically active because we felt something profoundly such as injustice or ecological devastation. It is this emotion that triggers a change in our behaviour and gets us politicised. It is our ability to transform our feelings about the world into actions that propels us to radical struggle. But what seems to often happen, is that the more we learn about the issues that concern us, the more images of war we see, the more we experience climate chaos, poverty and the every day violence of capitalism, the more we seem to have to harden ourselves from feeling too much, because although feeling can lead to action we also know that feeling too much can lead to depression and paralysis..." How the hell do you remain positive when you know how much horrible and disgusting things are being done to decent folks and the planet all of the time?Unfortunately there are no magic recipes that can protect us from such feelings, a lot depends on context on our particular situations etc. But here are a few tips that have helped me keep the despair of capitalism at bay:1) Resist the spell of individualism that capitalism tries to weave around us, a spell that chains us to the fantasy of autonomy and keep us in a state of sadness and paralysis. Break this spell and its toxic chains by realising that you are part of a greater whole, that working with others gives us strength, that seven minutes making real friendships (face to face) is more political than seven days glued to a computer browsing social networks in a trance, that inevitably fails to shake the loneliness of modern life.2) Build a gang, a group, a collective, a crew - remember the joy of plotting things together, the power and possibilities when work and imagination is shared. In fact, imagination finds it's insurrectionary potential when we share it, when it's freed from the privatised ego, escapes from shackles of copyright and the prison's of the art world.3) Learn the skills to work together with others, consensus decision making, group facilitation, conflict resolution etc. We need to re learn collective working methods, capitalism has destroyed all our tools of conviviality and we need to reclaim them back, recreate new forms of being together.4) Redefine Hope. Not as something that will come and save us, like a saviour, but as something that comes from not knowing what will happen next, something that takes place when we act in the immediate moment and don't know what will happen and trust that history is made from acts of disobedience that did not necessarily have any idea of what the next step was...5) Remember that victory is not always what happens, but what did not happen. Social movements tend to forget this. Look at all the nuclear power stations that WERE not built, all the wars that did not happen, the laws that were never passed, the free trade agreements that were never agreed on, the repressions that the state could not get away with, the gmo's that were never planted. One of my favourite books, what I call prozac on paper, is Rebecca Solnit's HOPE IN THE DARK (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28048.Hope_in_the_Dark) - it's a lovely little book which redefines hope in the most beautifully optimistic way, recommended reading when capitalism seems irresistible.6) When everything appears useless, try to change your conception of time... think deep time, not shallow modern now time, but think about the generations that went before you and those that will come after you. Try to imagine what the generations of the future will think about your actions, imagine those from the past that fought for the emancipation of slaves and yet never saw the results of their actions, those who died for the eight hour day, for the right to build a union, the right to vote or publish an independent magazine. Spend time imagining how those alive in 50, 100 years will view your life and work...MG: In the publication, you mention Marx and Debord. "We can all be engineers of the imagination"..."that our “general intellect”, all the collective knowledge and skills we use in making things, are taken away from us and embodied instead in the machines of our work. What would happen if we somehow re-engineered these machines if we did what Guy Debord argued and started, “producing ourselves... not the things that enslave us." Do you see the recent cuts across the board as an example of how the powers that be are actively dis-empowering the working classes?GG: Definitely. The cuts aren't just about an experience of 'austerity,' however long term, but constitute a historical attack on poor and working people. They're an attempt to technically recompose the material of the institutions, structures, ideas and habits people live through, in order to limit their ability to resist and remake them for themselves. In factory production, that involved the local restructuring of machine-labour, but later at a wider level Keynesian economic restructuring. This neoliberal restructuring of education is an extension of capitalist discipline into a new area, an attack on a social space which has historically been a base for social change. The government has made this pretty clear by, for example, David Willet's dictate amidst these massive cuts, to the Arts and Humanities Research Council, that the Tory party's vacuous advertising slogan "the big society" become a core research area, replacing the less ideologically narrow area of 'communities and civic values;' and the Department for Business and Innovation's concomitant rewriting of the 1918 Haldane principle, that research directions are best decided by researchers through peer review.The optimistic take on this is not that it's an inevitable recuperation of resistance, which was