To be free,Twitter must not be free - by Faisal J. Abbas

What makes social media an interesting field to study and follow is that you simply can’t predict what will happen next; it’s a world where things change every moment, where a simple ‘tweet’ could reach millions with a press of a button and a Facebook page could help bring down governments.

Of course, there were always the ‘acceptable’ measures which very of us ever complained about, such as the removal of graphic or obscene content (e.g., pornography or France and Germany banning Nazi content ─ an example used by Twitter to justify their policy). Every now and then, there would be a particular page or tweet removed but this just didn’t occur enough to become an issue. This was all true until the recent Twitter announcement that tweets can now be censored on a country-by-country basis, allowing posts that may be deemed problematic in one country to still appear in another.

As soon as the news broke, many ‘tweeps’ expressed their severe disappointment with the decision and have accused the site of censorship. The hashtags #twittercensorship and #twitterblackout were quickly formed by users who are planning to protest by not tweeting on Jan. 28 in a stand against what they see as a threat to freedom of expression and information.

Now, what will be the outcome of such a boycott movement and whether or not it will be successful in reversing Twitter’s decision is something which only time will be able to tell.

What is certain is that users would have had much more impact if they were paying for the service, as only then would Twitter be forced to listen to their demands; at the end of the day, no business would ever risk upsetting its customers.

Note EU-Digest: Mr. Abbas is right on target. Corporations moral is based on money. Threaten their income flow and you can start negotiating with them.

For more: To be free, Twitter must not be free

WSJ Europe publisher quits amid ethics row - by Mark Sweeney

Andrew Langhoff, the top European executive at News Corporation's Wall Street Journal, has resigned over a breach of ethics relating to a commercial deal designed to boost the newspaper's circulation.

Langhoff, who was promoted to publisher of the Wall Street Journal Europe and managing director of parent Dow Jones's EMEA (Europe, the Middle East and Africa) interests in 2008, resigned after an internal investigation showed that two articles in the paper had been written because of an agreement with a Dutch consultancy.

In an internal email to staff, Langhoff said there should be an "inviolable boundary between our commercial relationships and the content we produce".

For more: WSJ Europe publisher quits amid ethics row | Media | guardian.co.uk

Murdoch's had his way with U.S. politicians also

Australian-born billionaire Rupert Murdoch has manipulated not just the news but the news landscape of the United States for decades. He has done so by pressuring the Federal Communications Commission and Congress to alter the laws of the land and regulatory standards in order to give his media conglomerate an unfair advantage in "competition" with more locally focused, more engaged and more responsible media.

Now, with Murdoch’s News Corp. empire in crisis—collapsing bit by bit under the weight of a steady stream of allegations about illegal phone hacking and influence peddling in Britain—there is an odd disconnect occurring in much of the major media of the United States. While there is some acknowledgement that Murdoch has interests in the United States (including not just his Fox News channel but the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post), the suggestion is that Murdoch was more manipulative, more influential, more controlling in Britain than here.

But that’s a fantasy. Just as Murdoch has had far too much control over politics and politicians in Britain during periods of conservative dominance—be it under an actual Tory such as former Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and John Major and current Prime Minister David Cameron or under a faux Tory such as former Prime Minister Tony Blair—he has had far too much control in the States. And that control, while ideological to some extent, is focused mainly on improving the bottom line for his media properties by securing for them unfair legal and regulatory advantages.

For more: Murdoch's had his way with U.S. politicians also - CBS News

USA Today: Cinema - 'The Informant!' uses satire to punctuate a serious topic - by Claudia Puig

For the complete report from USATODAY.com click on this link

'Cinema - The Informant!' uses satire to punctuate a serious topic - by Claudia Puig

People magazine may just strip Matt Damon of his "sexiest man alive" title once they catch sight of the actor in the offbeat film The Informant!.
Portly — Damon packed on 30 pounds for the role — and sporting a ridiculous mustache, dorky wire-framed glasses and an unmoving helmet of hair, he's almost unrecognizable in the role of Mark Whitacre, a corporate whistle-blower who is not what he seems. Damon is superb as a demonically smart guy who comes across as rather dim. The Informant! is an odd, satirical comedy that director Steven Soderbergh has infused with a jaunty tone, in contrast to the serious subject matter. Its story of corporate malfeasance and corruption as well as individual greed couldn't be more timely, given the antics of bailed-out Wall Street companies and powerhouse banks. The dark comedy is based on the real-life much-publicized story of the highest-ranking corporate whistle-blower in American history.

the Guardian: "Que se vayan todos! - that's the global backlash talking - by Naomi Klein

For the complete report from The Guardian click on this link

"Que se vayan todos! - that's the global backlash talking - by Naomi Klein

Watching the crowds in Iceland banging pots and pans until their government fell reminded me of a chant popular in anti-capitalist circles in 2002: "You are Enron. We are Argentina." Its message was simple enough. You - politicians and CEOs huddled at some trade summit - are like the reckless scamming execs at Enron (of course, we didn't know the half of it). We - the rabble outside - are like the people of Argentina, who, in the midst of an economic crisis eerily similar to our own, took to the street banging pots and pans. They shouted, "¡Que se vayan todos!" ("All of them must go!") - and forced out a procession of four presidents in less than three weeks. What made Argentina's 2001-02 uprising unique was that it wasn't directed at a particular political party or even at corruption in the abstract. The target was the dominant economic model: this was the first national revolt against contemporary deregulated capitalism. It has taken a while, but from Iceland to Latvia, South Korea to Greece, the rest of the world is finally having its ¡Que se vayan todos! moment.