the position Debord tended towards in the end, but that capital is always on the back foot - that its own developments are driven by and a response to social movements. That it's an open dialectic (or if you prefer, not a dialectic at all). There's a kind of neurosis to it, although rather than excluding the other to maintain its ego, the state is including everything to stave off other possibilities - you can see this in the language. The whole discourse of 'participation' and networks in business (and since the 1990s, also in art), is as Boltanski and Chiapello observed in their book the New Spirit of Capitalism, a recuperation of the language and terms of 1960s social movements - movements which first properly gave birth on a mass scale to the kinds of self-consciously autonomous and creative politics, or art-activism, which we talk about in the guide. Likewise, the big society is focused on mutuality, and there's a strange recuperation of libertarian and radical thought by the thinkers behind it like Phillip Blonde. In this case, you're left with a stunted vision of the anarchist idea of mutual aid, without any institutional aid, and structurally limited mutuality. But rather than simply critique this, I'm interested to look at how we might otherwise structurally and materially embody other kinds of social relation. Obviously this starts on a much smaller scale, and is often more directly materially embodied. University departments' attempts to support radical philosophy within existing institutions and setting up new autonomous radical art institutions are two possible, but not mutually exclusive, directions here. As, of course, at the most local, accessible level, are the art-activist practices and objects we discuss in the guide.Our new book-film is out "Les Sentiers de L'utopie" Free online (in french) : http://www.editions-zones.frOur blog: http://lessentiersdelutopie.wordpress.com/our twitter: < at >nowtopiaSome info for A Users Guide to (Demanding) the Impossible.3 different links to download the publication:http://www.minorcompositions.info/usersguide.htmlhttp://artsagainstcuts.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/a-users-guide-to-demanding-the-impossiblehttp://www.brokencitylab.org/notes/required-reading-a-users-guide-to-demanding-the-impossibleThe Font used was Calvert is by Margaret Calvert, designer of UK road signs.Words: Gavin Grindon & John Jordan Design: FLF Illustration: Richard Houguez Original Cover: The Drawing Shed Produced by the Laboratory of Insurrectionary Imagination, London, December 2010. www.labofii.net Anti-copyright, share and disseminate freely.More about Minor Compositions - a series of interventions & provocations drawing from autonomous politics, avant-garde aesthetics, and the revolutions of everyday life. http://www.minorcompositions.info/Other Info:Crude awakening: BP and the Tate. The Tate is under fire for taking BP sponsorship money. Does corporate cash damage the arts — or is it a necessary compromise? We asked leading cultural figures their view. Interviews by Emine Saner and Homa Khaleeli. guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 June 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/jun/30/bp-tate-protests

I have no idea of the truth or falsity of what is described in the belowblogpost but whether or not it is real or a very very contemporary sciencefiction dystopia doesn't really matter because if it isn't real now forsomebody somewhere it will be very soon. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/brph8m On Wednesday 20th July 2011, < at >thomasmonopoly said:Dear GoogleI would like to bring to your attention a few things before I disconnectpermanently from all of your services.On July 15 2011 you turned off my entire Google account. You had absolutelyno reason to do this despite your automated message telling me your system"perceived a violation." I did not violate any Terms of Service, eitherGoogle's or account specific ToS, and your refusal to provide me with anyproof otherwise makes me absolutely certain of this. And I would like tobring to your attention how much damage your carelessness has done.My Google account was tied to nearly every product Google has developed,meaning that I lost everything in those accounts as well. I was also in theprocess of consolidating everything into my one Google account. I hadactually thought through this a few months ago and determined Google to be atrustworthy, dependable company. So I had imported all of my other emailaccounts, hotmail, yahoo, etc, into that one gmail account. I had spentmaybe four months slowly consolidating my entire online presence, emailaccounts, banking info, student records, etc, into that one Google account,having determined it to be reliable. That means in terms of information,approximately 7 years of correspondence, over 4,800 photographs and videos,my Google Voice messages, over 500 articles saved to my Google Readeraccount for scholarship purposes (a side-note: when I closed my originalReader account to consolidate everything in my one reliable account bearingmy name I re-saved several hundred of the articles myself, by hand, one byone to this new account. The one you have closed and with which I have nowlost all of the articles.) I have lost all of my bookmarks, having usedGoogle bookmarks. I had migrated my bookmarks from computer to computer, acouple hundred of them, for maybe six years and I finally uploaded them allto Google bookmarks, happy to have found a solution to migrating them andhappy to be safeguarded from their loss. I have also lost over 200 contacts.Many of which I do not have backups of. I have also lost access to my Docsaccount with shared documents and backups of inventory files. I have alsolost my Calendar access. With this I have lost not only my own personalcalendar of doctors appointments, meetings, and various other dates, but Ihave also lost collaborative calendars, of which I was the creator and ofwhich several man hours were put into creating, community calendars that arenow lost. None of the calendars were backed up either. I have also lost mysaved maps and travel history. I have also lost in my correspondence medicalrecords and a variety of very important notes that were attached to myaccount. My website, a blogger account for which I purchased the domainthrough Google and designed myself, has also been disabled and lost. Do youreally think I would knowingly do anything to jeopardize that much of mypersonal and professional information? And I am sure as the days continue Iwill realize other things that Google has destroyed in their unwarranteddisabling of my account. I am only too angry right now to think straight andrealize them all. Why anyone would entrust anything to "The Cloud" afterwhat I have gone through is completely beyond my ability to comprehend.I should also mention that I am in fact a paying customer in so much as Ipurchased my domain through Google and I have purchased additional storagefrom Google.A few other things I would like you to consider: I am currently in theprocess of applying to Graduate school. I was occasionally receiving emailsfrom professors and other people who I am not expecting and whose contactinfo I do not have. Meaning that in addition to my friends and family abroador people who otherwise may not be able to reach me, these people too willnow receive a message from Google that my email address does not exist. AndI would imagine some of them will not have the time to find other ways ofcontacting an applicant whom they were doing a favor to begin with.A few other things I would like you to consider: I have been what you couldcall an enthusiastic supporter of Google as a company. As an early-adopter,you could nearly go so far as to say I have been an apostle of Google'swork. I had convinced the company I worked for to get on Google BusinessApps and to use Google Apps for nearly everything possible and to purchasestorage with Picasa to build our image database. I have also convincednearly all of my friends and family to open either a Google or a Gmailaccount in the past two years and have shown people how to use them andexplained the benefits of Chrome over all other browsers. I even own Googlestock.A few other things I would like you to consider: I'm not upset that Googlewould put my account on hold if they think it was compromised, but I amabsolutely furious that they would disable my account without notice,without giving me a reason, and without giving me any way to re-enable it,and then ignore all of my attempts to speak with someone. No other onlineservice provider behaves this way. I understand that Google can't offersupport for every little thing, but when a company like Google hasmonopolized sectors of the internet they need to show some responsibility tosome of their customers when things like this happen. I have exhausted thehelp forums. And that has only made me much angrier. I will not bother toquote the nonsensical exchanges I have had, there are too many and they willonly aggravate me further. The breaking point came when a "Top Contributor"moved my thread from the original help forum in which I posted it, intoanother forum without my permission. Then a few days later, and 34 responseslater, another "Top Contributor" posted that my thread was in the wrongforum and closed the conversation, thus preventing me or anyone else fromposting to it or making any more progress. The user forums are not theinformative places that Google may think they are. And the only time aGoogle employee posted in my thread was to say that my question was in thewrong forum, and to tell me that I should have posted in the forum that itwas originally posted in. This came after being asked over, and over, andover again the same questions. Here's an example:ME: Please help me my account has been disabled and I don't know why.USER1: Just log into your dashboard and do [something.]ME: I can't, my account has been disabled.USER2: Hi I just saw your post. Can you log into your account and tell mewhat [something] says?ME: NO, I CAN'T LOG INTO MY ACCOUNT.USER1: OK calm down, can you do [something which required me to log in]?ME: NO! I CANNOT LOG INTO MY ACCOUNT!!!!After four days of this I nearly gave up, until another "Top Contributor"stopped by to mention that my thread was in the wrong forum and I shouldhave posted it in another forum, the original forum that I had posted it in.Then the conversation was closed by someone and I gave up, after five days.I understand the philosophy behind user moderated forums. But in many casesproblems are out of the reach of other users. I am not asking how to enableemoticons in a gmail signature or how to change my profile picture. This isa serious issue for which a serious avenue of appeal should be available. Ido not care that a Google service is free. That is Google embracing a "youdon't like it? too bad, it's free anyway" approach. Free or not, all usersare in the Google orbit and it is through advertising to us, their base,that Google has made the billions of dollars they have. There is no othercorporation trading stock at the level of Google that does not offercustomer support, plain and simple.In addition to the forums I also filed every form and request I could findand attempted to contact every office and even went in person to bothManhattan offices, but not a single person has been able to offer anyassistance, which I find shocking and infuriating in a Kafkaesquenightmarish