The pattern is clear: governments that respond to a crisis created by free-market ideology with an acceleration of that same discredited agenda will not survive to tell the tale.

CBS News: After Bailout, Lavish Spending Lives On, Luxury Jets, Oceanfront Homes Reveal A Very Different Attitude By Corporate CEO's

For the complete report from CBS News click on this link

After Bailout, Lavish Spending Lives On, Luxury Jets, Oceanfront Homes Reveal A Very Different Attitude By Corporate CEO's

The financial crisis hasn't necessarily put an end to lavish corporate spending or stopped its leaders from living the good life. Citigroup has received so much bailout money to date that the American taxpayer is now its major stockholder. So when it was reported Monday that the company is having a new, $50 million luxury corporate jet delivered, some people just couldn't believe it:"I was outraged," said one citizen-stockholder. "$50 million, they have leather seats in this airplane, and I don't think they care. I think they're spoiled babies."

"Why can't they fly commercial?" asked another. Citigroup's purchase follows a report that former Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld deeded his $14 million oceanfront home in Florida to his wife for just $100 - the minimum amount needed for a property transfer.

IHT: Paul Taylor writes: Is the EU friend or foe to industry? - "They are a friend to the consumer and Industry the way it should be."

Neelie Kroes, EU Competion Commissioner watching over EU Consumers - and doing a great job

For the complete report from the International Herald Tribune click on this link

Paul Taylor writes: Is the EU friend or foe to industry? - "They are a friend to the Consumer and Industry the way it should be."

For an institution that sees itself as the business executive's friend, the European Commission has taken a beating lately. The main telecommunications lobby in Europe has compared it with Stalin; a German energy executive has called it a greater threat to energy security than Gazprom; and a top Austrian telecommunications boss has said it is easier to do business in Belarus than in Brussels.Supporters of the commission say it is because Brussels is tackling cozy business interests that obstruct competition and exploit dominant market positions for their own profit.Critics say it is because the commission, the European Union's executive arm, is trying to make itself more popular, with crowd-pleasing initiatives that bash business.

There are grains of truth in both explanations. The president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, has made no secret of pursuing an agenda of delivering lower prices and greater rights to consumers, aiming to demonstrate the benefits of the EU after voters rejected a proposed constitution in 2005. Brussels has used opinion polling to identify its targets for action, like cross-border fees for mobile phone calls and text messages, credit card charges, obstacles to changing bank accounts, and windfall earnings of giant energy companies. Neelie Kroes, the EU competition commissioner, has assessed record fines against companies she accused of fixing prices and rigging markets in everything from elevators to beer. Kroes, a former business executive, often accompanies hefty fines with stinging comments accusing companies involved in cartels of "outrageous" behavior and "ripping off" consumers. Fresh from her antitrust victory over Microsoft, she is now turning to the field of energy, trying to break up European giants to promote greater competition. Kroes argues that separating power suppliers from the ownership of natural gas pipelines and electricity grids will spur investment and force prices down.

Comment EU-Digest: "we hope the EU Commission will keep up the pressure on the many unscrupulous multi-national corporations which operate in the EU. One only has to look at what has happened to the US economy as a result of the liberties that were given to corporations and the financial sector to operate and do as they please".

Buzflash.com: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism - by Naomi Klein

For the complete report by BuzzFlash.com click on this link

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism - by Naomi Klein

“The Shock Doctrine is the damning Truth Commission the powerful have sought to keep locked away in the Guantanamo prison of history. Naomi Klein has smashed the padlock of secrecy and revealed the violent contents within. She masterfully exposes the dark roots of the staples of today's borderless bloody war: torture, economic terror, disaster profiteering and international conquest. Klein traces the doctrine of shock, applied across the globe from Latin America to the Soviet Union to Africa and the Arab world, through more than half a century of refining by evil geniuses who have used the poor of the world as their lab rats. The Shock Doctrine will change forever how you see the epic battle between the haves and the have nots. This is the defining, covert history of our era. This extraordinary expose is the work of a journalist embedded not with the militaries of the powerful, but with the poor, the tortured and those who fight for justice against all odds."

The Shock doctrine is available at most bookstores and can also be ordered at Amazon.com.

New York Times: Again, Boeing Is Scrutinized on a Contract - by Leslie Wayne

For the complete report from the New York Times click on this linkAgain, Boeing Is Scrutinized on a Contract - by Leslie Wayne

When the Boeing Company won a $15 billion contract last November to provide the US Air Force with the next generation of search-and-rescue helicopters, Boeing officials were not the only ones surprised. So were executives at the Lockheed Martin Corporation and the Sikorsky Aircraft unit of the United Technologies Corporation, which were both promoting models that were newer, lighter and more nimble than Boeing’s 54,000-pound variation of its Vietnam-era Chinook.Rather than just lick their wounds, Lockheed and Sikorsky quickly lodged protests with the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s auditing arm. It was a long-shot effort — less than 30 percent of such protests prevail. But with so much on the line, the companies were livid.

In a rare decision that could overturn Boeing’s victory, the G.A.O. said on Monday that the Air Force should reopen the competition, and, if Boeing’s bid “no longer represents the best value to the government,” the Air Force should “terminate the contract.”