way.After exploring every possible channel for help I was finally contacted outof the blue by an employee of Google who had coincidentally seen my rantingon Twitter, a service which I employed due to Google's own complete lack ofcustomer support. He said he would try to contact people in Google and helpget my account restored. After emailing back and forth with him he reportedthat he spoke with someone at Google who told him my account had beendisabled and they didn't tell him why. He tried to explain to them that itmust have been a mistake but they would not explain themselves. So Google,here is something else I want you to consider. One of your own employeeswent to you on my behalf and notified you that you had disabled my accountby mistake, and your response was "No, we're pretty sure about it." Your ownemployee said "Listen, I have been communicating with this person and Ithink there has been a mistake made, can you double check or talk to himabout it." And again your response was "No, we're pretty sure." So askyourselves, would someone such as myself who has had their account disabledgo on such a vociferous and widespread campaign to speak with someone atGoogle and explain to them that there has been a mistake and that you havedestroyed years of important personal data, would someone such as myself dothat while knowingly conducting illegal activity with my account? You onlyneed common sense to answer that.A few other things: I have had hotmail, yahoo, aol, and compuserve accountsand I have never had an account disabled. When one of those companiesbelieved that my account was compromised they have notified me and I havechanged my password. Why Google didn't notify me at the alternate emailaddress I provided at sign up before they took it upon themselves to disablemy account completely baffles m. If you say I have violated some Terms ofService that is your right to say and in such a case it is within your rightto terminate my service. But I am asking now for even a modicum of proof ofthat violation.Regarding any perceived violation, let me be completely clear aboutsomething: I did not violate any terms of service. If Google thinks therewas something done on my part I challenge them to tell me what it is. I havein no way violated any Terms of Service and that is a matter of fact. Imention now that a few days before my account was disabled I was gettingerror messages when trying to access Google.com via Chrome. I am also notthe only person I know that this was happening to. My other friends andfamily on Chrome were getting error messages when trying to accessGoogle.com. I believe they were redirect notices or site certificatenotices. My Google Plus account was acting strange prior to my account beingdisabled as well. But I run regular virus checks and have never had acomputer virus. Any "perceived violation" is a misunderstanding on Google'spart, and that too is a fact.You have cut off my communication, disrupted my personal and professionallife, effectively stolen vast amounts of my personal and professional data,accused me of something without telling me that I am accused, accused me ofsomething without telling me what it is that you have accused me of, blockedany direct communication with my accuser, and given me no ability to appealthis decision or to speak with someone on the facts of the case. Thiscompany is headed down a very, very menacing path if it continues in thisway.Several calls have been made in the U.N. for Internet access and basiccommunication and information services to be made a human right. In Greece,Spain, France, and parts of Scandinavia this has already been granted. Itwon't be long until there are laws in place regarding the personal accountsused to access those communication and information services and lawssafeguarding the personal information in those accounts, such ascorrespondence. It is unforgivable that a company such as Google, whichclaims so much of the communication and information thruways, would not takethe lead on this issue and instead drag their feet until they are forced byindividual governments. Companies like Google are taking advantage of thecurrent laws and writing into their Terms of Service clauses such as:".you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, andnon-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish,publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which yousubmit, post or display on or through, the Services."These are not sustainable terms and I have no doubt they will be altered atsome point in the future. Most major news organizations have already begunto examine Google and other companies who choose to force these terms upontheir customers and the ramifications they hold for artists, and to seeGoogle embrace them along with every other company like a pig in shit isvile and inexcusable.One day the Internet will most likely be as fiercely regulated as the phonelines it began on. And when that day comes it will come as a force ofgovernment, and it will mark another failure for the Free Market toproactively defend the liberty of its citizen customers. And I truly fearfor the future of social and political dissidence which will struggle toexist in the lull between open networks and the current policy climate inwhich Google's Director of Privacy Alma Whitten has publicly championedYouTube as a way for political activists to post content anonymously onlymonths before a complete reversal of policy quietly eliminating anonymousreporting completely.I would also like to mention that I will absolutely not be opening anotherGoogle account. As I mentioned before I have been nothing short of anapostle on behalf of Google but that is over. I will be terminating GoogleApps within the company I work for, and shutting down any other Googleproducts I use, even things such as Google News which I had previouslyaccessed several times a day. I was even about to switch from my iPhone toan Android device. But I will instead be putting just as much effort as Ishowed praising Google into denouncing what I now consider to be a horriblecompany, with shameful practices. I will be contacting my congressman, Iwill be selling my stock and I will also be contacting my bank regarding themoney paid for the domain and storage which are now inaccessible and I willforce Google by any means possible to explain to me what it is that theyperceived as a violation. The terms that are now offered for account signup: "Google reserves the right to: Terminate your account at any time, forany reason, with or without notice" are not sustainable terms and at somepoint a court will decide that those are unacceptable terms and that for acompany that people entrust with so much of their personal information, andthat is relied on so heavily, Google needs to provide proof of what it isthat causes an account to be disabled. Again, you cannot take peoples moneyand you cannot monopolize entire sectors of the internet without showingsome degree of responsibility to your customers. I should expect that Googlewill be forced to provide a means of taking away personal info, such ascorrespondence and contacts, when an account is closed. The fact that Googledoes not currently offer this option when they baselessly disable a user'saccount only adds insult to injury.When I think of all the business I have brought Google, all the people Ihave brought over from yahoo and hotmail, all the praise I have showered onAndroid, and all the work I put into my company's enrollment in Google Apps,I am enraged and truly regret my actions. And I will be doing everythingpossible to reverse those decisions and everything possible to force Googleto be a more responsible company.Shame on you and on your associates and on your employees who tolerate suchdeplorable, dishonorable, and reprehensible business practices.

The WSJ article I posted on this ('Murdochalyps') was clearly a case of"You've seen nuthin' yet!" ...bwo WLCentraloriginal to: http://on.wsj.com/onvTnQNews of the World vs. WikiLeaksOnly one placed at risk 'the lives of countless innocent individuals.'by Bret StephensHow does this year's phone hacking scandal at the now-defunct Britishtabloid News of the World—owned, I hardly need add, by News Corp., theJournal's parent company—compare with last year's contretemps over therelease of classified information by Julian Assange's WikiLeaks and hispartners at the New York Times, the Guardian and other newspapers?At bottom, they're largely the same story.In both cases, secret information, initially obtained by illegal means,was disseminated publicly by news organizations that believed the value ofthe information superseded the letter of the law, as well as the personalinterests of those whom it would most directly affect. In both cases,fundamental questions about the lengths to which a news organizationshould go in pursuit of a scoop have been raised. In both cases, adreadful human toll has been exacted: The British parents of murdered13-year-old Milly Dowler, led to the false hope that their child might bealive because some of her voice mails were deleted after her abduction;Afghan citizens, fearful of Taliban reprisals after being exposed byWikiLeaks as U.S. informants.Both, in short, are despicable instances of journalistic malpractice, forwhich some kind of price ought to be paid. So why is one a scandal,replete with arrests, resignations and parliamentary inquests, while theother is merely a controversy, with Mr. Assange's name mooted in somequarters for a Nobel Peace Prize?The easy answer is that the news revealed by WikiLeaks was in the publicinterest, whereas what was disclosed by News of the World was merely ofinterest to the public. By this reckoning, if it's a great matter ofstate, and especially if it's a government secret, it's fair game. Not soif it's just so much tittle-tattle about essentially private affairs.You can see the attraction of this argument—particularly if, like Mr.Assange, you are trying to fight extradition to Sweden on pending rapecharges that you consider unworthy of public notice.You can also see its attraction to anybody who claims to know what thepublic interest ought to be and is in a position to do something about it.In June 2006, the New York Times revealed that the Bush administration hada secret—and highly effective—program to monitor thousands of bankingtransactions in an effort to stop terrorism financing. Several monthslater, the Times' own public editor argued that the program was entirelylegal and that the article should never have been published. The Gray Ladymoved on.But you can also see why the distinction between the Public Interest,loftily defined, and what actually happens to interest the public,not-so-loftily defined, is a piece of rhetorical legerdemain that masks araw assertion of privilege. Was it in the higher public interest to know,as we learned from WikiLeaks, that Zimbabwe's prime minister andopposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai was privately urging U.S. diplomats tohold firm on sanctions even as he was saying the opposite in public? No.Did the public want to know about it? No. What did this particularWikiLeak achieve? Nothing, except to put Mr. Tsvangirai at material riskof being charged with treason and hanged.Seen in this light, the damage caused by WikiLeaks almost certainlyexceeded what was done by News of the World, precisely because Mr. Assangeand his media enablers were targeting bigger—if often morevulnerable—game. The Obama administration went so far as to insist lastyear that WikiLeaks "[placed] at risk the lives of countless innocentindividuals—from journalists to human rights activists to soldiers."Shouldn't there be some accountability, or at least soul-searching, aboutthis, too?Don't count on it: It would require too much introspection among peoplewhose primary emotional mode is furious, and perpetual,self-righteousness.As for News of the World, the media has alighted on one of its convenientlittle narratives, this one about the all-powerful media mogul, hislidless eyes gazing over every corner, closet and cellar of his empire,his obedient minions debasing everything they touch. That this mediaSauron has now begged forgiveness of the Dowler family, shut the offendingpaper down and accepted the resignations of his top lieutenants hardlyseems to have made an impression. But as someone noted recently inconnection to L'Affaire DSK, few things are as unstoppable—or as prone toerror—as a stupid media narrative.It's probably inevitable that this column will be read in some quarters asshilling for Rupert Murdoch. Not at all: I have nothing but contempt forthe hack journalism practiced by some of the Murdoch titles. But mycontempt goes double for the self-appointed media paragons who saw littleamiss with Mr. Assange and those who made common cause with him, and whonow hypocritically talk about decency and standards. Their day ofreckoning is yet to come.Write to bstephens-Oo4YIDBCiv0< at >public.gmane.org

No more mediation by political parties, established or not, seems to be one of the new principles behind recent mobilisations. Is this the right way to approach political and social struggles today? How can we understand this?Excerpted from Illan Rua Wall:??? People come out and refuse the current state of the situation. Their anger brings them to the streets, and there they learn radical politics, they learn ???overthrow???. We see this in Greece (I rely here on a description in the latest edition of the Journal of Critical Globalisation by Sotirakopoulos). By the 15th of June Syntagma Square appeared to have divided in two, with the political ???frustrated??? in the lower part of the square gathering around the Free Assembly and the upper half of the square around the parliament seemed full of the ???apolitical??? frustrated. The radical left feared that the majority of the indignants were merely there for pleasure rather than some sort of serious political programme. However, when the police rounded on the occupiers on the 15th of June, the apparently ???fluffy??? apolitical non-violent side of the square fought back with vigour. They had been subjectivised in their being-together against the state of the situation. They were not organised, they were not trained, not indoctrinated. There was no party revealing the reality behind the ideology. There certainly was critique, argument and solidarity. However, these were not mediated in the traditional sense by a party structure.This subjectivisation is fascinating. In Tunisia and in Egypt, we find a crucial example of how this works. In both countries, there was a huge effort to disrupt the ordinary running of the state. Variously, the police were restrained and the civil service were blocked from undertaking the ordinary workings of the state bureaucracy. But of course, in Tahrir Square, life continued without the police and without the civil service. The pre-constituted order was suspended and instead spaces of alegality, or of life without state (in Agamben???s words) were generated. Ranci??re calls this ???real??? democracy ???where liberty and equality would no longer be represented in the institutions of law and state, but embodied in the very forms of concrete life and sensible experience??? (Hatred of Democracy p3). Thus, in Tunisia we find the refusal of representation coupled with the opening of an interval between state and life. The ???order??? of the state, in many instances, is suspended, and in that gap there is just life without law. This sense of the suspension of the state however, does not lead to rape, murder and civil war ??? as the Hobbesean myth of the state of nature suggests. In fact, it is precisely the attempt to once more create the obedience to the social contract that has lead to the most violent confrontations. In Greece, it strikes me that a similar event takes place. Over and again the people come to the squares and refuse. They refuse labour, they refuse representation, they refuse! In the space of this refusal an interstices opens, and in that space a different politics emerges.The final point I want to make concerns that refusal. In Tunisia it begins with anger. The story of Mohammed Bouazizi has been told over and again. This is the man who set himself alight after an altercation with the police and a failure of response from the local government. Bouazizi???s situation resonated with the people. However, they were not just angry with bureaucracy or the police. Rather. On the streets they cried D??gage ??? clear out, get out. They manifested a simple refusal of the situation. It is not just Ben Ali but the entire situation. There is no attempt to reform, to work within the system, etc. Rather the people refuse representation. Like the characters in Jose Saramago???s novel Seeing, each provisional government since January 14th has been silenced by the simple refusal of representation. This refusal at once asserts the unacceptability of the secret police and Ben Ali???s neo-liberal reforms, but it is more than this as well. It is a rejection of the current positioning of the Tunisian populace in relation to the globalized world order. This is the same relation that pacifies Ireland.

Piet Zwart InstituteSeeks a new Course Director for the Master of Fine Art ProgrammeRotterdam, The NetherlandsApplication deadline: September 12Job starting from November 1, 20110,8 FTE, 32 hourswww.pzwart.wdka.nlThe Piet Zwart Institute is the Master programme of the Willem deKooning Academy, Rotterdam University. It is an international centrefor postgraduate studies offering research programmes within thefields of art, media design, and education. The Institute is foundedon an interest in the social, cultural, historical, and politicalcontexts in which these disciplines operate. Research through theory,practice and interdisciplinary dialogue is core to shaping thecurriculum.The Master of Fine Art Programme is uniquely positioned both withinthe Institute and the professional field, distinguishing itself byworking with a renowned international team of tutors and guests, whoactively engage with topical subjects and innovative approaches tocontemporary art practice. As a two year English-taught Master, thecourse provides an educational setting where artists can develop theirpractice and research through independent studio work and livelydialogue with artists, curators and theorists from a diversity ofdisciplines such as art, theatre, literature, philosophy, cinema, andothers. Parallel to these activities, it has a rich history of publicprogramming, exhibitions and publications.Candidate Profile:We are looking for an enterprising and energetic individual withstrong management skills and a passion for art and education. Thecandidate must possess a Master level graduate degree or above, andshow evidence of five years of professional achievement in the fieldsof either art education, curatorial practice, art, or theory andcriticism. Knowledge of current developments within the field andaccess to an international network of professionals is crucial. Thecandidate needs to show a willingness to cooperate across largerorganisational structures and engage in running the Master of Fine ArtProgramme on a daily basis with student needs in mind. He or sheshould also possess competent writing skills in the English languageand show a willingness to learn basic Dutch.Responsibilities:Development of the Master of Fine Art curriculum, which expands uponthe Piet Zwart Institute activities and profile, reflects currentchanges within the field of contemporary art and complies withacademic regulationsMaintaining of an inspiring work and learning environment for bothstaff and studentsSelection and coordination of staff and guest tutors and programmingof thematic projectsPlanning and overseeing the annual budgetExecution of administrative tasks related to staff, quality assuranceand student affairsAttendance and planning of staff meetingsWorking closely with the Director and other Course Directors in thedevelopment of the public programme at the Piet Zwart InstituteTeaching and guiding of assessmentsPromotion of the programme on a national and international levelCreation and fostering of ties with partner institutionsContract and wage scale are determined according to function,training, and experience, and are drawn up in compliance with the CAOguidelines (Collective Labor Agreement for Higher Education). Paymentis based on scale 12 and can range from 3860,34 EUR to a maximum of4964,68 EUR for fulltime employment. The postion is for 0,8 FTE (32hrsa week).Application:Applicants should provide a cover letter elaborating upon educationalapproach, leadership vision, and motivation, a curriculum vitae, ifapplicable: documentation of practice (2-3 pages) and names andcontact information of two references.Mail applications to:Attn: Renée TurnerDirector of the Piet Zwart InstituteWillem de Kooning AcademyP.O. Box 12723000 BG RotterdamThe NetherlandsFor courier deliveries:Blaak 103011 TA RotterdamThe NetherlandsFor further enquires contact Renée Turner after August 22nd: d.r.turner< at >hr.nl